Evidence revealed during the course of the Wrongful Death action

[Betty P]

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 for linking that 2011 news article when Bremner released RZ's phone records. I was trying to link it last night but couldn't get it to work on my tablet. The CBS article has a link to the full batch of phone records, some 200 calls. None to or from NN.

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kfmb/misc/zahau_cell.pdf

Since reading the transcripts of interviews with NN back in 2011 that were recently revealed in the WDS lawsuit, I've thought Dina wants to drag NN in because she thinks that with enough pressure, she can get him to say that RZ was suicidal in the past.

Recall those transcripts showed the SD Sheriff's Dept was pushing the suicide theory very hard in the early days after RZ's death and the detectives who interviewed NN repeatedly tried to pressure him into saying RZ had been suicidal in the past or to get him to theorize that she could have been suicidal. He repeatedly insisted she had never been suicidal and would not have considered such a thing. IMO, that's what Dina is fishing for with NN.

 

[watergirl62]

Ah! [emoji226] Bait and switch. Hmm... Interesting (ironic) how the defendant's character is inadvertently revealed via all of these maneuverings. Such an elaborate house of cards...

Thanks for the links! Y'alls dedication to Rebecca's case is admirable. There is soo much homework in this case. As slow as the wheels of justice are turning, I might actually catch up someday. [emoji222]

 

[watergirl62]

What will the ex parte be about next week?

It's not DS's ex parte re: NN or AS's discovery issues as far as I can determine. It looks like those have been continued until March 10, so whats up next in court?

Justice for Rebecca
:gavel:




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

 

[Mollyandme]

Ah! [emoji226] Bait and switch. Hmm... Interesting (ironic) how the defendant's character is inadvertently revealed via all of these maneuverings. Such an elaborate house of cards...

Thanks for the links! Y'alls dedication to Rebecca's case is admirable. There is soo much homework in this case. As slow as the wheels of justice are turning, I might actually catch up someday. [emoji222]

I respectfully disagree. Dina's attorneys would not be doing their job if they believed NN had information or direct knowledge of anything regarding RZ that could support the medical examiners manner of death as suicide, and didn't depose him. The judge agreed that he should be deposed. It is their job to find out what admissible testimony NN would give if there is a trial and preserving that testimony for a potential trial. NN's lawyer will be there to advise him if there's questions he shouldn't answer. The Zahaus filed a WDS against the defendants after the death was ruled suicide. Whether one agrees with it or not, it is necessary for the defense to explore RZ's past. I do not fault Dina or her attorneys for conducting a thorough discovery process within the guidelines of California's civil procedures/code.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mollyandme]

Thanks for linking that 2011 news article when Bremner released RZ's phone records. I was trying to link it last night but couldn't get it to work on my tablet. The CBS article has a link to the full batch of phone records, some 200 calls. None to or from NN.

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kfmb/misc/zahau_cell.pdf

Since reading the transcripts of interviews with NN back in 2011 that were recently revealed in the WDS lawsuit, I've thought Dina wants to drag NN in because she thinks that with enough pressure, she can get him to say that RZ was suicidal in the past.

Recall those transcripts showed the SD Sheriff's Dept was pushing the suicide theory very hard in the early days after RZ's death and the detectives who interviewed NN repeatedly tried to pressure him into saying RZ had been suicidal in the past or to get him to theorize that she could have been suicidal. He repeatedly insisted she had never been suicidal and would not have considered such a thing. IMO, that's what Dina is fishing for with NN.

This is not meant to be argumentative just offering a different viewpoint. How is he being dragged in? He is her ex husband that she was still in contact with and was also in contact with the plaintiffs. Respectfully, NN can insist she had never been suicidal and would never have committed suicide. That is his opinion and is an opinion held by many who have lost a friend or loved one to suicide for many reasons. Based on NN's responses to Dina from the court documents, his opinion that this was not a suicide has not changed. If he already expressed this to police, and expressed his dislike for the defendants in his response to the judge why would he change his opinion at his deposition? It's just as likely that Dina's lawyers want to depose him because he might have knowledge of behaviors or incidents that can be corroborated by other evidence. Maybe these behaviors can be seen as suicide indicators by an expert witness that the defense may use later if this goes to trial. They also might ask him questions about his relationship with the plaintiffs, what he has discussed or reviewed with them or anyone in the case. Maybe they have reason to believe that he will give different answers to the same questions plaintiffs have been asked, which could be effective at trial. For all we know, there could be things from social media that the defense found and want to ask him about. They may have even found things deleted from social media on the "internet archive, way back machine" which many attorneys use to find comments, statements, or conversations with others that may have been deleted. The point is, we really don't know for sure what exact questions will be asked and what information will even be admissible. Regardless, the judge has appeared to agree with the defense that he should be deposed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mollyandme]

Shocking. [emoji57]

I can certainly understand NNs reluctance to get dragged into all of this. Slippery slope.

NN started a petition on a popular website along with a letter to the attorney general of California to re open this case. He was not reluctant to get involved then, why is he so reluctant to be deposed? All he has to do is tell the truth and listen to his lawyer when told not to answer something.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[K_Z]

DS wants $4000 in penalties and reimbursement from NN. According to ROA #528, 4 attorneys flew to Colorado Springs to depose NN, despite the fact that he had not replied to his own attorney, or any of them, that he would be there (or not). Only DS has requested penalties and reimbursement-- Adam and Nina both had attorney reps there, but haven't' asked for reimbursement.

And why did anyone get on an airplane to Colorado to depose him when no one had even heard from NN one way or the other? Presumably he was served with the court order, but #528 makes it clear he was not in contact with any attorneys-- his, or the defendants.

He will probably be assessed the $4000 in penalties and fines. I seriously doubt he will show up in California for the March 10 hearing, and probably won't send an attorney to represent him.

Quite frankly, $4000 would be a very small price to pay to have DS and her attorneys off his back. It's probably less than he would have had to pay an attorney to fight the depo for months. He's not a party to the case, he has nothing to gain and a lot to lose in this, and it's a civil matter, so he won't face anything like an arrest warrant.

DS hasn't alleged that NN knows anything at all that is material to her not being responsible for RZ's death. He wasn't even in the state of California when RZ died. It's a fishing expedition, with a side dish of vindictiveness-- just like Howard Luber's wife. IMO.

 

[watergirl62]

NN started a petition on a popular website along with a letter to the attorney general of California to re open this case. He was not reluctant to get involved then, why is he so reluctant to be deposed? All he has to do is tell the truth and listen to his lawyer when told not to answer something.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I was unaware of the petition, but that fits my interpretation of NN's behavior, based on what little I have read.

He come off to me as possessive when it comes to Rebecca. That's my take on his role in her life. I think he wasn't as involved as he wanted to be.

MOO [emoji202]

 

[watergirl62]

I respectfully disagree. Dina's attorneys would not be doing their job if they believed NN had information or direct knowledge of anything regarding RZ that could support the medical examiners manner of death as suicide, and didn't depose him. The judge agreed that he should be deposed. It is their job to find out what admissible testimony NN would give if there is a trial and preserving that testimony for a potential trial. NN's lawyer will be there to advise him if there's questions he shouldn't answer. The Zahaus filed a WDS against the defendants after the death was ruled suicide. Whether one agrees with it or not, it is necessary for the defense to explore RZ's past. I do not fault Dina or her attorneys for conducting a thorough discovery process within the guidelines of California's civil procedures/code.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Appreciate your pragmatism. Thank you. I generally agree with you regarding procedure and due diligence. I don't think NN has anything to offer that is substantive but I am concerned over how anything he says may be misconstrued and twisted to fit the narrative, based on what I have read so far. And yes, it is a two-way street regarding confirmation bias, but there are many layers of complexity to this case that make even something as procedurally simple as a deposition seem tainted with nefarious purpose. The emotion on both sides is intense this everything is colored accordingly.

I don't think Rebecca committed suicide. I can also agree to disagree.

 

[Jessica2012]

AFAIK, attorneys do not check to make sure someone will show up for a court ordered deposition. Most people respect the court enough to show up.

Neil not showing makes it seem that he has something to hide - whether or not that is true. Since Judge Bacall ruled that his deposition was likely to provide information for the Defendants' case, she may consider his non-attendance as yet another reason to throw the case out at the upcoming Summary Judgements. By law, the Defendants are entitled to depose key players, and Neil is a key player in this case. Also, there is still plenty of time for Nina and Adam's attorneys to request monetary sanctions, and I bet we will see that in the next few weeks.

With all due respect, it is the Plantiffs that must prove their case that the Defendants killed Rebecca in the manner they claim. As it stands, the case is a suicide, and I have seen nothing in the information we have learned to date that the Zahaus have any evidence for their claims of murder. IMO, Neil's refusal to show up for his court-ordered deposition is another strike against the Plantiffs chance to make it past Summary Judgement.

 

[K_Z]

SAN DIEGO, Jan. 17, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Obalon Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:OBLN), a vertically integrated medical technology company, announced today that Jonah Shacknai, Executive Chairman of DermaForce and former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Medicis has been elected to its board of directors. Mr. Shacknai joins Raymond Dittamore and Les Howe as the latest members of Obalon Therapeutic’s board of directors.

Mr. Shacknai is currently the Executive Chairman of DermaForce Partners, which operates prestige skincare company Dermarché Labs and the new doctor dispensed skincare brand, SkinBetter Science. Previously, Mr. Shacknai was the founder of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, and served as its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for 25 years, until the acquisition of the Company in 2012 for $2.6 billion. Medicis was one of the leading medical dermatology and aesthetics companies in the world. Mr. Shacknai was involved directly in the development, regulatory approval, and marketing of over 40 products.

https://globenewswire.com/news-rele...alon-Therapeutics-Inc-Board-of-Directors.html

 

[K_Z]

Does anyone know who author E. Michael Maddox is, or what his specific interest in this case may be? He applied for a media pass to record hearings and the trial.

#526 and 527 on the ROA from last week.

Judge Bacall denied his application without commentary except attaching the standard media handout. He does not appear to be representing any media outlets, and simply lists himself as an "author" in the court documents.

There are several authors by that name in my search, as well as a few others who don't appear to be authors. The address listed on the court forms is a very swanky looking apartment building in San Diego, with rents in the $2200+/ month range for 1 bedroom/ 600 sq ft., and just adjacent to the bridge to Coronado Island (in the "Gaslamp Quarter").

Local author with interest? Anyone know?

 

[coastal]

Does anyone know who author E. Michael Maddox is, or what his specific interest in this case may be? He applied for a media pass to record hearings and the trial.

#526 and 527 on the ROA from last week.

Judge Bacall denied his application without commentary except attaching the standard media handout. He does not appear to be representing any media outlets, and simply lists himself as an "author" in the court documents.

There are several authors by that name in my search, as well as a few others who don't appear to be authors. The address listed on the court forms is a very swanky looking apartment building in San Diego, with rents in the $2200+/ month range for 1 bedroom/ 600 sq ft., and just adjacent to the bridge to Coronado Island (in the "Gaslamp Quarter").

Local author with interest? Anyone know?

I've never heard of him, K_Z, FWIW.

 

[K_Z]

Seven new entries on the ROA following yesterday's ex-parte. And a BOMBSHELL!

543 02/08/2017 Minutes finalized for Ex Parte heard 02/08/2017 08:45:00 AM. Minute Order
542 02/08/2017 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 6/9/2017 at 1:30pm vacated.
541 02/08/2017 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 5/19/2017 at 1:30pm vacated.
540 02/08/2017 Status Conference (Civil) scheduled for 04/17/2017 at 11:00PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.
539 02/08/2017 Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) set for 6/02/2017 at 10:30AM vacated.
538 02/08/2017 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 5/19/2017 at 1:30PM vacated.
537 02/08/2017 Motion Hearing (Civil) scheduled for 04/17/2017 at 11:00AM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml
37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

And here's a bombshell! Nina is going to be removed from the complaint! Did she agree to settle?

Text of the Minute Order from yesterday:

EVENT TYPE: Ex Parte

APPEARANCES
Curtis K Greer, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s).
John D Marino, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Kathleen McCormick, specially appearing for counsel Mark Vranjes, present for Defendant(s).
Krista M. Enns, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Bradley Matthews, specially appearing for counsel KIM SCHUMANN, present for Defendant(s).

Now being the time previously set for hearing Defendant Adam Shacknai's Ex Parte Re Informal
Discovery as to Upcoming Motion to Compel Hearing, counsel appear as noted above and the hearing
commences.

Attorney Greer informs the Court that he will be giving supplemental responses by Monday.

Attorney Enns states that plaintiff still has not produced responses to two other requests that he has
promised to produce. Attorney Greer states that they are going to be given as well.

The Court inquires if Attorney Enns is ready to file her motion for the 3/10/2017 hearing and she states
that she has it with her.

Attorney Greer states that he wants a Motion to Amend the Complaint and Nina Shacknai will not be a
defendant on the amended complaint.

The Court notes that would do away with the necessity of Nina Shacknai's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is scheduled for 04/17/2017 at 11:00AM
before Judge Katherine Bacal.

Nina Shacknai's Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 5/19/2017 at 1:30PM is
vacated.

Counsel also inform the Court that they agreed to set a trial date, understanding that there may be a
conflict with Attorney Marino's family get together, and now they know that it does conflict with his
schedule.

The Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) set for 6/02/2017 at 10:30AM is vacated.

The Trial date is not currently scheduled, so does not need to be vacated.

The court schedules a status conference to trail the Motion to Amend in order to address the setting of
trial dates.

The Status Conference (Civil) is scheduled for 04/17/2017 at 11:00PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

Other defendant's motions for summary judgment are vacated without prejudice to rescheduling after the
hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint .

Dina Shacknai's Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 5/19/2017 at 1:30pm is
vacated.

Adam Shacknai's Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) set for 6/9/2017 at 1:30pm is
vacated.

And now that I read it again, there is a MAJOR error here! Is this referring to Nina ROMANO, or Dina Shacknai?? Which one is the order referring to? Is it Nina, or Dina? How can the court make such a mistake?? Seems they seldom proof read anything. My bet is that it is Nina, not Dina, but we'll see.

And to point out another error, previously it was Brad Matthews who had the family reunion conflict. Now it's John Marino?? So many errors. Makes one have less confidence in the system. :facepalm:

 

[K_Z]

Whatever settlement Nina agreed to (and Nina has very little money, and no insurance that covers this), I'm 100% sure it is dependent on her complete public silence about this case. She will not be permitted to make any statements, or give any interviews, IMO.

I think, personally, she will also be agreeing not to make any more public statements about Rebecca's presence at Spreckels at the time of Max's accident, also, or any statements about Rebecca, her life, her relationships, etc., at all. IMO, to get dropped from the suit, she will have to agree not to do *anything* to manipulate public opinion, as the case proceeds, or taint a jury.

Also, I had a thought that once she is formally dropped from the complaint, she becomes a *witness*, not a defendant. That kind of changes the lens thru which she is viewed by everyone, IMO. This could get even more interesting.

Should the case proceed to trial, she will certainly be a very important witness. Perhaps she agreed to testify to "something" quite significant, in exchange for being dropped from the case?

Interesting to ponder and speculate.

Another thought. Perhaps she offered to settle to bargain to avoid having her adult son called as a witness? He was back at Dina's summer home while Nina was marching over to Spreckels to confront Rebecca (remember the yoga pants and Coach wristlet episode?) He surely knows a lot about Nina's activities that night. She is very protective of her adult son-- remember, she cancelled her polygraph after Rebecca's death because he could not "be alone"? Her adult son is rumored to have a mild developmental disability.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

How do we know for sure Nina agreed to anything or settled? Sometimes plaintiffs will drop one defendant because they dont believe they have enough evidence needed to prove involvement. It isn't unheard of for a defendant to be dropped without any attachments or agreements being made by the one dropped is the reason I asked.

How will we know if Dina made a deal or not? So you think she made a deal to testify against her sister? The Plaintiffs are allowed to say a settlement has been reached....just not the particulars of the settlement. So if she agreed to settle that should show up in the media very soon.

tia

 

[K_Z]

I agree, OBE. They could just be simply dropping her as a defendant. However, nothing in this 5 year old case has been "simple." I just have a feeling there was some kind of "agreement". Perhaps that doesn't meet a strict definition of "settlement", but I just don't think Greer out of the blue yesterday (or recently) thought, "well, can't prove a thing where Nina is concerned, so we'll just go ahead and drop her." Maybe it is that simple, but I really doubt it.

"JMO". Speculation on my part, as I said.

 

[K_Z]

With thanks and credit to Lash for finding this tweet from Attorney Greer. Apparently there will be local news coverage of Rebecca's case tonight. Lots of interesting news today!

Check out this tweet from plaintiffs' attorney Greer today:

https://twitter.com/GreerLawyer/status/829849846118916097/photo/1

[video=twitter;829849846118916097]https://twitter.com/GreerLawyer/status/829849846118916097[/video]

Before this, I think the only "door" pic we had access to was the one that was in Ann Rule's book. This is much clearer. Lots of fingerprint powder, so the pic is from after it was processed as evidence. That "S" before the "he" sure looks like it was added after the "he" was written. (Others have said that in the past as well.)

 

[K_Z]

https://twitter.com/10News

Attorney Greer's tweet is re-tweeted on the local San Diego ABC affiliate twitter stream.

 

[inthedark14]

Majorly interesting that this specific photo is released with the other news today!! Thanks KZ and Lash!!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk