Office of U.S. Trustee vs. Harmon - Defendant's New Motion to Set Aside Order

BOBBY N. HARMON, CPCU, ARM

Tel. & Fax No.: (859) 336-9975

Terminated Website: www.the-catbird-seat.net

New site under development: http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/

Defendant, Pro Se

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

JAMES B. NICHOLSON, ) CASE NO. CV05-00030 DAE KSC

SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, )

) DEFENDANT BOBBY HARMON’S

Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER

) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

v. ) TO SET ASIDE ORDER, SIGNED

) BY JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA ON

BOBBY N. HARMON, ) APRIL 27, 2007...

)

) [FULL HEADING ON NEXT PAGE]

)

) [NON-HEARING MOTION]

)

) JUDGE: Hon. David A. Ezra

)

DEFENDANT BOBBY N. HARMON’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER SIGNED BY JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA ON APRIL 27, 2007, DENYING

DEFENDANT BOBBY N. HARMON’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER SIGNED BY JUDGE DAVID EZRA ON FEB. 28, 2007, RE DEFENDANT’S
(1) MOTION TO ABATE ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT BOBBY N. HARMON OF FINAL
JUDGMENT FILED AUGUST 22, 2006, FILED FEBRUARY 8, 2007;
(2) MOTION FOR ORDER THAT THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND THE ARBITRATION AWARD AGAINST BOBBY N. HARMON FILED
AUGUST 18 2006, BE DECLARED VOID, FILED FEBRUARY 8, 2007; AND
(3) MOTION FOR DAMAGES, FILED FEBRUARY 8, 2007; MOTION FOR DAMAGES

-----

I. DEFENDANT RESPECTFULLY MOTIONS THE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE REFERENCED ORDER DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. The Court incorrectly “construes Defendant’s motion as a motion for reconsideration [page 2].” Defendant’s motion was clearly and specifically a “Motion to Set Aside Order” – NOT a “Motion for Reconsideration”. Because this Honorable Court has misconstrued Defendant’s Motion, the Courts discussion and arguments for denying Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Order are irrelevant and invalid.

2. Even though the Court has erred and wrongly misconstrued this to be a “Motion for Reconsideration”, the Court’s arguments are still insufficient in this case. The Court states [page 2]:

“A ‘motion for reconsideration must accomplish two goals. First, a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the court should reconsider its prior decision. Second, a motion for reconsideration must set forth facts of law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision...’

“Under Local Rule 60.1c), motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought based on manifest errors of law or fact when there is a need to correct the errors to prevent manifest injustice.... Rule 60(b)(6) allows relief from orders based on any ‘reason justifying relief from operation of judgment,’ so long as that reason involves ‘extraordinary circumstances’...”

“Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision.... ‘Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.”...

DISCUSSION

“Defendant has failed to reach the standard required for reconsideration. Defendant simply rehashes the same arguments that he has raised repeatedly, e.g., the validity of the Settlement Agreement, his First Amendment rights, and the alleged refusal of the Plaintiff to respond to each of Defendant’s contentions. Defendant’s arguments manifest ‘disagreement with [the] previous order’ and do not present any new evidence or law or manifest error resulting in injustice. Thus, Defendant has fallen far short of presenting “strongly convincing evidence” that would justify reconsideration of the February 28^th Order.”

To state that the Defendant’s arguments “do not present any new evidence or law or manifest error resulting in injustice,” is simply not factual, as a review of my previous filings clearly show. An overwhelming abundance of new, factual evidence has been presented to the Court as shown in Defendant’s List of Exhibits filed 04/02/2007 (ref. PACER Documents No. 100, 100-2, and 101); his Reply to Opposition Memorandum by Plaintiff filed 04/17/2007 (ref. PACER Documents No. 102 and 103); and in Defendant’s Reply to Opposition Memorandum by Plaintiff to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Order Signed by Judge David Ezra on Feb. 28, 2007, filed 04/17/2007 (ref. PACER Document 104).

Defendant respectfully asks the Court to take notice that in its BACKGROUND Section (p.2), it states that “Plaintiff filed its response on March 30, 2007.” (ref. PACER Document 99); however, the Court makes NO REFERENCE in its Order to Defendant’s later filings referred to in the preceding paragraph. This omission results in an incomplete background of the case, and indicates that the Court again has erred by not properly reviewing, and answering, all of Defendant’s filings before issuing the subject Order on 04/27/2007 (ref. PACER Document 105).

3. With reference to the Court’s statement, “Defendant simply rehashes the same arguments that he has raised repeatedly, e.g. the validity of the Settlement Agreement, his First Amendment rights, and the alleged refusal of the Plaintiff to respond to each of Defendant’s contentions,” Defendant believes that these are important, necessary and valid arguments, and that he has been improperly forced to repeatedly restate these arguments due to the fact that they have never been answered, or even addressed, by this Honorable Court. To avoid repeating these arguments here, I refer the Court to my Reply filed on 04/17/2007 (PACER Documents No. 103 and 104). For convenience, these documents can also be found on the Internet at the following addresses:

http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/CV05-00030-PACER-Doc-103.pdf

http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/CV05-00030-PACER-Doc-104.pdf

http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/CV05-00030-PACER-Doc-104-2.pdf

http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/CV05-00030-PACER-Doc-104-3.pdf

http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/CV05-00030-PACER-Doc-104-4.pdf

http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/CV05-00030-PACER-Doc-104-5.pdf

4. In the Court’s CONCLUSION (p. 4), it states: “...Furthermore, because Defendant continues to file motions containing essentially the same arguments, without providing additional law or facts, this Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant’s future filings in the instant case, number 05-00030 DAE-KSC, be screened by the Court before they are accepted for filing.” As stated in the preceding paragraph, Defendant HAS filed motions which provide additional law and facts, which the Court has overlooked and/or wrongly ignored. However, in order that Defendant not be held in contempt of the Court’s instant Order, this Motion is being sent to the Court for screening before being sent to the Court Clerk for filing. Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court notify him when it has completed its screening process, and whether or not this Motion is being accepted for filing.

II. New Motion to Abate or Set Aside the Order; Motion for Damages

For consideration of the facts and arguments stated above and in all previous filings, including the arguments in his filings dated February 28, 2007 (PACER Doc. #95), and April 17, 2007, Defendant Motions this Court to Abate or Set Aside the subject Order; to Declare the Original Settlement Agreement and the Arbitration Award void; and to award Defendant reasonable damages for his time and expenses in defending these frivolous, and unconstitutional SLAPP lawsuits; and to award Defendant punitive damages for fraud, racketeering, obstruction of justice and bad faith dealings by the Office of the United States Trustee, in a reasonable amount to be determined by the Court, or through the alternative means of negotiation between interested parties.

DATED: SPRINGFIELD, KENTUCKY, May 12, 2007.

BOBBY NORRIS HARMON,

Defendant, Pro Se

RELATED INTERNET REFERENCES:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://the-catbird-seat.net

http://web.archive.org/web/*/the-catbird-seat.net/*

http://www.voy.com/129276/

http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/

http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/Freedom-To-Sing.htm

http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/Confessions.htm

http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/JUSTICE.htm

http://67.15.255.19/~thecatbi/Whistler.htm