CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #17

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cheers for this

So the trouble with the "80K liabilities" stuff is the defence didn't manage to establish this in testimony

The defence witness was very clear that the consideration was simply $20K cash plus 20% net future earnings (not quantified)

As is fairly typical, the buyer also assumed responsibility for the liabilities of the business. In other words you take over not just the physical business, but also all the relationships, sales book, creditors and debtors etc.

As usual, there was a schedule which itemised this.

A different clause also meant the purchaser assumed responsibility for 2 specific lawsuits.

The defence tried to get the lawyer to give a number for the liabilities, or the total estimated consideration - but this called for hearsay evidence. This is because the lawyer merely executed on a deal sheet from his client. He did not do any due diligence. So the correct witness needed to be the client to say what the liabilities were, and talk about taking over liability on the law suits.

As a pure speculation, I would guess the liabilities included significant creditors of EIP that DK had run up. So this might be a mix of customer orders, credit, supplier etc. But he might have been personally on the hook for a lot of this stuff.

tldr:

1. DK didn't "receive 100K" - it was 20K cash
2. The buyer took on significant liabilities of the business

The defence really needs to call the correct witness on this stuff!
I'm wondering if the 2 lawsuits were against EIP for undelivered product(s)? I searched public records and found no law suits corresponding to the time frame of the sale.
 
I have a hard time with "DK illegally sold the business". What was DK getting paid off for? I thought he owned the domain name or something. And how could he sell something he doesn't own?

Is it something like a couple is divorcing, the husband dies before changing a will? Joey had not finished DK off before he died.

I am not debating whether it was moral/ethical/wrong, etc. I am only wondering about the legality of it.

I couldn't find any business license records or who owned the domain name.
 
By DK adding the liabilities, it tells me his name was somewhere on those business records and did not want the creditors coming after him for payment.

Yes - but this is fairly standard in selling a business.

There will be a whole gamut of stuff like suppliers, customers, tax, hosting etc etc

As usual the defence examination was high on innuendo and low on content
 
Ah, that's a great point, MM. DK would have had to be listed on the business records, and had some kind of liability. I agree.

Imo

Joey ran a limited company I think? But I am not sure if DK created one.

In any event the defence spectacularly failed in their efforts to imply DK "received 100K" or anything like that number

There was nothing in testimony to indicate that the liabilities were not incurred in the ordinary course of business.

And certainly nothing to indicate we were talking 6 figures

Shame the defence don't call the proper witness ;)
 
Quite possibly - or from unpaid suppliers

They might be small claims and could be filed out of state (e.g. customers)
(quote)
"I actually transferred it (the money) to myself with Mike's knowledge," he said. "None of that money went to me. That money went to vendors, welders and manufacturers."

"Mike and I and his mom tried to salvage and run the business that we had built for a long time," Kavanaugh said.

But without Joseph McStay at the helm, the business would eventually fold.

In July 2011, Kavanaugh ended up selling McStay's business, Earth Inspired Products, to two individuals named Matthew Schneider and Joaquin Quintero, according to court records.

The sale of Earth Inspired Products and the subsequent creation of a corporation called Water Feature Supply, Inc. resulted in a lawsuit being filed in February 2012 in San Diego Superior Court (case # 37.2012-00092477).

The lawsuit detailed ownership disputes between the plaintiffs, Schneider and Quintero, and another party named Patrick Maloy.

The lawsuit was dismissed in May of 2012 and Maloy retained ownership of the Water Feature Supply domain and business.

Joseph McStay's original web site domain name associated with Earth Inspired Products currently directs users back to McStayFamily.org.
McStay murder mystery: Who is Dan Kavanaugh?
 
(quote)
"I actually transferred it (the money) to myself with Mike's knowledge," he said. "None of that money went to me. That money went to vendors, welders and manufacturers."

"Mike and I and his mom tried to salvage and run the business that we had built for a long time," Kavanaugh said.

But without Joseph McStay at the helm, the business would eventually fold.

In July 2011, Kavanaugh ended up selling McStay's business, Earth Inspired Products, to two individuals named Matthew Schneider and Joaquin Quintero, according to court records.

The sale of Earth Inspired Products and the subsequent creation of a corporation called Water Feature Supply, Inc. resulted in a lawsuit being filed in February 2012 in San Diego Superior Court (case # 37.2012-00092477).

The lawsuit detailed ownership disputes between the plaintiffs, Schneider and Quintero, and another party named Patrick Maloy.

The lawsuit was dismissed in May of 2012 and Maloy retained ownership of the Water Feature Supply domain and business.

Joseph McStay's original web site domain name associated with Earth Inspired Products currently directs users back to McStayFamily.org.
McStay murder mystery: Who is Dan Kavanaugh?

That law suit is not the ones in the contract

That action happened after the DK sale. The Lawyer made clear we are talking about 2 law suits filed before the sale.

If I understand what Bobcat posted correctly, the Maloy suit happened after some kind of contractual dispute between Maloy and Schneider and Quintero post sale. It was alleged Maloy worked for Schneider and Quintero and transferred the domains to himself.

The Court sided with Maloy, stating that it was a contractual dispute which needed to be litigated

ETA: I am aware Schneider/Quintero/Maloy is some kind of giant online rathole, but i just don't see what it has to do with the murders in 2010
 
Last edited:
With small claims court the suit needs to be filed in the same county where the business and/or owner reside. I searched several counties and several names and found nothing.

OK - I was not sure about that

Sometimes with internet purchases, the claimant will try to file in their own jurisdiction

The claimant might also be a larger entity - e.g did EIP have credit cards etc?

I can imagine Joey's death led to various defaults and claims
 
That law suit is not the ones in the contract

That action happened after the DK sale. The Lawyer made clear we are talking about 2 law suits filed before the sale.

If I understand what Bobcat posted correctly, the Maloy suit happened after some kind of contractual dispute between Maloy and Schneider and Quintero post sale. It was alleged Maloy worked for Schneider and Quintero and transferred the domains to himself.

The Court sided with Maloy, stating that it was a contractual dispute which needed to be litigated

ETA: I am aware Schneider/Quintero/Maloy is some kind of giant online rathole, but i just don't see what it has to do with the murders in 2010
No worries, thanks for the correction.
And agree with what you say about the rathole, and any relevance to the murders.
 
I have a hard time with "DK illegally sold the business". What was DK getting paid off for? I thought he owned the domain name or something. And how could he sell something he doesn't own?

Is it something like a couple is divorcing, the husband dies before changing a will? Joey had not finished DK off before he died.

I am not debating whether it was moral/ethical/wrong, etc. I am only wondering about the legality of it.

I couldn't find any business license records or who owned the domain name.

As usual the defence haven't bothered to establish any of the baseline facts for the allegation

yet such evidence could be produced in Court

Some pretty basic things would be the ownership of the domain and the website
 
As usual the defence haven't bothered to establish any of the baseline facts for the allegation

yet such evidence could be produced in Court

Some pretty basic things would be the ownership of the domain and the website
Wonder if they will elaborate further on the issue? Maybe DK will be a witness called to testify?
 
I have been thinking about the gameplay of calling DK and wonder if it unleashes what chess players call a "desperado"

In chess, a desperado piece is a piece that is en prise or trapped, but captures an enemy piece before it is itself captured. This can be in either a situation where both sides have hanging pieces, "...in which you use your doomed piece to eat as much material as possible before it dies

In the analogy, DK is a defence witness who will be hung out to be smeared for quadruple homicide. As he is not on trial, he cannot call any witnesses or evidence to protect himself. He will have to sit there and soak up the damage to his reputation.

BUT

In his Evidence in Chief, DK will have unrestricted opportunity to unload on the defendant. AND he will have every reason to do so, especially if he did the murders, but also if he didn't. In this sense he will be a pure desperado with everything to gain and nothing left to lose.

Assuming Chase isn't testifying, the defence has no way to parry stuff DK might testify to - e.g. during their post disappearance raids on Joeys finances.

So as a motivated desperado, one can imagine DK won't hold back on imagined or real testimony that hurts Chase badly.
 
I have been thinking about the gameplay of calling DK and wonder if it unleashes what chess players call a "desperado"



In the analogy, DK is a defence witness who will be hung out to be smeared for quadruple homicide. As he is not on trial, he cannot call any witnesses or evidence to protect himself. He will have to sit there and soak up the damage to his reputation.

BUT

In his Evidence in Chief, DK will have unrestricted opportunity to unload on the defendant. AND he will have every reason to do so, especially if he did the murders, but also if he didn't. In this sense he will be a pure desperado with everything to gain and nothing left to lose.

Assuming Chase isn't testifying, the defence has no way to parry stuff DK might testify to - e.g. during their post disappearance raids on Joeys finances.

So as a motivated desperado, one can imagine DK won't hold back on imagined or real testimony that hurts Chase badly.
I would love to hear DK on the stand ripping Merritt a new hole. That would be a thing of beauty. ;)
 
I have been thinking about the gameplay of calling DK and wonder if it unleashes what chess players call a "desperado"



In the analogy, DK is a defence witness who will be hung out to be smeared for quadruple homicide. As he is not on trial, he cannot call any witnesses or evidence to protect himself. He will have to sit there and soak up the damage to his reputation.

BUT

In his Evidence in Chief, DK will have unrestricted opportunity to unload on the defendant. AND he will have every reason to do so, especially if he did the murders, but also if he didn't. In this sense he will be a pure desperado with everything to gain and nothing left to lose.

Assuming Chase isn't testifying, the defence has no way to parry stuff DK might testify to - e.g. during their post disappearance raids on Joeys finances.

So as a motivated desperado, one can imagine DK won't hold back on imagined or real testimony that hurts Chase badly.
Ha, i don't play chess but i think the desperados in this case are the DT, and the witnesses they have called so far seem to be helping the PT, because as far as i can tell what have they actually proven? All IMO of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
2,604
Total visitors
2,771

Forum statistics

Threads
590,041
Messages
17,929,260
Members
228,044
Latest member
Bosie
Back
Top