Bobby N. Harmon, CPCU, ARM
Las Vegas, NV 89118-2070
January 31, 2005
VIA facsimile @ (808) 529-7177
and e-mail: sguttman@kdubm.com
Mr. Steven Guttman, Esq.
Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga
220 South King Street, 19th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
RE: Claims Against Mary Lou Woo and Steven Guttman, Esq., et al.
Bankruptcy Case No. 99-04339
Dear Mr. Guttman:
This responds to your January 22, 2005 letter - which was in reply to my letter of January 21, 2005 - in which you write:
“I advised you quite some time ago that I would not become involved in your letter writing campaign by responding to the volumes of correspondence which you continually generate, most of which violates the Settlement Agreement and to which we will be requesting the United States District Court to enter the monetary sanction awards set forth in the Arbitrator’s Final Award issued on October 6, 2004. Among my reasons for electing not to respond to your letters is your history of ignoring information which contrasts with your views, regardless of the falsity of the so-called “facts” you are presenting. However, I decided to send this letter in response to your inquiries regarding an individual with the same last name as my client.
“There is no relationship between Christopher S. Woo and Mary Lou Woo. He is not related to Ms. Woo in any way. Ms. Woo has never retained the legal services of Christopher Woo and, to the best of her knowledge, she has never met the gentleman. Further, Mr. Woo no longer works with Charles Hurd, another individual who has no affiliation to your case or to Ms. Woo.
“Having elected to respond to your inquiry as to Christopher Woo, I will also comment as to the request you made at the close of your January 31 letter for a ‘private negotiated-settlement conference.’ I previously advised you that independent of the fact that you have no legal claim against Ms. Woo, there will not be any ‘settlement conference’ with you. You elected to violate the prior settlement agreement and based upon your actions, there will not be a discussion independent of the legal proceedings to confirm the arbitration award.
“One of the reasons why the Trustee’s communications with you will continue to be limited to the legal process is your commentary regarding Ms. Tius and her husband. You expressly stated your perspective regarding Ms. Tius to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator heard your presentation and rejected your argument. Facts, rulings, and your own prior representation to comply with the Settlement Agreement have meant nothing to you.
“We reiterate the request that you immediately begin complying with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Final Award. We further request that you remit payment of the $48,000.00 awarded by the Arbitrator to the Trustee in connection with her reasonable attorneys’ fees. Absent your compliance with your own Agreement with the Trustee and the Final Award, we have nothing to discuss outside of the court process.”
< END OF QUOTATION >
Mr. Guttman, you are again confusing the original legal cases, which resulted in the Settlement Agreement referred to in your letter, and the subsequent Demand for Arbitration, with my Notice of Claim letters which are NEW CLAIMS against various entities who were not parties to the original lawsuits, signatories to the Settlement Agreement, or Claimants in the Arbitration proceedings. These NEW CLAIMS were NOT AT ISSUE in the Arbitration, and my submission of these claims, and my reporting of bribes, bid-rigging, kick-backs, tax fraud, securities fraud, illegal campaign contributions, racketeering, and other illegal activities to the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Insurance Commissioners, the Department of Labor, the Attorney General, and other law enforcement and regulatory agencies cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as a “letter writing campaign” which violates the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The fact that you are attempting to collect monetary sanction awards because I have filed these new claims, and reported these illegal activities, is clearly self-serving and provides even further proof of the racketeering and obstruction of justice allegations that I made in my January 21st letter. The fact that you answered only one new factual question, out of the many, gives even further indication that you are attempting to hide other facts that would prove my that my allegations are true.
To point out just some of the faults, fallacies and false statements in your letter:
1. You refer to Mary Lou Woo as “your client” in this letter. I accept the fact that she was your client in the original bankruptcy case; however, you have NOT provided any evidence that you are her appointed attorney for these NEW CLAIMS. If you are, then I will require an Attorney of Record letter evidencing this FACT.
2. You state that independent of the fact that I have no legal claim against Ms. Woo, there will not be any ‘settlement conference’ with me, and that there will not be a discussion independent of the legal proceedings to confirm the arbitration award. Here, again, you are wrongly confusing the original legal proceedings with my NEW CLAIMS against both Trustee Woo and yourself, including your law firm, Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga. Since these new claims involve your Professional Liability insurance carrier, the settlement discussions to which I referred in my letter would require THE INSURANCE COMPANY’s prior approval, as well as their active involvement in the settlement negotiations. Furthermore, unless you are a licensed Insurance Adjuster, or have received WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION from both your insurance carrier as well as Ms. Woo’s, you DO NOT have the legal authority to decline my offer of attempting to resolve these NEW CLAIMS through negotiation, rather than through litigation. If you do have such written authorization from both Ms. Woo’s and your firm’s Professional Liability Insurance carriers, then I ask that you provide written evidence of this FACT.
3. You state that one of the reasons why the Trustee’s communications with you will continue to be limited to the legal process is my commentary regarding Ms. Tius and her husband, mainly because the Arbitrator, Judith Neustadter Fuqua, heard my presentation and rejected my argument. Again, you are attempting to confuse the original lawsuits which resulted a Settlement Agreement, with the NEW CLAIMS which arose out of your wrongful handling of the settlement negotiations and the execution of the Settlement Agreement itself. My comments regarding Susan Tius and her husband, Guido Giacometti, clearly pertain to NEW CLAIMS against Trustee Mary Lou Woo and your law firm, and to your respective insurance carriers, and cannot be dismissed by you on behalf of all parties.
4. As you know, I have also submitted claims against Susan Tius and her law firm, Rush Moore Craven Sutton Morry & Beh, for the same racketeering activities that I am claiming against you and Trustee Woo. Likewise named in these racketeering claims are Matt Tsukazaki and Robert Katz of Torkildson Katz Fonseca Jaffe Moore & Hetherington, and my former attorneys, Bradley Tamm and Greg Dunn. If you are also representing any of these entities, or their insurance carriers, as respects these NEW CLAIMS, then I ask that you provide written evidence of this FACT before can accept your arguments on their behalf.
5. I note that a courtesy copy of your letter has been sent only to Trustee Woo. Since my NEW CLAIMS should involve your professional liability insurance carriers, I would also expect you to indicate that these companies are being kept advised on the progress of your claims-handling activities. Therefore, I again request that you provide me with evidence of the FACT that you have reported these claims to your respective insurance carriers, and that they have acknowledged receipt of same. These simple FACTS should include the names of these insurance carriers, their policy numbers, dates claims were made, and claim numbers.
Mr. Guttman, during my initial meeting with Trustee Mary Lou Woo, along with my bankruptcy attorney, Greg Dunn, she explained her role with regard to the debtors and creditors of the estate as, “stepping into my shoes.” This meant that now she had the right, and the obligation, not only to deal directly with my creditors regarding any amounts that I might have owed, but also to pursue collection of any debts that might be owed to me. As was explained in a subsequent meeting, this included “stepping into my shoes” with regard to taking responsibility for my outstanding RICO lawsuit against Federal Insurance Company, P&C Insurance Co., Marsh & McLennan, Torkildson Katz, et al., John Mullen & Co., PricewaterhouseCoopers, Henry H. Peters, Richard S.H. Wong, Lokelani Lindsey, Gerard Jervis, Oswald Stender, Nathan Aipa, Louanne Kam, Rodney Park, William S. Richardson, Gilbert Tam, Peter Lowe and others.
“Stepping into my shoes,” also meant that Ms. Woo would assume my defense in all outstanding legal cases that Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate had brought against me, including their appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court of Judge Bambi Weil’s ruling in my favor with regard to payment of Unemployment Benefits. This also meant that the legal services and insurance protections that were already being provided to me by Island Insurance Company, and their appointed attorney, Roy Hughes, under the terms of their Homeowners’ Insurance policy, would now be available to her.
This “stepping into my shoes,” would also mean that the Trustee would have the duty to pursue the legitimate claims in my RICO case against ALL the Defendants named in that lawsuit - not just the Kamehameha Schools’ trustees and employees. This would include pursuing my substantial monetary damage claims against Federal Insurance Company, Marsh & McLennan, P&C Insurance Company, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Torkildson Katz Fonseca Jaffe Moore & Hetherington. One of the major claims that I am making against Trustee Woo and your law firm, is that you failed to diligently pursue my well-documented claims against these other entities.
Mr. Guttman, since you have been so reluctant to provide me the names of your insurance brokers and insurance carriers, as pertain to these NEW CLAIMS, please allow me to explain how simple, yet important, the claims process is supposed to work. To illustrate, if you are rear-ended in a traffic accident by another party, you simply get out of your cars and exchange personal information like your driver’s license, vehicle registration, and your insurance information - the name and address of your insurance company, the policy number, and the dates coverages began and end.
It’s as simple as that. There is no legitimate reason for you, or the other party, to refuse to provide that basic information. You do not have to divulge what limits of insurance or what coverages you have (other than basic No-Fault) to the other party. Certainly, you should not begin to advance legal arguments - even if you are an attorney - on behalf of the insurance company. You simply report the incident to your insurance carrier within a reasonable time, and the other party does the same. The insurance carrier then “STEPS INTO YOUR SHOES” and handles the claim from there - including negotiations for settlement and, most importantly, paying the damages on your behalf if you are determined to be at fault. It is then the INSURANCE COMPANY’s choice, and legal right, to negotiate settlement or to demand that the matter go to court - NOT THE INSURED’s.
Finally, it is then the INSURANCE COMPANY’S responsibility to draft the terms of the Settlement and Release Agreement - including making sure the characterization of the proceeds are in compliance with IRS regulations - and for making sure that the Agreement is legal and binding on all parties. This, of course, would include making sure that all parties participated in the settlement discussions, and were in agreement with the settlement amounts and terms, PRIOR TO the Settlement Agreement being presented all parties for their concurrence and signatures.
Mr. Guttman, once I have been contacted by your insurance carrier, and by Trustee Woo’s insurance carrier, I plan to present many additional documented FACTS which I believe will provide clear evidence of the wrongful activities I have alleged. Some of the specific wrongful acts relating to your handling of this case that I intend to present to your insurance carrier(s) include the following:
► Failure to obtain a copy of the Contractual Agreement that I signed with P&C Insurance Company, Inc. upon becoming president of that for-profit corporation. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, this contract contained an “Indemnity and Hold-Harmless” agreement which would have required P&C Insurance Company to indemnify and defend me against the “theft of proprietary documents and trade secrets” and “disclosure of confidential information” lawsuits brought against me by the charitable trust, Bishop Estate.
► Failure to obtain Attorney of Record letters from Kamehameha Schools’ and P&C Insurance Company’s purported attorneys.
► Failure to obtain and verify, through written evidence from these attorneys, that they were legally authorized to act on behalf of the insurance carriers for Kamehameha Schools and P&C in the Settlement.
► Failure to question and disallow Robert Katz and Matt Tsukazaki to represent themselves, as well as Kamehameha Schools and P&C Insurance Co., in the global settlement negotiations. This was a clear and undeniable conflict-of-interest and should not have been permitted by you.
► Failure to obtain complete copies of all of Kamehameha Schools and P&C’s Professional Liability insurance policies that pertained to the various underlying lawsuits.
► Failure to file, within the court-mandated time period, certain Motions regarding my RICO lawsuits that would have amended the lawsuit to properly include all of the original Defendants - including Federal Insurance Company and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
► Failure to question, and to hold accountable, Federal Insurance Company, P&C Insurance Company, Marsh & McLennan, and Louanne Kam regarding the illegally back-dated “Insured vs. Insured” exclusion endorsement to Federal Insurance Company’s policy, which was cited by Federal Insurance as the reason for denying my tender of defense in Bishop’s original lawsuit against me.
► Failure to obtain copies of, and to question, the reported “side-letter” agreement between Federal Insurance Company and unnamed parties, which may have been in violation of the “complete contract” provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
► Failure to bring ALL PARTIES involved in these various lawsuits to the table when negotiating the Settlement; thereby forfeiting, or drastically reducing, your opportunities for obtaining substantial monetary damages for the estate from these corrupt, multi-billion dollar corporations which had already stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from Kamehameha Schools through fraud, bid-rigging, kickbacks, racketeering, claims fraud and other illegal activities.
► Failure to allow me to participate in the settlement discussions, rather than conducting these discussions behind closed doors with only the purported attorneys of a very limited number of parties to the ultimate Settlement Agreement in these meetings. Had I been allowed to participate in these meetings, I would have been able to discover, early on and prior to my signing of the Agreement, many of the errors, omissions and wrongful activities that I am now alleging.
► Failure to obtain a reasonable amount of settlement for all damages that were due the Debtors, and the estate, including loss of wages, damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of reputation, loss of future income, punitive damages, etc. Instead, the amount of the Settlement appears to have been determined, not by the amount of damages, but rather by how much Matt Tsukazaki, Robert Katz and Kamehameha Schools wanted to pay, and how much they thought they could get other parties to later contribute to the settlement.
► Failure to make sure the terms of the Settlement Agreement were clear and unambiguous, especially with respect to the question of what portion of the settlement proceeds were to be considered as wages and subject to FICA and other tax-withholding requirements by the Employer.
► Failure to file a complete, signed, unamended Settlement Agreement (including Exhibit 5), which had been duly authorized and signed by all parties, with the Court, and failure to provide me a copy of the same for my signature PRIOR TO the filing.
► Failure to require the proper identification of all Parties who were signatories to the Agreement, and the dates that all Parties signed the contract.
► Failure to maintain my attorney-client privileges by discussing matters relating to this case, without my permission, directly with my attorney Bradley Tamm, as evidenced in Bradley Tam’s facsimile dated April 6, 2002, addressed to you, Matt Tsukazaki and Susan Tius, in which Tamm stated, “Transmitted herewith is a copy of a letter recently received from Mr. Harmon. Apparently, he is sending nearly identical letter to all of us. I would request that Mr. Tsukazaki release to me a copy of any similar letters sent to him, Ms. Tius, or Bishop Estates. I believe we should all cooperate in exchanging such information for our mutual benefit and the preservation of our carrier’s interests.” This breach of attorney-client privilege is also documented in your own Declaration of Fees and Charges arising from your self-serving Demand for Arbitration, as it describes unauthorized contacts between you and Mr. Tamm in preparation for the Arbitration Hearings.
► Failure to maintain, at all times, a neutral position in this matter, by working directly, and secretively, with Matt Tsukazaki, Susan Tius, Benjamin Matsubara, Ronald Libkuman, and other parties who were in some manner directly connected with Kamehameha Schools and this case.
► Your improper insistence that the American Arbitration Association not disqualify Judith Neustader Fuqua as the Arbitrator in this case, despite my dozens of objections regarding her many, documented conflicts of interests, arising mainly from her position as a Hearing Officer for the County of Maui Planning Commission, and from her previous association with the law firm of Alston, Hunt, Floyd & Ing, which also had previous questionable legal dealings with Bishop Estate.
If Ms. Woo’s statement that she would “step into my shoes” was indeed accurate, then I maintain that she had the legal duty to be at least as diligent as I would have been if I had pursued these RICO claims on my own behalf. Since she was also pursuing these debts on behalf of the estate’s creditors, I believe she would have the obligation to exercise an even greater degree of care in the direct pursuit of all legitimate claims the estate might have against each and every one of the parties named in my RICO lawsuit.
Mr. Guttman and Ms. Woo, these are only some of the arguments that I wish to present to your Professional Liability Insurance carriers regarding these NEW CLAIMS. These new claims are concerned with undisclosed conflicts-of-interests, and racketeering and other wrongful acts and errors that were committed in the handling of the bankruptcy proceedings (and in the subsequent arbitration proceedings) and are primarily professional liability claims against the trustee, her attorney and accountant, and the attorneys for other parties in this case - including my own attorneys Roy Hughes, Arnold Phillips, Greg Dunn and Bradley Tamm.
These NEW CLAIMS do not involve any of the original allegations against the former Trustees and other parties named in my RICO lawsuit - except as may have been committed by these parties and their attorneys, prior to, during, or after the Settlement Agreement was signed by me. Therefore, Mr. Guttman, I must repeat my request that you simply report these new claims to your Professional Liability Insurance carriers, and let them “step into your shoes” and forthwith, and hereafter, handle these claims directly with me in accordance with usual and customary insurance claims practices. Additional facts and information regarding these various new claims can be found on the Internet at the following Web address:
www.the-catbird-seat.net/Claims-By-Harmon.htm
I request that you immediately forward a copy of this letter to your Professional Liability Insurance carrier(s) for their response, providing evidence to me of your transmittal.
Very truly yours,
Bobby N. Harmon, CPCU, ARM
cc:Michael G. Cherkasky, President and CEO, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
(via fax @ 212-345-4838)
John D. Finnegan, President and CEO, Chubb Corporation
(via fax @ 908-903-2027 and e-mail: info@chubb.com)
William K. Slate II, President/CEO, American Arbitration Association
(via fax @ 212-716-5905 and e-mail: Websitemail@adr.org)
Mark Bennett, Attorney General, State of Hawaii
(via fax @ 808- 586-1239 and e-mail: hawaiiag@hawaii.gov )
Dee Jay Mailer, CEO, Kamehameha Schools (via fax @ 808-523-6313)
P&C Insurance Co., Inc. (via fax @ 808-523-6313)
Governor Linda Lingle, State of Hawaii (via fax @ 808-586-0006)
Hugh Jones, Deputy Attorney General (via fax @ 808-586-1477)
J.P. Schmidt, Hawaii Insurance Commissioner (via fax @ 808-586-2806)
Janet Hughes, Internal Revenue Service (via fax @ 303-844-3596)
Billy Beaver, Pension & Welfare Benefit Admin. (via fax @ 626-229-1098)
Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., U.S. Dept. of Justice (via fax @ 202-514-1116)
Lyn Flanigan Anzai, Hawaii State Bar Association (via e-mail: lanzai@hsba.org)
Susan Tius, Esq., c/o Rush Moore Craven Sutton Morry & Beh
(via fax @ 808-521-0597)
Gerard Jervis, Lokelani Lindsey, Henry Peters, Oswald Stender, and Richard Wong, c/o Kenneth Hipp, Esq., Marr Hipp Jones & Pepper
(via fax @ 808-536-6700)
Jeffrey H.K. Sia, Esq., Ayabe Chong Nishimoto Sia & Nakamura
(via fax @ 808-526-3491)
Robert S. Tameler, ALPS, Claims Admin for Bradley Tamm and Greg
Dunn
(via fax @ 406-728-7416)
Michael F. Perlis, Esq., Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Atty for Federal Ins Co
(via fax @ 310-556-5959)
Mike Coulter, Deputy Managing Director, Aon Insurance Managers
(via fax @ 808-540-4301 and e-mail: mike_coulter@agl.aon.com)
Casimer Fidele, Tradewind Insurance Co. (via fax @ 808-521-7489)
PricewaterhouseCoopers, c/o Warren Price III, Esq. (via fax @ 808-533-0549)
Terry Mullen, CEO/Pres., John Mullen & Co. (via fax @ 808-531-0053)
Additional References:
www.the-catbird-seat.net/BK-Objection-1-19-5.htm
www.the-catbird-seat.net/AAA-Dec-SG-re-fees.pdf
www.the-catbird-seat.net/AAA-Guttman-Att-A.pdf