NO. 05-16502

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARY LOU WOO, TRUSTEE,                )         ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

                                                                )         STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

                     Plaintiff-Appellee,               )         THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII IN

                                                                )         CIVIL NO. 05-00030 DAE/KSC

                     v.                                        )         

                                                                )         HONORABLE DAVID A. EZRA

BOBBY N. HARMON,                             ) 

                                                                )         

                     Defendant-Appellant          )         

                                                                ) 

________________________________)

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BOBBY N. HARMON’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF-TRUSTEE/APPELLEE MARY LOU WOO’S
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL; MOTION FOR DECLARATION THAT THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT, RELEASE AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT, AND THE ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT BE DECLARED INVALID;
MOTION FOR DAMAGES

EXHIBIT “A”

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

BOBBY N. HARMON, pro se

5597 Ness Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89118

Telephone:   702-222-2137

Facsimile:     702-222-2137

Email:           bobby_n_harmon@yahoo.com

Website:       www.the-catbird-seat.net/Woo-vs-Harmon.htm

New site:      www.kycbs.net

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BOBBY N. HARMON’S ANSWER TO

PLAINTIFF-TRUSTEE/APPELLEE MARY LOU WOO’S

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

          Defendant-Appellant BOBBY N. HARMON (“Defendant”), pro se, hereby answers Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal in which Plaintiff bases her Motion “on the grounds that it was not timely filed in compliance with Rule 4(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (‘FRAP’), and this Court, therefore lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Moreover, nothing in the circumstances surrounding the late filing suggests excusable neglect that would warrant granting an extension of time for filing the notice of appeal.”

          Defendant maintains that his Appeal was timely filed in accordance with the Rules for the Court of Appeals provided to him as a pro se Appellant, which state:

          “NOTE: Your briefs are consider filed as of the date you mail them to the court if you use first class mail. See Fed. R. App. P. 25(a).”

          Defendant timely-mailed the Appeal to the Court on July 19, 2005. On the same date, Defendant transmitted to the Plaintiff via facsimile transmission, a copy of the Appeal as certified in Defendant’s Certificate of Service, a copy of which is attached as EXHIBIT “A”. A copy of the Appeal was also transmitted by Defendant to Plaintiff by Email on the same date.

          Therefore, as Defendant’s Appeal was filed within the required 30-day time limit, Defendant hereby asks the Court to DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

          Defendant also asks the Court to take note that Plaintiff’s EXHIBIT “G” - EXHIBIT 4, which is the ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT, filed on March 24, 2000, and signed by Judge Lloyd King, includes as EXHIBIT “A”, a copy of the SETTLEMENT, RELEASE AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT which was signed on January 27, 2000, by Defendant and his then-attorney Arnold T. Phillips, but was NOT SIGNED by any other parties to the Agreement. It is an undeniable fact that a contract that is not signed by all parties is not a valid and legal contract and, therefore, is unenforceable.

MOTION FOR DECLARATION THAT THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT, RELEASE
AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT, AND THE ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT, BE DECLARED INVALID;
MOTION FOR DAMAGES

          Therefore, Defendant hereby motions the Court to declare both the aforementioned SETTLEMENT, RELEASE AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT, and the ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT, to be invalid, and to award Defendant damages for time and expenses in defense of the original underlying lawsuits, the Arbitration and the instant case, plus General Damages and Punitive Damages, in amounts to be determined.

           DATED: Las Vegas, Nevada, October 19, 2005

                                                                ____________________________

                                                                BOBBY N. HARMON, CPCU, ARM

                                                                Defendant-Appellant, pro se