U S Dept of Justice, David Farmer, Trustee vs. Harmon

JUDITH NEUSTADTER, Esq
c/o American Arbitration Association
6795 North Palm Avenue, 2^nd Floor
Fresno, CA 93704

Although Judith Neustadter Fuqua, despite repeated requests for information, has never admitted nor denied any relationship with Ray Fuqua, owner and operator of Lahaina Stables and real estate agent, Defendant believes that Mr. Fuqua may be the husband of Ms. Neustadter.

Hi. My grandfather was Morris Glantz. He came to the U.S. in around 1920 from outside Kiev, settling in N.Y. His daughter, Phyllis Glantz, was my mother. Please let me know if you know my grandfather or anything about the Glantz family. Thank you. Judy.

NEW DISCOVERY (07/26/09): More undisclosed professional, political and financial conflicts of interests between Judith Neustadter Fuqua and other entities related to this case:

HOUSTON, Texas, July 3, 2006 (ENS) - Shell WindEnergy Inc. plans to develop its first wind farm in the state of Hawaii - the Auwahi wind project on Maui's Ulupalakua Ranch. The turbines would stand in a remote corner of the 20,000 acre ranch.

The site was chosen because of its exceptionally strong winds and because it was felt that there would be minimal visual impact.

If approved, the Auwahi wind project's first phase is expected to be completed by 2008. The first phase is expected to provide up to 40 megawatts of wind power, enough to power thousands of homes on Maui.

The project may combine wind and hydroelectric power. Pumped hydro storage technology could store power from the wind turbines during off-peak periods, which could then be used to help meet peak demand. The concept of integrating this wind project with pumped hydro storage was advocated by Renewable Hawaii Inc., a subsidiary of Hawaiian Electric Company.

Hawaii pays among the highest utility rates in the United States and is seeking to produce more power from renewable sources. When the Auwahi wind project is in operation close to 20 percent of Maui's energy could come from wind turbines.

The total project is expected to cost more than $200 million and take from three to five years to complete.

"This is great news for Ulupalakua Ranch, Maui and Hawaii," said Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, a former mayor of Maui County. "It is an important step toward reducing Hawaii's dependence on imported fossil fuel and meeting our goal of having 20 percent of our energy come from renewable sources by the year 2020."

John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Company, said he hoped Auwahi would be the first of several renewable energy projects involving Shell in Hawaii.

Mike May, president & CEO of Hawaiian Electric Company, the parent company of Maui Electric Company and Renewable Hawaii Inc., said, "This project and the arrival of Shell WindEnergy into the Hawaiian Islands represent a win all around, especially for Hawaii and our key goal of reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels."...

Dr. Karl Stahlkopf, president of RHI, said, "RHI's request for proposals signaled to the world that we wanted renewable developers to come to Hawaii and we were thrilled when Shell was one of the first to show an interest. They know their business, they are one of the biggest renewable players in the world and their interest in Hawaii is a strong sign of things to come," Stahlkopf said.

"This is a great opportunity for up-country Maui," said Sumner Erdman, president of Ulupalakua Ranch, Inc. "On the Mainland, wind energy has offered an economic boost to many ranches and farms and now this is happening here. This deal will provide income for the ranch to help us continue our diversification in an environmentally friendly way."

AS PRESIDENT and chairman of Maui Land & Pineapple Co., Colin Cameron had made some tough decisions. In 1969, after a longstanding feud over its management, Cameron bought ML&P from Alexander & Baldwin. In 1984, the company's $52-million debt load forced him to sell his masterpiece, the Kapalua Bay Hotel, to a group of investors.

As a director of Bank of Hawaii, Hawaiian Airlines and Haleakala Ranch, he's been called on to suggest the most appropriate action in helping to lead some of the state's largest companies.

But in February of this year, the 62-year-old, fifth-generation kamaaina finally met his match. After 14 months of ping-pong negotiations and millions of dollars spent to excavate nearly 1,000 Hawaiian burials at Honokahua, Cameron's hotel project came to an abrupt halt. The site - on which ML&P subsidiary Kapalua Land Co. planned to build the $100-million, 450-room Ritz-Carlton - became the focus of a 24-hour protest by several hundred demonstrators at Governor John Waihee's Washington Place residence.

"As far as the disinterment goes, there is no compromise," the governor told the group. "It must stop."...

NEW DISCOVERY (05-01-09): More undisclosed conflicts of interest between AAA Arbitrator Judith Neustadter Fuqua, David C. Farmer, Governor Ben Cayetano, etc:

NEW DISCOVERY (03-14-09): More undisclosed conflicts of interest between Steven Guttman, Mary Lou Woo, Judith Neustadter Fuqua, David Farmer, Larry Johnson, Robert Kihune, Sandwich Isles Communications, Bank of Hawaii, Gilbert Tam, Barack Obama, Steve Case, AOL, Dan Case, Punahou School, Citigroup, Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, The Nature Conservancy, Suzanne Case, Faye Kurren, Goldman Sachs, Kamehameha Schools, University of Hawaii, etc.

Former Bank of Hawaii Chief Executive Michael O'Neill reportedly is one of the candidates being considered for a position on the board of directors at financially troubled Citigroup Inc.

O'Neill, who turned around Bankoh's lagging fortunes in less than four years before retiring at age 57 in August 2004, was mentioned along with former U.S. Bancorp CEO Jerry Grundhofer and William S. Thompson, former co-chief of bond investment manager Pimco, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

The newspaper said Citigroup is expected to announce the board changes next week when it files its proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any nominees would have to be formally approved by the board and voted on by shareholders.

O'Neill took over then-called Pacific Century Financial Corp. from Larry Johnson on Nov. 3, 2000, and in less than four years transformed the bank into a more efficient operation, elevated earnings to record highs and increased shareholder value nearly fourfold.

He also became somewhat of a TV personality with the bank's "Tell Mike" campaign.

Richard Parsons, a one-time University of Hawaii student who took over as chairman last month, is one of the few Citigroup directors with experience in both banking and leading a large company.

NEW DISCOVERY (02-04-09): More undisclosed conflicts of interest between David Farmer, James Nicholson, Steven Guttman, Paul Alston, Judith Neustadter Fuqua, John Waihee, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Eric Holder, and other witnesses in this case:

“I was wondering when you were going to call me,” so said the irrepressible Nolanda Butler Hill when I phoned last week.

She knew precisely what item of news had prompted me to call: the revelation that Barack Obama had selected Clinton Deputy Attorney General and Ron Brown protege, Eric Holder, to help vet his vice presidential candidates.

As the confidante and business partner of the late Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, Hill knows from personal experience that Holder’s sins go well beyond his seamy role in the Marc Rich pardon scandal.

In the way of background, in May 1995, Clinton’s unpredictable Attorney General Janet Reno called for an independent counsel to assess whether Ron Brown had “accepted things of value” from Hill in exchange for his influence.

Reno’s pursuit of Brown did not shock either of them. He had been the subject of an inquiry for months. Targeting Hill, however, had no precedent, and it unnerved them both.

By statute, the independent counsel law applied only to political and government figures. “It was unlawful,” says Hill of her own targeting, “I was the only such person in history.”

In time, the independent counsel also targeted Brown’s son, Michael, for laundering money to his father through a scam minority set aside deal with a sleazy pair of Asian-American fundraisers. In Hill’s words, Michael “was as guilty as a goose.”

Hill and Brown both understood that she was being targeted in the hopes that she would roll over on Brown. Her condition for not doing so was that Brown share with her his every point of vulnerability.

Nowhere was Brown more vulnerable than in his unwelcome role as chief bagman for the Clintons’ relentless and often illicit fundraising in the run-up to the 1996 election.

Hill learned virtually every unseemly detail--from Brown’s go-between work with the Chicoms and their American vendors to his wholesale distribution of walking around money to Democratic race hustlers. As Brown understood, Hill knew way too much.

Even before his own mysterious death, Brown worried openly about her life and safety. He went so far as to call Hill’s sister, with whom she stayed from time to time, and insist Hill not be allowed to go out jogging alone.

As soon as Brown died, the independent counsel ceased the investigation into his illicit activities. As to Michael, he pled guilty to a single misdemeanor, accepted a small fine, and was out playing golf with the president a month later.

Not surprisingly, however, the Justice Department kept the pressure on the outspoken Hill, still deeply troubled by the circumstances surrounding Brown’s death.

Hill took heart when, in July 1997, President Clinton appointed Holder to replace Jamie Gorelick as Deputy Attorney General. Although ostensibly second in command, the Deputy AG was the real power in Justice, the Clinton equivalent of a Soviet “political officer.”

Hill knew Holder through Brown, who had been instrumental in getting him his previous job as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

She and her attorney wasted no time in contacting Holder at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting, which was held that year in San Francisco in early August.

Holder, however, did not get to be Deputy AG by being naïve. “The train is already going down the tracks,” he explained to Hill. “It will take your cooperation to stop it.”

The “train” in question was a D.C. grand jury, which was being led to indict Hill. The “cooperation” meant Hill keeping her mouth shut.

Hill clarifies, “He [Holder] told me and my attorney that if I told what I knew about election fundraising I would be indicted.”

Holder was as good as his word. On March 13, 1998, ten days before Hill was to testify in a suit brought by Judicial Watch on the subject of Brown’s fundraising, the Clinton Justice Department indicted Hill on trumped up charges of fraud and tax evasion.

The willfully blind lead of the New York Times called the indictment “a vivid example of how an investigation can outlive its target.”

Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch knew better. In a motion to the court, he would write, “The timing of these events is neither accidental nor coincidental. Ms. Hill’s indictment was likely an effort to retaliate against her and deter her from giving any further damaging testimony at the March 23, 1998 hearing.”

At White House bidding, Holder had Hill indicted to shut her up, and he succeeded. Anxious, alone, and broke, facing as many as seventy years in prison if convicted, Hill chose to negotiate a deal.

On June 15, 1999, a day before her fifty-fifth birthday, she reported to a halfway house in Seagoville, Texas, her silence at least temporarily assured.

As James Sanders, my partner on the TWA 800 investigation, can attest, silencing whistleblowers through bogus prosecution was the modus operandi in the Holder era. Sanders and his wife Elizabeth were indicted and convicted on federal conspiracy charges on Holder’s watch.

Although generally appalled by the Clintons, Hill understands how betrayed they must feel when their very proteges desert them for Obama.

Holder did so early on. “Given Holder’s credentials,” the Chicago Tribune reported breathlessly in August 2007, “it isn’t outside the realm of possibility to suggest he could wind up the nation’s first African-American attorney general should Obama win the White House.”

Hill thinks she knows why Holder jumped ship. He was a key player in a racially exclusive cabal of DC insiders. “He’s so racist it’s not even funny,” she says of Holder, “not only racist but elitist.”

Still, no matter how compromised Holder might be, Obama can ill afford to dismiss him from his vice-presidential selection committee.

Obama has already had to dismiss one of the three selectors. If he dismisses a second, it will become absurdly obvious that the real problem is not Holder or Jim Johnson of Countrywide fame, but Mr. Obama himself

Little-known fact: Not a natural blond. Has held the state basketball single-game scoring record (60 points) and scoring average (26.8) since 1966

Major challenge: Promoting cooperation between labor and management pursuant to the spirit and intent of HRS Chapter 89 in a forum that has been traditionally adversarial.

A. My background had been as a union rep with the Kansas City Chiefs years ago when I was playing ball. I went to law school and took classes in labor, got out of law school and worked with the Hawai'i Employers Council as a management negotiator with Al Fraga. I moved from there to become a production manager at Weyerhaeuser Paper Co., and from there I worked for the joint labor management trust fund with the Carpenter's Union. I went on to private practice from there and represented the Teamsters in arbitration and became an arbitrator. This job requires all of that in order to fully understand the relationships between the parties and the collective bargaining process, the grievance process, what unfair labor practice is and what it isn't, and basically trying to promote labor-management cooperation.

Q. Your background seems to be more on the union side. Do people look at that and feel that you may be biased?

A. It seems like it's more union, and management's perception in a lot of cases is once you work for the union you're always union. The majority of us are born in blue-collar families. My dad was an adult corrections officer, my mom was a housekeeper in a hotel. I think all our roots are in labor. One of the reasons I was selected was I have been an arbitrator for over 10 years and you're only selected by mutual agreement between the parties. During this process with the HLRB you have three appointees. One represents labor, one represents management and the chair represents members of the public. That's the position I'm at. I feel that with my background that I've been groomed for this position.

A. The board's mission is to promote harmonious and cooperative relationships between the employers, employees and employee organizations. The whole system is set up traditionally to be adversarial. We're working on changing the administrative rules for our organization to permit us to have more flexibility and give them opportunities to settle disputes on their own, create a vehicle so that if they so chose that they could go to mediation through the board at no expense to them using the federal mediators. We're able to work with the parties to do some of this right now. But it's not the way it's been done. I want to try and slow it down to give the parties some time to catch their breath, sit down and talk about it before the attorneys get into a battle. We've been successful in a couple of cases so far.

A. It's sort of yes and no. It's a huge employer, but because we're quasi judicial, even though we fall under the Department of Labor, we're only under it for administrative and budgetary purposes. We don't answer to anyone so it's sort of like running your own business again. In that way it's not different, but at the same time you're a public employee and you have to abide by whatever rules that you're required to abide by. For myself, you're devoted full time to this position, which means you can't do any other work besides what you're doing here. I wanted this opportunity for quite some time and when it came up, this is what I wanted to do. It's another challenge and something to put some fire back into me again.

A. I've been in labor for a long time and I've seen what's happened. As an arbitrator, I've watched the parties and there are so many times that I felt that if only people would just sit down and have a meaningful discussion and try to work things out and try to find ways of resolving issues without having arbitrators decide things for them, I think the system would be better served. One of the things that we're responsible for here, and one of the things that I'm working on first, is to find qualified individuals to serve as arbitrators. So many of the arbitrators who are on the list now have no experience in collective bargaining negotiations, have never worked for unions, have no human resource background, and those are the kind of people that you need. You don't have to be an attorney to be an arbitrator. That's where I gained a lot of experience at the Hawai'i Employers Council where I did 30 to 40 negotiations on my own and sat in on a bunch more.

A. One of the things that I was surprised with was that, in reviewing annual reports and information concerning board activities in preparation for my interviews, in order to try and get this job, I found that over 40 percent of the board's decisions were overturned. That's bad. That's just not paying attention. You have to look at the courts. You can't just make decisions. You can't make decisions based on emotions. The perception of the public was that the board wasn't being fair. Something needed to be fixed. We have a really good board. Emory Springer is a former police officer on the Big Island. He was the Big Island SHOPO representative. He's just a breath of fresh air and he's all gung-ho to try to resolve disputes, bring the parties together and try to work things out. And I'm the same way. And then there's Sarah Hirakami who is just brilliant. We come up with ideas and she looks up the law and tells us whether we can do it or not or finds cases in support of our positions. We have a real nice balance.

A. The cases that I have problems with are cases that have been sitting around here without decisions being issued for over 10 years. Those are difficult. None of the board members was there at the time of the hearing and motions and whatever else happened. Now, if we were to rule in favor of the employers, in a lot of the cases there's a substantial amount of back pay and other issues that are involved that make it a real big mess. You want to be fair. What we're supposed to do is return it to the status quo, but how do you do that 10 years later?

A. Definitely. I like this place. The opportunity for me to make an impact on the state so far as labor relations is tremendous.

A. I'd like to see management and labor walking down King Street holding hands, but that's not going to happen. But to reduce the number of cases that have to go to arbitration; to encourage the parties to include in their collective bargaining agreements provisions for mediation; to reduce the number of unfair labor practices that are filed with the board. At the same time, that number may increase because of the effectiveness of the board as a place to go to resolve problems. So it sort of cuts both ways. You may have more unfair labor practices because whenever there is a problem they may want to say, "Let's go over there and take care of it. That way at least we'll get to talk." That's what I'm hoping.

And (another goal) is to educate people about relationships and trust and get the state and counties to rely upon the people that they hire to advise them on labor relation issues and union issues. Often times that doesn't happen. And encourage them to foster relationships with one another that are meaningful.

The global leader in conflict management since 1926, the American Arbitration Association is a not-for-profit, public service organization committed to the resolution of disputes through the use of arbitration, mediation, conciliation, negotiation, democratic elections and other voluntary procedures. In 2004, more than 159,000 cases were filed with the Association in a full range of matters including commercial finance, construction, labor and employment, health care, insurance, mass claims and technology disputes. Through its 35 offices in the United States and Europe, the AAA provides a forum for the hearing of disputes, rules and procedures and a roster of impartial experts to resolve cases....

William Slate, President & CEO, American Arbitration Association
Website: www.adr.org
Fax No: (212) 716-5905

Selecting And Removing Arbitrators:
Balancing Procedural Flexibility And Fairness
Ryan Chandlee
National Arbitration Forum

Ryan Chandlee is Staff Counsel at the National Arbitration Forum in Minneapolis.

In many important respects, arbitration and litigation travel parallel paths. In both, a neutral party evaluates arguments and evidence and decides cases. Arbitration provides parties with the same substantive outcome - in other words, the same decision on the merits - that they would have received had they gone to court, but more quickly and less expensively. Recent outcome comparisons have shown that arbitration has been successful in terms of providing similar outcomes to court in much less time.¹

How are these efficiencies achieved? The obvious answer is rooted in the less formal and more flexible procedures available in arbitration. But this obvious answer may miss a more subtle reality: another major advantage of arbitration over court litigation lies in the expertise of the arbitrator.

The concept of an expert arbitrator has deep roots in the origins of arbitration as a mechanism to resolve disputes involving commerce. Factual questions about contractual performance obligations are resolved much more easily when the decision maker is familiar with the commercial context from which the dispute arose, and they are more often resolved in accordance with the original intent and expectations of the parties. Procedural efficiencies created by the arbitrator's experience are less apparent than the streamlined procedures encoded into the arbitration rules, but they may be just as important.

Arbitration is a voluntary enterprise. Parties benefit from the opportunity to define in advance the procedures that will decide their disputes, and also from the opportunity to participate more fully in the process once a dispute has arisen. Given the choice, parties are wise to seek out an arbitrator that is both impartial and expert. In contrast, "[c]ourts are not voluntary ... and the American people's traditional fear of government oppression has resulted in a judicial system in which impartiality is prized above expertise. Thus, people who arbitrate do so because they prefer a tribunal knowledgeable about the subject matter of their dispute to a generalist court with its austere impartiality but limited knowledge of subject matter."²

In other words, courts focus on equity over efficiency. The American judicial system is rightly praised for its ability to provide criminal and civil justice, and it is also rightly critiqued for its significant and admitted inefficiencies.

Given these inherent differences between the arbitration and litigation models, it is no surprise that each handles the selection and potential removal of a decision-maker slightly differently. Neither can tolerate actual bias or even the appearance of bias, and both the codes of judicial conduct and the ethical rules governing arbitrators require disclosure and/or disqualification for actual or apparent conflicts of interest. Absent facts suggesting bias, court litigants are largely asked to accept the judge that has been assigned. Strategic efforts to influence judicial assignments are discouraged and labeled as "judge shopping."³

Under the voluntary and participatory framework of arbitration, the dynamics of arbitrator selection are necessarily different. Typically, both parties contribute to the arbitrator selection effort, either by mutually selecting an arbitrator, by rejecting arbitrator candidates proposed by the arbitration administrator, or by "striking" potential arbitrators from a list. Armed with information about arbitrator qualifications, background, and experience, arbitrating parties are encouraged to engage in a limited amount of selection in order to jointly determine which arbitrator has the optimal combination of impartiality and expertise.

Most often, parties elect arbitrator selection procedures by incorporating the arbitration rules of a major, independent arbitration administration organization into their agreements. Nearly all of these rules permit some latitude when selecting an arbitrator, beyond challenging a selected arbitrator for cause. However, discretion is not total, and the selection rules seek balance between the freedom to choose and the fairness of a joint selection process.

The National Arbitration Forum (FORUM) Code of Procedure empowers the parties to select their own arbitrator or arbitration panel. No judicial system allows parties this right. If parties cannot mutually agree, the FORUM then provides them arbitrator candidates.⁴

Under FORUM rules, each party has the right to "remove one Arbitrator candidate by filing a notice of removal within ten (10) days from the date of notice of Arbitrator selection."⁵

This procedure applies regardless of the amount in dispute or whether a consumer is involved as a party. No justification or rationale is required, but only one removal without cause per party is permitted. After an initial peremptory strike, arbitrators may only be challenged for cause.⁶

Under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), parties disagreeing on the selection of an arbitrator are provided a list of ten candidate arbitrators where each party may "strike names objected to" and "number the remaining names in order of preference." The AAA then appoints an arbitrator, taking into consideration the "designated order of mutual preference."⁷

However, AAA rules governing the arbitration of consumer disputes only permit causal challenges of arbitrator appointments.⁸

In arbitrations conducted by Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS), parties who disagree on the selection of an arbitrator are given a list of arbitrator candidates and may strike two of five in the case of a sole arbitrator, or three of ten in the case of a tripartite panel. The remaining candidates are ranked and JAMS appoints the arbitrator(s) with the highest composite rank.⁹

In contrast to the AAA, JAMS will not administer a consumer arbitration unless the consumer is provided a "reasonable opportunity to participate in the process of choosing the arbitrator(s)."¹⁰

The Arbitration Rules of both the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) permit "one peremptory challenge" per party and unlimited challenges for cause.¹¹

The Binding Arbitration Rules of the Better Business Bureau (BBB) provides parties a list of at least two potential arbitrators. Parties assign relative priorities to the listed candidates and the BBB selects based upon the provided rankings.¹²

A limited right of removal without cause is clearly the standard procedure employed by the major arbitration administrators to balance party participation and impartiality. However, in the Federal Court system, there is no right to unilaterally remove a judge without cause, and the procedure and grounds to remove a judge for cause are limited.¹³ Unless federal judges recuse themselves, there is little opportunity for a party to remove them.

Several state court jurisdictions permit the removal of assigned judges without specific cause.¹⁴ Typically, removal is granted upon the filing of a motion supported by an affidavit stating the party's belief that the assigned judge will not grant the party "a fair or impartial trial."¹⁵ Specific factual assertions are not required.

These regimes grant a very limited ability to litigants to select a judge based upon expertise and reputation. Where these rules are interpreted as to permit numerous challenges - for example where multiple representative plaintiffs in a putative class action each receive the opportunity to remove a judge - litigation strategy overwhelms fairness and the impartiality that is the hallmark of the American judiciary is lost.¹⁶

It is also important to compare arbitrators to jurors when examining removal rules, given that, unlike judges, both arbitrators and jurors are always charged with making findings of fact. All jurisdictions permit parties to strike one or more jurors without cause in addition to causal challenges.

Judges and arbitrators are both traveling to the same destination, but the map used by each can be quite different. Unlike court litigants, arbitrating parties can choose - and even customize - the procedural rules to resolve disputes. Arbitrating parties may also be very interested in ensuring that the assigned arbitrator has sufficient expertise and experience to resolve a dispute in the most efficient manner possible.

Given these "fundamental differences between adjudication by arbitrators and adjudication by judges,"¹⁷ it makes sense to permit arbitrating parties significant ability to participate in arbitrator selection. Nearly all of the major sets of arbitration rules take this approach through the use of peremptory challenges or the ability to strike potential arbitrators from a provided list.

Arbitration provides parties with the same due process procedural rights available in court while offering a significant opportunity to select or remove an arbitrator - a feature not readily available in judicial proceedings. Parties and their counsel should take advantage of the arbitrator selection options provided by the arbitration rules governing their dispute. The potential benefits of arbitration will be realized by those parties who research potential arbitrators, decide upon the qualifications that are most important to successfully and efficiently resolving the dispute, and contribute to selecting an arbitrator on that basis.

¹ See, e.g . , Mark Fellows , The Same Result as in Court, More Efficiently: Comparing Arbitration and Court Litigation Outcomes, 14 Metropolitan Corp. Counsel 32 (2006) (comparing consumer arbitration data available on the National Arbitration Forum's website (www.adrforum.com) with contract trials data published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics).
² Merit Ins. Co. v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 714 F.2d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 1983).
³ "Judge Shopping" has been defined by the National Center for State Courts as "an effort by a lawyer or litigant to influence a court's assignment of a case so that it will be directed to a particular judge or away from a particular judge." David C. Steelman, Judge Shopping: Memorandum , (Jan. 31, 2003).
⁴ National Arbitration Forum Code of Procedure, Rule 21, available at www.adrforum.com/main.aspx?itemID=609.
⁵ Id .
⁶ Id . , Rule 23.
⁷ American Arbitration Association, Commercial Arbitration Rules, Rule R-11.
⁸ American Arbitration Association, Supplementary Rules for Consumer-Related Disputes, Rule C-4.
⁹ JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures, Rule 15 (The JAMS "Streamlined" rules prescribe a similar method.).
¹⁰ See JAMS Policy on Consumer Arbitrations Pursuant to Pre-Dispute Clauses Minimum Standards of Procedural Fairness, Standard 4.
¹¹ National Association of Securities Dealers Arbitration Rules, Rule 10311. New York Stock Exchange Arbitration Rules, Rule 609.
¹² Better Business Bureau Binding Arbitration Rules, Rule 6.
¹³ 28 U.S.C. 144, 455.
¹⁴ At least sixteen states permit limited judicial removal without cause. Alaska Stat. 22.20.022 (2006); Cal. Civ. Proc. 170.6; Idaho R. Civ. P. 40(d)(1); 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1001(3) (2006); Ind. R. Trial Proc. 76(B) (effective Jan. 1, 2007); Kan. Stat. Ann. 20-311d(a) (2006); Minn. Stat. 542.16 (2005); Mont. Code Ann. 3-1-804 (2005); Nev. S. Ct. R. 48.1; N.M. Stat. Ann. 38-3-9 (2006); N.D. Cent. Code 29-15-21 (2006); Or. Rev. Stat. 14.260 (2006), 14.270; S.D. Codified Laws 15-12-21-22, 24-27 (2006); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. 3.34.110(2) (2006); Wisc. Stat. Ann. 799.205 (2006); Wyo. R. Civ. P. 40.1(b)(1).
¹⁵ See, e.g . , Cal. Civ. Proc. 170.6.
¹⁶ For a recent example, see Steve Gonzalez, 'Judge Shopping' Rule Challenged by Tillery Firm, Madison St. Clair Rec., Aug. 13, 2006 , available at www.madisonrecord.com/news/newsview.asp? c=183815.
¹⁷ Merit Ins. Co. v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 714 F.2d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 1983).

NEW DISCOVERIES (11-13-08): More undisclosed conflicts of interests between Judith Neustadter Fuqua and other parties related to this case:

SOURCE: Web search for “pacific primate sanctuary, maui, judith neustadter fuqua” on http://www.ask.com:

Director/Advisor to Maui Humane Society, Pacific Primate Sanctuary, and East Maui Animal Refuge Center; Secretary, Kumu Ao, Inc., a non-profit corporation promoting and perpetuating Hawaiian culture and education.

NEW DISCOVERY (10-11-08): Additional facts regarding conflicts of interests between Steven Guttman and numerous parties related to this case:

LA PAZ, BOLIVIA – Enron Development Corp. and Shell International Gas Ltd. announced today that the government of Bolivia has named the companies the successful capitalizing company for the transportation segment of the state oil and gas company, Yacimientos Petroliferos...

A lack of market access has constrained natural gas production in Bolivia. With little internal gas demand, all of the Company's Bolivian natural gas production is sold under contract to the Bolivian government for export to Argentina.

Major developments in South America indicate that new markets will open for the Company's production. Construction of a new 1,900-mile pipeline that will link Bolivia's extensive gas reserves with markets in Brazil commenced in 1997 and is expected to be operational in early 1999.

The owners of the new pipeline include Petrobras (the Brazilian state oil company), other Brazilian investors, Enron Corp., Shell International Gas Ltd., British Gas PLC, El Paso Energy Corp., BHP, and Bolivian pension funds. When completed, the new pipeline will have a capacity of approximately 1 billion cubic feet ("Bcf") per day.

NEW DISCOVERY (07–15-08): More undisclosed relationships between Judith Neustadter Fuqua, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other entities connected to this case:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have both had strong ties to the Washington, D.C., political community. The housing finance giants have counted government power brokers as board members and executive staff. Here, a look at key players, past and present.

James A. Johnson, former chairman and CEO: Aide to Vice President Walter Mondale; recently led Sen. Barack Obama's vice-presidential search team

Thomas E. Donilon, former executive vice president: Former assistant secretary of state under Clinton; senior adviser to Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign; national campaign coordinator for Walter Mondale's presidential campaign; congressional liaison for President Jimmy Carter.

Robert B. Zoellick, former executive vice president: Former deputy secretary of state and U.S. Trade Representative under President George W. Bush; currently president of the World Bank

Kirsten Chadwick, outside lobbyist: Special assistant to President George W. Bush for legislative affairs; currently a fundraiser for McCain's campaign.

David J. Gribbin III, former board member: Aide to Vice President Dick Cheney; assistant secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, former board member: Senior adviser to President Clinton; former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Susan Hirschmann, outside lobbyist: Chief-of-staff to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas

Michael J. Bates, outside lobbyist: Campaign official for President Reagan, presidential candidate Bob Dole, President Bush.

J. Patrick Cave, outside lobbyist: Acting Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

IN RE: BISHOP, BALDWIN, REWALD, DILLINGHAM & WONG, INC.,
a Hawaii corporation, Debtor.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Martin Pence, District Judge, Presiding

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Mary M. Schroeder, and Arthur A. Alarcon, Circuit Judges.

James F. Evers, Wagner, Watson & Pettit, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellees Graulty, as trustee, and Wagner, Watson & Pettit.

Stanley E. Levin, Davis & Levin, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellee Graulty, individually.

Louise K.Y. Ing, Alston, Hunt, Floyd & Ing, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellees Thomas Hayes and Honolulu Professional Services.

The United States Trustee (U.S. Trustee) appeals from the district court's order overruling the objection to Reynaldo Graulty's final report as trustee for the Bishop Estate (Estate). The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S 157(d). We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1291, and we vacate the district court's order and remand this case for 56 days for clarification.

During 1990-1992, Graulty was trustee for the Estate. Mary Louise Scheulin, as an employee of the Estate, oversaw its day-to-day operations during that time and incurred both salary and rent expenses. Scheulin was hired by the Estate's administrative controller, Thomas Hayes, whom Graulty hired with the district court's approval. Over the U.S. Trustee's objection, the district court, on May 26, 1995, approved Graulty's final report for the Estate. In that report, the Estate, and not Graulty, was responsible for Scheulin's expenses. The U.S. Trustee again objected that the workload of the Estate did not justify Scheulin's employment, and argued that someone else -- presumably Graulty -- should be responsible for Scheulin's expenses. The district court once more overruled the U.S. Trustee's objection on July 14, 1995 ....

Since we remand the case solely due to the failure of Graulty to prepare the final report adequately and due to omissions in the draft order he presented to the court, the district court shall not require the Estate to compensate Graulty for any work arising from this remand.

Want to know a few of the results of the move towards the so-called "Global Economy" which has become the nirvana Corporate America seeks? Be very careful, you might not like what you find.

According to U.N. documents, 4 million women a year are sold into sexual slavery around the world. Understand, these documents aren't discussing some Mid- Eastern potentate's harem. What we're talking about is 500,000 women "imported" into Western Europe and 90,000 into Italy, alone. These women are kidnapped and sold into prostitution for the gratification of men like the late Larry Hilblom, the founder of DHL courier service. Hilblom, it should be added, also participated in the kidnapping and sales of many young women, as well.

The majority of these women, who are mostly just young girls, come from the countries once known as client states of the old Soviet Union, such as Albania and the Ukraine. In fact, the selling of girls for the sexual gratification of wealthy men has become a major export for many of the supposedly free nations from the former Soviet bloc.

Amazingly, many of these women are moved through our ally Israel. The reason Israel is a major center for these atrocities is that Israel has absolutely no laws against the sale or ownership of other humans. Now there is wonderful reason to continue our hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to this moral back water of a country.

The main reason that these crimes can so easily occur is the demand by the world's corporations that there be few or no inspections at national borders and that, with corporations buying up governments just like ours at bargain prices, they own the decisions to investigate crimes and, of course, see no reason to investigate the very crimes they, themselves, are committing.

Now, of course, America is immune from these charges, aren't we. I mean, this is the country where politicians spend their entire careers shouting about their fairy tale world of "family values", right? Our government would immediately spring into action should even a hint of this crime appear within our borders, right?

Wrong, of course. Thai women were imported into the United States and forced into sexual slavery in New York, Houston and Toronto, according to stories in the LA Times, New York Times and Dallas Morning News.

How long will it take the corporate prostitutes in Washington, D.C., to even acknowledge these crimes? How many conservatives do you think are going to stand up in protest against these horrors against humanity? How many will demand hundreds of billions of dollars to fight these crimes against humanity? What is less than none?

Unless America wakes up to these violations against humanity and demands action from the blow hards in office, nothing, whatsoever, will ever happen. Why? Because the victims do not fall within the parameters these vile people respect. These are young girls from foreign countries that don't contribute to American political coffers, nor are they related to anyone who owns enough property to matter to American politicians. If they were all Republican, Christian, wealthy wives and daughters of campaign contributors then this would be a problem of cosmic proportion. They aren't, so the problem is ignored.

These crimes against women are only the most extreme examples of the damage that is being done to people all over the world in the name of corporate profits. Add in the disease ridden fruit coming into America from countries which have little in the way of health and safety laws and food covered with the pesticides that America banned so Corporate America sold its stock to the same Third World countries now supplying us with our daily fruits and vegetables and grains.

Consider the effects that corrupt rulers the world over have regarding the financial health of your retirement and investments and, if the idiots who hate government safety nets have their way, your Social Security. Consider the damage another episode like the Hunt brothers attempt to corner the silver market would have on America if it were done by a nation or groups of nations. Finally, consider the costs of a simple computer virus invading the systems which control what will be the world's financial institution.

You, as an individual, have absolutely nothing to gain in a global economy. In fact, you will be the loser if you continue to listen to the lies and do not begin fighting the mutation of your world into a world corporation where the wealthy would rule through unlimited economic power. As in all things, it is your choice but your inaction will affect billions of people for centuries to come.

NEW DISCOVERY (05-04-08): Undisclosed conflicts of interest between Randall Wulff, Larry Silverstein, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Joshua Gotbaum, David C. Farmer, Steven Guttman, Roy Hughes, Colbert Matsumoto, James Watanabe, J. Douglas Ing, Diane Hastert, Bert Kobayashi, Warren Price III, James Duca, Chubb Group, Marsh & McLennan, AIG, and others:

Attorney was picked by judge in New York to help
on panel determining value of damages

An East Bay attorney and mediator will play a pivotal role in determining the amount of loss resulting from the World Trade Center's destruction at the hands of terrorists Sept. 11, 2001.

Randall W. Wulff of Piedmont was selected Tuesday by U.S. District Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey of New York to be chief umpire on a three-person appraisal panel that will address reconstruction costs as well as rental value and business interruption damages. Hearings are expected to begin later this year.

The battle over the monetary costs of the World Trade Center's destruction, and who will be paid how much for those costs, has become almost as twisted as the wreckage of the towers. And the battle has turned somewhat political, with New York officials touting the rebuilding of Ground Zero as crucial to the region's economic recovery.

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein claims his insurers owe him almost twice their policy limits -- as much as $6.8 billion -- based on a switch in insurance forms that he believes recognizes the two impacts by two hijacked jet airliners as two separate losses. His claim went to a six-man, six-woman federal jury Monday after a 10-week trial.

After the jury -- and those in future proceedings involving other members of Silverstein's jury pool -- has determined the extent of the insurers' liability, it'll be up to Wolff's panel to determine what the actual losses are.

Wulff was with San Francisco's Farella, Braun and Martel from 1974 -- first as a trial lawyer, and from 1994 on as a "neutral" mediator -- until 2000, when he cofounded Oakland's Wulff Quinby Sochynsky, which exclusively provides mediation, arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution services.

He has helped settle almost 2,000 cases in the past 15 years, including the recent $1.1 billion settlement of the California class action against Microsoft. He also has helped resolve monetary disputes related to renovation of the Oakland Arena and construction of other high-profile projects from ballparks to Las Vegas casinos. And he has authored, edited or co-edited books on alternative dispute resolution.

His firm's Web site says his daily fee is $9,500 for cases in the Bay Area or Sacramento, $11,000 for cases elsewhere.

Wulff holds an undergraduate degree from the University of Oregon, attended the Netherlands Institute of International Business and holds a law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

A sample of names follows here. A lengthier list of specific references from counsel and parties in cases where Mr. Wulff has acted as mediator is also available upon request....

Diane D. Hastert, Esq.
Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
1600 Pauahi Tower, 1001 Bishop Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 808-531-8031

Bert T. Kobayashi, Esq.
Kobayashi, Sugita & Goda
First Hawaiian Center, Suite 2600
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 808-529-8700

Andrew Winer, Esq.
Winer Heheula & Devens
Pali Palms Plaza
970 North Kalaheo Ave, Suite A-300
Kailua, HI 96734
Telephone: 808-254-5855

David Schulmeister, Esq.
Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright
1000 Bishop Street, Suite 1000
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 808-521-9200

John T. Hoshibata, Esq.
Crabtree & Hoshibata
2300 Pauahi Tower
1001 Bishop Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 808-524-5644

Warren Price III, Esq.
Price Okamoto Himeno & Lum
Ocean View Center
707 Richards Street, Suite 728
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 808-538-1113

Roy F. Hughes
Hughes & Taosaka
900 Pauahi Tower
1001 Bishop Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 808-526-9744

Brad S. Petrus
Tom Teetrus & Miller
The Arcade Building
212 Merchant Street, Suite 200
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 808-522-0800

Milton M. Yasunaga
Cades Schutte Law Firm
1000 Bishop Street, Suite 1200
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 808-521-9200

John T. Komeiji
Watanabe Ing & Komeiji
999 Bishop Street, 23^rd Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 808-544-8300

Roger Moseley
Moseley Biehl Tsugawa Lau & Muzzi
1100 Alakea Street, 23^rd Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 808-531-0490

James Lawhn
Oliver, Lau, Lawhn, Ogawa & Nakamura
707 Richards Street, Suite 600
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 808-533-3999

NEW DISCOVERY (04-22-08): David Farmer’s undisclosed connections with AIPAC and Arbitrator, Judith Fuqua Neustadter:

In his "MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO DISAPPROVE APPOINTMENT OF DAVID C. FARMER AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE", filed with the Court on August 24, 2007, the Trustee's attorney, Steven Guttman, Esq., of the law firm, Kessner Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga, stated to the Court:

"... Harmon is once again attempting to create issues of conflict where none exist by attempting to draw connections between phantom dots."...

Mr. Guttman does not elaborate beyond this simple statement of HIS PERSONAL OPINION, as to WHICH of the thousands of connections I have cited that he wishes the Court to accept, without question, as being merely "phantom dots". In other court filings, Mr. Guttman has characterized my Motions as consisting of "conspiracy theories" -- again with no specific references.

Despite these unnamed "phantom dots" and "conspiracy theories", the Court has blithely and unquestionably gone along with Mr. Guttman's opinions and has repeatedly denied ALL Motions that I have made. In fact, both Courts involved have ruled that the Court Clerk shall not accept any future filings from me without the Courts' prior approval - which it has repeatedly declined to give.

Therefore, due to the fact that I continue to discover new, material FACTS almost daily, I am preparing a set of NEW EXHIBITS in which I intend to document the financial, professional, personal, and political connections between the many various entities involved in this case.

The following is a listing of named witnesses in this case who have factual connections with the subject entity. Each underlined name has been linked to a detailed description of that witness to enable the reader to more easily CONNECT THE DOTS TO...

Sources close to the widening probe of official corruption in Washington tell ABC News that investigators are studying travel records of expensive trips to Hawaii and Europe taken by top CIA official Dusty Foggo and San Diego defense contractor Brent Wilkes.

Prosecutors want to know who paid for the lavish trips to European castles and top end Hawaiian resorts, including this $7,000 a night Honolulu beachfront mansion, owned at one time by hair stylist super-star Paul Mitchell.

Wilkes, a close personal friend of Foggo is suspected of paying bribes to Congressman Duke Cunningham, who recently pled guilty in the corruption investigation.

To see the real estate ad - photos and video of the "Paul Mitchell" Estate - for the luxurious TRINITY vacation home rented for Wilkes and Foggo, click here:

NEW DISCOVERY (02-09-08): Kamehameha Schools made a “confidential” settlement agreement with the plaintiff in the John Doe vs. Kamehameha Schools case, which my former attorney, John Goemans, Esq., says, according to what he has learned from the IRS, violates the rules for a non-profit charitable trust:

An attorney involved in a challenge to Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-only policy reveals the amount of a settlement

Kamehameha Schools made the first move to settle a legal challenge to their admissions policy giving preference to native Hawaiians and later agreed to pay $7 million, a lawyer involved in the case said yesterday.

John Goemans, an attorney for an unnamed non-native Hawaiian student who filed a lawsuit contesting the policy, said the charitable trust offered for the first time to talk about an out-of-court settlement last May, just days before the U.S. Supreme Court was to decide whether to hear the case.

Goemans, a former Big Island attorney recuperating in Florida from heart surgery, and Sacramento, Calif., lawyer Eric Grant, the lead attorney, represented the unnamed student and his mother.

"They (the schools) approached Eric and said we wanted to settle and we have to settle by Friday morning," when it was believed the high court was to make a decision about accepting the case, Goemans said.

He said it appeared the high court would accept their appeal of an 8-7 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the policy.

"They (the schools) were worried about losing in the Supreme Court," Goemans said.

Goemans said he did not know how Grant and the Kamehameha Schools arrived at the $7 million figure.

The hotly disputed federal civil rights lawsuit caused a firestorm of controversy among Kamehameha Schools supporters who believed the challenge struck at the more than century-old admissions policy and the heart of the charitable trust's mission to educate children of Hawaiian ancestry.

The confidential settlement was announced on May 14. Those connected with the case repeatedly refused to disclose the terms.

Goemans said he was disclosing the amount because he said he recently learned from Internal Revenue Service officials that Kamehameha Schools, a tax-exempt charitable trust, cannot keep the figure confidential.

"Because exempt organizations operate in the public good, you got to report all your expenses with particularity, and you cannot keep information relative to those expenses confidential," he said. "It's in the public interest to have full disclosure."

Ann Botticelli, Kamehameha Schools spokeswoman, said yesterday the settlement contained a confidentiality clause.

"We intend to honor the terms, and we will not be discussing the settlement or John Goemans' assertions," she said.

Kamehameha Schools, a multibillion-dollar charitable trust and the state's largest private landowner, was established under the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. It educates more than 6,700 students at its flagship campus at Kapalama Heights, two other campuses on Maui and the Big Island, and 31 preschools throughout the state.

Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay upheld the school's Hawaiians-first policy, but a panel of the appeals court in San Francisco ruled 2-1 that the practice violated federal civil rights laws. That decision triggered statewide protests and marches by school supporters.

It was an appeal by Grant of that 8-7 ruling that was on the doorsteps of the U.S. Supreme Court when the settlement was announced.

At the time, school officials indicated that the settlement calling for the dismissal of the lawsuit leaves intact the appeals court's 8-7 decision upholding the admissions policy.

But the dismissal does not guarantee that another lawsuit might surface and make its way to the high court, although it would first have to go through the federal trial and appeals courts, where the 8-7 ruling would be considered to be binding on the issue. But even if those who file the new lawsuit lose on those two levels, they could still ask the high court to review the case.

Honolulu attorney David Rosen said he has plaintiffs for a lawsuit to challenge the admissions policy. He said the settlement does not affect his case. Rosen said he expects the suit will be filed this year.

Goemans said Grant received 40 percent, or $2.8 million of the $7 million. Goemans said he is preparing to file his own lawsuit seeking to recover a "reasonable percentage" of the $7 million for his work in the case.

Goemans said he found the unnamed student and arranged for Grant to be the attorney for the student and his mother.

"I put the whole thing together," Goemans said. "But for me there would not have been a $7 million payment."

The student never was admitted to Kamehameha Schools because his case was pending. He has since graduated from high school and had been attending college, Grant said last year.

Supporters and critics expressed surprise yesterday at the $7 million Kamehameha Schools paid a student to settle a lawsuit disputing its Hawaiians-first admission policy.

One Kamehameha Schools alumnus says disclosure of the settlement with the anonymous, non-Hawaiian student will prompt questions among Hawaiians.

"I'm not happy with $7 million," said Kamehameha Schools alumnus Jan E. Hanohano Dill. "Unfortunately, that's a lot of money, and it's going to create a lot of questions in the Hawaiian community whether it was right or wrong and to continue."

Dill, also a board member of Na Pua a Ke Ali'i Pauahi, a nonprofit group whose members include students, parents, and alumni of Kamehameha Schools, said he continues to support the school's decision.

"I don't know the details, and I think that's something that has to be cleared," he said. "You settle because you want to avoid costs that would be incurred as you go forward."

He added, "I have to believe that they understood that this was something good for the Hawaiian people. ... It will be clear as things unfold whether that was true."

Dill, who is also president of the nonprofit Partners in Development Foundation, said the admissions policy must eventually be addressed and that the settlement avoids this case but does not stop other cases.

Marion Joy, former vice president of Na Pua, called the settlement a "misuse of trust funds."

"The trust is continually going to be challenged," she said. "This is not going to be the last. ... As far as settling for the particular lawsuit, it's not in the best interests of the beneficiaries (of the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop)."

Honolulu attorney David Rosen, who has sought potential clients to sue Kamehameha over its admissions policy after the settlement, sent out a statement yesterday that said the $7 million settlement was used to "buy off this case."

He added that the trustees should open a campus on the Leeward Coast of Oahu and possibly Molokai where increased educational opportunities are needed.

H. William Burgess, a retired attorney and founder of Aloha for All, a group opposed to Hawaiian sovereignty, said the settlement raises questions about the proper use of the trust funds.

"Normally, trustees, if they're doubtful about doing something, they ask the court to give them instructions," he said. "Yet in this case, the biggest charitable trust, probably in the nation, instead of welcoming the opportunity to get the highest court in the land to settle it, they pay $7 million to leave it open. And it is very much open."

The Wise Old Owl asks: How much of the settlement amount came from Kamehameha’s insurance companies, and how much came from the trust funds? How much did Kamehameha Schools (and/or their insurance company) spend for defense costs in this case before they decided to settle? Who is their insurance company? Their insurance broker? Who actually signed the Settlement Agreement?

NEW DISCOVERY (01-12-07) - Re: Undisclosed relationships with Kamehameha Schools, Hawaii Nature Conservancy, Faye Kurren, Oprah Winfrey, Peter Young, Hawaii Department of Land & Natural Resources, Hawaiian Home Lands, etc.

John Waihee, IV, OHA trustee and son of former Governor John Waihee, III, is arrested in May, 2007, for DUI, but the arrest is not reported for six months. If this arrest of one of my named witness had been reported in the news media at the time it happened, as is normally done, this NEW material evidence could have been submitted in my earlier Requests for Reconsideration of the Appointment of David C. Farmer as Successor Trustee in this case.

Sparky Perry hails from Kentucky -- "horse country," as she calls it -- but after moving to Maui 2 1/2 years ago with her then-husband, she's been riding more than she ever did before.

"It's funny: I came from Kentucky, where there are horses everywhere, to this speck of a tropical island, and I'm riding every day, three times a day if I want to," she says....

At her "dream job," as a guide for Lahaina Stables, Perry helps care for 20 horses, grooms and saddles them for tours, and accompanies visitors on scenic rides in the foothills of the West Maui Mountains....

Ray Fuqua, owner and operator of Lahaina Stables, shares Perry's passion for horses. A former high school social studies and geography teacher in New Orleans, he came to Maui on vacation in 1980, fell in love with it and moved there the following year.

Through a mutual friend, he became acquainted with the family of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh, and for three years he managed their land and organic banana and papaya farm in remote Kipahulu on Maui's east side.

"I've always been an outdoors person, and they knew I had experience with horses, so they asked me to buy a couple of them to keep on their property," he said.

After Fuqua left his employment with the Lindberghs, he delved into real estate, which provided the financial resources he needed to start Oheo Stables, a trail-riding business that was in operation from 1991 to early 2004.

In April 2004 he moved the business to West Maui, recognizing there was a bigger market there near the bustling resorts of Lahaina, Kaanapali and Kapalua.

"I was looking for a location that also had a lot of history, natural beauty and easy accessibility," he says.

Fuqua secured a long-term lease on a 25-acre parcel that runs right to the foot of the majestic West Maui Mountains. He hiked old cane haul roads to map out the best spots for trail rides, set up fencing, built office and barn facilities, and installed underground sprinklers to irrigate the pasture land.

"It's been hard work; this project has not happened overnight," he says. "The exciting thing is it's evolving. We recently changed some of our routes, and in the next year we'll probably build a couple more trails that will go higher into the mountains....

Samuel Pryor, a vice president of Pan-American Airways, and his wife, Mary Taylor Pryor, retired to Hana in 1963, creating a private paradise on 100 acres of grassland that rolled from mountain to sea in Ki-pahulu, 11 miles beyond Hana town. Both are now deceased.

Pryor covered his land with a profusion of flowering trees and shrubs and built an A-frame within a stone’s throw of a 100-foot waterfall that ebbs and swells according to the mountain rain....

This vewritable Eden, he populated with family, a constant flow of famous or wealthy friends and a small coterie of gibbon apes, which he treated almost like children....

Gradually Sam and Mary Tay moved their things from the family home in Darien, Connecticut, to Hana, and eventually their A-frame was filled, like an old cupboard, with the memorabilia of a life that had taken them from a Sultan’s palace in Arabia ... to the original floating markets of Bangkok.

At Pan Am, Pryor had become acquainted with presidents and kings: Lyndon Johnson wrote letters to Hana from the White House addressed to Mr. Sam, and King Leopold of Belgium sat in the gazebo whole Pryor barbecued steaks fro dinner....

Charles Lindbergh stepped into this idyllic setting as Pryor’s friend. They had known each other at Pan Am for years and loved reminiscing about the early days of aviation. Pryor had often urged Lindbergh to stop by Maui, and one day on his way back from a conservation project in the Philippines, the famous flier took him up on it.

Lindbergh drove the whiplash road by jeep with Pryor, making him stop frequently alont the way. He was so enchanted by the area that he asked Pryor to find him some land to buy.

Pryor sold him five acres on the ocean, and in 1968 Lindbergh and his wife Anne built a chalet on the cliff above the surf, close enough to hear the waves at night and only a short walk to the Pryors’ comfortable A-frame.

Lindbergh spent his last few springs in Hana, exploring the beaches and mountains, entertaining grandchildren. He loved his home in Ki-pahulu more than any place he’d ever lived. It was here he chose to die.

Kipahulu lost a true friend earlier this month when renowned philanthropist and conservationist Laurance Rockefeller died at the age of 94.

As his obituary circulated across the nation, Rockefeller's many contributions to keeping the world as natural as possible were cited one after another, but there was little mention of how he helped preserve one of the most precious parts of East Maui: the Kipahulu section of Haleakala National Park and the lower section of Kipahulu Valley, a place still so pristine that people can enter only with permission.

"The park wouldn't be the same without Laurance Rockefeller," said the park's superintendent, Don Reeser. "It was because of him that the park was able to stretch all the way from the mountain to the sea."

Rockefeller was a man as rare as the treasures of Kipahulu. Although wealthy beyond most of our dreams (this year he was No. 377 on the Forbes magazine list of 587 billionaires with $1.5 billion), he didn't simply live it up and forget about the rest of society to indulge his every fantasy. He used his good fortune to fund his good causes, his favorite being his love for Mother Nature's most unspoiled corners of the country.

According to Russ Apple's 1975 history of how Haleakala acquired its lands, Rockefeller came to Kipahulu in 1961 when he was searching for the best location to build a resort in Hawaii. Unlike some of today's newly rich who buy up whatever they can on Maui and wall it off from the rest of the community, Rockefeller took in the magnificent glory of East Maui and declared it too special to belong to one person for the pleasure of the elite.

In Rockefeller's eyes, the area was simply "too scenic and East Maui generally too beautiful and rural a community for commercial exploitation, with the social, economic and environmental changes and other developments a major resort hotel would bring," wrote Apple.

So Rockefeller built his resort elsewhere (the Mauna Kea Beach Hotel on the Big Island) and bought 52 acres along the Kipahulu coast. At no time did he ever plan to keep the land for himself.

In that same era, there were others with bottomless bank accounts who also were touched by the humble spirit of Kipahulu, including famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. Sam Pryor, the eccentric airline executive and close friend of Lindbergh, had the chance to buy the land where five of the legendary pools of Oheo dance down to the ocean, but he changed his mind when he learned how much the people of East Maui used the streams. Pryor bought another parcel and, eventually, Rockefeller purchased the two lots that are now considered the heart of the park at Kipahulu.

But even a Rockefeller couldn't just buy the land and hand it over to the National Park Service. Because of a clause that says that only "adjacent or contiguous" lands can be added to parks, Rockefeller needed to figure out how to link the mountain to the sea. In 1951, a portion of the upper Kipahulu Valley had been added to the park so Rockefeller met with Gov. John A. Burns and leaders of The Nature Conservancy to begin a fund-raising drive to acquire the lower valley that would abut his coastal tract.

The appeal to save Kipahulu went to the Mainland where other wealthy philanthropists heard the call and responded in kind. In Chicago, Apple reported, Marshall Field (of department store fame) and Philip K. Wrigley (of Chicago Cubs fame) sponsored a slide show to drum up cash. Pryor gave a cocktail party in the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York that was attended by Lindbergh, Arthur Godfrey and Doris Duke.

The money was raised, the deal was forged and the Kipahulu section of Haleakala National Park was officially announced on Jan. 10, 1969.

Because of The Nature Conservancy's continued efforts and additional lands donated by the state, the total amount given to the park was more than 10,000 acres. While many people were part of the overall endeavor, Rockefeller was given credit for getting it off the ground - and seeing it through.

And he wasn't done yet. In 1997, he donated 50 acres at nearby Puhilele to The Conservation Fund with the intent that it become part of the park. Reeser said the parcel was sold to the federal government for half of its appraised value.

Following that, Rockefeller and his family were invited to attend a ceremony at Piilani Heiau by members of Pa Kui-a-Holo, a Native Hawaiian society of modern warriors skilled in the ancient discipline of lua (fighting). For his contributions to Kipahulu, Rockefeller was named an honorary member of the group and presented with a kihei (cloak) and ihe (spear).

Walter Pu, who has worked in the Kipahulu district of the park for seven years with the Hawaii Natural History Association, was there as part of Pa Kui-a-Holo.

"He was neat," said Pu of Rockefeller, then in his 80s. "Because of him, this area has been preserved and that's what we're all about. He pretty much saved the valley from being infested by too many people."

More recently, Rockefeller pledged $50,000 to help with the relocation of Lindbergh's house to the park.

So not only has Kipahulu lost a loyal friend who understood its inner nature, but wealthy people have lost a role model. With Maui being inundated by millionaires who scoop up property like they're playing Monopoly, wouldn't it be great if they would follow Rockefeller's example and acknowledge that there are some places just too beautiful to be private? Wouldn't it be great if they would give back to the island that has given them so much in return?

Valerie Monson is a staff writer for The Maui News. "Off Deadline" is an occasional column that allows staff members to step back and reflect on issues of the day or to just talk story.

Ms. Julie A. Schermerhorn, Supervisor, and
Mr. Justin W. Schuck, Case Manager
American Arbitration Association
6795 North Palm Avenue, 2^nd Floor
Fresno, California 93704

This responds to Steven Guttman’s letter to you dated August 9, 2003, which he begins by saying:

“First, as to Mr. Harmon’s comments regarding the permanent injunction, we have repeatedly advised Mr. Harmon that his insistence on forwarding copies of correspondence relating to issues addressed in the Settlement Agreement to third parties constitutes a violation of the injunction. In fact, his breach of the confidentiality clause of the Agreement is one of the reasons this matter is before the AAA for resolution. Nevertheless, Mr. Harmon continues his behavior; i.e., transmitting copies of correspondence regarding the selection of an AAA arbitrator to the Internal Revenue Service, the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office, the Hawaii Governor’s Office, etc. We are not agreeable to a waiver of the permanent injunction and, in fact, reiterate our demand that Mr. Harmon immediately cease and desist from communicating with third parties concerning matters relating to the confidential Settlement Agreement.”

I continue to disagree with Mr.Guttman’s interpretation that my communications to the regulatory agencies he mentions is a breach of the confidentiality clause. However, my understanding is that this issue is to be decided with the Arbitration process, and not by the AAA. If this needs to be decided at this point, however, I would argue that a person’s right to report criminal activity to regulatory authorities cannot be prohibited under any legal contract. I would surmise that this would be especially true if the crimes were committed after the contract was signed.

“Secondly, the land appraisals and land use decisions referenced in Mr. Harmon’s comments objecting to the appointment of Ms. Neustadter have nothing whatsoever to do with her selection of an arbitrator in this proceeding. We have no idea why in his letter of August 7, 2003, he chose to share with the AAA the newspaper story concerning ‘Developer to clean up Maalaea Bay runoff’. Ms. Neustadter is not mentioned in the article; even if she had been mentioned, the story has no relationship whatsoever to this proceeding or to Ms. Neustadter’s role as the arbitrator.”

Again, I must disagree with Mr. Guttman. I chose this one particular article because it seemed to summarize fairly well just one of the many controversies and accusations of improper and illegal kick-backs to land use commissioners, and violations of EPA regulations, that have arisen over the years in Hawaii. As I have mentioned in previous letters, I feel there is too much public information available in court cases and media reports to include everything in these letters. However, if that is what it will take to convince you that there is, at the very least, a potential conflict-of-interest with Ms. Neustadter, I can fax you dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of additional material.

“Thirdly, Ms. Neustadter’s personal politics, whatever they may be, are not pertinent to the question of whether she can serve as the arbitrator in this matter. We don’t believe Mr. Harmon meant to imply that he has documents evidencing that Ms. Neustadter may have made an ‘illegal political contribution’ but, if he believes he has such evidence, he should expressly so state. At a minimum, he needs to clarify his statement on this specific point, which he can do without violating the injunction. As to whether Mr. Harmon has evidence that someone associated with the County of Maui may have made an ‘illegal political contribution’, quite frankly, such evidence has no relevancy to Ms. Neustadter’s appointment as the arbitrator in this case.”

Mr. Guttman is correct in that I did not mean to imply that I have documents evidencing that Ms. Neustadter may have made an “illegal political contribution.” To clarify my intent, in my testimony to the Attorney General’s office, and to the IRS, I did provide first-hand information about certain illegal political activities of Kamehameha Schools involving Gil Tam, Nathan Aipa, Nam Snow, Henry Peters, Milton Holt and others within this organization. The point is not that Ms. Neustadter was personally involved with any of these activities, but that her position on the Maui Land Use Commission places her in a position where she has influenced in the past, and can influence in the future, land use matters involving the vast land holdings of Kamehameha Schools. In my view, this should be sufficient cause to disqualify Ms. Neustadter.

With all the public information available on this subject, I, too, feel it should not be necessary to obtain a waiver of the permanent injunction, but Mr. Guttman seems to require an even greater, overwhelming abundance of evidence than is available to the general public. The only possible way I would be able to provide such a degree of evidence would be to have the injunction lifted.

“Fourthly, as noted above, this matter has come before the AAA for resolution due in significant part to Mr. Harmon’s ongoing breach of the confidentiality clause of the Settlement Agreement. A review of the issues pending before the AAA in this case establishes the fact that it concerns contract law and not employment law as Mr. Harmon settled all employment issues when he entered into the settlement agreement that is the subject of this arbitration. Therefore, it is not material whether the information disclosed in Ms. Neustadter’s resume addresses specific experience in the area of employment law.”

Again, I disagree with Mr. Guttman’s interpretation of the Settlement Agreement, and his statement that this case does not involve employment law. I have been guided in this case by the AAA’s published National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes which states, “Arbitrators serving under these rules shall be experienced in the field of employment law.” If Mr. Guttman’s interpretation of these rules is correct, then should not the AAA have informed me of this fact before the selection process commenced? I ask the AAA to keep in mind that I am not an attorney, and not yet represented by an attorney, so I may not be aware of all the legal aspects regarding these issues.

I would also point out that Disputed Issue No. 2 reads, “Whether the payment of the settlement proceeds under the Agreement constitute wages from the Kamehameha Schools and are entitled to such treatment.” Also, Issue No. 5, which is the “letter writing campaign” issue, began with my initial request for my IRS W-2 and 1099-R forms, and the large majority of my letters have dealt with this issue. I continue to maintain that Social Security wages and Pension Plan benefits ARE employment issues which require experience in the field of employment law.

“Today I received a copy of a letter Mr. Harmon sent to United States attorneys apparently involved in litigation he describes as ‘UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, Defendant.’ Although Ms. Neustadter was the hearing officer involved in a church being denied a special use permit, it has nothing whatsoever to do with her appointment as the arbitrator in this case.”

What my letter stated was, “This is to report what may be an attempt to obstruct justice in the subject case,” and I refer you back to my earlier statement that I would argue that a person’s right to report criminal activity to regulatory authorities cannot be prohibited under any legal contract. I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to comment further on this matter at this time. The simple, and obvious, point is that Ms. Neustadter’s position on the Maui Planning Commission creates, at the very least, a potential conflict-of-interest.

“Ms. Neustadter has informed the AAA she is not aware of any conflict in her serving as arbitrator in this proceeding. The Trustee has no knowledge of a conflict. ... Nothing in Mr. Harmon’s communications concerning Ms. Neustadter evidences a conflict and much of his commentary, while interesting as to his theories regarding Hawaii politics, have no bearing on Ms. Neustadter serving as the arbitrator.”

Therefore, despite Ms. Neustadter’s statement to the contrary, it is still my belief that she does have at least a potential conflict of interest and I reaffirm my objections to her appointment as Arbitrator in this case. I would also repeat my suggestions that you consider Daniel Bent as a replacement for Ms. Neustadter, and formally query Trustee Mary Lou Woo if she would have any factual objections to his appointment.

Please advise if any of my arguments in this communication are unclear, or if further information is required before you can render a decision.

RALPH F. BOYD, JR.
Assistant Attorney General
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM,
Chief
DIANE L. HOUK,
Special Litigation Counsel
JE YON JUNG (Ohio #0067441)
JAMES D. TODD, JR. (D.C. #463511)
Trial Attorneys
Housing and Civil Enforcement
Section
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., G Street
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: (202) 305-1457
Fax: (202) 514-1116
jeyon.jung@usdoj.gov

EDWARD H. KUBO, JR.
United States Attorney
MICHAEL CHUN 3300
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Room 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg.
300 Ala Moana Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96850
Tel: (808) 541-2850
mike.chun@usdoj.gov

1. This action is brought by the United States to enforce the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.

3. Venue is proper because the claims alleged herein arose in the District of Hawai' i. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

4. Under the Maui County Code, Defendant Maui Planning Commission has authority to regulate and restrict the use of land and structures within its borders, including granting special land use permits for properties of less than 15 acres.

5. For purposes of RLUIPA, the Defendant constitutes a "government." 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-5(4)(A)(ii).

6. Hale O Kaula Church is a nonprofit, Hawai' i corporation. It has operated a church and held public worship services in the County of Maui, Hawai' i since 1960. Hale O Kaula means "House of the Prophets." It has approximately sixty members who live in and around Pukalani, County of Maui, Hawai' i....

9. For purposes of RLUIPA, Hale O Kaula Church constitutes a "religious assembly or institution."

10. Currently, the majority of the Hale O Kaula Church's religious activities are conducted in a small building on a parcel of land located in Haiku, Maui. The Haiku property is less than one-half acre in size and the facility is inadequate to meet the Church's current needs.

11. In order to continue and to expand its facilities and practice of the Joseph Ministry, the Hale O Kaula Church purchased 5.85 acres of land in Pukalani in 1990. The Pukalani property is located within the State Agricultural District on the County's land use map and is zoned Agriculture in accordance with Maui County Code, §19.30A. The Pukalani property is located near the end of Anuhea Place, a private residential road, and contains a residence, an agricultural building, a shade house and a generator building.

12. On December 20, 1999, Hale O Kaula Church submitted a Special Use Permit application to the Defendant seeking to use the existing agricultural building on the Pukalani property for religious activities and to construct a second floor to that structure that would be used for church services, a library, offices and storage.

13. For purposes of RLUIPA, the proposed use of the existing structure and the proposed second floor addition for church services constitute "religious exercise." 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-5(7)(A)-(B).

14. Pursuant to Section 205-6(a) of the Hawai' i Revised Statute, a county planning commission is authorized to permit certain "unusual and reasonable uses within agricultural and rural districts other than those for which the district is classified."

15. The State Land Use Commission's rules, Section 15-15-95(b), allow a special use permit to be issued for "certain 'unusual and reasonable' uses within agricultural and rural districts." There are five guidelines for determining whether an "unusual and reasonable use" should be allowed by special permit:

1. The use shall not be contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by chapters 205 and 205A, Hawai' i Revised Statute, and the rules of the commission;

3. The use would not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water drainage and school improvements, and police and fire protection;

4. Unusual conditions, trends, and needs have arisen since the district boundaries and rules were established; and

5. The land upon which the proposed use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted within the district.

16. The Department of Planning for the County of Maui issued a Report to the Maui Planning Commission regarding Hale O Kaula's application. The Report concluded that the applicant's proposed use is consistent with the County's General Plan objective and policies. The Report further indicated that:

2. the proposed use will have no adverse impact on police, fire protection, and medical services, subject to a "hold harmless" agreement, which was executed, as requested by the Department of Fire Control;

3. the Department of Transportation reviewed the application and found that the proposed Church will not have a significant impact on Kula Highway, a state facility; and

4. there would be short term noise and air quality impacts during the construction phases of the project.

17. On April 30, 2001, Maui Planning Commission Hearing Officer, Judith Neustadter Fuqua recommended denial of the Hale O Kaula Church's application for a Special Use Permit, finding that the use of the subject property as sought by the Church was not an "unusual and reasonable use" under the relevant codes and rules. She found that the use of the Subject Property sought by the Church would adversely affect the properties along Anuhea Place by creating unacceptable levels of traffic and noise in an isolated agricultural neighborhood. In addition, she found that the use of the Subject Property sought by the Church would burden public agencies to provide water, police, and fire protection.

18. On June 27, 2001, the Maui Planning Commission adopted Hearing Officer Fuqua's recommendations and unanimously voted to deny Hale O Kaula Church's special use permit application.

19. Between 1976 and 1996, the Defendant has granted special use permits to other denominational churches in districts zoned for agricultural use in Maui County.

20. Other entities or activities that have greater than or equal impact on the levels of traffic and noise and/or burden on public agencies are either permitted as of right or regularly granted special use permits by the Defendant.

21. For purposes of RLUIPA, the Defendant's denial of a special use permit to the Church constitutes "land use regulation[s]." 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-5(5).

22. The Defendant's denial of the Church's special use permit application violates Section (2)(a)(1) of RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1).

1. The denial of the permit represents the imposition or implementation of a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the Hale O Kaula Church and its members.

2. The substantial burden created by the denial of the special use permit does not further a compelling government interest, or even if it does, it is not the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.

3. The substantial burden created by the denial of the special use permit affects, or the removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce within the meaning of Section 2(a)(2) of RLUIPA.

4. The Defendant's denial of the Church's special use permit constituted the imposition or implementation of land use regulations whereby defendant made, or had in place formal or informal procedures or practices of, individualized assessments regarding the Church's special use permit application within the meaning of Section 2(a)(2) of RLUIPA.

23. The Defendant's denial of the Church's special use permit application constitutes the imposition or implementation of a land use regulation that discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against Hale O Kaula Church on the basis of religion or religious denomination in violation of Section 2(b)(2) of RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. §2000cc(b)(2).

1. Declares that the defendants' policies and practices, as alleged herein, violate RLUIPA; and

2. Enjoins the defendant, its officers, employees, agents, successors and all other persons in active concert or participation with it, from (a) applying its laws in a manner that substantially burdens Hale O Kaula Church's religious exercise and (b) discriminating against Hale O Kaula Church on the basis of religion or religious denomination.

The United States further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.

__________________________
EDWARD H. KUBO, JR.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
MICHAEL CHUN 3300
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Room 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg.
300 Ala Moana Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96850
Telephone: (808) 541-2850

JOHN ASHCROFT
ATTORNEY GENERAL

__________________________
RALPH F. BOYD, JR.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

__________________________
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM
Chief, Housing and
Civil Enforcement Section

__________________________
DIANE L. HOUK
Special Litigation Counsel
JE YON JUNG (Ohio #0067441)
JAMES D. TODD, JR. (D.C.
#463511)
Trial Attorneys
Housing and Civil
Enforcement
Section
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of
Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
G Street
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel.: (202) 305-1457
Fax: (202) 514-1116

Honorable Chair and Members of the County Council
County of Maui
Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii

Your Land Use Committee, having met on June 17, 2002 and August 12, 2002, makes reference to County Communication No. 02-41, from the Planning Director, transmitting a proposed bill entitled “A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE ZONING FROM R-2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO P-1 PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC DISTRICT (CONDITIONAL ZONING) FOR PROPERTY SITUATED AT KOHOLIO, KULA, MAUI, HAWAII”.

The purpose of the proposed bill is to conditionally grant a request from Kamehameha Schools to change the zoning from R-2 Residential to P-1 Public/Quasi-Public for approximately 84.4 acres of land located at Kula, Maui, the site of the Kamehameha Schools Maui Campus (TMK: 2-3-008: portion of 039 and portion of 040), as recommended by the Maui Planning Commission. Your Committee further notes that the Maui Planning Commission on November 14, 2000, after reviewing the findings presented in documents respectively entitled “MAUI PLANNING DEPARTMENT’S REPORT TO THE MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MEETING” and “RECOMMENDATION MEMORANDUM TO THE MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 MEETING”, voted to recommend approval of the requested change in zoning, subject to the following conditions:

1. That any development proposals to accommodate a total student population greater than 500 shall be contingent on the submittal of an updated Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) to the State Department of Transportation for review and approval unless amendments to this condition are approved by the State Department of Transportation.

2. That the three petroglyph sites (sites 1069, 1062, and 4179) shall be preserved. A preservation plan providing for permanent buffer zones around the sites, interim protection measures, and long-term preservation measures shall be prepared and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Division for approval. No land alteration shall occur until: (1) the buffer zones and interim protection measures have been approved and implemented; and (2) the Department of Planning has received notice in writing from the State Historic Preservation Division of said approval and implementation. The Department of Planning shall be provided written notification from the State Historic Preservation Division verifying that the entire preservation plan has been successfully completed....

By correspondence dated March 18, 2002, the Council Chair transmitted correspondence dated March 15, 2002, from D. Rodney Chamberlain, Headmaster, Kamehameha Schools Maui Campus, and John A.H. Tomoso of the Hawaiian Homes Commission and Kamehameha Schools Maui Campus Advisory Council, respectively, in support of the proposed bill.

By correspondence dated March 21, 2002, Councilmember Charmaine Tavares transmitted correspondence dated March 15, 2002, from Dr. Rodney Chamberlain, Headmaster, Kamehameha Schools Maui Campus, in support of the proposed bill.

By correspondence dated March 25, 2002, the Council Chair transmitted correspondence dated March 8, 2002, from Andie Simon, President, Kamehameha Schools Association Maui, in support of the proposed bill.

By correspondence dated April 4, 2002, the Chair of your Committee transmitted correspondence dated March 23, 2002, from Lokelani Patrick, President, Kamehameha Schools Maui Campus Parent–Teacher `Ohana, in support of the proposed bill.

By correspondence dated May 24, 2002, the Chair of your Committee requested that the Planning Director explain the 15-month interval between the Maui Planning Commission's approval of the proposed bill and the Department of Planning's transmittal of the proposed bill to the Council.

By correspondence dated June 17, 2002, the Planning Director explained that administrative tasks caused the delay in transmitting the proposed bill to the Council.

At its meeting of June 17, 2002, your Committee met with a Staff Planner from the Department of Planning; a Deputy Corporation Counsel; and, representing Kamehameha Schools, Frank Brandt, Chairman; Vincent Shigekuni, Principal, PBR Hawaii, Inc.; Jim Stone, Project Architect, Group 70 International, Inc.; Dr. Rodney Chamberlain, Headmaster, Kamehameha Schools Maui Campus; and Yuki Takemoto, Director, Facility Development and Support Division, Kamehameha Schools....

To minimize the County's liability exposure, your Committee voted to revise the proposed bill to incorporate a third condition that would require Kamehameha Schools to indemnify the County for any claims arising from the enactment of the proposed bill and to maintain a million-dollar liability-insurance policy in the County's favor....

Your Committee voted to recommend passage of the proposed bill on first reading, subject to the indicated conditions, and filing of County Communication No. 02-41...

Honorable Chair and Members of the County Council
County of Maui
Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii

Your Committee of the Whole, having met on October 30, 2001, makes reference to County Communication No. 01-91, from the Council Chair, regarding proposed contracts for special counsel.

Your Committee is in receipt of correspondence dated October 24, 2001, from the Department of the Corporation Counsel, requesting consideration of a proposed resolution entitled “INDEMNIFYING SAMUEL KALALAU III, JEREMY F. KOZUKI, BERNICE LU, STAR MEDEIROS, SUSAN MOIKEHA, HERMAN NASCIMENTO, JOSEPH PONTANILLA, MONA RICHARDSON, JOHN MIN, AND JUDITH NEUSTADTER FUQUA, IN CIVIL NO. CV01-00615 SPK KSC, HALE O KAULA CHURCH, ET AL. VS. THE MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, ET AL.”. The purpose of the proposed resolution is to authorize indemnification of a County employee, an administrative hearing officer retained by the Maui Planning Commission, and various Maui Planning Commissioners in the Hale O Kaula Church case.

Your Committee notes that this case includes allegations of civil rights violations. By correspondence dated October 25, 2001, David Jenkins, Elder of Hale O Kaula Church, provided comments in opposition to the request for indemnification.

By correspondence dated October 25, 2001, Judith Neustadter Fuqua, administrative hearing officer retained by the Maui Planning Commission, supported the request for indemnification.

By correspondence dated October 26, 2001, Bernice W. Lu, Maui Planning Commissioner, supported the request for indemnification.

By correspondence dated October 29, 2001, Mona Richardson, Maui Planning Commissioner, supported the request for indemnification.

By correspondence dated October 29, 2001, Joseph Pontanilla, Maui Planning Commissioner, supported the request for indemnification.

By correspondence dated October 30, 2001, the Department of the Corporation Counsel transmitted correspondence from Susan Moikeha, Maui Planning Commissioner, supporting the request for indemnification.

At its meeting, your Committee met with the Planning Director and two Deputy Corporation Counsel.

Your Committee received public testimony from four individuals. One person spoke in opposition to the request for indemnification and three people provided general comments on the item.

Your Committee received copies of the following: 1) “FINDINGS OF FACT; CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; DECISION AND ORDER OF HEARING OFFICER” dated April 30, 2001 for SUP 2 990016; and 2) Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

The Deputy Corporation Counsel provided a brief overview of the case and requested the opportunity to discuss the matter in an executive meeting.

Prior to the executive meeting, your Committee proceeded with as much of the discussion regarding this matter that your Committee Chair would allow in regular session.

Your Committee voted to convene an executive meeting for the purpose of consulting with legal counsel on liability issues in the matter, pursuant to Section 92-5(a)(4), Hawaii Revised Statutes.

At its executive meeting, your Committee met with the Planning Director and two Deputy Corporation Counsel.

Following the executive meeting, your Committee reconvened in regular session. The Department of the Corporation Counsel noted that revisions would be made to the proposed resolution to include the name of Maui Planning Commissioner Randy Piltz in the title and the first be it resolved paragraph.

Based on the information received and the recommendation of the Department of the Corporation Counsel, your Committee voted to recommend adoption of the revised proposed resolution to authorize indemnification under the terms agreed to in the executive meeting.

Your Committee is in receipt of a revised proposed resolution entitled “INDEMNIFYING SAMUEL KALALAU III, JEREMY F. KOZUKI, BERNICE LU, STAR MEDEIROS, SUSAN MOIKEHA, HERMAN NASCIMENTO, RANDY PILTZ, JOSEPH PONTANILLA, MONA RICHARDSON, JOHN MIN, AND JUDITH NEUSTADTER FUQUA, IN CIVIL NO. CV01-00615 SPK KSC, HALE O KAULA CHURCH, ET AL. VS. THE MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, ET AL.”, approved as to form and legality.

Your Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDS that Resolution No. ____________, as revised herein and attached hereto, entitled “INDEMNIFYING SAMUEL KALALAU III, JEREMY F. KOZUKI, BERNICE LU, STAR MEDEIROS, SUSAN MOIKEHA, HERMAN NASCIMENTO, RANDY PILTZ JOSEPH PONTANILLA, MONA RICHARDSON, JOHN MIN, AND JUDITH NEUSTADTER FUQUA, IN CIVIL NO. CV01-00615 SPK KSC, HALE O KAULA CHURCH, ET AL. VS. THE MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, ET AL.”, be ADOPTED.