Bobby N. Harmon

January 10, 2001

                                                                                       VIA Fax @ (808) 524-4844

Mr. Bradley R. Tamm, Esq.

Pioneer Plaza, Suite 1500

900 Fort Street Mall

Honolulu, HI 96813

RE:    In re Harmon; Ch. 7 BK Case No. 99-04339

Dear Mr. Tamm:

Thank you for your letter dated January 3, 2001, in which you enclosed Exhibit 5, which is the “Order Approving Settlement . . .”

As I stated in my previous letter, I had thought that this Exhibit might contain a breakdown of the entities contributing to the settlement, the amount that each contributed, and the attorneys representing each of the entities named in my RICO lawsuit. This information is needed to help me determine if any misrepresentations were made. Unfortunately, Exhibit 5 does not contain this information. Also, I have I not been furnished with copies of any documents that I requested showing who was representing who in the settlement negotiations.

Regarding your comment that your engagement agreement with us “terminates once the client receives their discharge,” I appreciate the fact that you have done so much for so little in fees. And I certainly am aware that we are talking about some of the most powerful law firms in the state which have unlimited funds to fight any legal action against them. At this stage, however, I am not talking about “waging World War III”. (I have already waged that war in my pro se RICO lawsuit).

In my previous letters, I simply requested some information regarding the settlement negotiations (which took place behind closed doors), in an attempt to determine if any fraudulent misrepresentations were made to the court, to the bankruptcy trustee or her attorney, to our creditors, and to us or our attorneys. As I have stated before, it certainly appears that fraud is involved here, but I need more evidence before I can make any determination of what action I need to take, if any. If it eventually turns out that I do need to seek the help of another attorney, I will need some material evidence to present my case to him.

To make certain that you understand my current position, I am not talking about taking on Bishop Estate or the other giants involved in my complex RICO lawsuit. That case is settled. If any fraud or material errors were committed, it was by one or more of the attorneys who participated in the settlement negotiations.

As I have stated in previous letters:

“If fraud has indeed been committed, then the creditors in this bankruptcy are also being defrauded and suffering monetary losses. If the Bankruptcy Trustee does not take action in a fraud situation, then it would appear that the creditors (especially Bank of America in this case) would also have cause for action. If this is correct, then it would seem that it would be more practical for all the creditors and debtors to file some sort of joint action, rather than our taking independent action. If this is true, then should we contact the creditors’ attorneys in this case, or would this be the responsibility of the Bankruptcy Trustee? . . .”

“But if, indeed, there were “conflicting” representation, misrepresentation, or fraud involved, would Mr. Guttman and Mary Lou Woo, the Trustee, not agree that this would have had a definite negative impact on the settlement? And, if conflicts, misrepresentation and fraud were committed, would the Trustee still oppose any action, or would she be required under trust law to take action? As I am not an attorney, these are the questions I need to ask. . . .”

“If legal action is needed, then the question becomes who should be the party to initiate such action. Being a layman I am not sure, but I would think that it would be the Bankruptcy Trustee’s responsibility as she, presumably, is charged with making certain that ALL parties are acting in good faith and that no fraud is committed. . . .”

Obviously the Bankruptcy Trustee, Bank of America, American Savings Bank and other creditors have far more experience and financial resources than we have, should any “adversary proceeding” be necessary. And, to repeat my question, wouldn’t it be the LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY of the BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE to initiate and pursue any legal action if, indeed, any fraud or material misrepresentation occurred during the settlement negotiations in the bankruptcy action?

At this stage, my only request is that I be provided the following information:

1.       The payment amount that each involved party contributed, or agreed to contribute, to the settlement of my RICO lawsuit;

2.       A breakdown of these payment amounts between the principals and their insurance companies, if any. This breakdown should indicate the name of the insurance company, type of policy, policy number, and policy period.

3.       Copies of engagement letters or similar documents from certain principals appointing their respective attorneys to defend against my RICO lawsuit. In particular, I need to see who legally represented the former Bishop Estate trustees; the interim trustees; P&C Insurance Company, their officers and directors (Henry Peters, Nathan Aipa, Louanne Kam, Rodney Park, William Richardson, Gil Tam, and Peter Lowe); and Torkildson Katz.

4.       Answers to my questions about whether or not it would be the Bankruptcy Trustee’s legal responsibility to pursue any fraudulent or illegal acts that are committed during the course of bankruptcy actions; or, are the debtors and creditors required to take independent action?

Again, I appreciate your advice and understand your unfortunate position. I had certainly hoped that this matter was finally settled and that all of us would be able to get on with our lives. However, it now appears to me that these hopes have been dashed due to the course of conduct that certain lawyers have apparently chosen to take.

Very truly yours,

Bobby N. Harmon

encls.

cc: Arnold Phillips, Esq.; Roy Hughes, Esq.