How Honolulu Attorney Gary Dubin Took Celebrity Author, Dr. Leonard Horowitz, for $26,000.00 and Did Nothing to Stop or Even Report Foreclosure Fraud and Property Theft.
Gary Dubin Served as a “Poster Boy” for the Persecution of California Judge Manuel L Real, Who Imprisoned Dubin for Tax Evasion. The Evidence Leads to Questions About the Massive Wealth of Philippine Dictator Ferdinand Marcos, and How Dubin Got So Rich, So Fast.
Special Report from Honolulu
HONOLULU, HI–His office at 55 Merchant St. is his penthouse fortress. By the entryway of Honolulu’s most posh super-structure a sign says “Gary’s Place.” You pass a multi-million dollar museum of ancient Egyptian artifacts en-route to the reception desk. A full-size sarcophagus chills the air with the arrogance of massive wealth. It is hard to imagine that Gary Dubin was dead broke in 1998 after spending “19 1/2 months in federal prison. His home went into foreclosure, and his credit was ruined by identity thieves, according to the Los Angeles Times (Aug. 16, 2009).
Nothing is Quite As It Appears
The mass-media’s story claimed that “Dubin was in a Honolulu hospital, sedated and suffering from depression after the death of his son, when U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real had him handcuffed and taken to court — still in his hospital gown — to answer charges of failing to file tax returns,“ Carol Williams wrote for The Times.
“Real allowed him to send for clothes but refused to postpone the hearing, recalled Dubin, who had to defend himself in a medicated fog without his case files. Judged guilty by Real after a two-day bench trial, Dubin spent 19 1/2 months in federal prison, while his home went into foreclosure and his credit was ruined by identity thieves.”
“Dubin had been Hawaii’s example in ‘Project Esquire,’” Terry Carter explained for the ABA Journal. That “Project” was a “nationwide dragnet by the IRS to snare lawyers for failure to file tax returns. Dubin’s case had been scheduled for a bench trial with a magistrate. . . .
“But on short notice, it found its way to the docket of U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real—a jurist known for a heavy hand with errant lawyers in the Central District of California . . . .”
Dubin claimed Real railroaded him.
“It is a rare federal judge who hadn’t attracted such complaints,” Carter added. “But there have been many similar complaints about Real (the judge pronounces it “reel”) over four decades by plaintiffs, defendants and lawyers alike, as well as appellate decisions occasionally attacking the judge’s handling of cases.”
Piercing the Propaganda
The media has a propensity for twisting truth by omissions and misrepresentations that in law is called fraud. The above quotes are perfect examples.
Here is the other side of the story from the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, responding to Dubin’s appeal in United States of America v. Gary Victor Dubin (No. 95-10040, Decided Dec. 22, 1995.):
At the eleventh hour, Dubin sought to receive a further postponement of the trial because he claimed he was so depressed from his son’s death two years earlier, that he was unable to prepare for trial. The district court denied the continuance. The court discounted the psychiatrist’s report that opined that Dubin was depressed and consequently could not prepare for trial in light of other evidence: Dubin’s son had died two years previously; Dubin had, in the meantime, continued to carry on a vigorous and successful law practice and sought psychiatric care for the first time only a week before the trial date. In addition, Dubin’s demeanor and behavior appeared entirely normal. Also, the court noted Dubin was granted numerous previous continuances. We cannot say that the court abused its discretion by not granting a continuance or holding a competency hearing. See, e.g., Moran v. Godinez, 40 F.3d 1567, 1571-72 (9th Cir.), amended on other grounds, 57 F.3d 690 (1994) (order); Harding v. Lewis, 834 F.2d 853, 857 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871 (1988).
In addition, the Appeals Court stated that “Dubin’s generalized assertions that the court’s repeated interruptions of his arguments and cross examination of government witnesses deprived him of a fair trial are insufficient to establish abuse of discretion.”
Truth Beyond Dubin’s Fiction and Fame
So there is a lot more to this story. In fact, the blatant bias of these articles, in contrast to the legal record, strongly suggests a political “hit” was aimed at Judge Real. But why?
Examine the evidence. Consider how Dubin made back his millions in a decade after being flat broke. Consider the possibility, if not high probability, that the role Dubin played as a “poster boy” for the “get” Judge Real movement sourced politically from very powerful special interests.
Judge Real was, in fact, the curator over (supposedly only) $50 million of Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos’s multi-billion dollar estate that was seized when he was arrested in Hawaii along with his wife, Imelda.
Dubin’s face and story was used to wrestle control of the trust fund away from Judge Real, who reportedly disappeared more than $20 million from the account without explanation, according to The Times.
But that’s not any worse than the LA Times, known to be a propaganda mill for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) disappearing mention that the full value of the Marcos estate under political and judicial contest was approximately $35 billion.
Neglected by the yellow press, according to public knowledge, Marcos’s declaration of martial law in 1972, thru to 1983, was aided-and-abetteed by the CIA. The U.S. government gave Marcos $2.5 billion in military and economic aid, and $5.5 billion more came through financial institutions including the Rockefeller-Rothschild controlled World Bank. Marcos reinvested much of that money with New York’s Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. But the primary holder(s) of the estate were never disclosed.
It is known from a 1979 U.S. Senate report that the CIA was intimately involved in supporting, and later defeating Marcos. In June 1981, two anti-Marcos activists were assassinated in Seattle, and the CIA blocked FBI investigations of such agents working in the U.S.
This intelligence is important in considering Dubin’s actions damaging Horowitz and benefitting Sulla, Jr, as you will read below.
Also neglected by the LA Times and the ABA Journal was the chief complainant in the House of Representatives who triggered Judge Real’s investigation and persecution. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 2006, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., urged committee members to investigate Real–the 1966 Lyndon B. Johnson U.S. District Court appointee.
Sensenbrenner said, “Only after the House Judiciary Committee has conducted a fair, thorough, and detailed investigation, will committee members be able to consider whether… impeachment [of Real] might be warranted.”
Sensenbrenner’s power on Capitol Hill is unsurpassed. He introduced the USA Patriot Act to the House on Oct. 23, 2001, and opposed the 9/11 Commission’s creation of a Director of National Intelligence because of the challenge that position might pose to channels of National Security Agency (NSA) and CIA intelligence administration and operations.
Sensenbrenner is infamous for fiendish facism, like the time he aborted a debate regarding the renewal of The Patriot Act, when he literally walked-out of the hearing room in protest against objections to his tyranny, and then shut off all the lights.
In essence, Dubin became a pawn, a “poster boy” for Sensenbrenner, to serve covert special interest “constituents” scheming to free up a massive amount of Marcos’s money.
Curiously, the politician’s arrogance and belligerence in dealing with opponents is precisely like Dubin’s in dealing with Horowitz when asked to refund the unused portion of an $18,000 “retainer.” Dubin replied with tantrums in e-mails, retaliatory libel, and sent multiple parties defamatory claims against Horowitz and a frank threat of using his power to prevent these authors from securing legal representation, ever again, in Hawaii. Beyond this libel and extortion, Dubin’s published misrepresentations in e-mails evidence his complicity with Sulla in damaging Dubin’s clients. (Read Dubin’s retaliatory, threatening, and libelous mail by clicking Dubin and Sulla Two Year Continuance Agreement E-mail. Sept. 26, 2011 Dubin Flips Out E-mail, Sept. 7, 2012 Dubin Flips Out E-mail, Sept. 16, 2012.)
Examples of Dubin’s extortionate fraud and libel include his claim that Carroll “lost your case,” whereas Carroll insists he won the case; and Dubin’s threat against Horowitz and Kane‘s prospective legal advantage through counsel being made unavailable to by his command.
Dubin Knowingly Aids-and-Abets Fraudulent Foreclosure and Criminal Conspiracy
These journalists have initiated a legal complaint against Gary Dubin for the following reasons:
a) gross negligence for having neglected Judge Glenn S. Hara’s file. The “Hara File Summary” proves Lee’s, Hester’s, and attorney Sulla’s complicity in advancing fraud upon the court by forgery for theft and securities fraud. Dubin knew, or should have known, that four forgeries were used by the conspirators, including mortgage and promissory note assignments generating “unlawful debt” for their sham “church,” to steal Dr. Horowitz’s religious property. Dubin promised injunctive relief against Sulla, to block Sulla’s title-slandering “mock auction” of the property, during which Sulla violated multiple criminal statutes including money laundering and securities fraud prohibitions. He also neglected to file a Complaint as promised and commissioned.
b) negligent supervision of assistant attorney, Benjamin Brower, who filed an “untimely” and grossly errant Motion to Dismiss against the Sulla/Hester’s fraudulent Eviction Complaint. That Motion was ordered to be timely delivered by State District Court Judge Harry Freitas. Brower’s untimely-filed motion was also deficient, as it neglected the evidence of ownership of the right property;
c) negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress as Dubin’s e-mails in response to Horowitz’s reasonable requests can be seen as outrageously abusive by any reasonable person considering the circumstances; and
d) “promissory estoppel” for Dubin promising to file for injunctive relief to block Sulla’s fraudulent non-judicial foreclosure (NJF) auction, and then filing nothing at all; saying there was nothing he could do, that the resulting slandered title, “trespass to chattels” and eviction efforts were no big deal (for a mob-boss sitting in an ivory tower), and for not filing the Complaint he claimed to be preparing for a timely filing.
Dubin’s “Circus” of Criminal Complicity
Dubin berated Horowitz repeatedly by telephone and mail for allegedly making the case into a “circus.”
Dubin’s “circus” began in late March 2010, when he was commissioned to specifically block Sulla’s advancing non-judicial foreclosure auction and fraudulent sale of Dr. Horowitz’s property .(See: Notice of Non-Juducial Foreclosure and QuitClaim Deeds.)
At that time, Horowitz was confiding in attorney Gary Zamber about replacing attorney John S. Carroll due to his incompetence and negligence. Zamber had been a friend of Horowitz’s, but unbeknownst to the doctor, Zamber was partnered with Sulla in a suspicious series of real estate deals. After first agreeing to defend Horowitz against Sulla, Zamber bowed-out (without explaining his allegiance to Sulla) then referred the doctor to Dubin.
At first, Dubin extracted a reasonable $6,000 retainer from these authors stating the auction could be blocked by filing for injunctive relief as Zamber, Carroll, and ministry attorney, Mitch Fine, had explained to Horowitz.
A series of e-mails between these parties during the next three weeks shows Dubin lied, over and over again, to Kane and Horowitz, writing and stating by telephone that he was preparing to file paperwork to block the auction and foreclosure, but he never did. (See related Pre-AUCTION MADNESS-DUBIN DOUBLESPEAKS.pdf. and Post Auction E-mails to and from DUBIN)
Sulla then conducted the “mock auction,” and the property has been more damagingly tied-up ever since–a fact that Dubin outrageously and distressingly denies, even though Sulla’s “client” now appears as owner of the property on tax records. (See: TAX BILL Popular Assembly Owner 2011.pdf.)
To block the criminal affair, Carroll had prepared a Motion for Injunctive Relief, offered it to Dubin who refused it (calling Carroll “incompetent” and “impossible to work with”) even though Zamber and Fine offered Dubin help in dealing with Carroll for the filing. All parties knew Zamber had made the referral to Dubin for this purpose.
Instead of Dubin doing anything constructive, he wasted everyone’s time, distracted and distressed these authors, and harmed members of Horowitz’s ministry and community who worried about the NJF, eviction notices, and the closure of The Spa as evidenced in e-mails. Dubin’s “promissory estoppel” prevented everyone from seeking help elsewhere.
Contrary to Dubin telling everyone to “relax” and do nothing, a team of people came to protest Sulla’s “mock auction,” videotaped it, and produced a news report on it now showing on YouTube that Sulla, somehow, convinced Google/YouTube to censor when these authors posted it originally.
The “Special Report: Foreclosure Fraud Ring Damages Celebrity Dr. Leonard Horowitz,“ got Sulla’s ire up, and was the single most important reason Sulla filed a fraudulent “Verified Complaint For Injunctive Relief and Damages” against these authors for allegedl“defamation,” despite Sulla purposely neglecting to mention this embarrassing video in his filing because it documents his criminal complicity with Hester.
Dubin’s “Circus” of Criminal Complicity
Dubin berated Horowitz repeatedly by telephone and mail for allegedly making the case into a “circus.”
Dubin’s “circus” began in late March 2010, when he was commissioned to specifically block Sulla’s advancing non-judicial foreclosure auction and fraudulent sale of Dr. Horowitz’s property. (See: Auction on April 20, 2010.)
Two more matters made these authors file their counter-suit against Dubin and Sulla. These relate to their complicity in violating Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct by conspiring to extend damages to the foreclosure defendants, as follows:
In June, 2011, Sulla directed his supposed “client” Hester to file “pro se” an Eviction Complaint in the local District Court against Horowitz’s ministry corporation, not Horowitz–a scheme aimed exclusively at damaging Horowitz and his ministry financially (since corporations are required to hire licensed attorneys to represent them in Hawaii.)
To bring this action this way, Sulla needed to transfer “color of title” he created with the “mock auction” to Hester personally, instead of the sham “church” corporation used by Sulla and his co-conspirators previously.
The scheme was fraudulent, the entire Complaint was “frivolous,” but optimally damaging, because Horowitz had to pay attorneys fees to defend the property and his ministry in a Court lacking jurisdiction to settle matters of title disputes. (This matter became a “title dispute” because Dubin failed to block Sulla’s non-judicial foreclosure “NJF” auction that effectively slandered the title.)
At that time, Horowitz had already dismissed Dubin for his false promise to block the auction by injunction, but Dubin conned Horowitz into giving him and his law-firm a second chance.
Dubin frightened Horowitz into paying him another retainer of $18,000.00, telling him that his law firm was the “only one in Hawaii” that really understood foreclosure fraud, and that if Dubin wasn’t rehired, Horowitz would surely be evicted and lose the property quickly. So Horowitz, guilty of naivety, and frightened tremendously, caved to Dubin’s con.
At first everything seemed fine. Attorney Lila King was assigned by Dubin to show up in Court to protest the improper jurisdiction, and Judge Freitas agreed, instructing her to return on September 26, 2012, for the dismissal after filing a timely Motion to Dismiss.
Incredibly, with the judge directing the defense to dismiss the case, this is where the troubles with Dubin began again.
Dubin & Sulla Conspire to Delay Judge Freitas’s Timely Dismissal, and Extend Financial Damages
Dubin assigned the simple Motion to Dismiss filing to assistant attorney Benjamin Brower, who knew Sulla personally, he informed Horowitz.
Horowitz instructed Brower that Sulla was “not to be trusted at all,” and told Brower that Sulla had contrived Hester’s pro se filing in “the wrong court” to expressly damage Horowitz’s ministry financially, knowing it brought the ministry to the brink of insolvency.
Brower pledged to represent Horowitz effectively, and then dropped the assignment, violated his professional rules, and made a deal with Sulla that any reasonable person would judge outrageous!
First, Brower (under Dubin’s direction) failed to file the Motion to Dismiss on time.
Second, the late filing was incomplete, missing the proper property deed and description;
Third, Sulla, Dubin and Brower secretly conspired to delay dismissing this case “for up to two years, if Sulla wanted,” Dubin later wrote. (See; Dubin and Sulla Two Year Continuance Agreement E-mail. Sept. 26, 2011.pdf.)
Forth, neither Dubin or Brower alerted Horowitz or Kane to their agreement with Sulla, to allow Sulla to enter the case without protest, when Sulla had covertly contrived and directed the fraudulent filing from the start. They lied to the Court, claimed Sulla was “new” to the case, needed time to study it, and that Horowitz had approved of this when he did not.
Fifth, neither Dubin or Brower alerted Horowitz or Kane to the fact that Brower and Sulla rescheduled the dismissal hearing. They lied in their “Stipulation for Continuance,” deceived the Court into thinking Sulla was “new” to the case, and with Brower’s negligent filing, enabled Sulla to actually set a trial date for eviction instead of Dubin securing a prompt dismissal as agreed and already directed by the judge!
So when these authors showed up on time before Judge Freitas on Sept. 26, 2011, to celebrate the case’s dismissal, they were shocked that no one was there except them and the Judge who also was not informed about the continuance. The judge actually told Dubin’s clients, “You should fire your attorney.”
The resulting delay cost these authors thousands of dollars more in needless fees and carrying costs on property, that Dubin made sure was completely tied up by Sulla’s “mock auction,” forged filings, and various other criminal actions.
With the threat of eviction set for trial on February 27, 2012, rather than prompt dismissal, knowing the severe distress he and Brower had caused, Dubin arrogantly insulted these journalists repeatedly by abusive e-mails before he brought veteran attorney Peter Stone into the case.
Stone did a fine job over the next several months, ultimately convincing the Court to dismiss the Eviction Complaint, explaining Sulla’s criminal complicity, albeit diplomatically and superficially. (CLICK: PETER STONE’s Motion to Dismiss Eviction Complaint.pdf to review this record.)
In Stone’s otherwise comprehensive Motion to Dismiss containing the key documents proving Sulla’s slandering-of-title was illegal, Stone neglected to input the two most indicting documents—Sulla’s Assignments of two forged Promissory Notes into Hester’s sham “church.” (CLICK to view these fake securities: Assignment of Promissory Notes and Assignment of Mortgage Fraud by Sulla and Lee.pdf.)
Stone’s omission has these journalists wondering if Dubin directed the censorship to protect Sulla against this evidence of securities fraud.
Dubin’s Self-Promotion—“Securitized Distrust”—Exposes His Hypocrisy, Incompetence or Complicity in the Conspiracy to Defraud and Deprive His “Clients” of their Civil Rights and Illegally Foreclosed Property.
Dubin’s commentary on the “banksters” and justice officials who are complicit in the organized crime he despises is available online by CLICKING HERE.
In his essay titled “SECURITIZED DISTRUST,” Dubin wrote about how knowledgable and effective he is in defending homeowners against criminal foreclosures. He condemned the criminal practices of bankers and their lawyers conning people through “mortgage backed securities or “MBS,” that he recognized is “pervasive” and a “fraud throughout the secondary mortgage market.”
He wrote that “Documented evidence has recently been brought to my attention that many notes and mortgages were even put simultaneously into two or three or perhaps even more separate securitized trusts, unknown of course to individual investors.”
This revelation is much like Sulla and Hester assigning defunct and fraudulent mortgage and promissory notes (respectively) into their sham “church.”
Dubin wrote, “All of this recently surfacing has of course started to generate a massive amount of litigation . . . in which inevitably the question of fraudulent notes and fraudulent mortgages as well as fraudulent mortgage assignments has occasionally arisen.
“All of this of course is pregnant with fraud and criminality, particularly against MBS investors.”
The same is true for Horowitz and Kane who invested in Dubin to defend precisely against this kind of fraudulent mortgage and promissory note assignment(s) by Sulla and Hester.
“The effect,” Dubin continued, “has been dramatic. As foreclosures increased, the securitized trusts have had a huge problem, how to foreclose in court (or nonjudicial proceedings) without the notes or even the mortgages — so they began to falsify promissory notes when needed (we have even found evidence that some lenders have been photo-shopping notes), to create phony allonges and phony bearer notes, and to submit in court no less fraudulently notarized and fraudulently signed mortgage assignments to the securitized trusts — a practice now having become famously known as “robo-signing.”
Dubin proceeded to explain nearly precisely the same crime brought by his co-conspirators, Paul J. Sulla, Jr. and Benjamin Brower, as they all neglected the Hara File, that is, and failed to indict Lee, Ritke and Hester’s crime gang. They failed to show the Court the phoniness of the mortgage transfer, assignment of forged promissory notes, and the administration of Sulla’s sham religious corporation.
This is how they did it, pursuant Dubin’s prose:
“At first, the foreclosing mortgagees got away with it as judges and attorneys were virtually unanimously unaware of what was going on, until a few relentless attorneys and investigators on the Mainland exposed the fraud — one recently getting I understand $18,000,000 from the recent AG settlement for her False Claims Act whistle-blowing.
“Very rarely in our cases is the issue one of lost notes or lost mortgages, but usually phony note endorsements or phony allonges or phony mortgage assignments — or all three.”
In commentary, Dubin — the arrogant, negligent, knowledgeable hypocrite this article proves he is — concluded:
“Unlike the recent AG settlement, I prefer . . . the chips fall where they may — directly on top of the heads of those who violated the law — by refusing to reward fraud.”
Pointing blame at “the judicary’s reluctance to purge its ranks of rogues and tyrants,” with three fingers pointing back at himself, Dubin told the LA Times, “the problem is the 9th Circuit and the regulatory system for the judiciary.”
“In the dozen years since his release from prison with tennis shoes and $162, Dubin has received vindication from the IRS, earned reinstatement without penalty to the Hawaii and California bars and rebuilt his clientele and financial security.,” said the Times.
“Dubin sarcastically observed that he has Real to thank for his economic recovery, having become acquainted with foreclosure laws in rescuing his own home — a practice area that has proved lucrative in a distressed law market.
“If you look at me, at my bank account, my law practice — I survived, with scars,” Dubin said.
But you have to remember, Dubin has provided a service to those who extorted Real’s retirement, as well as now those who control Marcos’s and the CIA’s stolen billions.
Reference Articles and Legal cases against Honolulu Attorney Gary Victor Dubin:
Threatening letter from received from Attorney Gary Dubin;
Dr. Horowitz responded with this comment, which the BBB emailed to Gary Dubin but was censored from being posted publicly on the BBB, because he threatened to sue them if they posted it:
“Gary Dubin, in my opinion as a fellow victim of his consumer fraud and legal malpractices, deserves to be back in jail wearing his orange jump suit. To back his bold posting, Mr. Dubin should first provide the judgment that exonerated him “with prejudice.” It doesn’t exist, except in his lying imagination. Attorney Dubin regularly fraudulently misrepresents facts. Before I go on, he should return the $26,000 he ripped off from the man he smears in his post, since Dubin victimized “Mr. H” by Dubin’s negligence!
Dubin smears “Mr. H” as “certifiably insane,” a curious diagnosis from a man who defended against his tax evasion indictment and conviction by Judge Real in California by claiming mental illness and severe psycho-emotional distress.
Dubin then downright lies. He falsely wrote, “He sued attorney S who is the one that actually handled his case when he lost summary judgment of foreclosure before I became involved.”
Dubin must be senile to write that, or alternatively under the influence of “attorney S’s” ayahuasca. This statement is ridiculous. “Attorney S”—the infamous Big Island drug “church” guru, NEVER “handled” “Mr. H’s” foreclosure case. Dubin well knows it was attorney “J.S.C” who prevailed in that judicial foreclosure action against “attorney S”, who Dubin became complicit with in aiding-and-abetting “attorney S’s” securities fraud, forgery, perjury, non-judicial foreclosure fraud, and first degree property theft. Yes. Dubin aided-and-abetted these crimes not simply by willful blindness to them. (He watched as they were being schemed and carried out.) But Dubin by FILING NOTHING TO STOP THESE CRIMES AFTER TAKING INITIALLY $6,000 IN A “RETAINER” falsely promising to block “attorney S’s” non-judicial foreclosure. Then, Dubin corresponded with attorney S and worked out a “back room deal” to screw Dubin’s clients, including “Mr. H.”
Dubin surely must be on “attorney S’s” hallucinogenic drugs to post about “Mr. H”, “He also sued his Judges and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel that denied his ethics complaint.” In fact, that lawsuit is pending not in the Third Circuit Court—what “insane” fool would file against state court judges or the State of Hawaii’s Supreme Court’s OCD, in state? Daahhh.
To correct Dubin’s delusional “public record,” the 0417 case he cited was a defamation case “attorney S” LOST against “Mr. H” because, like this post, everything “Mr H” published has been factual and truthful. The 0173 case “Mr. H” lost to “attorney S” by reason of the outrageous judicial corruption favoring corrupt lawyers against pro se litigants. In that case, “Mr. H” attempted to lien more than 50 properties controlled or brought to market by “attorney S’s” alleged drug trafficking enterprise on the Big Island. “Mr. H” filed that lien not only to recover his own damages, but on behalf of the hundreds of Big Islanders damaged by “attorney S” racketeering enterprise. The court ruled that was “frivolous.” The decision against “Mr. H” for doing this simply evidences the GROSS JUDICIAL CORRUPTION operating on the Big Island. That’s all.
On September 7, 2012, Dubin threatened “Mr. H” in writing after bilking him for $26,000. Dubin wrote, “[I]t was not a popular choice for us to represent someone like you, which you also do not apparently appreciate, but will unfortunately certainly find out if you try to retain anyone else in this legal community.”
In other words, Dubin chose to libel “Mr. H”, divert from Dubin’s negligence, malpractices, and complicity with “attorney S”, by threatening to spread word to other lawyers not to represent “Mr. H.”
Since that time, “Mr. H” and I have learned from several others that Dubin bilked them too.
In our opinion the way Dubin works is that if you have a lot of money, he will assign good lawyers to help you. But if you are an average Joe, with a limited budget, or only moderately wealthy, he will take you for whatever you are foolish enough to pay him.
Dubin informed me, and “Mr. H”, “Law is about leverage, not justice.” By “leverage” Dubin clearly meant money and extortion power. That is about the ONLY HONEST STATEMENT DUBIN EVER MADE TO US in the two years he represented us.
In our opinion, Dubin is a con artist who should be returned to jail for the safety of society and integrity of the Hawaii judiciary.”
Attorney Gary Dubin responded to the BBB with threat of a lawsuit, so the BBB immediately removed all our review comments about him and his responses to us. Dubin again lies here claiming that that a lawsuit against him, Sulla and the complicit judges (who were not sued yet) was dismissed with prejudice. This never happened. Therefore he could not have provided “those details” months ago.