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

[K_Z]

The 16 areas identified by DS attorneys that lead to the 68 instances of counsel advising MZL not to answer (BBM):

Here, Defendant's line of questioning at Ms. Zahau- Loehner's deposition falls into 16 broad categories:

-Issues where Attorney-client Privilege asserted as an Objection.

i. The identity of the family member controlling the case and exposure with media. (See,
Separate Statement issue nos. 2, 3, 4)

ii. Knowledge of Rebecca's actions and records (See, Separate Statement issue nos. 5, 10)

iii. Information Ms. Zahau-Loehner has reviewed before making statements to the media
(See, Separate Statement issue nos. 11)

iv. The investigation into Rebecca's death (See, Separate Statement issue nos. 12, 13, 14)

v. Information about Jonah and the decision not to sue him for wrongful death Separate Statement issue nos. 16, 17, 65, 67)

vi, The evidence to support case against defendants and the allegations asserted in the
Complaint (See, Separate Statement issue nos. 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28-43, 46-52)

vii. Max's health and death (See, Separate Statement issue nos. 19, 20, 21, 66, 68)

viii. Information supporting responses to written discovery (See, Separate Statement issue
nos. 54-61)(Attorney work product protection also asserted at issue no 56)

ix. Information about defendant from sources other than Rebecca

-Issues where Marital Spousal Privilege asserted as an Objection.

x. Husband's investigation of Rebecca's death (See, Separate Statement issue nos. 27)

xi. Rebecca's cell phone (See, Separate Statement issue nos. 44-45)

xii. Her confrontations with her husband(See, Separate Statement issue nos. 62-63)

-Issues where Right to Privacy asserted s an Objection

xiii. Her brother's pictures on Facebook (See, Separate Statement issue nos. 1)

xiv. Xena's guardianship and relationship with her mother (See, Separate Statement issue
nos. 7, 8,9)

xv. Investigators meetings with witnesses (See, Separate Statement issue nos. 14)

xvi. Rebecca's personal relationships (See, Separate Statement issue nos. 15)

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Motion_to_Compel_Discovery_1427504398857.pdf

(I think they left out a few critical areas. Like MZL's shoe size, what brand of toothpaste she uses, and whether she prefers margarine or butter, and why.)

 

[screecher]

Wow, just wow. DS is on a hunting expedition.

 

[*Lash*]

First, ironically, more than a few of the questions in the deposition Mary refused to answer have been posed or opined about on this forum. Most of the 16 areas identified have repeatedly been posted over and over. Second, after reading the court document it has become evident Dina does not have Rebecca's investigative file. Which on its own has been brought up consistently here.

Mary was questioned about her husbands investigation of Rebecca's case. Remember he is/was with LE. As well, she was questioned about their personal relationship between she and her husband. Any confrontations? Does not seem pertinent to the WDS.

Mary was also questioned about guardianship of her sister. In relation to why her sister lives with her and not their mother. She was aslo questioned about her brothers Facebook? Again, these 2 things do not seem pertinent to the WDS.

More areas of interest, Mary was asked about her contact with the media. Where have I heard this before? Mary was asked why Jonah was not included in the WDS? The scenario put forth in the Zahau complaint does not allege Jonah had any involvement. Isn't that an answer all on its own?

It seems like the questions Mary refused to answer are more about things that happened after Rebecca's alleged murder. Why? Shouldn't Dina be more interested in what happened during the time frame of the alleged murder? In my opinion, Dina has an agenda and it is does not seem to be related to the accusations alleged in Zahau WDS.

Thank you KZ

 

[K_Z]

Wow, just wow. DS is on a hunting expedition.

IMO, more of the same ongoing smear campaign against the dead victim and her family, rather than a hunting expedition. These questions don't have much to do with defending a defendant, or narrowing down the allegations, and have a lot more to do with smearing the plaintiffs, the deceased victim, and the family members of the plaintiffs, IMO.

I also note that XZ is targeted yet again by DS, via her attorneys-- despite the fact that XZ was not even in California when it is alleged Rebecca was murdered by the defendants. But I also note that XZ's mother is mentioned-- the living woman, noted several times in the present tense.

Quite plainly, it is not any of DS's business to question where the family has chosen for XZ to live. Maybe it was something as simple as a choice of schools. It's simply irrelevant to the allegations within the wrongful death suit filed by the Zahaus.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Posting about minors is fine, as long as you use their initials, and don't give out personal information about them. Please see the rules to clarify.

 

[K_Z]

Mary was asked why Jonah was not included in the WDS? The scenario put forth in the Zahau complaint does not allege Jonah had any involvement. Isn't that an answer all on its own?

It seems like the questions Mary refused to answer are more about things that happened after Rebecca's alleged murder. Why? Shouldn't Dina be more interested in what happened during the time frame of the alleged murder? In my opinion, Dina has an agenda and it is does not seem to be related to the accusations alleged in Zahau WDS.

Thank you KZ

Snipped, and BBM.

Good grief-- no kidding! Why didn't they sue Jonah?? Really? That's part of her defense discovery?

Well, just stating one of the most obvious pieces of evidence, Jonah was seen on video security at Rady/ RMD house during the time in question, and Dina was not. That has been in evidence for years. That question reads like another attempt by DS to throw Jonah under the proverbial bus, IMO. Deflect, deflect, deflect.

And THAT specific comment ("why didn't you sue Jonah") makes me think again about the continuing animosity between Dina and Jonah-- as well as Dina's current WDS against Jonah, alleging his responsibility for their son's death.

I'm not feeling like this request for a second deposition has a lot of solid foundation to be granted. It reads kind of whiny to me. But we'll have to wait a while to find out what the judge thinks. That's all that really matters.

 

[K_Z]

Posting about minors is fine, as long as you use their initials, and don't give out personal informatin about them. Please see the rules to clarify.

But it is not fine to post unsubstantiated rumors about minors.

Your posts contain unsubstantiated rumors-- several times now. You have taken every opportunity to slip that rumor into your posts.

Please stop posting rumors, especially about a minor, without something to back it up.

The newest motion posted above contains evidence that XZ's mother is living.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

But, why would they bother scheduling this for Oct/Nov 2015 when the case will be dismissed in May?

Because it is very easy to cancel. That's why.

 

[coastal]

Posting about minors is fine, as long as you use their initials, and don't give out personal informatin about them. Please see the rules to clarify.

Just because you can do a thing does not mean that you should do it. IMO.

I am surprised to see so many careless errors in these documents. I've only read to the bottom of page three, and already I've lost count of the typos. Here's one example from page 3 (Line 25):

xiv. Xena's guardianship and relationship with her motion (See, Separate Statement issue nos. 7, 8,9)

As it stands, that phrase is meaningless. However, on page 4, line 27, the intended meaning of the phrase becomes clear, when the word "mother" is substituted in place of the original word, "motion": Xena's guardianship and relationship with her mother.

IANAL (or an English teacher), but it seems to me counterproductive to be careless with easy details, such as grammar, punctuation, and proofreading, when so much depends upon the credibility of the parties involved in this case.

If my lawyer(s) represented me this way to the court, they'd be fired.
Just saying.

Thank you, KZ, for posting these interesting documents.

 

[*Lash*]

Coastal, thank you just wasn't enough! :balloons:

 

[*Lash*]

respectfully snipped-

IANAL (or an English teacher), but it seems to me counterproductive to be careless with easy details, such as grammar, punctuation, and proofreading, when so much depends upon the credibility of the parties involved in this case.

I'm unsure if Mary's depo was on the 22nd or 23rd. On page 6 it starts out as the 22nd, then on the same page changes to the 23rd.

 

[*Lash*]

It has NEVER been stated ANYWHERE, including MSM, court documents, search warrants, autopsy reports, etc, that Rebecca had a daughter. The Medical Examiner himself did not note in his autopsy report anything suggesting Rebecca had ever given birth. Any suggestion is pure speculation. It may be an opinion, but definitely NOT a fact. There is nothing currently available to support this as fact. Maybe one day we will find out differently, but not today. In my opinion, all the MINOR(S) being discussed have been through enough and should be respected.

 

[IQuestion]

Geez Lahhweez...if I had any computer skills, I'd know how to empty my private messages! I've tried at least 10 times and about to burst a blood vessel in my frustration. :tantrum:
But I was able to finally find the court document I had been looking for and will share it with you.
Case 3:13-cv-01624-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 07/12/13 Page 3 of 9
Item 6. specifically reads "REBECCA died intestate without a surviving or predeceased spouse or domestic partner AND HAD NO ISSUE."
TIME was kind enough to post the court documents as a "thumbnail image" and I actually read EVERY line. Following "legal jargon" is not my strong suit, so I really have to work hard at understanding the nomenclature of law. (Then again, attorneys have a hard time understanding the nomenclature of my industry, too. :blushing
It is good to read all your enlightening and thoughtful posts. So "thanks, thanks, thanks" for all the times I tried to send a "thanks" and wasn't logged in, ugh.

 

[screecher]

Geez Lahhweez...if I had any computer skills, I'd know how to empty my private messages! I've tried at least 10 times and about to burst a blood vessel in my frustration. :tantrum:
But I was able to finally find the court document I had been looking for and will share it with you.
Case 3:13-cv-01624-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 07/12/13 Page 3 of 9
Item 6. specifically reads "REBECCA died intestate without a surviving or predeceased spouse or domestic partner AND HAD NO ISSUE."
TIME was kind enough to post the court documents as a "thumbnail image" and I actually read EVERY line. Following "legal jargon" is not my strong suit, so I really have to work hard at understanding the nomenclature of law. (Then again, attorneys have a hard time understanding the nomenclature of my industry, too. :blushing
It is good to read all your enlightening and thoughtful posts. So "thanks, thanks, thanks" for all the times I tried to send a "thanks" and wasn't logged in, ugh.

BBM

hahah.

Thank you !!!

 

[time]

Geez Lahhweez...if I had any computer skills, I'd know how to empty my private messages! I've tried at least 10 times and about to burst a blood vessel in my frustration. :tantrum:
But I was able to finally find the court document I had been looking for and will share it with you.
Case 3:13-cv-01624-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 07/12/13 Page 3 of 9
Item 6. specifically reads "REBECCA died intestate without a surviving or predeceased spouse or domestic partner AND HAD NO ISSUE."
TIME was kind enough to post the court documents as a "thumbnail image" and I actually read EVERY line. Following "legal jargon" is not my strong suit, so I really have to work hard at understanding the nomenclature of law. (Then again, attorneys have a hard time understanding the nomenclature of my industry, too. :blushing
It is good to read all your enlightening and thoughtful posts. So "thanks, thanks, thanks" for all the times I tried to send a "thanks" and wasn't logged in, ugh.

Thank you! Well, that answers THAT question!!

Just a general question that's been on my mind, I hope this is an appropriate place to ask. Could past domestic abuse charges (we know they went both ways) and a request for a restraining order be used in court as evidence someone might become violent and/or that there is evidence that person made another fear for their safety?

 

[screecher]

Thank you! Well, that answers THAT question!!

Just a general question that's been on my mind, I hope this is an appropriate place to ask. Could past domestic abuse charges (we know they went both ways) and a request for a restraining order be used in court as evidence someone might become violent and/or that there is evidence that person made another fear for their safety?

BBM


I'm not a lawyer, but yeah it would seem like it could be used ! I would hope so.

 

[Inparadise]

BBM


I'm not a lawyer, but yeah it would seem like it could be used ! I would hope so.

Well, the Judge ruled on Jonah's request for an Order of Protection:

 

[time]

Well, the Judge ruled on Jonah's request for an Order of Protection:

"...granting Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order".

 

[Inparadise]

"...granting Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order".

My guess is that Dina is none too happy with this ruling.........

 

[screecher]

Thanks Inparadise !!!

Did the Zahau attorney ask the judge for a protective order for Mary?