Evidence revealed during the course of the Wrongful Death action

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Ex-parte this morning, with many new entries on the SD ROA. Trial date has been vacated, and will be rescheduled. Summary judgement moved from March to June. Discovery hearing June 30 vacated. Etc. Minutes will probably be up later today or tomorrow. Ex parte must have been somewhat productive today. Good-- glad to see the case moving steadily forward.

Trial readiness conference is usually a few weeks before trial date, so maybe the new trial date will be in July. (Trial readiness June 2.)

521 01/17/2017 Minutes finalized for Ex Parte heard 01/17/2017 08:45:00 AM.
520 01/17/2017 Discovery Hearing continued pursuant to party's motion to 03/10/2017 at 11:00AM before Judge Katherine Bacal.
519 01/17/2017 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) continued pursuant to Court's motion to 06/09/2017 at 01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.
514 01/17/2017 Civil Jury Trial scheduled for 06/23/2017 at 08:40:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.
513 01/17/2017 Discovery Hearing scheduled for 06/30/2017 at 11:00:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.
512 01/17/2017 Discovery Hearing scheduled for 06/30/2017 at 11:00:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.
511 01/17/2017 Discovery Hearing scheduled for 06/30/2017 at 11:00:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.
510 01/17/2017 Discovery Hearing scheduled for 06/30/2017 at 11:00:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.
509 01/17/2017 Discovery Hearing scheduled for 06/30/2017 at 11:00:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.

Future Events

Event Date Event Time Location Event Type
02/10/2017 11:00 AM C-69 Motion Hearing (Civil)
03/10/2017 11:00 AM C-69 Motion Hearing (Civil)
03/10/2017 11:00 AM C-69 Discovery Hearing
05/19/2017 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)
05/19/2017 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)
06/02/2017 10:30 AM C-69 Trial Readiness Conference (Civil)
06/09/2017 01:30 PM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
 
Can you provide the link to the proof that verifies Dina was with Jonah from 8-1? Was this from Jonah now putting that out there or from cameras or objective witnesses?

From ROA 408, Detective Tsuida's follow-up investigative report, dated 8/15/11.

IMG_0067.jpg
 
From ROA 408, Detective Tsuida's follow-up investigative report, dated 8/15/11.

attachment.php

Nothing new revealed here. Same theme, Jonah "said". Not a solid alibi for Dina.

In the original search warrant there are several conflicting stories in the timeline of that evening.

Link to timeline - discrepancies begin around 4:00pm. Links including in timeline.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?191945-Rebecca-and-Max-Timeline
 
[emoji146]

Gold crown for you, Lash! Thanks much for all your work on the timeline and wrongful suit case updates and everything you have done to keep this forum updated. You totally rock.

Aside: I used to read the hinky meter religiously. That was a nice flash from the past.

Apologies to others who deserve a crown. I have only been back in this forum a couple of days.

Sent from my LG-H740 using Tapatalk

Welcome back watergirl62! Thank you :blushing:. Sure do miss those HM days!
 
Well I am working my way through bessie's court doc links, slowly but surely. [emoji222] She has amazing archivist skills also! [emoji146] <-- Bessie's crown.

Since I am a scientist, I am analytical to the nth degree. I live on data and lists and verified facts. Drama? Not so much. I do appreciate the opposing POVs however, or there would be no conversation here.

Back to reading. [emoji102]
 
Now, all of us here know full well that if the plaintiffs' attorney wanted to move the long-scheduled trial just to take a vacation, there would be angry accusations, and much pearl clutching and chest beating on the part of DS's very few supporters.

We learn in the Minute Order #521 that the reason the trial date has to be moved is because one of the attorneys has a "family reunion". The attorney is Bradley Matthews, one of defendant Dina Shacknai's attorneys, but not her lead attorney.

She has 2 additional attorneys representing her that could competently do the job, and the trial date has been on the court schedule for greater than 6 months. So I'm kind of at a loss as to why the judge would be willing to shuffle the entire court schedule, and the schedules of dozens of other workers and witnesses, to accommodate essentially a vacation request. SMH. And even more interestingly, Mr. Matthews himself did not appear, or make this request, or any of DS's attorneys on Matthew's behalf-- plaintiffs' attorney Keith Greer brought it up.

Now being the time previously set for hearing Adam Shacknai's ex parte regarding discovery disputes re
(1) Plaintiffs' Responses to Mr. Shacknai's First and Second sets of Discovery to Plaintiffs and (2) Expert
Discovery.
Attorney Enns requests that the recently scheduled discovery hearings be advanced.
Attorney Greer informs the Court that he is willing to provide verified responses and does not oppose
advancing Adam Shacknai's discovery hearings but requests that it be advanced to a date that would
allow him to produce the requested discovery before his pleading in opposition is due.
The Court informs Attorney Enns that she can advance her hearing dates to 3/102017. Attorney Enns
states that she needs the discovery before Adam Shacknai's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Attorney Greer states that Attorney Brad Matthews, who is not present, has a family reunion in the
middle of the currently scheduled trial and will want to continue the trial.

The Court directs counsel to meet and confer and send a stipulation for continuance of trial.
The Court continues Adam Shacknai's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding good cause to schedule
within 30 days of trial, understanding that trial is likely to be continued by stipulation of parties.
Adam Shacknai's Summary Judgment is continued pursuant to Court's motion to 06/09/2017 at
01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

From ROA #521
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...A-521_01-17-17_Minute_Order_1484776607275.pdf
 
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...A-522_01-17-17_Notice_Other_1484791963570.pdf

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY'S OF RECORD:
Please take notice that on January 12, 2017 at 8:45 a.m., the Ex Parte Application made by
Defendant, Dina Shacknai to advance the hearing date on her motion for sanctions against Neil
Nalepa came for hearing before the Honorable Katherine Bacal. Appearances were made on behalf
of Plaintiffs and Defendant, Adam Shacknai. No appearance was made on behalf of Neil Nalepa.
After consideration of the moving papers and argument, the Court granted the motion to advance
the May 19, 2017 hearing on Defendant, Dina Shacknais Motion for Sanctions against Neil
Nalepa for His Failure to
Attend the Court Ordered Deposition. The new hearing date is as follows:
March 10, 2017
I I:00 a.m.
Department C-69
San Diego Superior Court
330 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

No attorney is listed as representing NN, who is listed as living in Colorado. As NN is neither a plaintiff, nor a defendant in this civil case (not criminal case), perhaps he figured it would be cheaper for him to take a court sanction and fine, rather than to hire an expensive attorney to fight Dina's deposition subpoena for months on end. He's a man of very modest means, from all appearances.

He wasn't even in California when RZ died, so it's extremely unlikely he has any critical information that will somehow "prove" that DS was not there, and is not responsible for RZ's wrongful death, IMO. He's an extremely tangential person to this whole case, IMO. (Kind of like Howard Luber's wife, who was also not in California, and successfully got Dina's subpoena quashed.)

He may get a fine, but I don't think it will be a huge amount. I certainly don't forsee any kind of arrest warrant because this is a civil case. JMO. Will be interesting to see if he hires an attorney to represent him for the March hearing.

Didn't NN apply for an order of protection from DS a while back, IIRC? He did have attorneys representing him at one point. I suspect he's simply had "enough" of Dina and her attorneys. He has nothing at all to gain or lose from the outcome of this trial, except more of his own $$ hiring lawyers to defend him against this kind of harassment.

And on another note, remember all the drama about Dina's letter rogatory from months back? (Requesting help from a foreign government.) As expected, nothing appears to have come from that wild goose chase, either. Just another staged event for dramatic (and distracting) effect, IMO.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-275-letters-rogatory
 
Nothing new revealed here. Same theme, Jonah "said". Not a solid alibi for Dina.

In the original search warrant there are several conflicting stories in the timeline of that evening.

Link to timeline - discrepancies begin around 4:00pm. Links including in timeline.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?191945-Rebecca-and-Max-Timeline


This report was done in August, and the times would have been checked by the 15 detectives working on the case. Seems the ones that want Rebecca to have been murdered can't accept the FACTS, even when they are in the lead investigator's report.
 
I went back to see what motions had been filed on NN's behalf in the past. He did indeed file a motion to quash DS's subpoena, as well as a protective order, and was represented at the time by an attorney.

The entries are #270 (47 pages) and #274 (5 pages) on the ROA, dated 2-2-16 and 2-10-16. (#274 is in the documents list in that thread; I have 270 if anyone wants it.)

Now I remember "why" this was so interesting-- NN was given a hearing date by the court in NOVEMBER 2016 for these motions filed in FEBRUARY. That very long 9 month gap awaiting a hearing on a protective order and to quash a subpoena was quite puzzling at the time. Even AZlawyer was at a bit of a loss why that unfolded that way, and wrote (paraphrasing) that NN was deferred from participating in the deposition until that motion was heard and ruled on.

I'm looking back thru the whole ROA list, but am having some trouble determining if NN ever had any kind of official hearing on this quash subpoena/ protective order request?

Or is Dina simply requesting sanctions for a deposition she and her attorneys went ahead and scheduled before NN's motion was ever heard? IDK. Maybe NN never responded to her deposition request because his motion to quash and for a protective order was never heard/ ruled on?

270 02/02/2016 Motion for Protective Order (AND TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OF A THIRD -PARTY WITNESS) filed by Nalepa, Neil. Nalepa, Neil (Interested Party) Motion for Protective Order

274 02/10/2016 Notice - Other (AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OF THIRD PARTY WITNESS) filed by Nalepa, Neil. Nalepa, Neil (Interested Party) Notice - Other
 
This report was done in August, and the times would have been checked by the 15 detectives working on the case. Seems the ones that want Rebecca to have been murdered can't accept the FACTS, even when they are in the lead investigator's report.

The same info "Jonah said" and the discrepancies are also in SW 11-164 dated August 24th. By the same lead investigator, Angela Tsuida. All in her "probable cause" section.

SW 11-164-

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kfmb/misc/warrant_11-164.pdf
 
6e05260310682716f264194cc370e8bd.jpg

217c8a9d267b5693408e9893db3119e4.jpg


Minutes for ex parte heard 8/24/2016.
ROA 404

Does that help K_Z?

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

Thanks, watergirl62 for finding that. But I'm a bit confused after reading it. What exactly happened? There was a move to advance the hearing on the motion, and an objection by the attorney for NN. But I don't see any kind of clear instruction or verbiage that denies the protective order, or compels NN to submit to deposition?

Is there more to the minute order that isn't visible? What am I missing here?

Not arguing-- just trying to understand what happened with NN's motion, given DS's request for sanctions. He seems, IMO, to be such a tangential or peripheral person, and not at all central to the case. I'm really trying to see if there is some kind of rational, reasonable argument that his depo is somehow critical to DS's defense, as opposed to a motivation to pull in every possible peripheral acquaintance as a form of delay and/ or harassment.

I personally felt that DS's attempt to depose Howard Luber's wife was not only harassment, but vindictiveness on the part of DS (who used to be her friend). As NN was not even in the state of CA when RZ died, it's hard for me to see how, in a civil case, he could somehow be central to DS's defense, given what the plaintiffs have alleged happened. Again, it appears to me to be vindictive and harassing (and a thinly veiled attempt at more smearing of RZ), as opposed to a genuine, good-faith attempt to elicit something at deposition that can exonerate DS. (A fishing expedition, with a side order of harassment for the ex-husband.)
 
K_Z, I missed your post #707. I'm a bit behind the 8 ball here (understatement). Equitable tolling? Sheesh. My brain hurts. :crazy:

Apparently, DS's motion to compel NN's deposition was granted October 24, 2016 and determined to be relevant for discovery purposes that may yield admissible evidence because it has been put forth that he communicated with Rebecca the night she died. ROA #448

Did he talk to Rebecca the day/night she died? Do we have all the phone records? I just saw a portion in the timeline.

DS_NN_filings2.jpg

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

roa448.PNG
 
K_Z, I missed your post #707. I'm a bit behind the 8 ball here (understatement). Equitable tolling? Sheesh. My brain hurts. :crazy:

Apparently, DS's motion to compel NN's deposition was granted October 24, 2016 and determined to be relevant for discovery purposes that may yield admissible evidence because it has been put forth that he communicated with Rebecca the night she died. ROA #448

Did he talk to Rebecca the day/night she died? Do we have all the phone records? I just saw a portion in the timeline.

View attachment 108453

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

View attachment 108455

No, he did not have any communication with her the night of her murder. In fact, he had no contact with her for quite a long time.

You can find a link to information about her phone records in the Media &Time lines thread at the top of this forum. It starts around page 4. There's a lot of good factual information there regarding the case that may be helpful to you, including links to police reports, warrants, autopsy reports, etc.

As K_Z has mentioned before, there have been other instances where Dina Romano has made inaccurate claims in her legal filings as a means of harassing people not part of the case. It may be an attempt to distract, delay, create a red herring or any number of reasons.
 
No, he did not have any communication with her the night of her murder. In fact, he had no contact with her for quite a long time.

You can find a link to information about her phone records in the Media &Time lines thread at the top of this forum. It starts around page 4. There's a lot of good factual information there regarding the case that may be helpful to you, including links to police reports, warrants, autopsy reports, etc.

As K_Z has mentioned before, there have been other instances where Dina Romano has made inaccurate claims in her legal filings as a means of harassing people not part of the case. It may be an attempt to distract, delay, create a red herring or any number of reasons.
Exactly Betty!
 
Shocking. [emoji57]

I can certainly understand NNs reluctance to get dragged into all of this. Slippery slope.
 
The cell phone records confirm someone listened to Zahau's voicemail for two minutes at 12:50 a.m. on July 13, about two hours before her estimated time of death.

Adam Shacknai, the brother of Zahau's boyfriend, called 911 later that morning at 6:48 a.m. to report Zahau was hanging nude from the balcony at the mansion. She was gagged with her hands and feet bound.

The phone records show a flurry of text messages and phone calls in the 24 hours prior to Zahau's hanging; including 34 messages and calls to and from the phone of Jonah Shacknai; 20 contacts with her sister Mary Zahau-Loehner; 10 calls or texts involving Adam Shacknai; and 7 contacts with a phone owned by Jonah Shacknai's friend, Phoenix-based dermatologist Dr. Howard Luber.

There were three text messages and one phone call &#8211; all on July 12 &#8211; from phones registered to Jonah's father and step mother, Gideon and Marcelle Shacknai, who live in New York State.

One final text message came into Zahau's phone at 10:41 p.m. on July 12 from Jonah Shacknai's ex sister-in-law, Nina Romano; the twin sister of Max's mother Dina Shacknai.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/15538406/family-releases-200-pages-of-zahau-phone-records

Another article-- NN's name never comes up as someone RZ was in contact with.

http://www.10news.com/news/investigators-finish-2nd-review-of-zahau-cellphone

Going back all the way to 2011 when this happened, NN has never once been named as someone that spoke to RZ in the final days of her life. Not until DS alleged that in her court filings.

I think it's pretty strange that from 2013 when the case was filed, to approximately February 2016, there was no "need", or even "desire", for any of the parties to depose NN. DS's desire to depose NN is a relatively recent thing.

If NN's deposition was truly important to the defense of all of the defendants, IMO, all three of the defendants would want to join together to depose NN. Nina has little financial means, and a bare-bones legal representation, but Adam and Dina have high priced attorney star power.

It's the same situation as when Dina wanted immigration records and documents on all of the Zahau's to help with her "defense". Immigration authorities quickly and formally said "no", and shut that down promptly. Dina has gone on many wild goose chases in the progress of these cases (the federal and state).

But out of the 3 defendants, only Dina has insurance paying her legal bills, so she has much more flexibility to go on wild goose chases, than if she were paying out of pocket, IMO.

Dina has declared in court filings her policy with Chubb and Sons, likely a very high-value umbrella policy, to protect her multimillion $ divorce winnings from Jonah, which we've discussed at length before.

And we also know Dina was awarded in excess of $10 million in her divorce from Jonah, from the appeal documents available publicly on the internet.

So yeah, I think DS's whole "subpoena NN" is just another wild goose chase, with a helping of harassment and victim smearing. Other opinions may vary!
 
Thanks. K_Z. Also, I suspect that she may be digging for material that she can spin for character assassination of Rebecca. Ultimately? I think that will be an epic fail. MOO [emoji202]
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
1,735
Total visitors
1,935

Forum statistics

Threads
599,989
Messages
18,102,374
Members
230,961
Latest member
HisMedusa
Back
Top