| Wrongful death lawsuit. Page 1 -19 - Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
Linny1125
 Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:03 am |
|
|
|
How can they ask for remuneration for "burial/funeral" expenses when no body has ever been found and no one knows what the hell happened to her? Isn't there a 7 year waiting period to declare a missing person as dead/deceased?
|
|
Cleeking On Ploberdees
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 943
Location: Texas
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| victims cry
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:05 am |
|
|
|
Any idea why this was filed in CA rather the britaain??? k2 would nolt habve been subect to the same laws that favor the comp;ainant
|
|
On Vacation!
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 9299
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:33 am |
|
|
|
| Linny1125 wrote: | | How can they ask for remuneration for "burial/funeral" expenses when no body has ever been found and no one knows what the hell happened to her? Isn't there a 7 year waiting period to declare a missing person as dead/deceased? |
Putative damages for the grand empty coffin funeral Beth is planning.
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MF
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:37 am |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: | | Linny1125 wrote: | | How can they ask for remuneration for "burial/funeral" expenses when no body has ever been found and no one knows what the hell happened to her? Isn't there a 7 year waiting period to declare a missing person as dead/deceased? |
Putative damages for the grand empty coffin funeral Beth is planning. |
And the empty coffin will be paraded through the streets of Alabama and then the ceremony will be broadcasted live by FoxNews around the world.
|
|
**Deactivated**
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 3805
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eleanor rigby
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:41 am |
|
|
|
| MF wrote: | | dugo wrote: | | Linny1125 wrote: | | How can they ask for remuneration for "burial/funeral" expenses when no body has ever been found and no one knows what the hell happened to her? Isn't there a 7 year waiting period to declare a missing person as dead/deceased? |
Putative damages for the grand empty coffin funeral Beth is planning. |
And the empty coffin will be paraded through the streets of Alabama and then the ceremony will be broadcasted live by FoxNews around the world. |
prediction: And then the photos of it will be signed by the mother and sold in auctions with the hootie poster.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 1970
Location: Tony and Tatiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kay_The_Kitten
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:41 am |
|
|
|
upload error
this will teach me to do things while 1/2 asleep..
Special thanks to MediumRareTBone for PM'ing me reference the error.
I accidently uploaded page 4 , then page 4 again then page 6 and page 6 again.
I just uploaded the correct page 5 and page 7 of the case, if you want to see them. (They are in the orect locations on Page 1)
Kay
time for more coffee
|
|
Geek
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 707
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SassyGirl
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:07 am |
|
|
|
| Linny1125 wrote: | | How can they ask for remuneration for "burial/funeral" expenses when no body has ever been found and no one knows what the hell happened to her? Isn't there a 7 year waiting period to declare a missing person as dead/deceased? |
It sounds like to me that they are trying to block any damages that could be awarded to the kalpoes if they win their suit against Dr. Phil. So if the Kalpoes get money the Holloways can then get money through their lawsuit. I can almost bet that Dr. Phil will not take this case to trial and will settle with the Kalpoes. However if he does that he voids part of Beth's story claiming Deepak admitted on the Skeeters tape he raped Natalee. I don't understand how you can file multiple lawsuits claiming basically the same thing against different people. Also, I don't know how they can prove anything against the Kalpoes especially if there are cell phone records. I know that Beth wants answers but she is just throwing around money like she can buy her daughter back. The Kalpoes would of never filed that lawsuit against Dr. Phil if they were afraid of reprecussions. They obviously are very confident that they are innocent because it is very risky what they are doing.
|
|
Formerly 26andcounting
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 4226
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| all10suspects
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:10 am |
|
|
|
They obviously are very confident that they are innocent because it is very risky what they are doing.
2K may have been thinking the same thing when they tried to get thier
names cleared. They failed on that request.
|
|
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 6276
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hannie
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:12 am |
|
|
|
I think if they really had something "bad" to hide, they wouldn`t have done this, ever........
Thanks Kay for posting all those pages, 
|
|
li'l Shango's Mommy
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 22180
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| resigned
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:21 am |
|
|
|
| MF wrote: | | dugo wrote: | | Linny1125 wrote: | | How can they ask for remuneration for "burial/funeral" expenses when no body has ever been found and no one knows what the hell happened to her? Isn't there a 7 year waiting period to declare a missing person as dead/deceased? |
Putative damages for the grand empty coffin funeral Beth is planning. |
And the empty coffin will be paraded through the streets of Alabama and then the ceremony will be broadcasted live by FoxNews around the world. |
.....And at the end of the parade Beth rushes the coffin ala Sarah Jane Johnson running up to her mama Annie's coffin in "Imitation of Life".
Lora Meredith: Well, I'm going up and up and up - and nobody's going to pull me down!
|
|
Click your heels together...
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 27705
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| resigned
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:25 am |
|
|
|
| all10suspects wrote: | They obviously are very confident that they are innocent because it is very risky what they are doing.
2K may have been thinking the same thing when they tried to get thier
names cleared. They failed on that request. |
And yet they proceeded with a defamation suit.....pretty ballsy move, aye? 
|
|
Click your heels together...
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 27705
Location: "Onboard" pathenry's desk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SassyGirl
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:26 am |
|
|
|
| all10suspects wrote: | They obviously are very confident that they are innocent because it is very risky what they are doing.
2K may have been thinking the same thing when they tried to get thier
names cleared. They failed on that request. |
So I guess its a tie. Beth failed on her last lawsuit. For the first time I actually feel like she is looking for money. The money that the Kalpoes can get from Dr. Phil.
|
|
Formerly 26andcounting
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 4226
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hannah
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:31 am |
|
|
|
| 26ANDCOUNTING wrote: | | all10suspects wrote: | They obviously are very confident that they are innocent because it is very risky what they are doing.
2K may have been thinking the same thing when they tried to get thier
names cleared. They failed on that request. |
So I guess its a tie. Beth failed on her last lawsuit. For the first time I actually feel like she is looking for money. The money that the Kalpoes can get from Dr. Phil. |
It has ALWAYS been about money.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 594
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gagal_05
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:54 am |
|
|
|
I athought if there was no body, that you had to wait 7 years to declare someone legally dead.
|
|
**Deactivated**
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 5296
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| spngbobthebldr
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:45 am |
|
|
|
If this suit was about answers and not money they wouldn't have checked the "in excess of 25,000" box on the paperwork.
|
|
It ain't easy wearing square pants!
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 2945
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SassyGirl
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:56 am |
|
|
|
| spngbobthebldr wrote: | | If this suit was about answers and not money they wouldn't have checked the "in excess of 25,000" box on the paperwork. |
It sounds like to me that the Holloways are just trying not make sure the Kalpoes don't make money off of her daughters disappearance. Its common for the victims families to sue the party that is or they "think" is responsible for any crime. I'm not saying its right but thats what it looks like. In this case obviously it is way to premature to file such a suit because there is not even enough circumstantial evidence to convict them. Aside from the fact that she declared Joran the killer in another lawsuit and add to that she is using the Skeeter's tape as evidence in her lawsuit. That in and of itself can undermine the entire lawsuit if the Kalpoes prove it is a farce. Then that leaves Beth holding the bag saying that the tape is accurate when in fact it may be proven to be fraudulent. I think she should of waited for the outcome of the Kalpoes lawsuit otherwise she can and probably is just throwing away money by suing for wrongful death. I wonder if jurisdiction will be an issue in CA as well? But I will say this, CA is much more laid back in their judicial system in comparison to NY.
|
|
Formerly 26andcounting
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 4226
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:15 pm |
|
|
|
| spngbobthebldr wrote: | | If this suit was about answers and not money they wouldn't have checked the "in excess of 25,000" box on the paperwork. |
Any idea how to sue for answers in the US? There is this wonderfull construction in Dutch civil code that allows you to sue over any unlawful act and unlawful refers to written and unwritten law. Dunno if this is a common way to get things done in the US as well but Dutch judges don't shy away for imposing penaltys on a daily basis until compliance.
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:34 pm |
|
|
|
| gagal_05 wrote: | | I athought if there was no body, that you had to wait 7 years to declare someone legally dead. |
John Kelly said something interesting last night
John:
Yes, I've had to have discussions with them several times,about whether they want to go to the formal proceedings down in Alabama of having Natalee formally declared dead which wasn't necessary for purposes of this action
What's the statutory timeframe in Alabama for declaring someone
legally dead?
And why wouldn't it be crucial to a wrongful death suit to be able
to prove that someone is dead??
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23422
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:57 am |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | | gagal_05 wrote: | | I athought if there was no body, that you had to wait 7 years to declare someone legally dead. |
John Kelly said something interesting last night
John:
Yes, I've had to have discussions with them several times,about whether they want to go to the formal proceedings down in Alabama of having Natalee formally declared dead which wasn't necessary for purposes of this action
What's the statutory timeframe in Alabama for declaring someone
legally dead?
And why wouldn't it be crucial to a wrongful death suit to be able
to prove that someone is dead?? |
Who is going to give declaration under penalty of perjury that natalee is dead? This is going to be fun! tjoeketjoeketjoeke .. TooToot!!!
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:01 pm |
|
|
|
As you posted on another thread from the Alabama Code,
before they issued a Death Certificiate, they would require
confirmation / Death Certificiate from wherever it is the
person is deemed to have died. Don't think that's forthcoming
any time soon.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23422
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:40 pm |
|
|
|
| spngbobthebldr wrote: | | If this suit was about answers and not money they wouldn't have checked the "in excess of 25,000" box on the paperwork. |
I bet that if they didn't K2's lawyers would consider buying her off just to avoid having listen to and respond to the drivel..
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| wehwalt
Posted:
Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:54 pm |
|
|
|
| victims cry wrote: | | Any idea why this was filed in CA rather the britaain??? k2 would nolt habve been subect to the same laws that favor the comp;ainant |
Well, what Beth and Dave are trying to say is that by filing in CA against Phil, K2 have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the CA courts and can be sued (and their attorneys served by mail). I'm not sure I buy this.
If Phil counterclaimed against K2, sure, there would be no problem with jurisdiction (I refer to personal jurisdiction throughout). But just because K2 file a lawsuit in California, I don't see that gives anyone leave to file an unrelated suit against them in California and expect to avoid personal jurisdiction problems. Really, a wrongful death suit is unrelated to a libel suit. I expect that Beth and Dave will lose again once K2's lawyers file their objections.
This is not an International Shoe case. K2 are not conducting business in California. They have been allegedly harmed by certain individuals, and they are going to one of the home states of the defendants to seek redress. That doesn't give all and sundry leave to file against them.
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 1234
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:47 am |
|
|
|
| wehwalt wrote: | | victims cry wrote: | | Any idea why this was filed in CA rather the britaain??? k2 would nolt habve been subect to the same laws that favor the comp;ainant |
Well, what Beth and Dave are trying to say is that by filing in CA against Phil, K2 have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the CA courts and can be sued (and their attorneys served by mail). I'm not sure I buy this.
If Phil counterclaimed against K2, sure, there would be no problem with jurisdiction (I refer to personal jurisdiction throughout). But just because K2 file a lawsuit in California, I don't see that gives anyone leave to file an unrelated suit against them in California and expect to avoid personal jurisdiction problems. Really, a wrongful death suit is unrelated to a libel suit. I expect that Beth and Dave will lose again once K2's lawyers file their objections.
This is not an International Shoe case. K2 are not conducting business in California. They have been allegedly harmed by certain individuals, and they are going to one of the home states of the defendants to seek redress. That doesn't give all and sundry leave to file against them. |
Hmm, I am looking at Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods.. Know of any case where related/unrelated is defined?
What about the tolling agreement, isn't that a form of doing business on a related matter, as in capitalising on the natalee mistery they created?
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MediumRareTBone
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:20 am |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: | | wehwalt wrote: | | victims cry wrote: | | Any idea why this was filed in CA rather the britaain??? k2 would nolt habve been subect to the same laws that favor the comp;ainant |
Well, what Beth and Dave are trying to say is that by filing in CA against Phil, K2 have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the CA courts and can be sued (and their attorneys served by mail). I'm not sure I buy this.
If Phil counterclaimed against K2, sure, there would be no problem with jurisdiction (I refer to personal jurisdiction throughout). But just because K2 file a lawsuit in California, I don't see that gives anyone leave to file an unrelated suit against them in California and expect to avoid personal jurisdiction problems. Really, a wrongful death suit is unrelated to a libel suit. I expect that Beth and Dave will lose again once K2's lawyers file their objections.
This is not an International Shoe case. K2 are not conducting business in California. They have been allegedly harmed by certain individuals, and they are going to one of the home states of the defendants to seek redress. That doesn't give all and sundry leave to file against them. |
Hmm, I am looking at Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods.. Know of any case where related/unrelated is defined?
What about the tolling agreement, isn't that a form of doing business on a related matter, as in capitalising on the natalee mistery they created? |
Hall v. LaRonde is interesting.
|
|
**Relentless**
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 3586
Location: celebrating with the Jayhawks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:06 am |
|
|
|
On this issue of personal jurisdiction, I'm deferring to the
opinion of the Law Professor from Emory University. It
seems quite simple really:
California case law does grant jurisdiction by consent
as a function of the Kalpoe brothers filing suit in Cali,
but that consent is limited to the parties to the original
case i.e. Dr Phil, Paramount et al
As third party Plaintiffs, the Holloways cannot come in
and use that consent to jurisdiction.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23422
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
