Dubin

Law
Offices

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: gdubin@dubinlaw.net

www.dubinlaw.net
ATTORNEYS LICENSED IN HAWAII, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA

August 27,2016
Chris A. Barker, Esq.
Barker & Cook
501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790
Tampa, Florida 33602
Re: Blv, 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
counselfor 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
Papers case.

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.

DUBIN LAW OFFIGES

Ghris A. Barker, Esq., August 27r2fJ16

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 personaljurisdiction 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.
lf, 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,

GVD/o

BARKER

I COOK

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

501 Eosl Kennedy Boulevord, Suite 790

CHRIS A. BARKER

Tompo, Florido 3302

WILLIAM J. COOK

Telephone 8l 3/489-l

001

Focsimile Bl3/489-1008

July 29,2016

CERTIFIED MAIL / RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED

The Foreclosure Hour
c/o Mr. Gary Victor Dubin
Dubin Law Offices
55 Merchant Street, Suite 3100
Honolulu,
96813

HI

Re:

www.foreclosurehour.com
Postings of links to depositions of Bly, Mooreo and Doko

Dear Mr. Dubin:

I am the attorney for Bryan Bly, Crystal Moore, and Dhurata Doko. My clients were deposed in a
lawsuit, and those depositions were videotaped. At some point, those depositions were
uploaded to YouTube.com by Christopher Forrest. He then removed them upon order of the
court, but before they were removed, apparently several other people copied them and have
uploaded them in various locations. Links to copies of these videos have once againbeen posted
and/or uploaded on to the webpage www.foreclosurehour.com, in a link regarding your
broadcast of April 24,2076, and the link remains active to this date.

lfh Judicial Circuit Court has

It is orrr nosition thaf .Judse T.ee E. Haworth of fhe Florida
to be
that
Specifically, Judge Haworth ordered that "No person or entity shall disseminate or publish the
video or audio recordings of the depositions of Bryan Bly, Crystal Moore, Dhurata Doko and
Vilma Castro taken in this action without an Order from this Court approving the dissemination or
publication. Any person or entity presently publishing the video or audio recordings of the
depositions of Bryan Bly, Crystal Moore, Dhurata Doko and Vilma Castro taken in this action are
Ordered to immediately cease the publication. Violators of this Order may be held in contempt of
court and sanctioned." A copy of Judge Haworth's Order entered February 3,2012 is enclosed for
your review.
As you will recall, these videos had previously been removed from your site in20I4. V/e request
that you immediately remove the videos and the links to such videos from your site once again.
And, we specifically request that you remove or direct the removal of all the videos, which are
broken into 4 parts for Ms. Moore, 3 parts for Mr. Bly, and 2 parts for Ms. Doko, posted or
uploaded on Google Drive and represented to be owned by Shin Murayama, utilizing the email
address of shin@,dubinlaw.net. We will also be requesting removal from Google as well.

The Foreclosure Hour

c/o Mr. Gary Victor Dubin
Dubin Law Offices
55 Merchant Street, Suite 3100
Honolulu,
96813
July 29,2016

HI

Page2

Lastly, we request that you cooperate in the future by not publishing or linking the videos in any
way. Failing same, we will file a motion with Judge Haworth to ask that you and your company be
held in contempt of court.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Sincerely

Chris A Barker

CABiso
Enclosure

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF'THE TWELF'TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN ANI)

F'OR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
DEUTSCHE BANI( NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case

No. 2009-CA-007211

PETER Y. MORLON, et aI.,

Defendants.

ORDER PROJHIBITING DISSEMINATION AND PUBLICATION OF

VIDEO/AUDIO RECORDING OF DEPOSITIONS OT NON:PARTY WITNESSES
BRYAN BLY. CRYSTAL MOORE. DHURATA DOI(O AND VILM. ASTRq
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion by non-party witnesses, Blyan Bly,
Crystal Moore, Dhulata Doko and Vilma Castro (Non-Pafiy Witnesses), for an Order governing
the dissemination and publication of the videotapes or other video ol auclio reoording of their
depositions talcen in this action, The proceedings having been read and considered, and the

pafiies' counsel agreeing to the entry of this Order, the Court finds

1.

as

follows:

The Non-Party'Witnesses, pursuant to subpoena, were deposed by Defendant's

counsel onNovember 4,2010, and the depositions were videotaped. Because the Non-Party
Witnesses were subpoenaecl, they were compelled by the State of Florida to appear and give

testimony; they did not voluntarily speak, nor did they voluntalily allow the tecording of their
images or the sounds of their voices.

2.

When a deposition is videotaped, Rule 1.310(bX4)(D), FloridaRules of

Civil

Procedure, requires that "[t]he attorney for the party requesting the videotaping of the deposition

shall take custody of and be responsible for the safeguarding of the videotape , . .."

3.

On Novemb et 7,2010, Defendant's counsel uploaded the video and audio

recorclings of the depositions on YouTube.com. Subsequently, this Court ordered Defendant's

counsel to remove the video and audio recorclings of the depositions fi'om YouTube.com, and he

complied.

4,

During the time peliod that these depositions were uploacled to YouTube,com,

othels apparently obtailred copies of the video and audio lecording of the depositions frorn
YouTube.com, and disseminated them on YouTube.com.

5.

After the video and audio recording of the depositions were uploaded by

Defendant's counsel, and even after he removed them, some of the Non-Party

'Witnesses

were

thleatened with physical violence.

6.

The Non-Patty Witnesses' videotaped depositions were taken for the purposes

of

discovery, as authorized by the Florida Rules of Civil Proceclure. The videotapes of the
depositions have not been filed with the Court in support of any motion.
Based on these findings, this Court has the autholity to protect the Non-Party Witnesses

from harassment and undue invasion of privacy. South Florida Blood Sprv.. Inc. v. Rasmussen,
467

5o.2d798,801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) approved, 500 So, 2d 533 (Fla. i987)("The discovery

rules, enunciated pursuant to the supreme coult's rule making authority under article V, section
2(a) of theFlolida Constitution, grant courts authority to control discovery in all aspects in order
prevent harassment and undue invasion of privacy."); Seattle Tlmes Co. v. Rhinehart, 104 S.Ct.
2207-05 (1g84)C'tPlletrial depositions and interogatories ale not public components of a civil

trial. . . . As in all civil litigation, petitioners gained the infolmation they wish to disseminate
2

by virtue of the trial coult's discovery prooesses. As the rules authorizing discovery were adopted
by the state legislature, the processes thereunder ate a mafter of legislative glace. A litigant has

First Amendment right of access to infolmation made available only for pulposes of tlying his

snit."). Therefore, the Non-Party'Witnesses' motion for protection is GRANTED,

IT IS Oldered:

1.

No person or entity shall clisseminate or publish the vicleo ot' auclio recot'clings of

the depositions of Bryan Bly, Crystal Moore, Dhurata Doko and Vilma Castto taken in this
action without an Order from this Courl approving the dissemination or publication.

2.

Any person or entity presently publishing the video or audio recorclings of the

depositions of Bryan Bly, Crystal Moore, Dhurata Doko and Vilma Castro taken in this action
ale Ordered to irnmediately cease the publication,

3.

Violators of this Order may be helcl in contempt of coutt and sanctioned.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Sarasota County, ||g:l{f,,.tl:n-or.,{uy of

FebruatY,2olZ'

il,,B

{}

?-r]1z

i 1-.i.:r i:, i;iliiii.ii;'t'l i

LEE E. HAWORTHI iijiir.::
Circuit Judge
Copies to:
Adina L. Pollan, Esquire
Cll'istopher Denton Fortest, Esquire
Ryan Clu'istopher Rodems, Esquile