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

David C. Farmer, Successor-Trustee vs. Harmon

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

U.S. District Court For the District of Hawaii

—

DEFENDANT’S WITNESS

WARREN PRICE, III

Partner in Price Okamoto Himeno & Lum, A Law Corporation; husband of Sharon Himeno; Hawaii Attorney General under Governor John Waihee, 1987-1992; former Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate Master; attorney for PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP in Defendant’s RICO lawsuit (along with John Zalewski, Esq., of Case, Lombardi & Pettit, and Robert Kohn, Esq., of The Kohn Law Firm, SC); Mediator in the case of the firing of Evan Dobelle, University of Hawaii president; attorney for DuPont in Matsuura vs. Dupont and Exotics Hawaii-Kona, et al vs Dupont.

Price Okamoto Himeno & Lum
Suite 728, Ocean View Center
707 Richards Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Fax: 808-533-0549

* * * * *

FOR THE LATEST UPDATES, SEE...

SCANDAL ISLAND: HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL WARREN PRICE

* * * * *

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

April 21, 2004

Wulff Chosen to Head 9/11 Panel
on WTC Loss

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

By Josh Richman, STAFF WRITER, The Oakland Tribune

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.

http://www.wqsadr.com/articles.html

REFERENCES

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....

Hawaii

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

Elton John Bain
Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga
19^th Floor, Central Pacific Plaza
229 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

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 T. Paul, Esq.
Paul Johnson Park & Niles
Pacific Tower, 1001 Bishop St., Suite 1300
P.O.Box 4438
Honolulu, HI 96812
Telephone: 808-524-1212

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

http://www.wqsadr.com/randallwwulff.html

~ ~ ~

NEW DISCOVERY (05-02-08): Warren Price’s conflicting relationships with members of the Hawaii Judiciary Selection Commission:

April 20, 2000

Trust played role
in effort to fund
Ige campaign

Campaign laws could have
been violated and it could
have lost its tax-exempt status

By Rick Daysog, Star-Bulletin

Kamehameha Schools coordinated political donations from its outside lawyers to state Sen. Marshall Ige's campaign in what could be a violation of campaign spending laws.

Records subpoenaed by the attorney general's office show that the $6 billion charitable trust played a role in the 1994 campaign contributions to Ige from attorneys C. Michael Heihre and Cheryl Nakamura and the law firms of Ashford & Wriston, Dwyer Imanaka Schraff Kudo Meyer & Kudo and Ching Yuen & Morikawa.

The documents -- discovered last year in the office of former trust manager Namlyn Snow -- include binders containing detailed logs of the attorneys' contributions to the Ige campaign, as well as photocopies of canceled checks to pay for the contributions.

Each attorney or firm contributed $250, for a total of $1,250. All of the checks were received by the Ige campaign on Aug. 17, 1994, and were deposited together in the campaign's bank account on the following day, suggesting that the contributions were bundled by Bishop Estate representatives.

Trust attorneys familiar with the documents said it was clear that Snow, who died last year, had a part in obtaining the donations.

The lawyers added that the estate's interim board of trustees turned over the documents to the attorney general's office and is complying with the state's investigation.

On Monday, the Star-Bulletin reported that an investigation by the attorney general's office had found that the estate engaged in a massive attempt to influence legislation and direct tens of thousands of dollars to isle politicians during the tenure of previous board members Richard "Dickie" Wong, Henry Peters, Lokelani Lindsey, Gerard Jervis and Oswald Stender.

The findings of the attorney general's inquiry, along with documents relating to the law firms' contributions to the Ige campaign, were turned over to the state Campaign Spending Commission last week, which has opened a separate investigation of the trust.

Bob Watada, executive director of the state Campaign Spending Commission, also declined to discuss the law firms' contributions to Ige. But speaking generally, Watada said bundling of contributions could be seen as a campaign contribution made under a false name, which is illegal.

Federal law also bars tax-exempt trusts from making campaign contributions or taking part in a political election. Violations could lead to the loss of a charity's tax-exempt status.

The latest disclosure comes as Ige is facing misdemeanor charges for alleged campaign finance abuses. The charges stem from an alleged campaign laundering scheme involving Bishop Estate's architecture and engineering firms. Ige has pleaded not guilty, and a trial is scheduled for next month.

Birney Bervar, Ige's attorney, declined comment on the latest development involving his client's campaign finances.

Attorneys with the Ashford & Wriston and Dwyer Imanaka firms had no response, while Bill Yuen of the Ching Yuen firm said he could not recall the circumstances of the contributions.

Nakamura, who does civil litigation work for the trust at the law firm of Rush Moore Craven Sutton Morry & Beh, said she remembers purchasing the fund-raiser tickets and attending the event with her parents. Nakamura, who lives in Ige's district, added that she may have purchased the tickets with the assistance of Bishop Estate personnel.

Heihre, formerly known as C. Michael Hare, said his donation to Ige was a personal contribution on his own checking account. But Heihre, a partner in the Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright firm and former chairman of the state Judicial Selection Commission, said he could not recall if he discussed his contribution to Ige with Kamehameha Schools personnel.

Each of the law firms that contributed to the Ige campaign has billed the trust tens of thousands of dollars each year for legal work. Last year, the estate paid the Cades Schutte firm about $1.8 million.

Bishop Estate archive

http://starbulletin.com/2000/04/20/news/index.html

~ ~ ~

From the Broken Trust essay:

... Since 1987, the year in which the trustees were forced to make public the amount of their fees, they have received in excess of $40 million. Fees paid over the past three years have averaged $900,000 per trustee, per year.

The distracting thing about this piece of the mosaic is that people made responsible for preserving $5 to $10 billion of wealth, and carrying out an educational mission that is as important as it is unique, arguably ought to be highly paid.

We think the more important issue is the credentials of the specific individuals who are being paid these large sums of money. Given the estate's ability to pay big-league compensation, one would expect to find an array of phenomenally talented trustees. Yet somehow, with the exception of Oswald Stender, the Bishop Estate trustees simply don't measure up to the job.

Trustee selection

Many people are under the impression that the justices of Hawaii's Supreme Court are legally obligated to select Bishop Estate trustees because that's what the princess put into her will. Not so. Clearly, they don't have to do it. The justices acknowledged as much in 1989 when they refused the request of a woman named Sadie Smith to pick the trustees of her charitable trust.

Acknowledging the obvious impropriety of making trustee selections in their official capacity, the justices tell us they are acting as individuals when they select Bishop Estate trustees. This is a distinction without meaning. To be blunt, it's a dodge.

The reality is that Bishop Estate trustees are selected by five individuals who through no coincidence are also justices of the state Supreme Court. The further reality is that these same five individuals are virtually certain to be called upon to decide cases involving the trustees they select (the estate has been before the Supreme Court at least 18 times in the last 13 years). At a minimum, this creates the appearance of a conflict.

Some people wonder why the justices would stretch logic and judicial ethics to the breaking point just to do something they clearly don't have to do, and then do it poorly.

Can we be blamed for questioning the justices' collective judgment in other areas? After all, if the justices exercise questionable judgment in their individual capacity when selecting trustees, why shouldn't we expect equally questionable decisions in their official capacity? Worse, if selection of trustees is influenced by politics (as we believe it is), why shouldn't the public assume that judicial decisions are equally political?

It is imperative that the Supreme Court enjoy the trust and respect of the entire community. According to Democratic Rep. Ed Case, "The Supreme Court's trustee appointment role has the real potential of undermining and perverting our judicial system, starting with the judicial selection process. Getting out of the Bishop Estate trustee selection business is the single biggest thing the court could do to enhance the court's standing with the public." We agree.

Because that's what the will says

More than 100 years have passed since Mrs. Bishop's death, and if she were here today, she unquestionably would decide some things differently. For example, the princess named five men, who happened to be haole, as the initial trustees of her trust. Does that mean she wanted all future trustees to be of that same make up? Of course not.

In fact, the justices and trustees have themselves occasionally ignored the language of the will -- perhaps with good cause. For example, the will says the schools should be primarily vocational, and only secondarily college preparatory. That's changed. The will also specifically expresses a desire that the schools benefit orphans and others in indigent circumstances, and makes no mention of admissions based on academic ability. Again, the will's instructions have been modified to deal with the demands of the time.

The will specifically provides that the trustees must be "persons of the Protestant religion," and no court case has said that such a requirement is invalid. Yet the current justices of Hawaii's Supreme Court, acting as individuals and not as a court, have indicated that they will ignore the will in this respect when selecting new trustees.

Taking refuge in the literal words of the will is more of an excuse than a reason.

Judicial Selection Commission

To understand why each member of the court would insist upon doing something that we consider unethical, it helps to consider the circumstances of their own selection.

The Judicial Selection Commission is an attempt to take politics out of the selection of judges and justices. A "reform" idea out of the 1978 Constitutional Convention, the commission is a bipartisan group that reviews potential applicants and submits a list to the governor for selection. Previously, the governor alone nominated judges.

One of the most powerful duties of the commission is to decide -- by itself -- whether any judge, or justice, will be retained for another term of 10 years.

We believe that most of the people who served on the commission over the years have been public spirited, well intentioned and capable. But no process, no matter how well designed, will work properly when individuals are determined to manipulate it. For instance, we believe that during the period John Waihee was governor it was common for him to confer ahead of time with several commission members who then would strive to get a predetermined name on each list.

In the words of someone who served on the commission during those years, "If a few members decided ahead of time to do their best to get a particular name on a list, they probably were able to do that. No one is so naive as to think there isn't a certain amount of horse trading going on."

According to a prominent Democratic politician, "The commission always seemed to have at least a few people whose first and foremost allegiance was to Governor Waihee. With people like Warren Price, Tom Enomoto, Michael Hare and Gerry Jervis on the commission, it was easy to get one particular name on a list. The thing, though, is that it already had been determined who was going to get the appointment."

This was the era when the commission put 36-year-old Sharon Himeno on a list for the Supreme Court, from which she was selected by Governor Waihee. It bothered some people that Himeno was Attorney General Warren Price's wife and that she wasn't considered an exceptional lawyer.

But the bigger concern for many was an allegation of a serious ethical lapse in connection with a family corporation's apparent $3 million profit on a back-to-back purchase/sale of a mainland golf course involving Himeno's client, the state Employees' Retirement System. Her nomination to the state's highest court seemed to be based on the fact that she and Price had directed their good friend John Waihee's gubernatorial campaign.

When Judge Walter Heen was interviewed as an applicant for the Hawaii Supreme Court, he was asked by Hare "what kind of person" he might select as Bishop Estate trustee, if he ever had the opportunity to do so. According to David Fairbanks, a current member of the commission, such a question, if asked, would have been "totally improper."

That this question was asked of a candidate for the Supreme Court, by a member of the Judicial Selection Commission, illustrates how the trustee-selection power of justices played a significant role (with respect to some members of the commission) in the consideration of candidates for the state's highest court.

Hare's law firm has been paid more than $10 million in legal fees by the Bishop Estate since 1992. It's an excellent firm, but we find it hard to believe that's the reason it was selected by the trustees.

http://starbulletin.com/specials/bishop/story2.html

~ ~ ~

October 20, 1997

‘Most people would
run for cover’ from...

Bishop Estate’s
legal army

The estate employs a host
of well-connected, top attorneys

By Rick Daysog, Star-Bulletin

When it comes to its legal armament, few can match the arsenal that Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate can bring to the courtroom.

The $10 billion charitable trust -- the state's largest private landowner -- employs an army of well-connected attorneys that includes a former governor, two former state attorneys general and the former chairman of Hawaii's Republican Party.

The estate's outside legal team also lists House Judiciary Chairman Terrance Tom and Bill McCorriston, a former assistant U.S. attorney who has represented former Mayor Frank Fasi and was on the city Charter Commission.

"With this kind of legal cannon pointed at you, most people would run for cover," said Beadie Dawson, attorney for Na Pua a Ke Ali'i Pauahi, which has criticized trustees' management of Kamehameha Schools.

"They've (hired) every good litigation attorney in town."

The estate maintains that it hires attorneys for their expertise. Waihee and Tom were hired because they are good attorneys and not because of their political ties, the estate said.

McCorriston, who is representing the estate in Attorney General Margery Bronster's investigation of the trust, added that the trust is like any major corporation that hires lawyers to represent its diverse legal interests.

For instance, for leasehold and litigation matters, the estate relies on Mike Hare and the Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright law firm. The Verner Liipfert firm conducts much of its Washington, D.C., lobbying, while McCorriston's firm, McCorriston Miho Miller Mukai, has done mostly land-use work, McCorriston said.

Bishop Estate trustee Gerard Jervis considered joining the McCorriston Miho firm several months ago as an outside counsel. But Jervis said he decided against the move because of his heavy workload with the estate.

Jervis denied any conflict since he didn't join the firm.

Jon Miho, one of the firm's founders and a friend of Jervis', added that if Jervis had joined McCorriston Miho, it would have made it more difficult for the firm to do work for the estate.

Jervis also shares close political ties with Washington, D.C.-based Verner Liipfert through its local partner Waihee. Jervis served on the Judicial Selection Commission during the Waihee years.

Verner Liipfert -- whose mainland offices lists former U.S Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, former Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole and former Texas Gov. Ann Richards on its roster -- also employs prominent labor-relations attorney and former Hawaii GOP head Jared Jossem and Renton Nip, who served as state Land Use Commission chairman during the Waihee years, in its local office.

Former Attorney General Warren Price and his successor, Robert Marks, through their firm serve as outside counsels to Verner Liipfert and have conducted legal work for the estate.

To be sure, the legal work for the estate can be lucrative. According to its tax filings, the estate's nonprofit unit paid nearly $4.2 million in legal fees during the year ending June 30, 1996.

More than half, or $2.75 million, went to Cades Schutte, which does the legal work for the estate's leasehold conversions and some of its real-estate litigation.

Waihee's firm, Verner Liipfert, earned $844,245, while the Ching Yuen & Morikawa firm -- whose partners include longtime Waihee friend Bill Yuen -- was paid $580,603.

The estate paid McCorriston Miho $223,079 in legal fees for the fiscal year 1995 and another $235,050 for the 1993 fiscal year.

Randall Roth, University of Hawaii law professor and co-author of a scathing report that helped launch Bronster's investigation of the estate, criticized the large amount of legal fees that the estate pays each year -- especially since it is a nonprofit organization.

While the estate's attorneys are among the top in town, Roth believes that political connections probably play a key role in who gets selected for its legal work.

"This strikes me as an exorbitant amount of money for a charity to be spending on legal fees, especially when it has its own legal department," said Roth. "We can only wonder if the money is well-spent."

And the spending doesn't include legal bills wracked up by Bishop Estate's for-profit subsidiaries.

The estate declined to disclose the amount of legal fees that its for-profit units incur each year. But recent news reports said the estate spent $500,000 to defend an $86.7 million lawsuit that film producer Frederick Field filed in 1995 over soured real-estate investments on the mainland.

An estate subsidiary, Royal Hawaiian Shopping Center Inc., wracked up at least $500,000 in legal bills in the McKenzie Methane Corp. legal battle.

The estate sued the Houston-based natural gas company's founder Mike McKenzie in 1992, alleging that fraud and mismanagement led them to lose some $60 million in the venture.

The company filed for bankruptcy protection in 1994 and was sold to the estate, which now says it has been able to recoup much of its losses in McKenzie Methane.

McKenzie denied the estate's fraud allegations, saying its hardball tactics have made his life a legal nightmare.

He said the estate wrongly accused him of stealing money from Hawaiian children and that the estate's attorneys hired private investigators -- two former FBI agents -- to harass him.

"It's been five years of hell," said McKenzie.

"They've used their money, power and influence to beat the heck out of me."

Suer of estate finds it
tough to hire a lawyer

By Rick Daysog, Star-Bulletin

When Bobby Harmon filed a wrongful termination suit against Bishop Estate in February, he couldn't find a lawyer to take his case.

The former president of the estate's in-house insurance company, P&C Insurance Co., was turned down by eight local law firms because they either did business with the estate or wanted to, said John Goemans, Harmon's attorney.

Some were just afraid to oppose them, he said.

"The reality is that it's virtually impossible to take on the estate," said Goemans.

Harmon sued the estate after the estate sued him for releasing confidential information.

The estate said Harmon was fired for cause and that the firing was upheld by a state Department of Labor review, which denied him unemployment benefits.

Documents released by Harmon contained false and defamatory allegations, the estate has also said.

A Circuit Court judge recently ruled that Harmon violated a court order not to disclose estate information. The court also said that Harmon did not act in bad faith since he was acting on advice of his lawyer.

For Goemans, the Harmon case underscores the estate's clout in Hawaii's legal community and the difficulties of opposing it. Goemans said his client has run up about $20,000 in legal bills.

"Few have the capability of resisting a $10 billion behemoth with an unlimited supply of lawyers who have a clear modus operandi of deluging opponents with paper," Goemans said.

Bishop Estate Archive

http://www.starbulletin.com/97/10/20/news/story3.html

* * *

For more, see: www.kycbs.net/Dots-Judiciary-Selection-Commission.htm

~ ~ ~

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?