Anna Nicole Smith’s Daughter, Dannielynn, Heads to U. S. Supreme Court on January 18!!!
Posted by Rose in All Things Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Beverly Hills, Celebrity Trials, Dannielynn, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, High Proflie Trials, Hollyweird Criminal Justice, Hollywood, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Howard and Anna, Howard K Stern, J. Christopher Smith, J. Christopher Smith Esq, Steve Sadow
Per the Beverly Hills Courier Paper, Attorney Bruce S. Ross, representing estate administrator Howard K. Stern, told Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff during a status conference that a hearing will be held Jan. 6 regarding his client’s October criminal conviction on charges he helped supply Smith with painkillers and other drugs before her overdose death.
Less than two weeks later, oral arguments are scheduled before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a federal appeals court decision that Smith’s estate has no claim on the fortune left by her late oil billionaire husband, J. Howard Marshall, Ross said.
Beckloff scheduled the next estate hearing for Feb. 15.
Lawyers for Smith’s 4-year-old daughter Dannielynn Birkhead, who was named her sole heir, and E. Pierce Marshall’s widow, Elaine, will be making their case before the high court Jan. 18, Ross said.
Be sure to participate in our COMMUNITY , get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the community where you can discuss things about the cases in a debate area of the site.
Visit our Download Section for all documents on the cases we are following:
We will be listening to all of our readers about new cases. Do you have a tip for us on a case to follow? If so Contact Us, a link appears at the top of all pages; ALL TIPS ARE OF COURSE CONFIDENTIAL
©Rose Turner
December 15, 2010.
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author..
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.
Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Entries (RSS)
http://67.59.172.92/article/Local_News/Local_News/Anna_Nicole_Smith_estate_litigation_postponed_for_two_months/73323
“Anna Nicole Smith estate litigation postponed for two months
(CNS) Posted Wednesday December 15, 2010 – 3:12pm
Litigation over the estate of the late Anna Nicole Smith was postponed today for at least another two months, because of two key developments scheduled between now and then.
Attorney Bruce S. Ross, representing estate administrator Howard K. Stern, told Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff during a status conference that a hearing will be held Jan. 6 regarding his client’s October criminal conviction on charges he helped supply Smith with painkillers and other drugs before her overdose death.
Less than two weeks later, oral arguments are scheduled before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a federal appeals court decision that Smith’s estate has no claim on the fortune left by her late oil billionaire husband, J. Howard Marshall, Ross said.
Beckloff scheduled the next estate hearing for Feb. 15.
Outside court, Ross said that if the Supreme Court reverses the March decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars would become part of Smith’s estate.
Ross said Stern was trying to have his two felony convictions dismissed, reduced to misdemeanors or be given a new trial. The federal appeals court decision upheld a 2001 verdict that named E. Pierce Marshall — who has since died — the sole heir of his father’s $1.6 billion estate.
Smith wed her husband in 1994, and later claimed that he had promised her $300 million of his fortune. He died in 1995 at age 90.
When he was alive, Marshall gave Smith money and gifts valued at more than $6 million. The former Playboy Playmate claimed her second husband promised her $300 million even though it was not spelled out in his will.
Smith died of an accidental prescription drug overdose in Florida on Feb. 8, 2007, at the age of 39.
Pierce Marshall died in 2006 at age 67.
Lawyers for Smith’s 4-year-old daughter Dannielynn Birkhead, who was named her sole heir, and E. Pierce Marshall’s widow, Elaine, will be making their case before the high court Jan. 18, Ross said.”
I read thru the whole case both sides and it took some time two years ago. If ya thought McShame was bad you would have to read what some of P Marshalls attorneys did at his request. Some of his used to be attorneys admitted they followed directions fro P Marshall so Anna would get nothing.His father died a very poor man because P Marshall all but stole all of his fathers money. JMO
You know, we have read so many things in regards to this lawsuit. Personally, I believe that Smith got her money while she was married to him. I would settle for 6 million bucks in dollars and good for 14 months of being married to the old man. Without going to bed with him!!
Maybe these lawyers should seek a settlement, all expenses up to date and some $$ to be placed into a trust fund for Dannielynn. No one can touch it. NO ONE. I fully understand that Pierce Marshall did Anna wrong. But I also understand that Anna wasn’t the good and loving wife to the old man either. I could get more into detail but I won’t.
I will be waiting for the bahing to begin.
#3 Should be bashing not bahing…my bad…
The estate stuff I am not really clear about. But it seems as if 1 step forwards 2 back in settling anything. Both sides seem to be in the same boat.
2011 might be a year where a lot is settled.
H.Supporter has put a link to the 144 page BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT (E. Marshall)
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/10-179_Respondent.pdf
footnote on page 7
“1 Under the current regime, Congress has not granted bankruptcy judges Article III status. They are appointed by the courts of appeals for fourteen-year terms. 28 U.S.C. §152(a)(1). They are subject to removal from office other than by impeachment. Id. §152(e). Their salaries are fixed by statute and are not immune from adjustment. Id. §153.”
This case is so legally complicated and the laws intertwine multiple times, it’s no wonder the Judges are having an extremely difficult time concurring!
DG I agree Anna was not what she should have been while married to the man.I read all the things P Marshall claimed some true some maybe not and I agree they should settle and put it aside for DL and only for her till she is 21 Let no one else touch it.Sometimes the good in a marriage does not make up for the bad.
Thanks for the link (again)! Yes, the SCOTUS stuff is pretty dry going. ?
• “In 1978, Congress enacted a new Bankruptcy Code, created a new system of non-Article III bankruptcy courts, and vested these courts with broad jurisdiction to hear and determine all “civil proceedings arising under title 11 [the Bankruptcy Code] or arising in or related to cases under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. §1471(b) (repealed 1984). In 1982, this Court invalidated section 1471(b), at least insofar as it authorized the non-Article III bankruptcy court to finally decide a state law breach of contract action. Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 87 (1982); see also id. at 91 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment).”
Right off the bat Elaine Marshall ignores that her late husband E. Pierce deliberately and spitefully dismissed his State claim against ANS and presented himself to the Bankruptcy Court for final adjudication of his defamation claim against her. No dancing around the words of any law, act of congress or Court precedent overcomes the facts of what E. Pierce did. Add also that E. Pierce ignored discovery deadlines and eventually coughed up partial docs (others destroyed by him), forged docs and enlisted the suborned perjury of one of his father’s lawyers. Again Elaine is saying the Bankruptcy Court only ‘advises’ the District Court on matters of civil torts – and points to the fact that Harris County Probate issued a decision a month before the U.S. District Court in CA did – therefore Pierce wins by a whisker despite his unlawful and disgusting behavior.
HKS and three ‘amici’ disagree with Elaine, one of those being the U.S. government. The group of Law Professors and the National Association of Bankruptcy trustees (the people who do this work every day) complete the mighty three ‘amici’ that support HKS.
Posted at 12:50 PM on Dec 17, 2010 by Only swim in the Ocean
DG [3] I agree entirely with what you are saying… Anna got what money she was entitled to while J Howard Marshall was alive.