Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #4

[bourne]

I don't believe for one moment that Jonah Shacknai wanted his name inserted as the person who found Rebecca's body. In fact he's probably cringing as I am writing this. I think the 'journalist' is simply sloppy but still got the point across of protection of Dina, her sister and Jonah Shacknai's brother Adam. There's been a very different slant on the reporting of Rebecca's death in Phoenix compared to San Diego. Sorry, if I was misunderstood up thread.

No worries. I didn't think you were implying that about Jonah's PR firm. I just didn't get to thank you for all your great posts in prior pages. Got distracted, busy life

Keep up your great sleuthing work!

 

[bourne]

To add to the errors of the AZ article, NO, the federal judge did NOT dismiss the Zahau WDS. The Zahaus requested the federal case be dropped so they can actively pursue the WDS suit in STATE court.

Eat your words, Dina. You manipulative lying murderer who would even exploit her one and only dead son in a fraudulent nonprofit to amass money for herself. Bet you paid that AZ writer to write the baloney story and slant it on your behalf. You are amoral and repulsive.

 

[*Lash*]

Happy Birthday Rebecca! :balloons:

Thinking of Rebecca's family and friends today. :grouphug:

 

[*Lash*]

I'm still catching up, been moving and not able to read as often. But..this would cost Dina money too, and she's not rich right? I guess I dont see it. I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation but I dont see it. Dragging out lawsuits etc in an effort to cause the plaintiff to go broke is supposed to be against the law, I'm sure it's done but again I don't see that this would benefit Dina and it probably costs her more to Appeal than it does the Zahaus.

Hi SweetT :wave:

I agree to some extent. Dina is not as wealthy as she once was and of course not as wealthy as Jonah. Imo, attorney expenses are the reason Dina could no longer continue her suit against Jonah in Max's WDS.

Where I disagree -- If you remember Dina has an ins company paying her attorney fees in the Zahau WDS. Chubbs's and Sons, umbrella policy. Dina's financial burden is much different in the Zahau WDS. Here she is not necessarily paying out of pocket. Maxie's WDS was coming out of her pocket. Hence the reason I personally believe her appeal in the Federal suit is a means to strap the Zahau's financially.

 

[justice be served]

My favorite quote from the article:

BBM




So much for all the speculation that Kim Schumann was no longer willing to work with victim, Dina Shacknai. Clearly, he is still very much involved and Ms. Shacknai will be vindicated before this is all over.

I am looking forward to the Zahaus being exposed for what they truly are: unscupulous people willing to try to frame innocent people who lost a sweet, little boy due to Rebecca Zahau, in order to make $10 Million dollars.

For those of you that may have "ignore" for this poster, they state that Kim Schumann is actively being quoted in the recent erroneous and slanted article in The Az Republic.

My question to this poster is: Are you saying that this is a current quote by Kim Schumann? I'm not so sure about that as most of the article cherry picked old, regurgitated information. If you know that it is a current quote would you please offer the forum your understanding of that fact? Thanks.

Maybe this won't appear if you have ignore on. Could someone let me know if I should not be quoting as perhaps it will also get ignored that way.

 

[SweetT]

Hi SweetT :wave:

I agree to some extent. Dina is not as wealthy as she once was and of course not as wealthy as Jonah. Imo, attorney expenses are the reason Dina could no longer continue her suit against Jonah in Max's WDS.

Where I disagree -- If you remember Dina has an ins company paying her attorney fees in the Zahau WDS. Chubbs's and Sons, umbrella policy. Dina's financial burden is much different in the Zahau WDS. Here she is not necessarily paying out of pocket. Maxie's WDS was coming out of her pocket. Hence the reason I personally believe her appeal in the Federal suit is a means to strap the Zahau's financially.

Oh I forgot about the homeowner insurance paying... But even they usually have a limit of 1 million. I see your point but still the people who are working for her should also know the bad faith laws. But yea people and insurance companies do not always play by the rules. I used to work insurance for a big company and we would have lost our jobs for dragging out lawsuits to try and break the plaintiffs. Part of my job was to determine if it was cheaper to settle and many times it was. But obviously this case is nothing like anything I ever worked on.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Hi SweetT :wave:

I agree to some extent. Dina is not as wealthy as she once was and of course not as wealthy as Jonah. Imo, attorney expenses are the reason Dina could no longer continue her suit against Jonah in Max's WDS.

Where I disagree -- If you remember Dina has an ins company paying her attorney fees in the Zahau WDS. Chubbs's and Sons, umbrella policy. Dina's financial burden is much different in the Zahau WDS. Here she is not necessarily paying out of pocket. Maxie's WDS was coming out of her pocket. Hence the reason I personally believe her appeal in the Federal suit is a means to strap the Zahau's financially.

I hope the Federal suit straps the Zahau's finacially, as well. It is my belief that Dina is appealing the Judge's decision that the Zahau's did not have to pay the Defeendant's costs in the case the Zahau's requested be dismissed. I hope I am correct, and that the Judge does end up fining them for knowingly bringing a false case to the Federal court.

What is clear is that Judge Bacal seems to be on to the greedy Zahaus and their lawyer, Greer. Her last statement in the minute order says it all:

BBM

However, the Court believes it necessary to remind plaintiffs' counsel of the obligations under the Code of Civil Procedure; in particular, that counsel has certified by his representation that the allegations and factual contentions have evidentiary support or are likely to have evidentiary support and that the complaint is not being brought for an improper purpose. See Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7

 

[LuckyLucy2]

For those of you that may have "ignore" for this poster, they state that Kim Schumann is actively being quoted in the recent erroneous and slanted article in The Az Republic.

My question to this poster is: Are you saying that this is a current quote by Kim Schumann? I'm not so sure about that as most of the article cherry picked old, regurgitated information. If you know that it is a current quote would you please offer the forum your understanding of that fact? Thanks.

Maybe this won't appear if you have ignore on. Could someone let me know if I should not be quoting as perhaps it will also get ignored that way.

I am not saying this is a current quote, the AZ paper is. I understand that the folks on the pro-murder side like to cherry pick what they believe, and disbelieve anything that does not support their spin, however, a paper is not going to state a lawyer like Kim Schumann is making a statement if he is not.

He is most defiantly still in the case and working by the innocent Mother, Dina Shacknai's side. From the 3/11 minute order:

APPEARANCES

Curtis K Greer, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s).
John D Marino, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
KIM SCHUMANN, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Krista M. Enns, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Jeff Manz, specially appearing for counsel Mark Vranjes, present for Defendant(s). Darin L. Wessel, counsel is present on behalf of Nina Romano.
Bradley Mathews, counsel, is present on behalf of Dina Shacknai.

 

[bourne]

Oh I forgot about the homeowner insurance paying... But even they usually have a limit of 1 million. I see your point but still the people who are working for her should also know the bad faith laws. But yea people and insurance companies do not always play by the rules. I used to work insurance for a big company and we would have lost our jobs for dragging out lawsuits to try and break the plaintiffs. Part of my job was to determine if it was cheaper to settle and many times it was. But obviously this case is nothing like anything I ever worked on.

Bill Crosby has his homeowner's insurance footing the bill for ALL his legal fees and because it's a BROAD, UMBRELLA COVERAGE, there's virtually no ceiling.

 

[bourne]

Just wanted to reiterate HAPPY BIRTHDAY REBECCA ZAHAU!

Happy Birthday Rebecca! :balloons:

Thinking of Rebecca's family and friends today. :grouphug:

 

[Frigga]

Happy Birthday Rebecca- one of these birthdays it just may be- if and when you receive justice!

 

[SweetT]

Bill Crosby has his homeowner's insurance footing the bill for ALL his legal fees and because it's a BROAD, UMBRELLA COVERAGE, there's virtually no ceiling.

I believe that ...of course he still has way more money than Dina IMO. And he probably has had that type of insurance for yrs. He's gonna need it.

 

[*Lash*]

For those of you that may have "ignore" for this poster, they state that Kim Schumann is actively being quoted in the recent erroneous and slanted article in The Az Republic.

My question to this poster is: Are you saying that this is a current quote by Kim Schumann? I'm not so sure about that as most of the article cherry picked old, regurgitated information. If you know that it is a current quote would you please offer the forum your understanding of that fact? Thanks.

Maybe this won't appear if you have ignore on. Could someone let me know if I should not be quoting as perhaps it will also get ignored that way.

Hi JBS :wave:

FWIW - the article states the comments from Dina's atty Schumann comes from a court document. I did find one court doc where atty Schumann used the word "salacious". Haven't found the word "evil". Salacious is used in court doc ROA 51, page 7.

ROA 51 - from court doc thread.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Suit-Court-Docs-Links&p=12351167#post12351167

BBM - Snip from AZcentral article:

Dina Shacknai's defense attorney, Kim Schumann, states in a court document that the evidence does not support the "plaintiffs' wild speculation," which is "contrary to the facts as found in the San Diego Coroner's report."

Schumann also calls the allegations in the lawsuit "salacious" and says the lawsuit is "an evil the courts should not tolerate."

Keep in mind, this is the same media outfit that published another pro defendant piece back in October, 2014. I think this PR management is coming from Dina's team.

Dina Shacknai's lawyers lambast lawsuit in Coronado hanging
Robert Anglen The Republic | azcentral.com 6:59 a.m. MST October 24, 2014

http://www.azcentral.com/story/mone...rs-lambast-lawsuit-coronado-hanging/17803753/

*Just like the recent article, the link may not work, sorry. Not sure it is worth reading anyway, the title gives you enough info on the authors direction.

 

[justice be served]

Just in case anyone missed the facts from the factual San Diego reporting......

'In a hearing Friday before Judge Katherine Bacal, attorneys for the defendants failed in their efforts to get the case dismissed.

The judge set a trial date for March 10, 2017.'

Big fail and on to a trial whereby the defendants must account for their factual alibis.

 

[justice be served]

Hi JBS :wave:

FWIW - the article states the comments from Dina's atty Schumann comes from a court document. I did find one court doc where atty Schumann used the word "salacious". Haven't found the word "evil". Salacious is used in court doc ROA 51, page 7.

ROA 51 - from court doc thread.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Suit-Court-Docs-Links&p=12351167#post12351167

BBM - Snip from AZcentral article:



Keep in mind, this is the same media outfit that published another pro defendant piece back in October, 2014. I think this PR management is coming from Dina's team.

Dina Shacknai's lawyers lambast lawsuit in Coronado hanging
Robert Anglen The Republic | azcentral.com 6:59 a.m. MST October 24, 2014

http://www.azcentral.com/story/mone...rs-lambast-lawsuit-coronado-hanging/17803753/

*Just like the recent article, the link may not work, sorry. Not sure it is worth reading anyway, the title gives you enough info on the authors direction.

Thank you Lash! Yes, the transparency of the slanted 'reporting' is so obvious. Basically, a repeat of the investigation. Confirmation bias in the 'investigation' and spin in the reporting of the judge's approval to go forward to a trial. Now that's a fact worth repeating regardless of how it is spun!! Trial goes forward - yoo hoo.

 

[justice be served]

Bill Crosby has his homeowner's insurance footing the bill for ALL his legal fees and because it's a BROAD, UMBRELLA COVERAGE, there's virtually no ceiling.

And I am going to guess that Dina Shacknai's ceiling is $10 million dollars on her umbrella IMO. It wouldn't have made sense to go after more. Now Bill Cosby - whoa - he's got a lot of people after him but, unfortunately, the statute of limitations won't allow pretty much all of them to go forward.

 

[K_Z]

Excellent news!!

8 new entries on the San Diego ROA-- all pertaining to media requests to cover the hearings and trial!! Even more stunning, it appears Adam Shacknai has joined with the Zahau plaintiffs in requesting this coverage!
**See my ETA below-- this was for the hearing 3-11-2016. Doesn't cover upcoming hearings, but surely they will request again if they did this time.

333 03/11/2016 Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage (by KNSD NBC7) filed by Zahau, Pari Z; Shacknai, Adam. Zahau, Pari Z (Plaintiff); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant) Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage

332 03/11/2016 Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (by KNSD NBC7) filed by Zahau, Pari Z; Shacknai, Adam. Zahau, Pari Z (Plaintiff); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant)

331 03/11/2016 Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage (by KGTV-10 NEW) filed by Zahau, Pari Z; Shacknai, Adam. Zahau, Pari Z (Plaintiff); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant) Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage

330 03/11/2016 Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (by KGTV-10 NEWS) filed by Zahau, Pari Z; Shacknai, Adam. Zahau, Pari Z (Plaintiff); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant)

329 03/11/2016 Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage filed by Zahau, Pari Z; Shacknai, Adam. Zahau, Pari Z (Plaintiff); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant) Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage

328 03/11/2016 Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (by KSWB-FOX 5) filed by Zahau, Pari Z; Shacknai, Adam. Zahau, Pari Z (Plaintiff); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant)

327 03/11/2016 Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage filed by Zahau, Pari Z; Shacknai, Adam. Zahau, Pari Z (Plaintiff); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant) Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage

326 03/11/2016 Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (by XETV-6) filed by Zahau, Pari Z; Shacknai, Adam. Zahau, Pari Z (Plaintiff); Shacknai, Adam (Defendant)

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Request_to_Permit_Coverage_1458066347762.pdf

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Request_to_Permit_Coverage_1458066347668.pdf

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Request_to_Permit_Coverage_1458066347543.pdf

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Request_to_Permit_Coverage_1458066347449.pdf

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



ETA:

Shoot-- I misread!! These only cover the hearing that occurred on 3-11-2016. I didn't read far enough-- sorry. But this still bodes well-- look how many media outlets were there. Surely they will request to cover the trial and upcoming hearings as well.

 

[Waitaminute]

Why do you suppose?

Excellent news!!

8 new entries on the San Diego ROA-- all pertaining to media requests to cover the hearings and trial!! Even more stunning, it appears Adam Shacknai has joined with the Zahau plaintiffs in requesting this coverage!



https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Request_to_Permit_Coverage_1458066347762.pdf

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Request_to_Permit_Coverage_1458066347668.pdf

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Request_to_Permit_Coverage_1458066347543.pdf

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Request_to_Permit_Coverage_1458066347449.pdf

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

:cheers:

 

[K_Z]

I think the media got the advance Tentative Ruling (that came out Thursday afternoon) from the court or attorneys, and decided to be at the hearing last Friday to cover it.

I also think this is a preview of the demand for media coverage of the upcoming hearings and trial. I think this story is big news, and the public have a lot of interest in seeing it through. An awful lot of people were stunned, and strongly disagreed with the suicide finding. Most people who comment here and elsewhere feel strongly she did not die from a suicide.

 

[Waitaminute]

but why would adam be requesting media coverage? any ideas?

I think the media got the advance Tentative Ruling (that came out Thursday afternoon) from the court or attorneys, and decided to be at the hearing last Friday to cover it.