Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #2

[Betty P]

BBM. I think Dina's right to speech does include expressing her opinion about the actions and motives of those who file a lawsuit against her that publicly accuses her of murder. Especially in a death that was publicly ruled as a suicide years ago.


iirc, RZ's family also filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff. When someone files multiple lawsuits against high profile people, it's going to attract media and public attention and opinion. I think that pretty much comes with the territory.

Perhaps one of the legal experts can weigh in about the freedom of speech issue and clarify for us.

JMO

Following are some helpful links about the history and nature of gag orders. They first came into being when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sam Sheppard in the trial for the muder of his wife Marilyn. The Supreme Court ruled that , due to the media circus surrounding it, he didn't receive a fair trial.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/fairtrialissues.htm

Since then, gag orders have been used by judges to protect defendants and plaintiffs, corporations and governments. While there seem to be disagreements over gag orders covering the press or news media, they've usually been upheld for defendants, proesecutors, witnesses, etc.

More information here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order

A gag order prohibiting media interviews and leaks wouldn't interfere with the free speech rights of any of the trial participants, as they are free to speak in their own defense inside the courtroom.

MOO IANAL

 

[MyBelle]

Following are some helpful links about the history and nature of gag orders. They first came into being when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sam Sheppard in the trial for the muder of his wife Marilyn. The Supreme Court ruled that , due to the media circus surrounding it, he didn't receive a fair trial.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/fairtrialissues.htm

Since then, gag orders have been used by judges to protect defendants and plaintiffs, corporations and governments. While there seem to be disagreements over gag orders covering the press or news media, they've usually been upheld for defendants, proesecutors, witnesses, etc.

More information here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order

A gag order prohibiting media interviews and leaks wouldn't interfere with the free speech rights of any of the trial participants, as they are free to speak in their own defense inside the courtroom.

MOO IANAL

afaik, there isn't a gag order in this civil case so I'm not seeing the relevance. Sorry.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

This is never going to a jury, so the claims that Dina is trying to taint a jury pool is moot. I guess that is a good thing since the <mod snip> have been trying to taint a jury pool since July 21, 2011 - the first of the dozens upon dozens of media interviews and appearances they have given.

 

[Betty P]

afaik, there isn't a gag order in this civil case so I'm not seeing the relevance. Sorry.

There isn't a gag order at this time, but there should be.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Dina's free speech rights don't include the right to lie and spread false and misleading information in news media interviews during an ongoing civil proceeding, especially prior to jury selection. They also don't include the right to then accuse the Zahau family of spreading that information.

I'm undecided about whether Dina's attorneys aprrove of her misguided PR campaign. While it has the usual hallmarks of Dina's special brand of anger, malice and eccentricity, it also contains misinformation that will be easily refuted in court, before said jury. I can't imagine any reputable defense attorney wants to be in the position of defending clear, well documented lies from his client. She will just appear dishonest and unbalanced to the jury.

Which brings up another question: will Dina's attorney gamble allowing her to testify in court? My guess is no.

When has Dina accused the Zahau family of speading false and misleading information? Link please?

 

[LuckyLucy2]

There isn't a gag order at this time, but there should be.

Perhaps...for Mary Zahau.

 

[MyBelle]

Perhaps...for Mary Zahau.

I doubt any gag orders will be issued considering the amount of time that has passed and the amount of media attention both sides have already received at their own invitation.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

When has Dina accused the Zahau family of speading false and misleading information? Link please?

I doubt Dina will make such accusations anywhere but in court in response to their lawsuit. But I do get the distinct impression from Dina's public comments so far that she sincerely believes her son was murdered.

JMO

 

[LuckyLucy2]

^ And I sincerely believe that, too.

 

[bourne]

Just heard the case is going to trial and jury selection set for next month!

arty: WOOHOO! Sayonara <mod snip> Dina and Nina. :jail:

 

[screecher]

I doubt Dina will make such accusations anywhere but in court in response to their lawsuit. But I do get the distinct impression from Dina's public comments so far that she sincerely believes her son was murdered.

JMO

Except the judicial goings on has nada, nothing to do with Maxie's death. It has to do Rebecca's murder. Do you believe Dina is sooooo delusional she would think Maxie being 'murdered' would justify, excuse, give her a 'free pass' to murder Rebecca? hahah.

However, it certainly goes to 'motive' for the horrific murder of Rebecca.

 

[screecher]

^ And I sincerely believe that, too.

Just to clarify, you believe Maxie was murdered and Rebecca did it? And would that justify murdering Rebecca?

 

[screecher]

Just heard the case is going to trial and jury selection set for next month!

arty: WOOHOO! Sayonara <mod snip> Dina and Nina. :jail:

Yaaaaaaay trial date set for ???

 

[justice be served]

Just heard the case is going to trial and jury selection set for next month!

arty: WOOHOO! Sayonara <mod snip> Dina and Nina. :jail:

Not surprised considering how this board has lit up. Seems fear presents itself rather poignantly each time there is a new trigger for the suicider believers. I'll try to be in SD for the trial. Yippeeeeee!!

 

[justice be served]

Except the judicial goings on has nada, nothing to do with Maxie's death. It has to do Rebecca's murder. Do you believe Dina is sooooo delusional she would think Maxie being 'murdered' would justify, excuse, give her a 'free pass' to murder Rebecca? hahah.

However, it certainly goes to 'motive' for the horrific murder of Rebecca.

BBM. You got that right.

 

[Myvice]

OMG, this is finally going to happen!

Will we have any insiders in the courtroom?

Justice for Rebecca!!!

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Just heard the case is going to trial and jury selection set for next month!

Don't know who you "heard" this from but it is incorrect. The next event is:

02/03/2015 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) scheduled for 10/09/2015 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.

This is when the case will be thrown out of court. There will be no jury trial.

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

Please supply a link for your information.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Just to clarify, you believe Maxie was murdered and Rebecca did it? And would that justify murdering Rebecca?

I believe you know that I believe Rebecca and possibly her sister/daughter were responsible for Maxie's death, and Rebecca hung herself nude out of guilt or fear.

Why do I believe this? Because that is what the physical evidence proves. DNA and fingerprints don't lie.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Even as an opinion, you need to have evidence to back it up.

It seems every time the talk here turns to Max and Rebecca's responsibility in his death, there is a new claim to derail the conversation.

Bourne, please give us a link that proves the case is going to trial, and not up for dismissal, as I have proved.

 

[screecher]

Don't know who you "heard" this from but it is incorrect. The next event is:

02/03/2015 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) scheduled for 10/09/2015 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.

This is when the case will be thrown out of court. There will be no jury trial.

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

Please supply a link for your information.

BBM

And you know this how? Where's the info it will be "thrown out of court" and there will be no trial?

Please supply a link for your information!