Rose speaks – Celebrity and High Profile Trials

trina says:

Must have something to do with the bar complaint against KPicazio. Art that is.

DesertWalker says:

#6 – Re Harris
http://imgsrv.thesky973.com/image/wsky/UserFiles/File/Object_1429486_0.PDF

Bewildered says:

Good golly! And I thought there were nuts following the ANS story! I can’t seem to see where Art did anything wrong, but I skimmed thru. Seems to me it’s mostly about bloggers and such.

If the cases that seem never ending, come to some conclusion, I’m getting a new library card. Think I’ll stick with books.

BEVERLY says:

ROSE—–I quess I would say,it is time for me to grow up,and face reality.Rose,my heart would sink.The EVIL Howard and his family have endured,is so far beyond anything I could ever in my wildest dreams think could exist.I also would do what I have been doing,pray to Amighty Father,that those who hurt others for the (buck)get there (JUST REWARDS)Lord,I get upset when my faith in someone,is misplaced.

Liann says:

642. The CBS response to McCabe’s delay tactic Motion for Continuance is at the HC site:

http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/Edocs/Public/ViewFilePage.aspx?ViewAsType=PDF&TodaysDate=11/18/2009&PublicImageNbr=43894026&CourtID=080

As expected, CBS points out the Motion is moot since VA filed a surreply the same day she filed a Motion for Continuance for 30 days in which to write a surreply. Moreover, the surreply had nothing new to say.

CBS asks the Court (paraphrasing) to move along and rule on its Motion for Summary Judgement.

So, no CBS, which means no AH; no unlawful snooping (courtesy of 1st COA) into anyone’s personal computers which means no Special Appearance defendants; which means the entire ‘bloggers’ case is at a put up or shut up point as it should have been the day after it was filed.

Posted at 11:20PM on Nov 18th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/16/larry-birkhead-anna-nicole-smith-howard-k-stern-drugs-sandeep-kapoor-khristine-eroshevich/43#comments#ixzz0XHMMpFNM

BEVERLY says:

Good Morning Everyone,When the bloggers case is brought to a end,”and soon I hope”everyone will go on there merry way to the next case,but there is a big problem Two women are left with police records,there names all over the news,McCabe who is representing Vergie Arthur,has spared no expense.in harming anyone who they thought got in there way.The harm done by McCabe and his very selfish self centered client cannot be erased,just like the harm done to Anna by the same ,self centered selfish mother of Anna Nicole Smith Marshall.Janet Jackson said in a interview,they,(family tryed to help Michael with a intervention,but Michael refused,I have not heard and still waiting for what Vergie did to help her Daughter.As far as bloggers conspiring to ruin Vergie reputation,if the court by now has not come to the conclusion,Vergie and her Attorneys destroyed there clients reputation,than play the latest Geraldo interview,mommie who cannot shut her mouth,”If you love someone you would get them off drugs”JUDGE,ASK WHAT VERGIE DID FOR HER DAUGHTER,then you know who destroyed her own reputation,In a time,when Vergie should have been griving Daniel and Anna death,she was down in NY to party hardy,for a book,that belittle her daughter,NO BLOGGER CAN EVER COME CLOSE,TO HARMING VERGIE,AS VERGIE HARMED HERSELF

DesertWalker says:

Since I’m pontificating this morning … I might add that I wonder the same about comments that are being posted over on “T” by “all sides” as well … It appears to be a new blogging world out there now with new scrutiny and unpredictable rules. I would hate to see any more of the people I talk with suffer needlessly in their personal lives because they became overly interested in cases they were following. Thanks, Mom — I hope your saying of, “A Word To The Wise Is Sufficient” will cause the desired reconsideration. Have a blessed Thanksgiving everyone.

DesertWalker says:

#36-Trina … can you “think out loud” a bit more about the connection?

DesertWalker says:

Rose – you know the inner workings and conversations and we all don’t, so you’re questioning things we, and your readers, have no information about and no real right to know at this point. Even if you do research and talk to some of the people involved, you won’t have the answers you’re really seeking. When the legalities are over you’ll be able to talk with AH. Then and only then will you really understand his thinking. And only then will you be able to decide why he took the actions he did and whether he was morally and/or ethically wrong. Those are my thoughts, anyway.

DesertWalker says:

#44-Bewildered, Beats me why I decided to really read back over there this morning to see if I’d missed anything important. Guess I didn’t scroll through fast enough this time. I can’t even fathom that the same people I’ve posted with for so long have sunk to those depths. Sure, we all lose our patience at times but that hatefulness goes on day after day now. Don’t get me started again … I’ve said more than I should have already.

DesertWalker says:

47-JMA … some don’t have to worry about it … they never turn their computers off

DesertWalker says:

Aw Bewildered … I couldn’t agree more.

Beth says:

* GREAT INFORMATIVE POST Regarding the NY Case—
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“..Hachette’s insurer is obligated to cover the costs of defense and settlement for Cosby unless Cosby ‘fires’ them and takes on the costs herself. The criminal and Cosby civil cases do not overlap in their subject matter. Here’s a refresher (my previous 3 part post) on what will be heard in NYC if Cosby goes to trial. Recall, Cosby has NO witnesses that have supported her; the Cosby case unredacted depos even show that people Cosby ‘quoted’ or alluded to are upset that she made their lies sound more preposterous than they already were.

What will the Cosby Jury see and hear?

Short Answer: What Judge Chin allows into evidence. Only the statements DENIED Summary Judgement (to Cosby) will have testimony and exhibits. Statements for which Cosby received summary judgement are OUT.

• The Jury will therefore hear NOTHING about (using Statement numbers as in the written decision):

#3, HKS and ANS’s drug use prior to and during her pregnancy; #4, Stern having Mark Hatten falsely arrested; #5, ANS and HKS conspiring to hire MH to murder E. Pierce Marshall; #6, HKS’s ET compensation; #9, the FS story about HKS flushing pills in The Bahamas; #10, HKS stealing money from ANS; #12, additional offers HKS may have made to LB for making him Executor of ANS’s Estate; and #14, the allegation that Daniel told ‘someone’ about HKS feeding ANS drugs and his being a Svengali. These statements are out because HKS provided no proof to back up his point of view that the statements were false; for the MH sourced materials, MH, even when wrong, is a principal relating his views directly to Cosby.

The Jury will also not have readings of other peoples’ articles, blogs or TV appearances; first-hand information only.

• What the Jury will hear:

The Jury will hear about Jackie Hatten and her substantial contribution to the sex act (#1) statement and the ‘pimping’ statement (#8) and part of the murder allegations in Statements #15 -19. Well, if JH ever surfaces and comes to Court and convinces any one on the Jury that she is not nuts, Cosby might stand a slim to none chance. Of course JH disappeared the very day Cosby’s book was published and only called HKS/Wood once since that time but never showed for her own defamation suit or to give a deposition for Hachette or Cosby.

The sex tape (#2) statement was sourced only by Clark & Vice and precipitated ‘nannygate’; use of those sources and the attempted bribery show actual malice Judge Chin opines. Will Clark & Vice appear at trial to testify? Where’s the tape? Neither can testify to what the nannies said, only what they personally know as a fact.

Harding said Daniel told him (#7) that HKS ‘pimped’ his mother, and Cosby corroborated that statement with JH’s (#8). Harding says he made it up and JH is MIA.

Cosby said LB told her (#11) that HKS perjured himself in Seidlin’s Court when he claimed to be DL’s father but LB denies he said it to her. Who will the Jury believe?

Cosby says VA told her (#13) LB was being blackmailed by HKS for being gay. Will VA take the stand and would the Jury believe her in context? Will the jury believe VA or LB? Chin felt Cosby was reckless to have written anything VA told her.

Statements #15 – 19 are from JH and VA and promoted on TV by Cosby and O’Q and deal with the murder allegations, dates on the will fax’d to HKS and how ANS’s ‘inner circle’ felt HKS was dangerous and was likely involved in ANS’s death and ANS yelling to HKS ‘you did this’, etc. Well, no JH, unlikely VA would show up or be believed and O’Q has already publicly filed papers in his FL case in which he admitted to having made it all up.

Summary:

Jackie Hatten, Harding, VA, Clark & Vice’s source materials are the ONLY materials that will be presented to the Jury. No lifestyle stuff, no ANS Show stuff, no talk of HKS’s parents and money laundering, no sex with the dog stuff, etc.

Who among the above will satisfy the Jury that HKS and LB were witnessed having sex, that a sex tape exists, that HKS ‘pimped’ ANS, HKS perjured himself about being DL’s father, HKS blackmailed ‘gay’ LB or any of the inter-related murder allegations that even O’Q and Clark are on the public record as having said were false. No JH, Harding recanted, VA is brain damaged to some extent according to McCabe and recanted in the ‘Mommie Dearest’ case anyway and the Clark/Vice duo are not believable in anything they have ever said (even Chin noted Clark lied on TV regarding being a source for Cosby).

Cosby has no pertinent witnesses. HKS has a long list of eye-witnesses and principals of the ANS saga on his side – the truth side.

Posted on Nov 19th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean”

Liann says:

CBS and AH call b.s. on VA’s Motion to change the pre-trial and trial dates for the ‘bloggers’ case; it’s a page-turner as legal docs go. The bottom line is that such a Motion cannot be set for submission (as it was), rather it must be set for an oral hearing as per Judge Weiman’s own procedural rules of which all parties are aware.

• ALL parties must be able to show up at a HEARING and go through this slug of a case in the open, fresh air of a new Court.

- CBS and AH point out the multiple mandamus proceedings and chastise VA for calling such writs a delay tactic of the defendants involved. Clearly the 1st COA and the TSC don’t indulge ‘delay’ tactics; they deal with important legal questions. VA is also chastised for saying AH has engaged in ‘massive spoliation’ when in fact that false conclusion comes from the ‘work’ of a Special Master that was unlawfully appointed by Lindsay and who is the very subject of the pending writs of mandamus. Bad, bad VA trying to taint the new Judge’s view of CBS and AH by slipping false and inflammatory and irrelevant one-liners into a Court doc.

- CBS and AH also point out that VA has sued many of the same defendants before in the ‘Mommie Dearest’ case which was dismissed with prejudice. The time has come to discuss ‘the truth’ that was dragged out of VA, McCabe and others in the big court.

- Just as VA wanted a continuance claiming to need 30 days to write a surreply; a surreply she filed the same day as the Motion asking for 30 days to write it; we see VA saying deadlines need to be extended for such things as naming an expert witness when she already has named an expert witness. Does VA assume the new Judge is no different than the old Judge?

• Time for VA to show up in Court and explain herself.

Posted at 7:27PM on Nov 19th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/10/16/larry-birkhead-anna-nicole-smith-howard-k-stern-drugs-sandeep-kapoor-khristine-eroshevich/44#comments#ixzz0XMWesXiL

Beth says:

LOL Liann!
Great minds think alike!!! ;)

Sorry about reposting it again…

Liann says:

LOL, I just saw that. lol

Hi Beth!, I hope you and yours are good!

Beth says:

Yes Liann!
It is a great post!!!

On pg. 4 direct contravention (violation) of Simpson vs. Canales….

http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=83152

“The appointment of a master lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and should not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of that discretion is found. Simpson v. Canales, 806 S.W.2d 802, 811 (Tex. 1991). The Texas Supreme Court has held that “Rule 171 is the exclusive authority for appointment of masters in our state courts” and “every referral to a master, unless authorized by statute or consented to by the parties, must comply with Rule 171.” Id. at 810 & n.12 (giving non-exhaustive listing of matters authorized by statute). Here, because there does not appear to be an applicable statute and because Holt did not consent to the appointment, the issue is whether the trial court had the authority to compel Holt to submit matters to the master under Rule 171. See id. at 810–11 & n.12.

Rule 171 provides as follows, in pertinent part:

The court may, in exceptional cases, for good cause appoint a master in chancery, who shall be a citizen of this State, and not an attorney for either party to the action, nor related to either party, who shall perform all of the duties required of him by the court, and shall be under orders of the court, and have such power as the master in chancery has in a court of equity.

Tex. R. Civ. P. 171. Hence, Rule 171 permits a trial court to appoint a master “in exceptional cases, for good cause.” Id. The “exceptional case” and “good cause” standards are “not susceptible [to] precise definition.” Simpson, 806 S.W.2d at 811. Although the trial court may consider the complexity of the case, the rule’s standards may not be satisfied merely by showing that a case is time-consuming or complicated. Id.

In Simpson, the trial court appointed a master based on the complexity of the toxic-tort case before it, which involved one plaintiff and 18 defendants. Id. Over the course of 10 months, 8 discovery motions were filed, but the trial court did not hear any of the pending discovery disputes before appointing the master. Id. The supreme court concluded that the appointment of the master constituted a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court because, although the case may have been more complicated than others on the trial court’s docket, “it can hardly be said to be exceptional, at least at this point in its development.” Id. The supreme court explained that “[e]ven if this were an exceptional case, based upon the allegations in the pleadings, the number of parties, or the amount of activity it generated, we would be reluctant to approve the trial court’s delegation of the supervision of all discovery to be conducted in the case to the master.” Id. at 811–12.

As in Simpson, there is nothing in the record before us that suggests that this is an “exceptional case” that cannot be handled in the trial court or that “good cause” exists for supervision by a master. There are two parties involved, and the only issue before the trial court at this time is the discovery of non-exempt assets. There was no evidence taken at the December 14 hearing before the trial court appointed Baumann, and, although Holt objected to the appointment, Cedyco offered no explanation.

Conclusion

We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing a master, conditionally grant Holt’s petition for writ of mandamus, and direct the trial court to vacate its January 19, 2006 order appointing a master and any other orders ancillary thereto.
Baumann was appointed solely as master; Ray Crain was appointed the receiver. The record reflects that Baumann has represented himself as the receiver in this case, notonly in his letters to Holt, but also to the United States Post Office in filling out a request re-directing Holt’s mail to Baumann. On February 24, 2006, the trial court ordered thatBaumann could re-direct Holt’s mail, open it, and hold it. The order expressly relievedBaumann from any duty to return any mail to Holt and allowed Holt to retrieve his mail onlyif and in the manner that Baumann chose. Further, the trial court’s order provided that there-direction was to begin immediately and that “[n]o notice is to be given” to Holt. Because this order was ancillary to the trial court’s appointment of a master, for which we grantmandamus relief, we direct the trial court to vacate the February 24 order and further directthe trial court to order Baumann to rescind any measures taken at the United States PostOffice with regard to re-directing Holt’s mail.

Close We lift our order of March 28, 2006 staying the proceedings below. We are confident that the trial court will promptly comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not.”

“Tim Taft
Justice”

Beth says:

OMG! How funny! (the whole ‘one’ page – link below)

http://www.topix.com/forum/who/anna-nicole-smith/T7VRMG6ONOEBGR6SO

Have a nice evening all!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heath, please be safe!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks Rose as always for the docs!
Very interesting!
LOL Not too much praise from the other side’s legal eagle on McC’s latest motions… ;)
I guess they cannot even attempt to spin what is becoming VERY CLEAR to all now!

TX are the ones WHO HAVE ALWAYS WANTED THIS FAKE CASE DELAYED! Because they have NO CASE, NO ACTUAL CONSPIRED DEFAMATION!
The case was to make HKS (all other defendants are just collateral damage) pay for daring to SUE O’Q!
LOL If HKS hadn’t won… do you think TX firm would want this much revenge? (that is Bull Sh*t on: ‘just his legal fees got paid in FL’ I bet!)

* MAD about the FL burial hearing, MAD about the loss in the Bahamas, MAD about the loss in FL defamation case against O’Q, MAD about the loss in TX FEDERAL COURT w/ VA…. There is NOTHING left for them to make up and SUE for! SOON > this will be over for all the Defendants!

** Then there should be a class action suit against the plaintiff and her counsel and their ‘untrained helpers’ for these FALSE CHARGES! JMHO on that!

;) Goodnight everyone.