Jason Makoto Tani

AVVO kindly approved my initial review, but it was too wordy to be useful. Summarized: Contracted with Rush Moore LLP attorney, Jason M. Tani, in 2019, for a claim of wrongful dismissal from my senior IT position at Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO). Tani filed our complaint in Circuit Court of the Fi...rst Circuit, State of Hawai’i, in February 2021 On April 6, 2021, attorney for defendants, Randall C. Whattoff, Cox Fricke LLP, served Tani with HECO’s Motion for Sanctions, pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Hawai’i Rules of Civil Procedure. On April 7, 2021, Tani "fired" me, claiming I had refused "to provide us with the information and HCRC documentation we previously requested." I have email showing I offered Tani documents two weeks prior. He was busy and responded he would request later. Attorney concluded, "take immediate steps to retain new counsel and we will provide them with your files." Informed Tani Motion for Sanctions was fraudulent. Yet Tani abandoned me. No attorney wanted me now. Had to prosecute my complaint pro se. First action: demanded Whattoff file his fraudulent Motion for Sanctions. Whattoff refused ... over and over. He had been bluffing, as I claimed. At hearing to dismiss my complaint, I pressed the Motion for Sanctions issue with the Circuit Court Judge Dean E. Ochiai. Whattoff stated, "So because plaintiff has never served his complaint on Hawaiian Electric and other defendants, they have been unable to file the Rule 11 motion or take other action to address the allegations." Whattoff's statement was a LEGAL LIE. SCOTUS had ruled decades earlier that defendants were not prevented from filing the Rule 11. PROVED this fact to the judge in a follow up letter. Judge Ochiai refused to penalize HECO. Judge favored the billion dollar corporation over a pro se litigant. Then demonstrated to Hawai’i Intermediate Court of Appeals that HECO's Rule 11(c) contained unlawful allegations and was purposely used to scare away my Attorney. Competent legal team would likely prevail on this point, easily defeat motion for sanctions, possibly even demonstrate malice on part of defendants. I was unsuccessful advocating pro se. Importantly, documents contained in HECO’s Rule 11(c) provided Tani with key facts "proving" HECO wrongfully removed from my position of employment. I was 61 years of age at the time, was badly injured and considered legally disabled physically. My disability affected my mobility, not job performance, as I sat at a desk and worked on a computer. HECO failed to follow their own policy. My supervisor failed to follow company policy. And the included sworn testimony of HECO's key witness was contradicted and impeached by an earlier HECO investigation. Believe a competent legal team would have had no difficulty demonstrating HECO fired me wrongfully. Believe Tani panicked. He failed to fully research and analyze the charges HECO made attacking my personal character, slandering and libeling my outstanding professional history, and abandoned — rather than defended — his client. After Tani and Rush Moore LLP abandoned our family, attorneys were not interested in taking our case. Had to proceed against a multi-billion dollar company, as a pro se litigant. I PROVED the Rule 11(c) Motion for Sanctions was fraudulent and full of holes. Tani wasn't professionally capable of doing what a pro se litigant did.