Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #3

[Waitaminute]

I just don't remember either sister ever offering an exchange of information, certainly not a public offer. I only remember statements to the effect of: "I have no information; since I wasn't there, I couldn't have any information; but I want to talk to Rebecca's younger sister"...

 

[Waitaminute]

so now, after all this time, is there information that needs to be shared? really?

 

[coastal]

so now, after all this time, is there information that needs to be shared? really?

Just the truth.

 

[screecher]

Ya know what? IMHO, I see Defeat Shacknai using the Zahaus' WDS and the info they want through the depositions, as a kind of 'leverage'.

Like 'You tell me exactly who, how and why my little Maxie was killed (and all the details), and I'll tell you everything my twin, Nina, told me she saw-- Adam and Jonah doing to Rebecca.'

Yeah, yeah. I'm working on achieving the gold star for imagination LOL!!!

 

[Waitaminute]

(forgot to reply with with quote, so for the Screech,...) you will always get a gold star with me!

 

[Waitaminute]

Screecher, (and all you others) I'm curious on your take as to why Dina included so much information in her released statement, as to why she could not comment. Doesn't it see that the paragraph should have stopped right at ]"I could not comment on Mr. Greer's statement as I was with my son Maxie at Rady’s Hospital in Pediatric Intensive Care" That's seems so complete end yet horrific by itself. Here is my answer, I don't know, because I was at the hospital.

The rest of her sentence, which is a tragedy beyond words, seems SO out of place for response: "praying for his recovery, and watching him fight for his life, trying to breathe on his own while on a ventilator". Why would this be included as a response to 'audio evidence' of cries for help near the mansion? Is it an attempt to divert the topic matter?

 

[Gilgamesh]

Screecher, (and all you others) I'm curious on your take as to why Dina included so much information in her released statement, as to why she could not comment. Doesn't it see that the paragraph should have stopped right at ]"I could not comment on Mr. Greer's statement as I was with my son Maxie at Rady’s Hospital in Pediatric Intensive Care" That's seems so complete end yet horrific by itself. Here is my answer, I don't know, because I was at the hospital.

The rest of her sentence, which is a tragedy beyond words, seems SO out of place for response: "praying for his recovery, and watching him fight for his life, trying to breathe on his own while on a ventilator". Why would this be included as a response to 'audio evidence' of cries for help near the mansion? Is it an attempt to divert the topic matter?

I'll tell you why. It's because when someone's lying, they keep embellishing because they want their words (lie) to sound real. If it were true, they'd stop at the simple truth. If it's not true, they keep talking

 

[K_Z]

Screecher, (and all you others) I'm curious on your take as to why Dina included so much information in her released statement, as to why she could not comment. Doesn't it see that the paragraph should have stopped right at ]"I could not comment on Mr. Greer's statement as I was with my son Maxie at Rady’s Hospital in Pediatric Intensive Care" That's seems so complete end yet horrific by itself. Here is my answer, I don't know, because I was at the hospital.

The rest of her sentence, which is a tragedy beyond words, seems SO out of place for response: "praying for his recovery, and watching him fight for his life, trying to breathe on his own while on a ventilator". Why would this be included as a response to 'audio evidence' of cries for help near the mansion? Is it an attempt to divert the topic matter?

BBM. Yes, when the topic of Rebecca's gruesome death comes up for comment, Dina always attempts to turn the conversation back to HER tragedy-- always attempts to "one up". Essentially, she always tries to plant the message that HER tragedy was SO MUCH WORSE than the death of "that woman". It's another attempt, IMO, by DS to depersonalize Rebecca Zahau and her family. She has always, IMO, given comments about Rebecca's death as if she were just annoyed and exasperated that anyone would even bother paying attention to Rebecca's hanging, like Rebecca was not a person, but a just a pet that unfortunately died.

It's also a way for Dina to remind anyone listening about Max's tragedy. She has said many times that she feels his death was overlooked because of Rebecca's death. So by constantly bringing the conversation back to Max, she minimizes and denigrates the scope and impact of the tragedy of Rebecca's death, appeals for sympathy from listeners, and floats a potential alibi all at the same time. Dina's message from the very beginning, IMO, is that Rebecca's death doesn't matter, only Max's death matters. She continues to be annoyed and surprised that anyone cares that Rebecca died at all, let alone such a gruesome death.

It's another example, IMO of the passive aggressive way, that Dina continues to "attack" Rebecca and her family, and continue to depersonalize her.

Waitaminute, you are so correct that most people would stop after the first comment. Most innocent people capable of feeling any sympathy or empathy would also, IMO, add a token comment about how awful and tragic Rebecca's death was, and that they understand how deep grief can be for their family, since she (Dina AND Jonah) also lost their son very tragically.

Dina never, never, never expresses that she and Jonah BOTH lost a son, and that Jonah also lost his partner. It's like Jonah doesn't even exist in Dina's world, IMO. Jonah's name can never, ever be mentioned publicly by Dina-- not even an acknowledgment that they are BOTH Max's parents.

That's my take on Dina's most recent public comments.

 

[bourne]

Insider says there's more to come...

 

[screecher]

I wonder why Jonah is not named as a defendant in the Zahaus' WDS. I have no doubt he knew Dina's frame of mind that day going into that night. Why didn't he tell someone, anyone, or better yet, go to the mansion to take Rebecca out of there, keep her safe? He had to know she was in harms way.

Why was he not named in the WDS.

 

[Waitaminute]

BBM. Yes, when the topic of Rebecca's gruesome death comes up for comment, Dina always attempts to turn the conversation back to HER tragedy-- always attempts to "one up". Essentially, she always tries to plant the message that HER tragedy was SO MUCH WORSE than the death of "that woman". It's another attempt, IMO, by DS to depersonalize Rebecca Zahau and her family. She has always, IMO, given comments about Rebecca's death as if she were just annoyed and exasperated that anyone would even bother paying attention to Rebecca's hanging, like Rebecca was not a person, but a just a pet that unfortunately died.

It's also a way for Dina to remind anyone listening about Max's tragedy. She has said many times that she feels his death was overlooked because of Rebecca's death. So by constantly bringing the conversation back to Max, she minimizes and denigrates the scope and impact of the tragedy of Rebecca's death, appeals for sympathy from listeners, and floats a potential alibi all at the same time. Dina's message from the very beginning, IMO, is that Rebecca's death doesn't matter, only Max's death matters. She continues to be annoyed and surprised that anyone cares that Rebecca died at all, let alone such a gruesome death.

It's another example, IMO of the passive aggressive way, that Dina continues to "attack" Rebecca and her family, and continue to depersonalize her.

Waitaminute, you are so correct that most people would stop after the first comment. Most innocent people capable of feeling any sympathy or empathy would also, IMO, add a token comment about how awful and tragic Rebecca's death was, and that they understand how deep grief can be for their family, since she (Dina AND Jonah) also lost their son very tragically.

Dina never, never, never expresses that she and Jonah BOTH lost a son, and that Jonah also lost his partner. It's like Jonah doesn't even exist in Dina's world, IMO. Jonah's name can never, ever be mentioned publicly by Dina-- not even an acknowledgment that they are BOTH Max's parents.

That's my take on Dina's most recent public comments.

wow, thank you so much for you reply. It really sounds spot on.

 

[Waitaminute]

I wonder why Jonah is not named as a defendant in the Zahaus' WDS. I have no doubt he knew Dina's frame of mind that day going into that night. Why didn't he tell someone, anyone, or better yet, go to the mansion to take Rebecca out of there, keep her safe? He had to know she was in harms way.

Why was he not named in the WDS.

good question. Maybe the zahaus want to stay on better terms with Jonah (since he was at the hospital during the murder) and hope to get a more supportive testimony from him? Doubtful Jonah would be open to witnessing about much if he were a defendant, but now he has no reason to be open, unless, of course, one of the defendants has something hanging over his head. The other interesting slant is, if the goal of the lawsuit truly was $$, as some have thought, surely he would have been a defendant, since that's where the money is.

 

[*Lash*]

In my opinion, another reason Dina chose to comment was to use the media to push her legal strategy. The strategy where she is claiming to need authority for federal subpoena powers. If you remember Dina and Co. alleged in federal doc #60, they did not have access to the video surveillance. Dina's crew has alleged the Rady's video surveillance was taken into federal custody by the DOJ and FBI, and they have been unable to review the evidence. Imo, it is nothing but a maneuvering tactic and an attempt to complicate the federal case.

It has already been established via SW 41432, COPD executed the search and the 27 CD's were taken into Custody by COPD, not the DOJ. Adding to that, Attorney Greer stated in reply to Dina's motion the CD's ARE available for review at the police department. Imo, it is an attempt to sway the public into believing Dina is not getting a fair chance to prove her innocence. Dina is hoping to obtain empathy from anyone who will listen and is trying to paint a picture that "little old me" is up against the big bad federal government, imo. Baloney! If Dina was captured anywhere on Rady's video surveillance Gore would have flaunted the evidence instead of resorting to cell phone triangulation.

“Nina and I have recently started to receive the documents related to Rebecca's death from the COPD and SDSD. However, although there were at least seven DOJ agents involved at the scene, we still have no files from the Department of Justice, nor the Border Patrol agents (under the auspice of the Federal Department of Homeland Security), so we have yet to review the complete file. However, regardless of our lack of complete information thus far, I could not comment on Mr. Greer's statement as I was with my son Maxie at Rady’s Hospital in Pediatric Intensive Care, praying for his recovery, and watching him fight for his life, trying to breathe on his own while on a ventilator.”

Source: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...nsion-2011-Death-303178091.html#ixzz3ZqXFRBDE
Follow us: @nbcsandiego on Twitter | NBCSanDiego on Facebook

 

[*Lash*]

B. Defendant Dina Shacknai Has Not Established a Need for Federal Subpoena Power


Defendant Dina Shacknai argues that this action should proceed because her defense will be prejudiced if she doesn’t have access to Federal subpoena authority. This is simply not true. 


1. The Evidence Defendant Seeks in Coronado Police Department Custody

Defendant Dina Shacknai argues that the surveillance taken by Rady Children’s Hospital the night Rebecca Zahau was killed will establish that she was not at the scene of the hanging, and that it is being held by the Department of Justice. However, the 27 CDs from Rady’s Children’s Hospital were produced to the Coronado Police Department pursuant to subpoena, and are currently held as Item 10 in the Coronado Police Departments evidence storage. (Greer Decl., ¶ 5, pg.3). Although Defendant argues that state court processes to obtain the disks have been futile, there is no evidence submitted to support the argument. 



Page 4, Federal Doc 64

https://www.pacer.gov

 

[K_Z]

Excellent interpretation, Lash-- and thank you for digging up the references to the Rady surveillance CDs. I remember how delighted I was to learn that the surveillance recordings are STILL AVAILABLE! The way this case has gone, with so much critically important evidence lost or not collected, I had assumed that evidence was gone, as well.

Reading between the lines a little further, I think what Dina is complaining about publicly, and in motions, is NOT that the CDs are "unavailable" to her and her attorneys, but that she hasn't been able to "obtain the disks" (from the quote in the above post). (My emphasis and coloring.)

It could be that the disks are "available" to both plaintiffs and defense, and their authorized representatives are to physically hoof their tired backsides over to the evidence storage facility to review them and take notes. But the disks perhaps are NOT "available" for the originals, or copies, to be DELIVERED to the defense team (and perhaps not available to be delivered to the plaintiffs, either.

If that's the case, and I'm correct, either side could designate a representative to review the 27 Rady surveillance CDs, and whatever that side FINDS is their personal WORK PRODUCT-- and protected from disclosure during discovery. Meaning, either side is free to review the evidence in its entirety, but neither side is REQUIRED to tell the other side what they FIND (or don't find). The surveillance camera evidence, in full, is the evidence.

My take on the Rady surveillance disks is that they are preserved evidence, and available for review, but not for sending out, or copying.

The "Border Patrol" part of the comments, IMO, is an attempt on the part of DS and her attorneys to try to find problems or technicalities with the immigration status of Rebecca, Mary, Robert, or Pari Zahau. If the defense can find, or insinuate that there were immigration "problems" with any of the Zahau family members named in the suit, they can try to have the whole case thrown out for lack of standing. Another rabbit hole to go down, to delay the case and harass the Zahau family, IMO.

The Zahau's increasingly sound like they are pretty close to being ready to go to trial, and WANT to go to trial. Dina and her attorneys increasingly sound like they want to do anything possible to prevent going to trial, to delay, distract, and run out the money and the will of the plaintiffs. JMO.

 

[Waitaminute]

Excellent interpretation, Lash-- and thank you for digging up the references to the Rady surveillance CDs. I remember how delighted I was to learn that the surveillance recordings are STILL AVAILABLE! The way this case has gone, with so much critically important evidence lost or not collected, I had assumed that evidence was gone, as well.

Reading between the lines a little further, I think what Dina is complaining about publicly, and in motions, is NOT that the CDs are "unavailable" to her and her attorneys, but that she hasn't been able to "obtain the disks" (from the quote in the above post). (My emphasis and coloring.)

It could be that the disks are "available" to both plaintiffs and defense, and their authorized representatives are to physically hoof their tired backsides over to the evidence storage facility to review them and take notes. But the disks perhaps are NOT "available" for the originals, or copies, to be DELIVERED to the defense team (and perhaps not available to be delivered to the plaintiffs, either.

If that's the case, and I'm correct, either side could designate a representative to review the 27 Rady surveillance CDs, and whatever that side FINDS is their personal WORK PRODUCT-- and protected from disclosure during discovery. Meaning, either side is free to review the evidence in its entirety, but neither side is REQUIRED to tell the other side what they FIND (or don't find). The surveillance camera evidence, in full, is the evidence.

My take on the Rady surveillance disks is that they are preserved evidence, and available for review, but not for sending out, or copying.

The "Border Patrol" part of the comments, IMO, is an attempt on the part of DS and her attorneys to try to find problems or technicalities with the immigration status of Rebecca, Mary, Robert, or Pari Zahau. If the defense can find, or insinuate that there were immigration "problems" with any of the Zahau family members named in the suit, they can try to have the whole case thrown out for lack of standing. Another rabbit hole to go down, to delay the case and harass the Zahau family, IMO.

The Zahau's increasingly sound like they are pretty close to being ready to go to trial, and WANT to go to trial. Dina and her attorneys increasingly sound like they want to do anything possible to prevent going to trial, to delay, distract, and run out the money and the will of the plaintiffs. JMO.

wow, wow and wow!

 

[Waitaminute]

B. Defendant Dina Shacknai Has Not Established a Need for Federal Subpoena Power


Defendant Dina Shacknai argues that this action should proceed because her defense will be prejudiced if she doesn’t have access to Federal subpoena authority. This is simply not true. 


1. The Evidence Defendant Seeks in Coronado Police Department Custody

Defendant Dina Shacknai argues that the surveillance taken by Rady Children’s Hospital the night Rebecca Zahau was killed will establish that she was not at the scene of the hanging, and that it is being held by the Department of Justice. However, the 27 CDs from Rady’s Children’s Hospital were produced to the Coronado Police Department pursuant to subpoena, and are currently held as Item 10 in the Coronado Police Departments evidence storage. (Greer Decl., ¶ 5, pg.3). Although Defendant argues that state court processes to obtain the disks have been futile, there is no evidence submitted to support the argument. 



Page 4, Federal Doc 64

https://www.pacer.gov

thank you so much for cutting through the flubber and zeroing in on the facts.

 

[AZlawyer]

So glad we have you, AZlawyer for your legal expertise! WOOHOO! I agree with Kimi_SFC, I learn ever so much from you...bless you and much gratitude always.

Since IANAL, re: motions to dismiss/demurrers. Does this mean the Judge is only ruling on the legal (actionable, and whether the conclusions/claims made by plaintiffs are explainable?) basis for the complaint vs. merits (factual persuasive evidence) of complaint?

Yes, exactly.

I find it hard to distinguish the two...because didn't you once say that any case can be considered actionable as long as there's some logic to it? E.g., A + B --> C. A happened; B happened; therefore, C???

A case can survive a motion to dismiss/demurrer if it "states a claim"--meaning that ASSUMING ALL THE FACTS ALLEGED ARE TRUE it would be OK legally for a judge/jury to rule in your favor.

When the Judge asks for facts that led the plaintiffs to believe that Dina struck Rebecca on the head, and you gave examples, "(1) Rebecca had head wounds consistent with being hit on the back of the head <I think the WDS complaint explicitly stated that Dr. Wecht mentioned the 4 concussions on Rebecca's head already so that is a fact in evidence>, (2) Dina was seen at the house <"opportunity">, (3) whatever else explains why they think those wounds were caused by Dina." Doesn't (3) by necessity have to include some type of precipitating cause aka "motive"/reason why Dina did what she did to (struck head of) Rebecca?

No, there is no need to include motive information, although of course it might be circumstantial evidence of involvement.

Do the Zahaus have to include the "means" by which they speculate Dina had struck Rebecca on the head? E.g., with the big red heavy dog bone? From my skimming of the WDS, I recall reading that the angle of wounds/lacerations on Rebecca's head indicate that something consistent with the 5 pound dog bone had been used to strike Rebecca's head...So that part seems to already be covered by WDS complaint.

There is normally no need to include the specific means of causing an injury, although if the injury were of an unusual type a judge might require an allegation in that regard.

What other facts are needed? I suppose from my non-lawyer eyes, what I see is that, anything could have led Dina to strike Rebecca on the head. When someone is in an angry, rage-a-holic state, anything can set them off. As long as you are physically present in the same room (or within the same proximity, even in another part of the house/complex, the courtyard, etc.), the enraged nut would seek you out to physically attack you, particularly if in the past they evinced a pattern of physical violence. It's almost a natural instinct for them to sooner or later blow up on you should you be so unfortunate as to be near them...
So to me, the Judge seems to seeking for specific details which nobody not even the police would have in most murders...unless they have videotapes of the murders.

However, from what you say, it seems Greer/Zahaus need only put together facts in logical order and they should be golden in having the case go forward to trial.

The Zs are not permitted to use a Complaint and the discovery process to get the information they need to state a claim. They need to have enough information to state a claim before they file the Complaint. So the judge is trying to confirm that the Zs are not "fishing" for a claim but actually have a claim. The big problem for the Zs is that they probably don't know enough IMO to state a claim against each defendant without making some guesses, which could get their lawyers in trouble ethically.

Thanks again for your legal expounders.

See my responses in red above.

Hi Lash, the judge ruled that Adam's motion re: assault was granted "without leave". This means it cannot be refiled. Other motions re: Adam could be amended by Zahaus though...

IANAL and all the motions, rulings, etc, can be hard to understand. I'm trying . I see where the court granted Adam's dismissal "without leave" to amend the assault claim and "with leave" to amend the remaining claims. AZlawyer wrote the Z's can amend their complaint to address this issue. Put it all together, I would interpret this to mean the assault is out. The Zahau's can amend the complaint but will have to remove the original assault claim. Since the judged ruled "without leave" no new assault claims can be alleged. Does this seem about right?

The assault claim is out. The battery claim can be amended/rewritten as a separate claim (not combined with any assault allegation). Presumably, the Zs did not suggest in their briefs that they had evidence that Rebecca regained consciousness before an assault by Adam, or they would have been allowed to amend that claim as well.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Hello AZLawyer,

Above you said,

"The Zs are not permitted to use a Complaint and the discovery process to get the information they need to state a claim. They need to have enough information to state a claim before they file the Complaint. So the judge is trying to confirm that the Zs are not "fishing" for a claim but actually have a claim. The big problem for the Zs is that they probably don't know enough IMO to state a claim against each defendant without making some guesses, which could get their lawyers in trouble ethically."

What happens if the Judge does determine the Zahaus don't have enough information and evidence and they are fishing? Will the case be dismissed? Can the Judge fine the Zahaus for filing a false claim, or rule that they need to pay the legal costs for the innocent Shacknais and Nina Romano?

Thanks!

 

[screecher]

I was thinking about the screams that were heard, if one lady heard them, other people must have heard them too. It's not like the houses were miles apart. Cripes, those houses, mansions whatever one wants to call them, are close enough to each other, a guy in one house could pee/spit out his window into the the next door's open window. I bettcha a number of people heard screaming ! and I bettcha they could testify to when the loud music began. :thinking: