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

[justice be served]

Dina or her attorneys don't have to go through 27 video CDs. She has already been investigated and cleared by detectives in a case that was ruled a suicide. The information about the witnesses that know she was at Rady's is in their files.

It must be the Zahaus that have tons of money to blow, since they are the ones that filed this fraudulent case in the first place. How on earth are they going to pay for their, Adam's, Dina, and Nina's court costs when the case is dismissed and they are directed to pay the Defendent's costs? I guess they will need to have yet another slick, soft focus video full of lies produced? But since they made so very little money on the last one, I doubt that will help.

2nd BBM. If, in fact, there is proof in the SDSO files of witnesses that know Dina was at Rady's, why would Dina and her lawyers not produce that solid evidence immediately when this WD suit was filed? That is entirely what this case is about.

The obvious answer is because there is nothing of the sort to be produced. I am sure you agree that Sheriff Gore only voiced that her phone triangulated her general whereabouts in the vicinity of the hospital. If there is more, why wouldn't it be produced by either Dina or the Sheriff office?

Because it doesn't exist and to continue to navigate everywhere around this fact in Dina's responses and on this forum is patently ridiculous. And, frankly, very old as a subject matter. Absurd in fact. Simple. Simple. Simple to do - but can't be done IMO.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

KZ, have you read the allegations that the Zahau's have filed with the court? They do not accuse Dina Shacknai of killing Rebecca Zahau.

They (falsely) allege it was Adam Shacknai that killed Rebecca Zahau (whose death was ruled a suicide), based on nothing other than they believe he was stronger than Dina (or Nina.)

Silly, huh?

 

[LuckyLucy2]

2nd BBM. If, in fact, there is proof in the SDSO files of witnesses that know Dina was at Rady's, why would Dina and her lawyers not produce that solid evidence immediately when this WD suit was filed? That is entirely what this case is about.

The obvious answer is because there is nothing of the sort to be produced. I am sure you agree that Sheriff Gore only voiced that her phone triangulated her general whereabouts in the vicinity of the hospital. If there is more, why wouldn't it be produced by either Dina or the Sheriff office?

Because it doesn't exist and to continue to navigate everywhere around this fact in Dina's responses and on this forum is patently ridiculous. And, frankly, very old as a subject matter. Absurd in fact. Simple. Simple. Simple to do - but can't be done IMO.

As AZLawyer has told us many times in the Law thread, the Judge has not yet looked at any evidence yet in this case.. The case is NOT at that stage. One cannot just walk up to the Judge, and say, "Hey, Judge! I've got witnesses so drop this case." Our court system does NOT work that way. THAT is why Dina has not presented her witness testimony to the Judge.

To think she could do so at this stage in the case shows a lack of understanding of how the court system works, IMO. The case would have to go to trial for Witnesses to be brought in - something I believe will never happen because the case will be dismissed.

 

[K_Z]

I wonder when, or if, Evan J. Gautier, Esq. (who prepared and signed the motions filed on behalf of Dina Shacknai) will be officially added to Dina's defense team? IIRC, there was a small problem before when Kim Schumann was not "officially" listed on Dina's defense counsel of record, and was preparing and filing documents on her behalf.

It won't be hard to have him added to the team, just need to file the proper requests, right?

Dang, so many details that have to be managed.

 

[K_Z]

Peteski attorney response to Dina's attorneys:

Dear Mr. Gautier:

If you would like to schedule a time to meet and confer by telephone concerning our objections to the eighteen broad categories of documents demanded by your subpoena - which you are obliged to do in good faith before pursuing a motion to compel - please let me know. Certainly your June 4 letter does not satisfy that obligation, nor does the bare assertion that you believe our objections are without merit (which notably is made without benefit of any authority whatsoever) justify any change in our client's position.

If you choose to disregard your obligations under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules and simply file a motion to compel responses to your overbroad and improper discovery demands, please be advised that our client will have no choice but to pursue all available remedies against Ms. Shacknai and her counsel, including the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in responding to this harassing and improper discovery.

I am currently traveling out of state, and will be back in Los Angeles on Thursday, June 11. I would be available for a meet and confer call on Friday, June 12, or next week.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Motion_to_Compel_Discovery_1434434151946.pdf

BBM. Now wouldn't that be something-- Dr. Phil and his production company seeking (and receiving) compensation and rulings against Dina Shacknai and her attorneys for harassment and improper discovery. Wow. Quite interesting, that!

 

[SophieRose]

I don't understand why the Z's haven't viewed the hospital videos since they are the ones looking for evidence that DS left the hospital and didn't return until a certain time. I would have been all over them (or had one of the Z defenders in SD do it) once they became public domain.

 

[justice be served]

I don't understand why the Z's haven't viewed the hospital videos since they are the ones looking for evidence that DS left the hospital and didn't return until a certain time. I would have been all over them (or had one of the Z defenders in SD do it) once they became public domain.

Where are you finding that the Zahaus have NOT viewed them?

 

[justice be served]

KZ, have you read the allegations that the Zahau's have filed with the court? They do not accuse Dina Shacknai of killing Rebecca Zahau.

They (falsely) allege it was Adam Shacknai that killed Rebecca Zahau (whose death was ruled a suicide), based on nothing other than they believe he was stronger than Dina (or Nina.)

Silly, huh?

Wrong. Again, taking one piece of a puzzle and inferring incorrectly. They most certainly are claiming that Dina is responsible for Rebecca's death. To state otherwise is utterly and irresponsibly incorrect. Continually spouting opinions as fact will not make them fact.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Dina's attorney response to Peteski attorneys:

Today we received by regular U.S. mail delivery your written correspondence dated June 10,2015 in response to our written attempt to meet and confer over client's objections to our deposition subpoena for production ofbusiness records. This letter is sent in continued effort to meet and confer over this dispute. Though your letter was purportedly sent by mail to my attention, I have not received such correspondence and request that a copy be produced or forwarded to my attention.

As today is our deadline to file our motion to compel, I made a continued effort to meet and confer with you per your written representation that you "would be available for a meet and confer call on Friday, June, 12..." though we only received your written correspondence at 12:00 noon today. However, I was informed by staff in your office that you are not in the office today /have left for the office for the day.

As our dispute remains, we will be filing the motion today. I propose that we continue to meet in the interest of judicial economy. Our office is willing to take our motion off-calendar pending a mutually agreeable resolution.

I am troubled by your letter's characterization of our position as merely "bare assertion(s)," made "without benefit of any authority." A more careful reading of our June 4 letter will reveal the contrary. Moreover, our motion to compel, which will be filed today, contains additional authority and support for our position. Perhaps once you have had time to review that motion, we can engage in a more meaningful dialogue.

We look forward to speaking with you about these issues in a good faith attempt to resolve them without the necessity of seeking court intervention. I am available anytime next week should you desire to continue this meet and confer process.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Motion_to_Compel_Discovery_1434434151946.pdf

BBM. It sounds to me like Peteski is very unprofessional and are avoiding Dina's attorneys...why? Are they are trying to hide something? I really can't believe a lawyer for an organization as large as Peteski would act so uncivil. IMO, they are worried about the information that Dina is seeking will show how they skewed the show with untruths for ratings.

 

[SophieRose]

Where are you finding that the Zahaus have NOT viewed them?

I would think if they saw DS leave the hospital and return in the middle of the night or morning on the video, they would have gone to the police or local media.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Wrong. Again, taking one piece of a puzzle and inferring incorrectly. They most certainly are claiming that Dina is responsible for Rebecca's death. To state otherwise is utterly and irresponsibly incorrect. Continually spouting opinions as fact will not make them fact.

No, I am correct and can happily back up my words for they are, indeed, a fact. Here is the exact wording from the Zahau's eighth version of their invented and concocted claims:

29. Based on the injuries sustained by REBECCA and the amount of strength needed to create such injury, Plaintiffs allege that in the early hours of July. 13, 2011, ADAM choked REBECCA to death.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._05-21-15_Amended_Complaint_1432745875907.pdf

No mention of Dina or Nina killing, just Adam - because "he had the strength". :rolling: Right. He "choked" her - in a case that was ruled a suicide.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

I would think if they saw DS leave the hospital and return in the middle of the night or morning on the video, they would have gone to the police or local media.

You are so right there, SophieRose. And I bet the Zahaus would have gone to the media, since they seem to try to get their names in the news as often as possible. Because of that, it is pretty easy to deduce that they do not have Dina leaving the hospital, because she didn't.

No, the Zahaus obviously have nothing.

 

[IQuestion]

Dina's attorney response to Peteski attorneys:




https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Motion_to_Compel_Discovery_1434434151946.pdf

BBM. It sounds to me like Peteski is very unprofessional and are avoiding Dina's attorneys...why? Are they are trying to hide something? I really can't believe a lawyer for an organization as large as Peteski would act so uncivil. IMO, they are worried about the information that Dina is seeking will show how they skewed the show with untruths for ratings.

Au contraire, I thought Peteski (or some other TV show) was going to do a show specifically geared to the horrible things people do to each other in a divorce. And if memory serves me right, the proposed guest is (was?) one of Dina's attorneys! Go figure. So, I wouldn't say Peteski, or any other TV producer, is avoiding any of Dina's attorneys, but rather encouraging them to participate. ...Yeah, yeah, I do recall the author being one of Dina's attorneys. I find it all so incredible, because as the book count goes "2 books from people who have worked with Dina" and only "1 book from Ann." Dina is way ahead in the "public appearances arena" count, too.
I was kinda thinkin' television shows/production teams etc. might not want to book Dina for anymore shows if they find themselves embroiled in numerous legal wranglings.
Dang, I wish I could remember the details...anyway, my DAD use to say "The good news is, you got what you wanted." and " The Bad news is, You got what you wanted."

 

[*Lash*]

I would think if they saw DS leave the hospital and return in the middle of the night or morning on the video, they would have gone to the police or local media.

I have the same thoughts regarding Dina. If Dina's alibi can be backed by witnesses, as some have claimed, then why hasn't Dina gone to the media with these people? Why not use these people along with the media to clear her name? Dina's had several opportunities via interviews with Dr. Phil, Dr. Drew, CNN and even the Boy Interrupted article. Imo, she's had plenty of chances to publicly clear her name using these alleged witnesses, but oddly she hasn't. Why?

 

[*Lash*]

As AZLawyer has told us many times in the Law thread, the Judge has not yet looked at any evidence yet in this case.. The case is NOT at that stage. One cannot just walk up to the Judge, and say, "Hey, Judge! I've got witnesses so drop this case." Our court system does NOT work that way. THAT is why Dina has not presented her witness testimony to the Judge.

To think she could do so at this stage in the case shows a lack of understanding of how the court system works, IMO. The case would have to go to trial for Witnesses to be brought in - something I believe will never happen because the case will be dismissed.

Imo, most of us on this forum are learning how the court system works just by following this case along with the awesome help of AZlawyer. I believe from AZlawyer's quote below, the time to show this evidence in court is during the Summary Judgment hearing and motions would need to be filed.

You can't file a motion to dismiss on the basis that you have evidence to disprove the allegations. You have to file a motion for summary judgment. Normally motions for summary judgment are not filed until motions to dismiss are decided. And there's no point in filing a motion for summary judgment until the other side has had a chance to do its discovery, because the judge will just suspend the briefing to give them more time. So if Dina thinks she has an ironclad alibi but the Zs say they think discovery will dissolve her alibi, there would be no point in Dina filing a motion for summary judgment until the Zs have had time to check into that issue.

But didn't Dina already file a motion for summary judgment? I thought that's what the hearing in October was for, based on LL2's question above. If she filed a motion for summary judgment and DIDN'T include any ironclad alibi information in her brief and exhibits, that would be a strong indication that she doesn't have an ironclad alibi. If she hasn't filed a motion for summary judgment yet, there are lots of possible reasons for that and we can't jump to any conclusions. Just to pick one example, Dina's lawyers might want to make several arguments in the motion and have not concluded discovery on the other issues yet.

 

[kittychi]

I would think if they saw DS leave the hospital and return in the middle of the night or morning on the video, they would have gone to the police or local media.

BBM: And be given lip service again about an "investigation"? You would think the police would have done that, wouldn't you. Already been down that road!

 

[screecher]

Au contraire, I thought Peteski (or some other TV show) was going to do a show specifically geared to the horrible things people do to each other in a divorce. And if memory serves me right, the proposed guest is (was?) one of Dina's attorneys! Go figure. So, I wouldn't say Peteski, or any other TV producer, is avoiding any of Dina's attorneys, but rather encouraging them to participate. ...Yeah, yeah, I do recall the author being one of Dina's attorneys. I find it all so incredible, because as the book count goes "2 books from people who have worked with Dina" and only "1 book from Ann." Dina is way ahead in the "public appearances arena" count, too.
I was kinda thinkin' television shows/production teams etc. might not want to book Dina for anymore shows if they find themselves embroiled in numerous legal wranglings.
Dang, I wish I could remember the details...anyway, my DAD use to say "The good news is, you got what you wanted." and " The Bad news is, You got what you wanted."

Yeah. Angie Hallier wrote The Wiser Divorce, came on the market September 15, 2014.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wiser-Divorce-Positive-Strategies/dp/0692258388#reader_B00NH61A58

And a poster here, posted somewhere in theses threads, she couldn't wait to read Dina's book. LOL. So, must be DD is penning a book, imo, will be self-published. If she has a money left after all this.

 

[screecher]

I have the same thoughts regarding Dina. If Dina's alibi can be backed by witnesses, as some have claimed, then why hasn't Dina gone to the media with these people? Why not use these people along with the media to clear her name? Dina's had several opportunities via interviews with Dr. Phil, Dr. Drew, CNN and even the Boy Interrupted article. Imo, she's had plenty of chances to publicly clear her name using these alleged witnesses, but oddly she hasn't. Why?

IMO, because she doesn't have any witnesses. And probably because they refuse to lie for her.

Lisa Luber for example lol

 

[LuckyLucy2]

I have the same thoughts regarding Dina. If Dina's alibi can be backed by witnesses, as some have claimed, then why hasn't Dina gone to the media with these people? Why not use these people along with the media to clear her name? Dina's had several opportunities via interviews with Dr. Phil, Dr. Drew, CNN and even the Boy Interrupted article. Imo, she's had plenty of chances to publicly clear her name using these alleged witnesses, but oddly she hasn't. Why?

Dina was cleared by law enforcement. She doesn't need to do anything else. She was never a "suspect" in her ex-husband's girlfriend's dramatic and bizarre suicide.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Au contraire, I thought Peteski (or some other TV show) was going to do a show specifically geared to the horrible things people do to each other in a divorce. And if memory serves me right, the proposed guest is (was?) one of Dina's attorneys! Go figure. So, I wouldn't say Peteski, or any other TV producer, is avoiding any of Dina's attorneys, but rather encouraging them to participate. ...Yeah, yeah, I do recall the author being one of Dina's attorneys. I find it all so incredible, because as the book count goes "2 books from people who have worked with Dina" and only "1 book from Ann." Dina is way ahead in the "public appearances arena" count, too.

I was kinda thinkin' television shows/production teams etc. might not want to book Dina for anymore shows if they find themselves embroiled in numerous legal wranglings.
Dang, I wish I could remember the details...anyway, my DAD use to say "The good news is, you got what you wanted." and " The Bad news is, You got what you wanted."

The letter sent to Peteski has nothing to do with Angela Hallier or a show about divorce.

The letter is about this case, which is also the subject of this forum.

As I said before, Peteski seems to be acting in a very unprofessional manner and seems to have something to hide, or they would produce the documents requested. I suppose the judge will have to decide this one, too.