OPEN LETTER TO GARY A. DORDICK
Image fair use from Gary Dordick’s Instagram Account
FORMAL NOTICE OF DEFAULT POSTURE AND PROCEDURAL CONSEQUENCES
By Alkiviades Andrew David
Applicant, Pro Se
Ambassador-at-Large for Antigua & Barbuda
ShockYA | Record-Based Reporting
February 2026
Gary A. Dordick
Dordick Law Corporation
509 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Dear Mr. Dordick,
This open letter serves as formal notice of Contempt, for avoidance of doubt, of your present procedural posture in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua & Barbuda), Claim No. ANUHCV2025/0149, and of the consequences that attach to continued non-engagement under the Civil Procedure Rules.
1. Personal Service Is Complete and Undisputed
On 18 May 2025, you were personally served at your offices at 509 S. Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, with the Claim Form, Particulars of Claim (with exhibits), evidence bundle, and supporting materials.
Service was effected directly by Martin Wilson, professional process server with Kent Legal UK.
The Statement of Service was filed on 3 June 2025, with court fees paid.
Service is complete.
The court record reflects no challenge to it.
2. Prolonged Silence After Personal Service
As of February 2026, nearly nine months after personal service:
- no acknowledgment of service has been filed;
- no defence has been filed;
- no appearance has been entered on your behalf.
Under the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court CPR, this posture constitutes sustained non-compliance following valid service and engages the Court’s default jurisdiction, including relief available without further hearing on the merits should the Applicant elect to proceed.
This is not a warning.
It is a statement of procedural position.
In a stunning development in Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Claim No. ANUHCV2025/0149, high-profile attorneys Gloria Allred and disbarred fraudster Tom Girardi are named as co-respondents in the same sovereign action alleging coordinated defamation and weaponized litigation. Adding explosive context, stamped court exhibits now include U.S. federal prosecution documents from the infamous Anthony Pellicano wiretap racketeering scandal (CR No. 05-1046(E)-DSF), featuring victim impact statements detailing Hollywood intimidation tactics. The uncontested record ties these figures to the same litigation network under judicial scrutiny.
3. Expansion of the Claim and Direct Reference to Your Client
On 24 September 2025, the claim was formally amended to include additional respondents connected to the same litigation network.
The amended pleading expressly names your client, Marguerita Nichols (Jane Doe), the plaintiff in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCV37498, a matter you have publicly promoted as a nine-figure litigation success.
The causes of action pleaded — including defamation, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with sovereign economic relations, and fraud via weaponized litigation — address the provenance, handling, and cross-jurisdictional use of that U.S. proceeding.
You have filed no response.
4. Expansion of the Sovereign Record
Since your service, the Antigua court file has expanded materially with stamped, fee-paid exhibits, including:
- U.S. federal prosecution materials from United States v. Anthony Pellicano (CR No. 05-1046(E)-DSF), including victim impact statements;
- a consolidated master exhibit index organising historical and contextual material placed before the Court.
These materials are now part of the permanent sovereign record.
They stand uncontested.
5. Parallel Review of the California Matter
While the Antigua proceedings advance without your participation, the California judgment you cite publicly is presently under active appellate review in California Court of Appeal No. B341119.
An Appellant’s Opening Brief has been filed with a six-volume appendix, challenging the reduced award on multiple preserved grounds.
The contrast between active engagement on appeal and continued silence in Antigua is evident on the face of the record.
6. Notice
This letter places you on formal notice that:
- your continued non-engagement does not suspend the progress of Claim No. ANUHCV2025/0149;
- the Court’s procedural powers remain fully engaged;
- and the record will continue to develop in your absence unless and until you elect to participate in accordance with the CPR.
No inference is drawn.
No outcome is predicted.
The record is simply allowed to proceed.
The court record speaks for itself.
Silence amplifies it.
Yours sincerely,
Alkiviades Andrew David
Applicant, Pro Se
Ambassador-at-Large for Antigua & Barbuda
ATTENTION: Attorney General Mac Warner
Attention Department Of Justice: Sovereign proceedings in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua & Barbuda) Claim No. ANUHCV2025/0149 name prominent U.S. attorneys Gloria Allred, Lisa Bloom, disbarred Tom Girardi, and others as respondents in serious civil claims of defamation, civil conspiracy, tortious interference, and fraud via weaponized litigation—allegedly obstructing Antigua’s multi-billion-dollar national carbon sequestration project. Stamped court exhibits now include U.S. federal Pellicano wiretap racketeering prosecution documents (victim impact statements) and disclosures on media cartel activities. Key U.S. respondent Gary Dordick remains in nine-month procedural default after undisputed personal service. This cross-jurisdictional pattern raises profound questions of professional conduct, regulatory oversight, and potential interstate implications warranting urgent attention.
The Claimed “$900 Million Landmark Verdict”:
Judicial Reduction, Active Appeal, and Parallel Sovereign Proceedings
This article is a neutral, record-based synthesis of publicly filed court documents in Jane Doe v. Alkiviades David (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCV37498 / California Court of Appeal No. B341119) and related proceedings in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua & Barbuda) Claim No. ANUHCV2025/0149.
It addresses promotional representations of the June 2024 jury verdict as a final “$900 million landmark award” and places those representations alongside subsequent judicial actions and parallel docket activity.
1. The Verdict Was Reduced by the Trial Court
The jury returned a $900 million verdict on June 17, 2024. In September 2024, the trial judge (Hon. Christopher K. Lui) issued a remittitur order reducing the award to $90 million, finding the original amount excessive and “shocking the conscience.”
Current California award on record: $90 million (post-remittitur), not $900 million.
2. The Matter Is Now on Active Appellate Review
On December 10, 2025, Appellant Alkiviades David filed his Opening Brief and a six-volume Appellant’s Appendix in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One (Case No. B341119).
The briefing preserves multiple grounds for reversal or further reduction, including damages proportionality, procedural issues surrounding trial in absence, and evidentiary handling.
Until appellate disposition, the judgment remains provisional.
3. Parallel Sovereign Proceedings Record Non-Engagement
In Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Claim No. ANUHCV2025/0149:
- Gary A. Dordick was personally served on May 18, 2025, at Dordick Law Corporation, 509 S. Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills.
- The claim was amended September 24, 2025, to expressly name Marguerita Nichols (Jane Doe) alongside connected attorneys.
- No acknowledgment of service or defense has been recorded from Dordick as of February 2026 — nine months post-service.
4. Expanding Record in Antigua Includes Historical Criminal Exhibits
Subsequent filings (August–October 2025) placed on the sovereign record:
- U.S. federal Pellicano wiretap prosecution materials, including victim impact statements (CR No. 05-1046(E)-DSF).
- Consolidated master exhibit index and public-record disclosures.
Conclusion
Promotional descriptions of a final “$900 million landmark verdict” do not reflect the current judicial record:
- Reduced to $90 million by trial court order.
- Under comprehensive appellate challenge (briefed December 2025).
- Subject to parallel sovereign proceedings recording sustained non-engagement from lead plaintiff’s counsel.
Court records, not headlines, determine finality. The full record continues to develop across jurisdictions.
Editorial Note
This article reflects only matters appearing in stamped court filings, service affidavits, appellate records, and docketed exhibits in the referenced cases. No findings beyond recorded procedural facts are asserted. All matters remain subject to ongoing judicial review and determination by courts of competent jurisdiction.