Zahau Family Sues County for Additional Evidence

*Lash*

Justice 4 Rebecca
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
58
Thank you for the reminder Carioca! Crossing my fingers :)
 

Carioca

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
493
Reaction score
5
Finally some action here: Why Case Should Not be Dismissed hearing schedule for December 6, 2013

Case Number: 37-2013-00047752-CU-MC-CTL
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

15 11/01/2013
Notice of Hearing SD generated. (document) Notice of Hearing SD

14 11/01/2013
Minutes finalized for Civil Case Management Conference heard 11/01/2013 10:00:00 AM.

13 11/01/2013
OSC - Why Case Should Not be Dismissed scheduled for 12/06/2013 at 01:00AM before Judge Randa Trapp.

Keep the faith my friends.
 

Carioca

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
493
Reaction score
5
OSC (Order to Show Cause) deadline is December 6, 2013 at 01:00AM.

From what I understand, the court scheduled an Order to Show Cause because the court thought the case wasn't being pursued and they want either the plaintiffs (Zahaus) or the defendants (County of San Diego, Gore, Dr Wagner) to advise them why the case shouldn't be dismissed.

Does anyone understand the implications here? IANAL but my guess is Marty Rudoy, attorney for the plaintiffs, is the one with the deadline to prove why it shouldn't be dismissed. That being the case, I shall reserve comment.
:tantrum:
 

*Lash*

Justice 4 Rebecca
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
58
OSC (Order to Show Cause) deadline is December 6, 2013 at 01:00AM.

From what I understand, the court scheduled an Order to Show Cause because the court thought the case wasn't being pursued and they want either the plaintiffs (Zahaus) or the defendants (County of San Diego, Gore, Dr Wagner) to advise them why the case shouldn't be dismissed.

Does anyone understand the implications here? IANAL but my guess is Marty Rudoy, attorney for the plaintiffs, is the one with the deadline to prove why it shouldn't be dismissed. That being the case, I shall reserve comment.
:tantrum:

BBM - I understand the implications. Has money trumped justice? If this suit does not go forward, righting a wrong appears not to have been the true objective.
 

time

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
9,379
Reaction score
29
Finally some action here: Why Case Should Not be Dismissed hearing schedule for December 6, 2013

Case Number: 37-2013-00047752-CU-MC-CTL
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

15 11/01/2013
Notice of Hearing SD generated. (document) Notice of Hearing SD

14 11/01/2013
Minutes finalized for Civil Case Management Conference heard 11/01/2013 10:00:00 AM.

13 11/01/2013
OSC - Why Case Should Not be Dismissed scheduled for 12/06/2013 at 01:00AM before Judge Randa Trapp.

Keep the faith my friends.

Is it possible that the plaintiffs claimed in the hearing that it should be dismissed and that it is fairly normal that a judge would then set a hearing date for arguments against dismissing it?

Just asking since we don't know what transpired during the hearing do we?
 

Betty P

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
16,044
Reaction score
67,518
I keep wondering if a possible attempt to settle a civil lawsuit should have the power to stop a legitimate criminal investigation.

First, its wrong that a victim's family has to use such measures to gain access to evidence related to the suspicious death of a loved one. If the law and criminal justice system were working properly here, all of the evidence belonging to RZ and that related to her death should be made public. Her belongings should be returned to her family, as SDSO promised, they shouldn't have to be filing a civil suit for their return.

So how do we get to a place where a separate civil suit settlement has the power to essentially quash attempts to resolve a legitimate investigation of her death?
 

Karmady

Former Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
5,749
Reaction score
15
Is it possible that the plaintiffs claimed in the hearing that it should be dismissed and that it is fairly normal that a judge would then set a hearing date for arguments against dismissing it?

Just asking since we don't know what transpired during the hearing do we?

Was there a hearing? It looks to me like the defendant's filed an order to show cause why the case shouldn't be dismissed with a proposed 12/6 hearing date and the Court entered an Order setting the hearing. I don't see where there actually has been a hearing, but I haven't been following closely.

jmo

eta: Never mind. I see that 180 days went by with no activity and that a party didn't file the OSC. They do it a little differently from state to state, I think, but it would be typical for the Court to take some action if a case has been inactive for that long just for docket management purposes. In some jurisdictions, they just put it on an inactive calendar then dismiss it if no one does anything to have it removed after a period of time. I'm not sure whether an OSC is how it's usually done in Cali, though.
 

MyBelle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
15,205
Reaction score
27,887
Was there a hearing? It looks to me like the defendant's filed an order to show cause why the case shouldn't be dismissed with a proposed 12/6 hearing date and the Court entered an Order setting the hearing. I don't see where there actually has been a hearing, but I haven't been following closely.

jmo

eta: Never mind. I see that 180 days went by with no activity and that a party didn't file the OSC. They do it a little differently from state to state, I think, but it would be typical for the Court to take some action if a case has been inactive for that long just for docket management purposes. In some jurisdictions, they just put it on an inactive calendar then dismiss it if no one does anything to have it removed after a period of time. I'm not sure whether an OSC is how it's usually done in Cali, though.

If no one does nothing, then it does not exist?
 

Karmady

Former Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
5,749
Reaction score
15
If no one does nothing, then it does not exist?

Not sure if I'm understanding the question, but if you don't actively prosecute a lawsuit the court will dismiss it after a period of time, yes.

jmo
 

time

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
9,379
Reaction score
29
Was there a hearing? It looks to me like the defendant's filed an order to show cause why the case shouldn't be dismissed with a proposed 12/6 hearing date and the Court entered an Order setting the hearing. I don't see where there actually has been a hearing, but I haven't been following closely.

jmo

eta: Never mind. I see that 180 days went by with no activity and that a party didn't file the OSC. They do it a little differently from state to state, I think, but it would be typical for the Court to take some action if a case has been inactive for that long just for docket management purposes. In some jurisdictions, they just put it on an inactive calendar then dismiss it if no one does anything to have it removed after a period of time. I'm not sure whether an OSC is how it's usually done in Cali, though.

Sorry, I was confusing. I said 'hearing' when I should have said 'Case Management Conference'.

I didn't see anywhere that the defendant's filed any order. So I was just wondering if the plaintiffs claimed in the Case Management Conference that it should be dismissed and if it was fairly normal that a judge would then set a hearing date for arguments against dismissing it.
 

Salem

Former Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
29,151
Reaction score
129
I'm going to open this thread for discussion of the County lawsuit because the lawsuit is ongoing (and imo, will determine whether or not Zahou's file another WDS). BUT be warned that the discussion must stay on TOPIC.

If you have questions, please check with a moderator.

Thanks,

Salem
 

time

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
9,379
Reaction score
29
I follow the McStay case also... one thing that dawned on me today is that SDSO has also claimed there was no DNA evidence in their SUV other than their own. This could be true, but I am curious about whether they are sloppy on that forensic end of things. Unfortunately, I don't know if we will find out anytime soon about the McStay DNA in the SUV. The San Bernadino Sheriff's Office is now the lead on their case.
 

beach

Verified Expert
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
18,372
Reaction score
4,533
I'm going to open this thread for discussion of the County lawsuit because the lawsuit is ongoing (and imo, will determine whether or not Zahou's file another WDS). BUT be warned that the discussion must stay on TOPIC.

If you have questions, please check with a moderator.

Thanks,

Salem

:bump:

Where is the discussion about the County lawsuit? :waitasec:
 

Mrs. Holmes

New Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
683
Reaction score
1
I keep wondering if a possible attempt to settle a civil lawsuit should have the power to stop a legitimate criminal investigation.

First, its wrong that a victim's family has to use such measures to gain access to evidence related to the suspicious death of a loved one. If the law and criminal justice system were working properly here, all of the evidence belonging to RZ and that related to her death should be made public. Her belongings should be returned to her family, as SDSO promised, they shouldn't have to be filing a civil suit for their return.

So how do we get to a place where a separate civil suit settlement has the power to essentially quash attempts to resolve a legitimate investigation of her death?

Excellent point Betty P.! I find this very suspicious on the part of SDSO. It benefits them not to hand over evidence so they can't be made fools of. It seems deliberate that SDSO are waiting well past the civil court deadline. It is obstruction of justice that the SDSO seems to want to hold on to evidence in the case and let the civil system uncover additional evidence. Outrageous!

It seems the SDSO is playing both sides of the fence. Holding evidence so they can reopen the criminal case and not look like fools and on the other hand thwarting the civil case investigation so that hopefully the case will finally die down.

Well Gore must have choked on his cornflakes when he read about the latest filing of the WDS in California State court.

:tantrum:
 

Mrs. Holmes

New Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
683
Reaction score
1
I am looking forward to Gore and friends explaining themselves on this one. Wish I could be in the courtroom on December 6, 2013.

Do we know what lawyer is representing SDSO etc.?

I think Gore needs to get his head out of the sand and realize this is not going to go away. He is way off the mark and this case is going to expose his departments ineptness and arrogance.
 

Mrs. Holmes

New Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
683
Reaction score
1
It is interesting to note that the FBI is looking into issues with San Diego Ex-Mayor Filner not only for his "Mr. Grabby" episodes but for questionable payments with regards to developers.

"The FBI is looking into his dealings with two developers who paid the city $100,000 each at Filner’s suggestion after the mayor put a hold on their projects.

The money went to a veterans program and a bike event, city projects that Filner supported. What investigators are specifically looking at is not known. The U.S. attorney has declined to comment or even confirm there is a probe, but sources have said the FBI has made inquiries about the payments."

Generally the relationship between the Mayor and the Sheriff is a pretty tight one. It does make you wonder what else is going on in San Diego.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013...al-probe-of-filner-under-way-civil/all/?print

"On July 19, the Sheriff’s Department set up a hotline after several women came forward to allege that Filner had touched them inappropriately. The state Attorney General’s Office has been designated to prosecute any criminal charges that may arise from complaints about Filner’s conduct. District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who ran against Filner in the 2012 mayor’s race, removed her office from prosecuting any criminal cases that may be brought. "

It is good to see the AG's office getting very involved. Dumanis declined to prosecute? I have a feeling this is the tip of the iceberg in San Diego.
 

IQuestion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
1,927
Reaction score
6,845
I follow the McStay case also... one thing that dawned on me today is that SDSO has also claimed there was no DNA evidence in their SUV other than their own. This could be true, but I am curious about whether they are sloppy on that forensic end of things. Unfortunately, I don't know if we will find out anytime soon about the McStay DNA in the SUV. The San Bernadino Sheriff's Office is now the lead on their case.

TIME! I think it far more than just coincidence the patriarch of the MCSTAY family had this to say about the very same investigative group:
"In a telephone interview with CBS News' Crimesider on Friday, Patrick McStay called the San Diego Sheriff's Office, which spearheaded the investigation into his son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren's 2010 disappearance, the "dumbest, most corrupt organization" he's ever seen.
He said the department didn't even bother to contact him to tell him his son's remains had been found.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...lif-familys-2010-disappearance-botched-inept/

Apparently the father tried to get the detective to look at leads that were found on the computer and emails, but the detective refused. Even stranger Jan Caldwell, issued another one of her "un-stellar" PR clips claiming the father's angry words were generated by grief. (You can read the article and decide for yourselves....but there seems to be a pattern in SDSO of not communicating with the families or following up on the leads provided....which I think is a lot like the Coronado investigation!)
 

time

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
9,379
Reaction score
29
TIME! I think it far more than just coincidence the patriarch of the MCSTAY family had this to say about the very same investigative group:
"In a telephone interview with CBS News' Crimesider on Friday, Patrick McStay called the San Diego Sheriff's Office, which spearheaded the investigation into his son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren's 2010 disappearance, the "dumbest, most corrupt organization" he's ever seen.
He said the department didn't even bother to contact him to tell him his son's remains had been found.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...lif-familys-2010-disappearance-botched-inept/

Apparently the father tried to get the detective to look at leads that were found on the computer and emails, but the detective refused. Even stranger Jan Caldwell, issued another one of her "un-stellar" PR clips claiming the father's angry words were generated by grief. (You can read the article and decide for yourselves....but there seems to be a pattern in SDSO of not communicating with the families or following up on the leads provided....which I think is a lot like the Coronado investigation!)

Oh, Patrick's angry words were not generated by grief. If you go to the FB page he is connected with, he has written a ton of letters to officials over time. But that case is kind of a tangled mess from a sleuthers standpoint. I hope we find out more about what SDSO did and didn't do since another County took it over.
 

kittychi

Active Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
1,171
Reaction score
0
It is interesting to note that the FBI is looking into issues with San Diego Ex-Mayor Filner not only for his "Mr. Grabby" episodes but for questionable payments with regards to developers.

"The FBI is looking into his dealings with two developers who paid the city $100,000 each at Filner’s suggestion after the mayor put a hold on their projects.

The money went to a veterans program and a bike event, city projects that Filner supported. What investigators are specifically looking at is not known. The U.S. attorney has declined to comment or even confirm there is a probe, but sources have said the FBI has made inquiries about the payments."

Generally the relationship between the Mayor and the Sheriff is a pretty tight one. It does make you wonder what else is going on in San Diego.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013...al-probe-of-filner-under-way-civil/all/?print

"On July 19, the Sheriff’s Department set up a hotline after several women came forward to allege that Filner had touched them inappropriately. The state Attorney General’s Office has been designated to prosecute any criminal charges that may arise from complaints about Filner’s conduct. District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who ran against Filner in the 2012 mayor’s race, removed her office from prosecuting any criminal cases that may be brought. "

It is good to see the AG's office getting very involved. Dumanis declined to prosecute? I have a feeling this is the tip of the iceberg in San Diego.

And let us not forget that Gore was once Assistant Director of the FBI. I wouldn't be surprised if there has been some mutual palm greasing going on.

This CNN article is very damning of him...his investigation of the Coronado mansion murder, the Hanna Anderson case. Even back when he was an FBI agent in San Diego: "First we have the 9/11 terrorists who made their homes & planned their strategies right here in San Diego, right under the (un)watchful eye of the FBI--headed in 2001 by then FBI San Diego office manager Bill Gore.

Many critics claim that if FBI bureaucrat Bill Gore had been doing his job back then, 9/11 might never have even happened!"

Had FBI Agent Bill Gore been doing his job, 9/11 quite possibly been avoided. The human intel, was readily available to him, but Bill Gore was incapable of interpreting it. ”


Then of course the infamous Ruby Ridge case where "under Bill Gore’s direct orders, a 14 year old boy’s mother, Vicky Weaver was killed in cold blood. 'She was holding her infant. Bill Gore’s role in these “liquidations” of unarmed Americans — a mother and young son — is undisputed. Because of his orders to kill these innocent and unarmed Americans, our government paid out 3 million-dollar settlement, ' said www.saveoursheriff.com.


...and this article was written before the McStay family was found recently--another case showing a combination of amazing incompetence, sloppiness and/or laziness performed with Sheriff Gore at the helm.

Wow, San Diego, what's it going to take to see the light with this guy!?

:notgood: :maddening: :ignore:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1029511
 

K_Z

Verified Anesthetist
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,460
Filed 11-18-2013 under the Register of Actions for the Zahau civil suit against SD county:


16

11/18/2013

Motion - Other (of appearance and legal representation : declaration of Attorney David A Miller in support thereof) filed by Horwath, Snowem.

Horwath, Snowem (Plaintiff)

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

(Case 37-2013-00047752-CU-MC-CTL)

No other documents yet with this filing. I expect we will learn more soon!
Apparently, this case is still moving forward.

Correction: I guess Snowem was always listed as a plaintiff-- I want to correct that, now that I looked at older filings! This must mean she has a different attorney, I think?
 
Top