55 Merchant Street, Suite 3100
Harbor Court, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Honolulu (808) 537-2300 Facsimile (808) 523-7733
San Francisco (415) 659-9855 Los Angeles (213) 947-6262
San Diego (619) 677-6200 Toll Free: (888) dubinlaw
Writer’s E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
ATTORNEYS LICENSED IN HAWAII, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA
Chris A. Barker, Esq.
Barker & Cook
501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790
Tampa, Florida 33602
Re: Bly, Moore, and Doko
Dear Mr. Barker:
I am in receipt of your letter dated July 29,2016, expressing your concern with
regard to my posting of video depositions of the above-referenced individuals on my
Foreclosure Hour Website, upon receipt of which I gave your inquiry to independent
counsel for review.
As you know, those videos were posted on my website in conjunction with my
radio show, for which I claim a media freedom of the press First Amendment
privilege, further rendering my sources confidential under the reporters’ shield law.
Thank you nevertheless for bringing to my attention Circuit Judge Haworth’s
earlier Order, for I of course recognize the importance of adhering strictly to all
relevant court orders no matter which jurisdiction they may issue from.
However, I have been advised that Circuit Judge Haworth’s Order does not apply
to me for the following reasons:
1. I did not secure the videos from a source listed in his restraining order, as the
only individuals covered by the Order are the enjoined disseminators. You are surely
familiar with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Pentagon
2. I was furthermore not a part of the referenced Florida litigation, nor do I reside
or have I ever resided in Florida, as a result of which Circuit Judge Haworth had no
jurisdiction over me at the time that Order was issued nor presently.
3. As you know, sometimes it is not easy to identify in one’s legal research
judicial statements supporting the obvious, but even had I secured the videos from
an enjoined disseminator and even had the Court had personal jurisdiction over me
to enforce the Order, neither of which is however true, research nonetheless does
occasionally support the obvious, that when a case is dismissed, as was yours many
years ago before Circuit Judge Haworth, and voluntarily with prejudice I am advised,
the Court lost jurisdiction of the case and “the effect of the filing of a notice of
dismissal . . . is to leave the parties as though no action had been brought,” Janssen
v. Harris,321 F.3d 998 (1Oth Cir.2003).
Finally, Ms. Moore in particular, for instance, has even very recently cost several
of my clients their real property as the result of not only her dishonest robo-signing
under oath, but in one instance due to her belated declaration, deliberately
dishonestly filed in Court in reply papers in Hawaii in the Third Circuit Court in Kona,
that resulted in an unfair $825,000 deficiency judgment, at a time that I understand
contrary to her Declaration testimony in that relatively recent case she did not even
any longer work for that company, which was filled with other false statements under
oath in that same case.
That affected client of mine in particular has continually asked me to sue Ms.
Moore for fraud on the Court in Hawaii, so it would seem that if you persist in
continuing to threaten me and interfering with my website, getting my attention you
may be doing your clients a great disservice.
If, for instance, your threats and interference were to continue, please expect a
countersuit against your clients to be forthcoming in Hawaii, including perhaps in the
form of a class action, long overdue, especially since your clients’ false filings are still
to this day flooding foreclosure courts, including in Hawaii, which incidentally makes
their videos not only still timely, but their viewing, especially in court proceedings,
one, in the public interest, two, their submission in court as material evidence fully
protected, and three, privileged in the exercise of freedom of the press.
Very truly yours,
Gary Victor Dubin
Read both letters below