Harmon April 9, 2005 Statement for Scheduling Conference April 11, 2005

BOBBY N. HARMON, CPCU, ARM

Email: bobby_n_harmon@yahoo.com

Website: www.the-catbird-seat.net

Defendant, Pro Se

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

MARY LOU WOO, TRUSTEE, ) CASE NO. CV05-00030 DAE KSC

)

Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT BOBBY N. HARMON’S

) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

v. ) STATEMENT; MOTION TO

) DISALLOW ARBITRATION AWARD;

) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

BOBBY N. HARMON, )

) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Defendant ) DATE: April 11, 2005

) TIME: 9:00 A.M.

) JUDGE: Magistrate

) Kevin S. Chang

________________________________)

DEFENDANT BOBBY N. HARMON’S

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

DEFENDANT BOBBY N. HARMON’S SCHEDULING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Defendant BOBBY N. HARMON, pro se, hereby submits this Scheduling Conference Statement pursuant to Local Rule 16.2(b):

I. STATEMENT OF CASE

Defendant, in his Preliminary Answer to Application By Plaintiff-Trustee Mary Lou Woo (“ANSWER”), dated February 19, 2005, and filed with this Court, stated the FACTS and ARGUMENTS in this case. Due to the length of this document (47 pages), Defendant will not repeat these FACTS and ARGUMENTS herein; however, Defendant asks the Court to include his ANSWER, and the Exhibits attached thereto, in this Statement of Case.

Defendant asks the Court to take note of the fact that Plaintiff has not denied or objected to any of the FACTS and ARGUMENTS presented in his ANSWER of February 19, 2005. Therefore, Defendant hereby asks to Court to accept all of Defendant’s statements in his ANSWER as being truthful and accurate.

In Plaintiff’s STATEMENT OF CASE dated April 4, 2005, she states that “On March 13, 2003, the Trustee filed a Demand for Arbitration against Defendant with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) due to Defendant’s prolonged, consistent, and flagrant violations of the Settlement, Release and Indemnification Agreement, dated April 24, 2000 (“Settlement Agreement”). The Settlement Agreement was to have resolved the numerous lawsuits and legal proceedings involving the Defendant and various entities and individuals who are the real parties-in-interest to this proceeding.” Defendant continues to deny that he has violated the Settlement Agreement, as argued in detail in his ANSWER to the Court.

Defendant continues to maintain that the Settlement Agreement was obtained through fraud and misrepresentations and is, therefore, legally unenforceable.

Defendant continues to maintain that many of the Parties In Interest in this case were also parties involved in EQ2048 - the Attorney General’s Lawsuit to Remove the Bishop Estate Trustees - and that these parties were therefore conflicted and should not have engaged directly in the settlement negotiations in the various underlying cases, or in the Arbitration proceedings. Defendant maintains that these conflicts of interests were tantamount to obstruction of justice in not only his various cases, but also in EQ2048 and in the State of Hawaii, Plaintiff vs. Henry Haalilio Peters and Jeffrey R. Stone, Defendants (CR. No. 99-1502), and in other cases which involved the same parties and circumstances described in my RICO lawsuit. Defendant also asks the Court to take note that Judge Kevin S. Chang also presided in these cases.

Defendant continues to maintain that certain individuals deliberately and fraudulently misrepresented to the Court that they had the legal authority to negotiate settlement of these cases on behalf of Kamehameha Schools, P&C Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company and other Parties In Interest. Despite repeated requests for Attorney of Record letters and authorization letters from the insurance carriers in these cases, no party has provided any evidence that they were legally authorized to act on behalf of any Parties In Interest, or their insurance carriers, in the settlement of these cases.

Defendant asks the Court to take note that he has several outstanding claims against Trustee Mary Lou Woo, her attorney Steven Guttman, and other Parties in Interest in this case. The Defendant asks the Court to take note that these are NEW claims which were not at issue in the prior court cases or in the Arbitration, and that these new claims will not be resolved in the instant proceedings.

The Defendant also asks the Court to note that he has offered to attempt to negotiate a mutually acceptable, out-of-court settlement of all claims with these various Parties In Interest, but that these parties have either failed to respond, or have indicated that they are not willing to enter into such negotiations. Again, however, the parties who have declined to negotiate have not provided any evidence that they legally represent the Party in Interest, or their insurance carriers. Defendant asks the Court to take note that he is still willing to try to negotiate an out-of-court, global settlement for all past, present and future claims related to these cases.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE.

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 9 USCA §9.

III. JURY TRIAL.

As Plaintiff did not hold a meeting of the parties at least 21 days prior to this Scheduling Conference, as required by the Rule 16 Order dated January 13, 2005, Defendant has not had the opportunity to conduct discovery and, therefore, had not yet demanded a jury trial. Defendant states, however, that he has not waived his legal rights to a jury trial, and hereby demands such trial by jury of his peers.

IV. DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 26 AND L.R. 26.1

As of this date, no disclosures have been made by either side due to the fact that Plaintiff did not hold a meeting of the parties at least 21 days prior to this Scheduling Conference, as required by the Rule 16 Order dated January 13, 2005.

V. DISCOVERY COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS

As of this date, no discovery has been conducted by either side due to the fact that Plaintiff did not hold a meeting of the parties at least 21 days prior to this Scheduling Conference, as required by the Rule 16 Order dated January 13, 2005.

VI. APPROPRIATENESS OF SPECIAL PROCEDURES

The Defendant does not have knowledge of any special procedures that may be applicable to this case except as may relate to Defendant’s Demand for jury trial.

VII. RELATED CASE.

As described in Plaintiff’s Scheduling Conference Statement.

VIII. ADDITIONAL MATTERS

In Plaintiff’s Scheduling Conference Statement dated April 4, 2005, she states, “With respect to the subject proceeding, the Trustee and Defendant have not met with each other in accordance with the Scheduling Order filed herein on January 13, 2005. However, as noted in this Statement and the Application for Confirmation of Arbitration Award, the Trustee and Defendant have discussed, litigated, negotiated and arbitrated the underlying disputed issues on a continuous basis since 1999. As such, the intention for holding a pre-Scheduling Conference meeting of the parties would not have been served.” Defendant adamantly disagrees with this statement, and believes that Plaintiff’s violation of this Rule 16 Order has denied him of his legal rights and defenses in this case, and provides further grounds for dismissal as stated in the attached Motion To Disallow Arbitration Award.

IX. REQUEST FOR DISAPPROVAL OF AWARD

Based upon the facts and arguments presented herein, Respondent asks that the Court DISAPPROVE the Application by Plaintiff-Trustee MARY LOU WOO for Confirmation of Arbitration Award and for Entry of Judgment Against Defendant Bobby N. Harmon, as requested in the attached MOTION TO DISALLOW ARBITRATION AWARD.

DATED: LAS VEGAS, NEVADA: April 9, 2005

_____________________________

BOBBY NORRIS HARMON,

Defendant Pro Se

Additional E-references (Chronological):