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

[LuckyLucy2]

Snipped.

So, I just have to "vent" a little bit. I'm no where near thru reading these new documents, but does ANYONE proof read them before filing them?? Good lord, for what billable hours are for an even middle of the road firm, I'd expect some intern or clerk to be given the task of proof reading. Greer's firm has more than a few errors in # 154, but the prize for the most egregious errors has to go to the Schumann and Rosenberg firm-- Dina's attorneys.

OMG, Greer does not even know the address of Spreckles Mansion, where Rebecca Zahau was found dead! Talking about an error!

:tantrum:

He is listing the address as 1040 Ocean Boulevard - the SAME address that XZ gave on the 911 call - an address that DOES NOT EXIST!

I'm only on the fourth or fifth page and it is listed OVER and OVER as 1040 Ocean Boulevard! The CORRECT address is 1043 Ocean Boulevard.

I cannot believe their ATTORNEY would make such an important mistake, even one as bad as Greer! This right here could get the case thrown out.

Didn't they have anyone PROOF this? <modsnip>

UNBELIVABLE!!!!!!

:facepalm:

 

[bourne]

:laugh: "Defeat Shacknai"

LOL. Methinks only you and I know this...

 

[bourne]

Busy couple of days on the San Diego ROA website for this case! More reading homework for case watchers. Three additional entries today, # 155, 156, & 157.

** Daniel Benchoff and M.E. "Buddy" Rake have withdrawn as counsel, with the consent of Defendant Dina Shacknai. This is not a request by DS to add, or request to remove counsel. Counsel is initiating the withdrawal. That is curious indeed. DS remains represented by the Schumann/ Rosenberg firm.

#153
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...otion_and_Supporting_Declar_1430441570121.pdf

#155
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...ce_of_Withdrawal_of_Counsel_1430441570277.pdf

#156
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...Noticed_Motion_and_Supporti_1430441570402.pdf

*#157 has no viewing/ purchase option yet.

Yep, just read #155. Nice that it was short and sweet. The attorneys requested their own removal from Dina. Wow. Wonder what brought that about! If I had to guess, I'd say they had enough of her manipulations and shenanigans and the fact that they predict she will lose in the impending trial and they wanted to "disassociate" from a fraud and murderous loser who will not be able to pay up the court fees.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

:laugh: "Defeat Shacknai"

This isn't a football game.

 

[Morag]

OMG, Greer does not even know the address of Spreckles Mansion, where Rebecca Zahau was found dead! Talking about an error!

:tantrum:

He is listing the address as 1040 Ocean Boulevard - the SAME address that XZ gave on the 911 call - an address that DOES NOT EXIST!

I'm only on the fourth or fifth page and it is listed OVER and OVER as 1040 Ocean Boulevard! The CORRECT address is 1043 Ocean Boulevard.

I cannot believe their ATTORNEY would make such an important mistake, even one as bad as Greer! This right here could get the case thrown out.

Didn't they have anyone PROOF this? <modsnip>

UNBELIVABLE!!!!!!

:facepalm:

Perhaps you mean the S-p-r-e-c-k-e-l-s Mansion? And it's u-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e.

 

[K_Z]

:laugh: "Defeat Shacknai"

This isn't a football game.

"Defeat Shacknai" is just another one of the egregious examples of failure to proof read and make corrections that I ranted about.

"Defeat Shacknai" is supposed to be "Defendant Shacknai." All together, a rather unfortunate typo, eh?

Kind of like how Pari Zahau is referred to as male in now at least THREE separate filings.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Perhaps you mean the S-p-r-e-c-k-e-l-s Mansion? And it's u-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e.

Yeah, I type too fast and make mistakes on quick web postings...but, then again, I'm not an A-T-T-O-R-N-E-Y trying to swindle i-N-N-O-C-E-N-T people out of
10 M-I-L-L-I-O-N D-O-L-L-A-R-S.

You think they'd at least K-N-O-W the address of the home at the C-E-N-T-E-R of their
allegations! 1040 Ocean Boulevard????!!!!!

P-I-T-I-F-U-L

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Yep, just read #155. Nice that it was short and sweet. The attorneys requested their own removal from Dina. Wow. Wonder what brought that about! If I had to guess, I'd say they had enough of her manipulations and shenanigans and the fact that they predict she will lose in the impending trial and they wanted to "disassociate" from a fraud and murderous loser who will not be able to pay up the court fees.

<modsnip> More than likely, they think the case will either be DISMISSED tomorrow or in October, and have other cases to work on. And it certaily sounds amicable.

Directly from the document:

Daniel Benchoff and M.E. "Buddy" Rake have withdrawn as counsel, with the consent of Defendant Dina Shacknai.

Other things you have gotten wrong just in the last day or two:

Dina Shacknai HAS witnesses from Rady's, who will gladly file depositions for her. She herself has NEVER said ANYTHING about witnesses in the media, despite you posting that she has. No, that was friend of Anne Bremner and Mary Zahau, author Ann Rule, that put it in writing.

 

[*Lash*]

I am not surprised to see these particular attorneys withdrawal from defending Dina in the state Zahau suit. REMEMBER, in the beginning of Maxie's WDS, the Rake firm was representing plaintiff Dina. They have now withdrawn from representing Dina in 3 suits. Federal, state and Maxie's WDS. The real kicker, they're now representing Jonah aka 1043 Ocean Blvd LLC in Maxie's suit. The Rake firm did a complete 360 and switched sides. Now that is incredible!

 

[*Lash*]

So Jim Hager sees something on the night of July 10, YET doesn't report it July 22, and THEN he goes to a Private Detective instead of the SDSO, the law enforcement agency INVESTIGATING the case?

Yeah, sounds really credible. :laughing:

Not sure where you're getting the July 10th date? The court document gives the year of the interview with the PI firm as 2013. The Zahau's filed their complaint in July, 2013. This interview with Mr. Haagar most likely occurred as a follow up to what was in the investigation files from 2011. The 7/22/2013 date is not when the witness reported seeing Dina at the mansion. We know this because it was reported way back in July of 2011. It is simply a date the Zahau attorneys and the PI interviewed Mr. Haagar.

ETA - not sure if the name spelling is Hagar or Haagar. Each side gives a different spelling, good grief!

 

[K_Z]

I am not surprised to see these particular attorneys withdrawal from defending Dina in the state Zahau suit. REMEMBER, in the beginning of Maxie's WDS, the Rake firm was representing plaintiff Dina. They have now withdrawn from representing Dina in 3 suits. Federal, state and Maxie's WDS. The real kicker, they're now representing Jonah aka 1043 Ocean Blvd LLC in Maxie's suit. The Rake firm did a complete 360 and switched sides. Now that is incredible!

Yes, apparently complete withdrawal from representing DS in all three cases. Now, we'll never know the exact reasons why this happened. But I do note that this firm is in AZ, and she already has a good firm representing her in CA, in both the State and Federal case.

OTOH, all these attorneys from prominent firms, and all these lawsuits year after year, aren't cheap-- even for the wealthy. Could be she's having cash flow problems. Or there could be a difference of opinion in their advice to her, and her expectations. JMO, but I get the sense DS isn't the easiest client to work with.

I also have to wonder if DS chose a firm Jonah has used as a way to further antagonize him. A vindictive strategy using Jonah's money to sue him again, to try to get more of his money. I sure wouldn't put it past her to do that. JMO.

Or maybe they all didn't work and play well together with the Schumann/ Rosenberg firm, and Benchoff and Rake want to just take their ball and go home. Who knows.

What does seem odd to me is how much effort they had to go to, to be added to each case, and then were barely representing her a few weeks, when withdrawing from both cases.. Remember Atty Benchoff had to submit credentials several times? It was around Dec/ Jan when they filed to be added to the cases, IIRC-- so only on the State and Federal cases about 16 weeks.

 

[K_Z]

Also wanted to mention that in several of the recent documents, Attorney Greer has made specific mention that RZ was murdered to prevent her from disclosing information that was embarrassing or unfavorable to the Shacknai and Romano families.

Now, that is interesting to speculate about, and elevates wrongful death action (and motive) beyond ordinary vindictiveness/ retribution. It also potentially implies a monetary value connected to the "prevention from disclosure", IMO. Interesting.

The FAC is clear in stating that as a consequence of entering a common scheme and plan
to murder Rebecca Zahau, each defendant caused physical harm to Rebecca Zahau, and that each
had their; own motive for committing such acts, based on anger and revenge arising from the fatal
injuries suffered by six year old Maxwell Shacknai, who was a nephew to Nina Romano and
Adam Shacicnai and Dina Shacicnai's son and ensuring that she never disclosed potentially embarrassing information about the Shacknai and Romano families to the public.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...otion_and_Supporting_Declar_1430441570121.pdf

BBM

 

[Betty P]

Also wanted to mention that in several of the recent documents, Attorney Greer has made specific mention that RZ was murdered to prevent her from disclosing information that was embarrassing or unfavorable to the Shacknai and Romano families.

Now, that is interesting to speculate about, and elevates wrongful death action (and motive) beyond ordinary vindictiveness/ retribution. It also potentially implies a monetary value connected to the "prevention from disclosure", IMO. Interesting.



https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...otion_and_Supporting_Declar_1430441570121.pdf

BBM

That was mentioned in the original version of the WDS as well. Wonder what RZ knew that could cause such embarrassment to the Shacknai and Romano families? What could be so bad that would motivate them to kill her to keep the information secret?

 

[bourne]

"Defeat Shacknai" is just another one of the egregious examples of failure to proof read and make corrections that I ranted about.

"Defeat Shacknai" is supposed to be "Defendant Shacknai." All together, a rather unfortunate typo, eh?

Kind of like how Pari Zahau is referred to as male in now at least THREE separate filings.

Actually I thought the term was most appropriate and shows the strength of advocacy Greer has towards his clients. LOL

 

[*Lash*]

Latest entry showing on the ROA -

#157 04/30/2015 Tentative Ruling for Demurrer / Motion to Strike published

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/

Tentative Rulings - Civil
A tentative ruling is the proposed ruling of the court. Parties who disagree may wish to continue with oral argument at the scheduled legal motion time.

Any party who wishes to orally argue the motion may appear by telephone by calling Court Call at (888) 882-6878, or in person on the date and time set for the hearing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.670. Failure to appear shall be deemed a waiver of oral argument. If neither party appears at the scheduled hearing, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the court on the date set for the hearing.

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1554961&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

You can view a tentative ruling on the website in the quote above- nothing showing right now.

No Tentative Ruling is found that matches Case Number 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

No Tentative Ruling is found that matches Case Number 2013-00075418

 

[bourne]

Not sure where you're getting the July 10th date? The court document gives the year of the interview with the PI firm as 2013. The Zahau's filed their complaint in July, 2013. This interview with Mr. Haagar most likely occurred as a follow up to what was in the investigation files from 2011. The 7/22/2013 date is not when the witness reported seeing Dina at the mansion. We know this because it was reported way back in July of 2011. It is simply a date the Zahau attorneys and the PI interviewed Mr. Haagar.

ETA - not sure if the name spelling is Hagar or Haagar. Each side gives a different spelling, good grief!

I think we all know that the impartial bicyclist family of eyewitnesses had come forward in 2011 to SDLE and not two years later in 2013 to a set of detectives in TX, and that what is listed in the recent documents is that Mr. Haager was re-interviewed with the investigators in TX.
<modsnip>

 

[bourne]

Latest entry showing on the ROA -

04/30/2015 Tentative Ruling for Demurrer / Motion to Strike published

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



You can view a tentative ruling on the website above- nothing showing right now.

No Tentative Ruling is found that matches Case Number 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

No Tentative Ruling is found that matches Case Number 2013-00075418

Lash, I was unable to open the website with the 4/30 entry...Can you screen cap it for us?

 

[*Lash*]

Bourne, I edited my post and changed the link. Try this one -

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/

CASE NUMBER -

37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

 

[Inparadise]

Not sure where you're getting the July 10th date? The court document gives the year of the interview with the PI firm as 2013. The Zahau's filed their complaint in July, 2013. This interview with Mr. Haagar most likely occurred as a follow up to what was in the investigation files from 2011. The 7/22/2013 date is not when the witness reported seeing Dina at the mansion. We know this because it was reported way back in July of 2011. It is simply a date the Zahau attorneys and the PI interviewed Mr. Haagar.

ETA - not sure if the name spelling is Hagar or Haagar. Each side gives a different spelling, good grief!

The correct spelling is Haagar.

 

[Carioca]

I am not surprised to see these particular attorneys withdrawal from defending Dina in the state Zahau suit. REMEMBER, in the beginning of Maxie's WDS, the Rake firm was representing plaintiff Dina. They have now withdrawn from representing Dina in 3 suits. Federal, state and Maxie's WDS. The real kicker, they're now representing Jonah aka 1043 Ocean Blvd LLC in Maxie's suit. The Rake firm did a complete 360 and switched sides. Now that is incredible!

Thanks Lash! So glad you posted this as ever since last week I've been pondering under what conditions an attorney can "quit" a client, seeing as Dina's attorney withdrawals have been initiated by the attorneys and not Dina.

According to State Bar of AZ Ethics, here are the acceptable circumstances, with my comments in red (BBM):

ER 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law (nope, don't think so);
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client; (since both Berchoff and Rake withdrew from both State and Fed, I doubt this would apply unless there's a flu going around the office... lol) or
(3) the lawyer is discharged. (nope, the lawyers withdrew)

(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:

(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client (this is interesting, since in the AZ Maxie case, Berchoff withdrew, thus Dina was left without representation);
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent (say what? hmmm);
(3) the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement (interesting... based upon the 360 turn in events, I'd put my eggs in this basket);
(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled (doubt it but open to interpretation);
(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client (ditto 5); or
(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.

http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/EthicsOpinions/ViewEthicsOpinion?id=700

K_Z, thank you for all the docs!! You rock!