Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #281
Here in California, it is 9 out of 12 jurors.

In civil cases, three-fourths of the jurors (i.e., 9 out of 12) must agree upon the verdict. [Ca Const. Art. I, § 16; Ca Civ Pro § 618]

http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/civillitigationserv/civiltrial/civiltrial.html

Code of Civil Procedure section 618 and article I, section 16, of the California Constitution provide that three-fourths of the jurors must agree to a verdict in a civil case.
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/5000/5009.html
 
  • #282
So if I understand this correctly, Nina's "Answer to second amended complaint for (1) wrongful death; (2) assault; (3) battery; (4) negligence; (4) conversion" is to write down her guesses at Rebecca's motives for "suicide".

Seriously? That's all you got, Nina?

Alrighty then. Keep up the good work, defendants.
 
  • #283
So if I understand this correctly, Nina's "Answer to second amended complaint for (1) wrongful death; (2) assault; (3) battery; (4) negligence; (4) conversion" is to write down her guesses at Rebecca's motives for "suicide".

Seriously? That's all you got, Nina?

Alrighty then. Keep up the good work, defendants.

Not only that, IMO, Nina threw her sister Dina under the proverbial bus.

Contrast Dina's Answer to Nina's. It looks to me like there was no collaboration or cooperation at all between the two sisters WRT their legal strategy. That's a new and interesting development, IMO. We always knew Adam wasn't tight with the women, but the whole tone of Nina's Answer is very different than Dina's.

And yes, Imp-- I definitely agree that Nina's planned defense is to layer on her ideas about "why" she thinks Rebecca's death was a suicide. I don't see much "defense" in that document, just a lot of blaming.

All that "speculation" in Nina's Answer will be absolutely shredded by Attorney Greer, IMO. He won't even have to work that hard. Nina gave him a gift with that, and threw Dina under the bus at the same time, IMO. It will be interesting to watch.

After these 2 documents in the last week from Dina and Nina, I'm feeling pretty good about this going to trial!
 
  • #284
Not only that, IMO, Nina threw her sister Dina under the proverbial bus.

Contrast Dina's Answer to Nina's. It looks to me like there was no collaboration or cooperation at all between the two sisters WRT their legal strategy. That's a new and interesting development, IMO. We always knew Adam wasn't tight with the women, but the whole tone of Nina's Answer is very different than Dina's.

And yes, Imp-- I definitely agree that Nina's planned defense is to layer on her ideas about "why" she thinks Rebecca's death was a suicide. I don't see much "defense" in that document, just a lot of blaming.

All that "speculation" in Nina's Answer will be absolutely shredded by Attorney Greer, IMO. He won't even have to work that hard. Nina gave him a gift with that, and threw Dina under the bus at the same time, IMO. It will be interesting to watch.

After these 2 documents in the last week from Dina and Nina, I'm feeling pretty good about this going to trial!

I agree with every word, K_Z. Apparently the brains behind the operation is no longer a part of the operation!

And the part I bolded - I'm just stunned Nina's attorney is actually filing an official court document full of speculation and innuendo about the deceased victim. WTH?
 
  • #285
Not only that, IMO, Nina threw her sister Dina under the proverbial bus.

Contrast Dina's Answer to Nina's. It looks to me like there was no collaboration or cooperation at all between the two sisters WRT their legal strategy. That's a new and interesting development, IMO. We always knew Adam wasn't tight with the women, but the whole tone of Nina's Answer is very different than Dina's.

And yes, Imp-- I definitely agree that Nina's planned defense is to layer on her ideas about "why" she thinks Rebecca's death was a suicide. I don't see much "defense" in that document, just a lot of blaming.

All that "speculation" in Nina's Answer will be absolutely shredded by Attorney Greer, IMO. He won't even have to work that hard. Nina gave him a gift with that, and threw Dina under the bus at the same time, IMO. It will be interesting to watch.

After these 2 documents in the last week from Dina and Nina, I'm feeling pretty good about this going to trial!

You are so correct - a "defense" posturing of simply rationalizing why it was a suicide is not a defense. The jury will see right through that.
 
  • #286
Nina's "speculation" and "innuendo" come straight from the investigative files!

In fact, Nina is so convinced her "speculation" is correct that she is asking the Judge to dismiss her case within 21 days, and for sanctions against the Zahaus.

BBM

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Frivolous Action)

27. As a separate and seventeenth affirmative defense to the Second Amended

Complaint and each purported cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that plaintiffs'

claims are frivolous within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 and that the

continued prosecution of this case as against this defendant constitutes sanctionable conduct. This

defendant reserves the right to bring a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 as

against plaintiffs' counsel and/or plaintiffs unless this answering defendant is dismissed within 21

days of the filing and service of this Answer

128.7.
(a) Every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer’s address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise provided by law, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.
(b) By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met:
(1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.
(3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(c) If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. In determining what sanctions, if any, should be ordered, the court shall consider whether a party seeking sanctions has exercised due diligence.
(1) A motion for sanctions under this section shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). Notice of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.
(2) On its own motion, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b), unless, within 21 days of service of the order to show cause, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected.
(d) A sanction imposed for violation of subdivision (b) shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of this conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in paragraphs (1) and (2), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.
(1) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).
(2) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court’s motion unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(e) When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this section and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.
(f) In addition to any award pursuant to this section for conduct described in subdivision (b), the court may assess punitive damages against the plaintiff upon a determination by the court that the plaintiff’s action was an action maintained by a person convicted of a felony against the person’s victim, or the victim’s heirs, relatives, estate, or personal representative, for injuries arising from the acts for which the person was convicted of a felony, and that the plaintiff is guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice in maintaining the action.
(g) This section shall not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions.
(h) A motion for sanctions brought by a party or a party’s attorney primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, shall itself be subject to a motion for sanctions. It is the intent of the Legislature that courts shall vigorously use its sanctions authority to deter that improper conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.
(i) This section shall apply to a complaint or petition filed on or after January 1, 1995, and any other pleading, written notice of motion, or other similar paper filed in that matter.
 
  • #287
Nina's "speculation" comes straight from the investigative files!

In fact, Nina is so convinced her "speculation" is correct that she is asking the Judge to dismiss her case within 21 days, and for sanctions against the Zahaus.

Well I won't hold my breath on that one. It is going to a jury but you do know that right? Do you think this answer changes anything at all?
 
  • #288
BTW, lucky, you do know that we can all read the pleadings without you regurgitating it everytime?
 
  • #289
KZ, it is possible a jury will never see this case. Not only is Nina asking the case be dismissed against her, but here is still a Summary Judgement for all three defendants on the calendar.

Justice be served, no need to be rude. I think it is helpful to have what is being discussed right there in front of us, so everyone doesn't have to go back to their PDF every 2 seconds. I think some other posters may appreciate that.
 
  • #290
KZ, it is possible a jury will never see this case. Not only is Nina asking the case be dismissed against her, but here is still a Summary Judgement for all three defendants on the calendar.

Justice be served, no need to be rude. I think it is helpful to have what is being discussed right there in front of us, so everyone doesn't have to go back to their PDF every 2 seconds. I think some other posters may appreciate that.

Sorry but it seems so pointless but if it helps people okay.
 
  • #291
I have very limited legal experience so can someone tell me what the legal standard is in a WDS? Is it "beyond a reasonable doubt" or something else?

Thanks

Hi CricketFern :wave:

This link will show you all the threads in Rebecca's case. Open and closed. There is an open thread titled Curiosity Never Kills the Cat - Legal Questions for VERIFIED LAWYERS- ~No Discussion~-- Here you can ask legal questions and have a verified lawyer answer. Great thread!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?456-Rebecca-Zahau-Nalepa
 
  • #292
"Straight from the investigative files" would seem to indicate there was an actual investigation, which of course there wasn't. (Ann Rule doesn't count, lol.)

So if Nina's defense will be to get on the stand and ponder out loud the possible motives of the "suicide" of a woman she barely knew, based on information contained in "files" from an investigation that never took place, well ...

That's okay with me. ;)
 
  • #293
^^Re Nina's latest filing, how many times have we heard that this case is going to be dismissed? Thousands, if not more, yet the case still moves forward.

Wishing doesn't make it so.

Get the facts and all the evidence out there before a jury and let them decide.
 
  • #294
"Straight from the investigative files" would seem to indicate there was an actual investigation, which of course there wasn't. (Ann Rule doesn't count, lol.)

So if Nina's defense will be to get on the stand and ponder out loud the possible motives of the "suicide" of a woman she barely knew, based on information contained in "files" from an investigation that never took place, well ...

That's okay with me. ;)

BBM. Yep, just like the Ann Rule book. Nothing against Ann Rule (RIP), but she wrote books - she wasn't a law enforcement investigator. She didn't investigate RZ's death. Sadly, no one did.

Bumping from the other thread, since Ann Rule's books are no laughing matter.

Ann Rule is regarded by many as the foremost true crime writer in America, and the author responsible for the genre as it exists today. She came to her career with a solid background in law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Both her grandfather and her uncle were Michigan sheriffs, her cousin was a Prosecuting Attorney and another uncle was the Medical Examiner. Raised in that environment, she grew up wanting to work in law enforcement herself. She is a former Seattle Policewoman, former caseworker for the Washington State Department of Public Assistance, former student intern at the Oregon State Training School for Girls Ann Rule was born in Lowell, Michigan on October 22.

Ann has attended every seminar that police organizations invite her to, including those on organized crime, arson, bomb search, DNA, etc. She has 30 hours credit at the University of Washington Medical School earned by attending the National Medical Examiners' Conference. She attended the King County Police Basic Homicide School for two weeks. Today, she herself teaches seminars to many law enforcement groups. She is a certified instructor in many states on subjects such as: Serial Murder, Sadistic Sociopaths, Women Who Kill, and High Profile Offenders. She was on the U.S. Justice Department Task Force that set up VI-CAP, the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program, now in place at FBI Headquarters in Quantico, a computer tracking system to help identify and trap serial killers. She has testified twice before Senate Judiciary Sub-committees on victims' rights and on the danger of serial killers.

http://www.authorannrule.com/Ann_Rule_Bio.html

Bourne certainly seems to trust that Rule knows what she is talking about:

I put credence on what Ann Rule writes because she was a detective and she's been very solid in the past about details such as times and alibis in other cases. I don't believe she would have written that Jonah had a solid alibi if she didn't investigate that time period fully. I also think that when Jonah was caught coming out of his room at RMH and leaving to visit Max at the hospital, he was seen within minutes entering the hospital. I don't see why Ann Rule would be so positive about Jonah's alibi if she didn't at least check out if there were big lapses in time (30 mins or more, I assume to get from RMH or hospital to Spreckels mansion) in which Jonah disappeared from either RMH or the hospital.

Post #525

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...eadly-Neighbors-Ann-Rule-s-Crime-Files/page35

Rule is also correct about Dina and her numerous witnesses.
 
  • #295
  • #296
New entry on the SD ROA, #342 (Filed by Adam Shacknai; 79 pages):

342 04/11/2016 Motion - Other (Defendant Adam Shacknai's Notice of Motion and Motion for Early Designation of Experts Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.230(b); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support) filed by Shacknai, Adam. Shacknai, Adam (Defendant) Defendant Adam Shacknai's Notice of Motion and Motion for Early Designation of Experts Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.230(b); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

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

Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL


Here is the link. Link will expire in a few hours. Will send to Bessie to post in doc thread.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._s_Notice_of_Motion_and_Mot_1460502507997.pdf
 
  • #297
So if I understand this correctly, Nina's "Answer to second amended complaint for (1) wrongful death; (2) assault; (3) battery; (4) negligence; (4) conversion" is to write down her guesses at Rebecca's motives for "suicide".

Seriously? That's all you got, Nina?

Alrighty then. Keep up the good work, defendants.

BBM. It occurs to me that the most logical explanation for all of the absurd hyperbole and speculation in Nina's Answer is that there was a very strong effort to "get in" this document a bunch of OPINIONS and other stuff that is otherwise completely inadmissible as evidence. Kind of like an attorney making *wild accusations and conclusions* in an opening statement, then never being accountable to the jury for the evidence to prove the wild suppositions.

So, a rope tying book? Could be nautical knots-- after all, Coronado IS an island, and JS DOES have a yacht. Or it could be a sex manual-- and if it is, who really cares? Tremendously illogical, and *wildly tangential*, to make the inference that because there was a book on knots in an office, that the defendant could not have killed her. That's beyond ridiculous. But they know that.

It's my opinion that all the garbage in Nina's Answer about Rebecca is a planned effort to put out as much defamation and character assassination as possible. There was a very concerted effort to write that such that the idea was put in there that Nina thinks Rebecca killed Max. It's a deliberate maneuver by Nina and her attorneys to try to "force" the trial away from Rebecca's death, and back onto a "faux WDS" over Max's death, IMO.

In essence, to attempt to manipulate and deflect the conversation about what happened away from the behavior of NINA and the 2 defendants, and onto their fantasies about the VICTIM, Rebecca.

It's just another form of "she had it coming", IMO. This strategy, IMO, can backfire spectacularly-- especially now that Nina is admitting that they all knew Max wouldn't survive pretty much from the beginning. Which is what I've said for 4 1/2 years now.

It won't be hard to find an expert witness to discuss the wealth of information in the EMS run report, about how much difficulty paramedics, with their advanced training and equipment, had in managing Max's airway. So much so that they could not get him intubated in the field, or get lines placed, and had to divert to Coronado Sharp (a very small hospital with no pediatric ICU or advanced capabilities) for help with airway management, line placement, and resuscitation, before proceeding to Rady. But Nina would have us believe that an eye tech with basic CPR skills could do better airway management in the field, with no equipment or experience, than paramedics?? GMAB.

If anyone needs a refresher, here is a link to the EMS thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?185699-Max-Shacknai-EMS-Report
 
  • #298
^^^So if I understand this ("this" being the latest entry from Adam's attorney) correctly, Adam's attorneys are asking that the Zahaus' fill them in on their expert witnesses in order to "reveal the basis for the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint."

I'd be interested to know from anyone here - or maybe I should post this for AZLawyer on the other thread? - whether this is a standard request and whether the Zahaus are under any obligation to reveal their expert witnesses in August or "soon thereafter."
 
  • #299
I find it curious/odd that Nina would first state in her widely publicized interview a few years ago that she thought that Maxwould survive and now she is stating that she knew from the onset that he would not. What's that about?
 
  • #300


Bumping from the other thread, since Ann Rule's books are no laughing matter.



Bourne certainly seems to trust that Rule knows what she is talking about:



Rule is also correct about Dina and her numerous witnesses.

Bourne wrote that post about Ann Rule in 2012- well before anyone knew that she was in the late stages of Alzheimer's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
2,709
Total visitors
2,870

Forum statistics

Threads
632,139
Messages
18,622,645
Members
243,032
Latest member
beccabelle70
Back
Top