Woo vs. Harmon - Witness Terry Mullen

David C. Farmer, Successor-Trustee vs. Harmon

(Formerly Woo vs. Harmon & Nicholson vs. Harmon)

CV05-00030 DAE KSC

U.S. District Court For the District of Hawaii

Judges: David A. Ezra; Kevin S. Chang

—

DEFENDANT’S WITNESS

TERRY MULLEN

John Mullen & Company
P.O. Box 2096
Honolulu, HI 96803

Terry Mullen is CEO/President, John Mullen & Co., Inc.; Party to the Settlement Agreement; client of Maui County Council. John Mullen & Co., Inc. is also listed on www.lawyers.com as a client of Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga, Attorneys At Law.

As John Mullen & Company was a named Defendant in Harmon’s RICO lawsuit, this witness is expected to testify as to the facts and circumstances leading to the Agreement, as related to his role as the independent claims adjuster for P&C Insurance Company, Inc., and the tax-related issue of the treatment of the Settlement proceeds as wages.

As a named Witness for Defendant in the Arbitration proceedings, he will be asked to explain the purpose and content of his private meetings/conferences with Steven Guttman prior to the Arbitration, and to explain his relationships with Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga, and with Rine Stone, Zurich Financial Services, and Royal SunAmerica.

Mr. Mullen is also expected to testify as to the purpose and facts of David Loo’s and Rina Stone’s conferences with Steven Guttman prior to the Arbitration proceedings, as indicated in Guttman’s Declaration re Request for Award of Fees ( www.kycbs.net/AAA-Guttman-Att-B.pdf; www.kycbs.net/AAA-Guttman-Att-C.pdf).

This witness is also expected to testify why John Mullen & Co. did not respond to Defendant’s Notice of Claim letter dated Oct 8, 2004, or subsequent follow-up claims notices.

~ ~ ~

NEW DISCOVERY (11-24-08): New Exhibit: “EQ 2048 - Deposition of Lokelani Lindsey taken on November 4 & 9, 1999". This document provides clear evidence that J. Douglas Ing had multiple conflicts-of-interest in this case and, since he was not a named Defendant in my RICO lawsuit against the former Trustees, he was not a legitimate signatory to the Settlement Agreement: Furthermore, since the Settlement Agreement was NOT SIGNED by any of the five Trustees actually named as Defendants, the Settlement Agreement was not legal or valid. (See Exhibit A)

http://www.kycbs.net/Lindsey-docs-Vol-1-p1-4.pdf

http://www.kycbs.net/Lindsey-docs-Vol-1.pdf

~ ~ ~

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:

February 9, 2008

$7M

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

By Ken Kobayashi, Honolulu Star-Bulletin

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.

Grant said yesterday he had no comment.

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.

Later, a larger appeals court panel voted 8-7 to uphold the policy.

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.

http://starbulletin.com/2008/02/09/news/story02.html

~ ~ ~

February 9, 2008

Amount of settlement
raises critical concern

By Robert Shikina, rshikina@starbulletin.com

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)."

Kamehameha Schools declined comment.

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."

http://starbulletin.com/2008/02/09/news/story03.html

* * *

From The Catbird Seat website:

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?