Found Deceased UT - REMAINS FOUND - MacKenzie "Kenzie" Lueck, 23, Salt Lake City, 17 June 2019 #13 *ARREST*

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
As I wrote earlier, I am not a believer or fan of what she is purporting. Nor, am I a believer or fan of what Norm Pattis is selling in the Dulos case. Nor, am I a believer or fan of this monster's current criminal lawyer who bullies sexual assault survivors. But, I do not want to disparage a lawyer based on their store front office or beginnings of college in a foreign country or that they have an RN degree from said country. I can despise her message and respect her education. I would hope that many on this board can as well.
Agreed! I have no doubt she is good at what she does in the state where she passed the bar.

Obviously not going to do her much good with another state across the country in a practice area she does not specialize in, but I get a real "doing a favor for a family friend vibe" from this. If I were her, I'd probably have opted out of a public statement on their behalf, but I'm sure it would be an awkward position for her to be in as the default family friend with a law background/career,
 
In fact, no employer has said a word about him. Wonder what's up with that?

don't think any employer who is associated with AA in any way is going to go public with information. Many reasons. All personnel related matters are protected from public view, for one thing.
I looked up the law in Utah
State Laws on References and Statements By Former Employers
Many states regulate what an employer may say about a former employee—for example, when giving a reference to a prospective employer. In some states, employers may provide information about a former employee only with the employee’s consent. And, to protect employers from defamation lawsuits, some states give employers who provide this information immunity, which means that the former employee cannot sue the employer for giving out the information as long as the employer acted in good faith.

Utah

Utah Code Ann. § 34-42-1
Information that may be disclosed:
• job performance


Who may request or receive information:
• prospective employer
• former or current employee

Employer immune from liability unless:

• There is clear and convincing evidence that employer disclosed information with the intent to mislead, knowing it was false, or not caring if it was true or false.

Yah but If he worked for Dell...they aren’t based out of Utah. They are in Texas..so

Utah employment laws may not matter.


Texas

Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § § 52.031(d), 103.001 to 103.003;
Tex. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 5196

Information that may be disclosed:
reasons for termination or separation (must be in writing)
• job performance
• attendance, attitudes, and effort
Who may request or receive information:
• prospective employer

• former or current employee
Copy to employee required:
• Within 10 days of receiving employee’s request, employer must send copy of written disclosure or true statement of verbal disclosure, along with names of people to whom information was given.
• Employer may not disclose reasons for employee’s discharge to any other person without sending employee a copy, unless employee specifically requests disclosure.
Employer immune from liability:
• employer who makes disclosure based on information any employer would reasonably believe to be true
Employer required to write letter:
• Employee must make request in writing.
• Employer must respond within 10 days of receiving employee’s request.
• Discharged employee must be given a written statement of reasons for termination.
• Employee who quits must be given a written statement, including all job titles and dates, that states that separation was voluntary and whether employee’s performance was satisfactory.
• Employee entitled to another copy of statement if original is lost or unavaila

State Laws on References and Statements By Former Employers
MOO
 
Last edited:
Yay! Thank you so much. From the article:

[...]

Speaking from her office in New York, attorney Janet Fashakin said the presumption of innocence is a civil right in the United States and she questioned if Ayoola Ajayi will be entitled to that right if the trial takes place in Salt Lake City.

“AJ is being crucified already,” she said.

Fashakin said she got a call from Nigeria, where Ajayi's mother has been reading news reports in disbelief.

“There is no way you can watch all this that`s being said about your loving son and you be able to be at peace,” said Fashakin.

She insists the man the media has characterized is not her son.

“Mrs. Ajayi wants me to let you know that she has a good son. A very hardworking son at that. A son who cares about others," said Fashakin.

The family is afraid judgments are being made based on a limited amount of evidence revealed by police.

[...]

Fashakin believes Ajayi will not be able to receive a fair trial in Utah, at least in part due to his skin color.

“There is no way AJ can get a fair trial in Utah considering the racial disparity over there,” said Fashakin.

Charges have not been filed yet, but once they are, Fashakin is going to work to get the trial moved out of state.

“We are very confident that when all is said and done, AJ will be found not guilty,” she said.

Fashakin said she knows the Ajyais from Nigeria and at this point, she has not been paid for her services.

I find it extremely telling that a lawyer would say that they are going to try to get it moved out of state. That must mean that the lawyer already thinks or knows that Federal prosecution is going to move forward, because murder charges are State charges. Unless the feds take over the case.

Moo
 
What other men could Ms. F be referencing? How would she know whether questioning was going on or not, or how many arrests may be in the future? While she's using a well known (and tricky) criminal defense tactic, it's clear from how soon she pulled it out that she's not, at all, an experienced criminal lawyer (or even a regular on an internet crime forum).

Unless and until federal charges are filed, AA stays in Utah and Ms. F must either have spoken in haste or in ignorance. There are no immediate reasons why this would be a federal case. There may be separate immigration proceedings against him, and if he's incarcerated in Utah, those would probably be out of a non-NYC field office.
 
Most employers would not want to comment on an employee's arrest, especially in a case like this. His resume is taken down and many wouldn't seek to find it. By commenting they put themselves in the center of this storm so they would not do it. If he had access to Kenzie as part of his work with them, they might as their computers and records might be subpeonaed. HR and any publicity/crisis managers are the ones who sit with lawyers to set the plan. I am sure he was an independent contractor and not considered an employee if he did, indeed, work with/for them. If he is an employee, there are sections of the handbook that favor the employer severing their ties with him. Or, if he is contracted, I am sure the contract has been cancelled based on the language that they have written to ensure that they can separate if an employee is arrested. He would also be able to be let go based on not being able to show up.

With topics surrounding this (SD/SB, BDSM, race, immigration status), silence is the best tactic as to not inflame anyone.

PR 101.
 

And HR 101, also.

PR is not regulated but companies want to keep a low profile on something like this and HR can't say anything, legally (just a few posts back, MizStery quoted the relevant Utah law).

No matter what, an employer has got the bad end of one stick or the other if they get involved in this.
 
I find it extremely telling that a lawyer would say that they are going to try to get it moved out of state. That must mean that the lawyer already thinks or knows that Federal prosecution is going to move forward, because murder charges are State charges. Unless the feds take over the case.

Moo

Interesting point—I assumed that she spoke out of ignorance. I might have to apologize to her.
 
What other men could Ms. F be referencing? How would she know whether questioning was going on or not, or how many arrests may be in the future? While she's using a well known (and tricky) criminal defense tactic, it's clear from how soon she pulled it out that she's not, at all, an experienced criminal lawyer (or even a regular on an internet crime forum).

Unless and until federal charges are filed, AA stays in Utah and Ms. F must either have spoken in haste or in ignorance. There are no immediate reasons why this would be a federal case. There may be separate immigration proceedings against him, and if he's incarcerated in Utah, those would probably be out of a non-NYC field office.
BBM

The men she's referring to are the 2 SDs ML referenced having, which I assume means her stance is AA isn't an SD. She's of course conveniently ignoring that they weren't the last ones texting her, didn't lie about the last time they texted her, aren't placed in the park at the time she was last seen or heard from, and didn't have her tissue found on their property.
 
Okay, thanks, Zella (that's what I was assuming).

However, how would this lawyer in New York know what the Utah police are doing and who they have talked to?

All she's doing, really, is making sure that the police dot their i's and go talk (more) to those men. And probably pursue warrants on their digital media and phones. That is, if the Utah police in any way think this lawyer will influence the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
1,598
Total visitors
1,703

Forum statistics

Threads
606,883
Messages
18,212,380
Members
233,992
Latest member
gisberthanekroot
Back
Top