Anna Nicole Smith’s Daughter, Dannielynn Returns to U. S. Supreme Court with Howard K. Stern.
Posted by Rose in All Things Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Beverly Hills, Celebrity Trials, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, High Proflie Trials, Hollywood, Howard and Anna, Howard K Stern, John J. Nazarian, John J. Nazarian P.I, John Nazarian, John Nazarian PI, John O'Quinn, Nazarian P. I., Ron Rale, Virgie Arthur
When I look at this picture of Anna Nicole Smith, her son, Daniel Wayne Smith and her lover lawyer Howard K. Stern entering the U. S. Supreme Court five years ago, February 2006, little did anyone know what would happen during the next five years.
Anna Nicole Smith was pregnant with her daughter Dannielynn and the world looked bright, especially in June 2006 when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Smith had a right to have her appeal sent back to the lower court to decide if she was entitled to any of her deceased husband’s, J. Howard Marshall’s Estate valued over one billion dollars.
Now five years later, once again Howard K. Stern returns to the Supreme Court to hear arguments on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 to address whether Smith’s Estate is entitled to part of the Estate of a deceased husband’s estates which has now been tangled up in court for 15 years. Howard K. Stern returns alone, unless Dannielynn’s father decides to attend with Stern, to see if Smith’s lone heir gets money.
In the last five years, Pierce Marshall has died, Daniel Wayne Smith has died, Anna Nicole Smith has died and John M. O’Quinn died in an accident. Howard K. Stern faced potential career ending charges and a trial to funneling drugs to a “known addict”. Stern was cleared of that on January 6, 2011 by Los Angeles Judge Robert Perry of all charges and his life was given back intact for him to continue to practice law.
On January 10, 2011 Stern filed the Reply to Elaine Marshall’s, Pierce Marshall’s widow, Response dated December 13, 2010, to the Estate of Smith’s Writ of Certiorari filed November 12 2010 with the Supreme Court once again ruling they will hear oral arguments this coming Tuesday and again decide this mega million dollar estate. Any decision by the U. S. Supreme Court will be issued no later than the last Monday of June 2011.
You have to feel a tad sad for Stern to be returning five years later, minus so many important people in his life including the love of his life Smith and her son Daniel.
The attorneys for the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith consists of; Philip W. Boesch Jr. Esq., The Boesch Law Group, Bruce S. Ross, Vivian L. Thoreen, Holland & Knight LLP, Kent L. Richland, Alan Diamond, Edward L. Xanders, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richaland LLP
The attorneys for Elaine Marshall consists of; Roy T. Englert Jr., of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untreiner and Sauber LLP as well as G. Erin Brunstad Jr., Collin O’Connor Undell, and Matthew J. Delude of Deschert LLP
There has been seven Ameicus Briefs filed by interested groups including the U. S. government, some in favor of Smith’s Estate and some in favor of Marshall.
Here is a list of the other papers filed so you can become acquainted with them to discuss prior to the hearing this Tuesday. The U. S. Supreme Court has three cases it is hearing oral arguments on with this one listed as the last of the three to be heard that day.
November 15, 2010 Ameicus Brief by Legal Professors in Support of Howard K. Stern. The legal professors and lawyers listed are Richard AAron, Laura Bartell, Jagdeep S. Bhandari, Susan Block-Lieb, Robert D’Agostino, Jackie Gardina, Ingrid Hillinger, George W. Kuney, Lois Lupica, C. Scott Pryor, Keith Sharfman, Michael D. Sousa, and Robert M. Ziman.
November 19, 2010 Amercus Brief by. the Bankruptcy Trustees in Support of Howard K. Stern.
November 2010 Ameicus Brief by the United States of America in Support of Howard K. Stern..
December 20, 2010 Ameicus Brief by the National Black Chamber of Commerce in Support of Elaine Marshall.
December 20, 2010 Ameicus Brief by by Washington Legal Foundation in Support of Elaine Marshall.
December 2010 Ameicus Brief by the Center Rule of Law in Support of Elaine Marshall.
December 2010 Ameicus Brief by Legal Professors in Support of Elaine Marshall. The law professors are; S. Todd Brown, G. Marcus Cole, Ronald D. Rotunda, and Todd J. Zywicki
The Three Points the U. S. Supreme Court has decided to hear oral arguments and issue an Opinion on three questions asked to be addressed by Smith’s Estate:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit opinion, which renders §157(b)(2)(C) surplusage in
light of §157(b)(2)(B), contravenes Congress’ intent in enacting §157(b)(2)(C).
2. Whether Congress may, under Articles I and III, constitutionally authorize core
jurisdiction over debtors’ compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim.
3. Whether the Ninth Circuit misapplied Marathon and Katchen and contravened this Court’s post-Marathon precedent, creating a circuit split in the process, by holding that Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter final judgment on all compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim.
I wonder if the Marshall money, like the Hope Diamond is going to be surrounded of the mystic of tragedy attached to it, what do you think?
Follow Us On Face Book at http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001254987261 and on Twitter at http://twitter.com/RoseSpeaks
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. If you would like to be a guest writer, please send up what you propose to write about via the Contact Us link as well.
©Rose Turner
January 15, 2011
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)
Let’s be frank here. While this might help Stern to keep his mind busy, he is partially doing this to try to get his 6% of the millions.
IMO, Anna was not entitled to more than what she received when the old man was alive. Man, I would love to get 6 million dollars worth of goods/money for 14 months of being married to the old geezer that Anna got. I do believe she is entitled to some $$$ because of the shit that Perry did but not halk of the billion or so $$$$. In reality, this would make Dannielynn the target of a whole bunch of scumbags.
DG I interviewed someone who knew ANS and J. Howard Marshall WAY back when… they told me that he negotiated her contract with Playboy and with Guess, and told her what he wanted her to have and exactly what his son Pierce would do to keep it away… So if you go with they might have been married for 14 months it appears they were together longer than that??? HKS is doing this for the money and for another 15 mins of fame… LB wants a photo of him going into the supreme court as ANS had one in 2006… They ALL like to have the media follow them and keep them in that longer 15 mins then they deserved ever. Yes DL will become a huge target for idiots. I am glad that LB said he moved her to Kentucky at the beginning of this past school year so that she could be “normal” but if the Supreme court rules the way I think they will, there will be a LOT of ppl rich all from DL… kind of sad for a 4 year old isn’t it???
Well,I will say whatever money Howard can make HOORAY for him,In the past four years everyone made money off of destroying him and his family,He has been ripped apart made fun of,laughed at by tv morons,Whatever money he gets from whereever he sure as hell deserves it.
Howard K Stern is just as much of a gold-digger as Anna Nicole was, and this is another chapter on trying to get money from the Marshall family when Anna Nicole was specifically exculded from the will. The Supreme Court should support the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Marshall v Marshall and be done with it already.
Diamondgirl—MY OPINION—–Your right,but the only scumbags will be Anna’s side of the family.Daddy has a smart head on his shoulders,and his family together with Howard and his family will make sure Dannielynn is not taken by anyone,That is the main reason Vergie did not like the two to work together.I have read the cesspool site and I have been laughing all day,It seems JH comments all come from a Dream according to her brother MH.the prosecution want to retry Howard,which one of there witnessess is not a LIAR or just plain NUTS.
#5, do you even know anything about that case?? If so, You would know the reason it continues…..imo.
I have no qualms about Stern getting money that he earned and if anyone got that impression, sorry. What I did have a problem with, is his motives for fighting for the Marshall money as they were stated. Whether he was a gold digger or not is not the issue. He has been involved with this lawsuit from the beginning.
As far as Larry, who knows. If he wants facetime, he can get that anytime he feels like it and we all know that. Doesn’t have to be on the Supreme Court steps.
Now if anything does come out of this, my wish would be that after all fees were removed, the balance would be held in trust at several banks and that NO ONE associated with Anna, her family, Birkhead’s family or Stern’s family be names as the trustee. If money is to go to Dannielynn (which I don’t believe she is entitled to but will prolly get)I would love to see some sort of set up like Jackson did with his estate and his children.
DIAMONDGIRL YES, YES, YES, That sounds like a plan to me
First off NO ONE would be rich BECAUSE of Dannielynn…. that is ridiculous. She was born 4 years ago and this has been going on for 15 years….. LB wouldn’t become rich. He said himself that IF Dannielynn is awarded something then he understood it wasn’t HIS money and he would continue to work as normal and if he is given a sum of that money to raise Dannielynn then SO THE FUCK WHAT!!!! How would anyone like to try to raise that little girl in the world we have today and do it without a lot of money to afford protection and nice life? Yea, I didn’t think so.
I don’t believe Anna is entitled to half the old man’s estate but I do think she should be given a pretty penny after what PM and his crooked lawyers did.
The problem Rox in Larry’s case, it has always been said that he was after the money. While I disagree with it, if NO ONE can touch that money except for the trutee, then each dollar removed would be documented. For example, Larry couldn’t take 50,000 and buy himself a car. But that same 50,000 grand could be used to hire body guards or ballet lessons or clothing. Know what I mean?
[11] “I do think she should be given a pretty penny after what PM and his crooked lawyers did.”
I agree with you Roxanne and with Liann!
Maybe the #5 poster does not realize there is a BIG ISSUE on how valid that will is after Pierce messed with it!
Pierce’s own brother, his brother’s family and Anna’s estate deserve to have the mess Pierce made sorted out and fixed IMSO…
I also think the bottom line is that HKS and LB (no matter what some of the public thinks) have proven that DL’s best interests are ahead of theirs.
The lawyers on both sides do deserve to have the Courts decide ONCE and FOR ALL a conclusion to this mess. The Courts need to quit worrying
about the future cases that may be affected and rule on this based on the evidence that Courts have already stated… Pierce and his lawyers did
not abide by the law and for those actions I think the affected parties should be compensated.
I am just so grateful that no matter how it turns out that Anna’s mom’s lawyers will HAVE NOTHING to do or say in anything concerning the Marshalls!
DL would end up being taken for everything, just like the guardian ad litem was trying to do!
#4 Beverly do the math… HKS is by everyone’s statement whether they love or hate him that he is a brilliant lawyer… So 4 years of his life at say $300 per hour and expenses and legal fees ….. Yea he is due a lot of money and I am sure that will help with him getting a home and a nice office in Hollyweird…
Rose—–I hope with all my being,Howard has learned from this experience to stay the hell out of Hollyweird,In fact,I wish he would leave Cal altogether.These four years have taught me a few lessions.One–If Howard wants to practice law”Get the hell out of dodge”you can bet,Governer Jerry Brown,The AG DEA DA, did not take the Judge’s decision,with a smile,and will be after Howard,and every move he makes from now on.I am sure they are still smarting,and are just waiting for Howard to make one false move.Also keep away from Dr E,my wish,and it is just mine,I would like Howard to buy a home in the Bahamas,and practice there for a shot time.
12
DG
That’s not the way trustfunds work…. Believe me, there is no way in hell that LB could take a penny out of that trustfund without anyone knowing. ALL TRUST HAVE A ACCOUNTING PROCESS THAT HAS TO BE RECONCILED WITH A JUDGE OF THE COURT….. NOT A PENNY GETS SPENT WITHOUT A RECIEPT. Now, the courts could give LB a “salary” each year to raise DL or for her expenses but still every penny has to be proven needed… ie… security, etc….
#11 #13 Beth and Rox I agree.. but what worries me is that some wives in the USA are more equal than others… A wife has entitlements that come with marriage or why get married? No one forced Mr Marshall up the aisle…and it took a long time before Anna would marry him. Their relationship was years old before they married.
Pierce Marshall made sure no one but him and his family got anything even cutting out his brother. Was he honest about it ? No. he altered documents, he ignored Court dates.. anything to win. He had no right to do that. I know that he took property back from Anna that she was given in marriage.
I say go for it..Elaine Marshall is a wife same as Anna.. not blood. Why different for 1 not the other? The brother is a different matter but he is not in this case..
Wives are equal and have rights and are entitled to inherit. Same as a husband inheriting from his wife.
Howard has been in this case from the beginning and it is right he sees it end.
Why is he expected to not be paid?
Is Howard Anna’s Common Law husband from when they were in the Bahamas?
Is he entitled to get paid for his work.. yes same as the other Lawyers will get paid.
heath,Beth,Rox right you all are I spent months reading both sides and the Marshall family was very devious and their own Lawyers admitted Pierce told them to change documents he lied and IMO stole his fathers money.The man was destitute when he passed because of what Pierce Marchall did to make sure it all went to him. And yes he did take back every thing and anything his father gave Anna He was talked out of changing his will because of taxes which is also why he did not set up a trust for Daniel.The Man did not want to pay any taxes He might owe.I believe Koch brothers now has the Marshall money hidden in their company and if ya read anything ya know what they are doing with their money.JMO of course. I agree if anything is won after the attorneys are paid it should go into a trust for DL and held until she is 21 or maybe 30 to give her an edge.
16. Rox, I know how a trust works. Like I said, I would love to see it set up like Jackson did for his children.
19. Who is bitching about Larry and/ or Stern receiving money? The virgie supporters? If it is them, it is because virgie isn’t getting a dime so far, well at least from Anna’s estate or Marshall money. She hasn’t even been able to be a part of Dannielynn’s life. All because of her own actions.
I would go by what old man Marshall stated on that video, Anna was entitled to receive all that he had given her as far as that goes BUT now she would be entitled to all legal fees, 88 million that CA court stated, interest and plus penalties for the deception and lies that PM did.
Diamondgirl—-The famous book writers and the VAS.
18
hmmm
Agreed BUT how do we know there was no trust set up for Daniel? It very well could have been and with all that PM and his crooked lawyers did….. you would never know. The truth is that there probably was a trustfund set up for Daniel and it saw it’s way to a shreader and a fire pit very quickly when JHM died.
Those bitching about HKS getting paid for his work on the Marshall case IF and that is a BIG IF anything is awarded are just hateful people all around. They can’t stand HKS and think he should rot in hell for the choices ANNA MADE IN LIFE. Anna is dead by her own hand. No one forced any pills down her throat. No one forced her to do illegal drugs if she did do them. People make choices in life and there are consequences for every choice you make. You don’t know what those consequences will be down the road but every choice made alters the future. Plain and simple.
How much money did momma Virgie make off Anna AFTER she died?
good morning .The money not just for HS it’s for all the lawyers that worked in the case all the 15 years and HS did not looks like an money hungry or he would left Anna years ago.As for LB he loves his child.
Hello everyone~
Just ran across this link:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-179.pdf
65 pages of what went on in DC today in Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HOWARD K. STERN, EXECUTOR OF THE
:
ESTATE OF VICKIE LYNN MARSHALL
:
Petitioner
:
v.
:
No. 10-179
ELAINE T. MARSHALL, EXECUTRIX OF
:
THE ESTATE OF E. PIERCE MARSHALL
:
Washington, D.C. Tuesday, January 18, 2011
page 5
“JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So — answer the question. Don’t assume.”
Holy Cow! This is just the start of statements from the Judge to the lawyers for Anna’s estate!
To page 20, IMO Richland (petitioner) argued better and was received better for Justice Scalia than Stewart for the petitioner was…
The lawyer Stewart should have put Richland back in there for the remainder of their time, I think!
#24 Thankyou Beth..
State V Federal..
Judges appointed by Presidents..
Time before action.
Using old cases and trying to make them fit this case.
So 1 side wins and it will still leave room for another appeal by the other side. Again.
Thanks Beth. heath right you are.And that did not even go into the attorneys for pierce finially telling the truth.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/18/entertainment/main7258759.shtml
CBS NEWS Jan. 18, 2011
Court Hears Appeal From Anna Nicole Smith Estate
Supreme Court Is Considering Jan. 18 Arguments on Whether Smith’s Estate Should Get Part of J. Howard Marshall’s Fortune
“(AP) WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether Anna Nicole Smith’s estate legally deserves some of the $1.6 billion estate left behind by her late Texas billionaire husband.
The justices listened to arguments from a lawyer of the deceased former Playmate, whose estate is locked in a years-long battle for money they say was promised her by her husband, oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall.
The convoluted dispute over Marshall’s money has its roots in a Houston strip club where he met Smith. The two were wed in 1994 when he was 89 and she 26. Marshall died the next year and his will left his estate to his son, E. Pierce Marshall, and nothing to Smith, whose real name was Vickie Lynn Marshall.
Smith challenged the will, claiming that her husband promised to leave her more than $300 million above the $7 million in cash and gifts showered on her during their 14-month marriage.
Smith moved to California after his death and filed bankruptcy in Los Angeles, alleging in federal court filings that her husband promised her a large share of the estate. A bankruptcy judge awarded her $475 million from Marshall’s estate, with a federal judge reducing that amount to $89 million in 2002.
Smith had wanted the courts to accept that ruling but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw it out, saying the bankruptcy judge could not rule on the probate case.
The appeals court said that determining court decision was that of a Houston jury that said Marshall was mentally fit and under no undue pressure when he wrote a will leaving nearly all of his estate to his son and nothing to Smith.
The younger Marshall died in 2006 and Smith died of a drug overdose in 2007.
The legal issue the justices are grappling with is whether bankruptcy judges can make rulings on issues outside of bankruptcy law.
Her lawyer, Kent L. Richland, said the appeals court was wrong on its limiting of the bankruptcy court’s reach. “This court’s cases established that the bankruptcy court was constitutionally authorized to decide that entire dispute,” he said.
The Marshalls’ lawyer, Roy T. Englert, Jr., said the law is clear: Bankruptcy courts — which are non-Article III courts unlike the federal courts — can only bring final judgments on issues that are related to the Bankruptcy Code.
When debtors say, “‘I get to bring my counterclaim against the creditor in a non-Article III forum and the non-Article III forum gets to hear it and determine . then I suggest there is a constitutional problem,” Englert said.
It is not immediately known when the court will rule on this case. But it is unlikely that the Supreme Court’s ruling will end the legal wrangling, with other appeals of other aspects of the case working their way through the court system.
In fact, this was not the first time Smith’s name had been heard at the high court.
She showed up at the Supreme Court in 2006, dressed in all black, to hear the justices debate whether she could pursue her late husband’s fortune in court. She wept in the courtroom as justices discussed Marshall and whether he had intended to provide for his young wife in death.
The high court ruled in her favor that time.
And Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2009 refused to lift a court order that prevented Smith’s estate from collecting any money under the bankruptcy court ruling. Elaine Marshall, Pierce Marshall’s widow, had argued that the order preventing Smith’s estate from collecting the money should remain in place while the tangle of competing claims was sorted out.
Smith’s daughter, Dannielynn Birkhead, was named Smith’s heir in 2008. The girl’s father, Larry Birkhead, and attorney Howard K. Stern are in charge of the estate.
The case is Stern v. Marshall, 10-179.”
NP hmm and heath, hope you both have been doing well…
Just now going to go finish reading where I left off this afternoon, doesn’t seem to be enough time in the day to keep up anymore.
2 new articles about Mel Gibson and possible charges are up now.
#14- Rose, you said it all. It doesn’t matter what mistakes Howard has made in the past or will make in the future, he deserves to be paid if any money is received and I believe there will be. We all have fallen short in some way, but hey, we pick up the pieces and move on. I think that is what Howard is hoping fto do. I will bet that he will not trust anyone else like he did Anna. I believe he’s learned from his experiences and will not be taken in again.
Why are the tags on the stories on this blog as long if not longer in some cases than the story. Some things that are merely referenced get a tag like the “Hope Diamond. References of some some of the people referenced in the tags are not mentioned in the stories. Then things like Lfunneling drugs to a known addict,” simply an irrelvant tag if you just mention that in a story. Who edits this?
Roxanne after reading all the things Pierce had his attorneys do to screw anyone but him and his family You could be right about Daniels trust. I know one attorney from LA. said Mr Marshall had asked him to set up a trust for both Anna and her son but the attorney said he would have to pay a lot of taxes on it so the attorney said it was scrapped and was to look into something different.This attorney was part and parcel to pierce Marshall so who knows if what he told Mr Marshall was true or a way to put a stop to what he wanted done. Most knew the Marshall family avoided taxes at all costs. I am sure they will use the same info from the last heaaring in what was it? 2006 JMO
Thankyou swims as usual
he gets right to it..
http://www.tmz.com/2010/02/10/dr-sandeep-kapoor-anna-nicole-smith-drugs-howard-k-stern-tmz-live2/120/#comments-anchor
Transcript of the court hearing today,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-179.pdf
Posted at 2:28 PM on Jan 18, 2011 by jm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_anna_nicole_smith
Posted at 11:55 PM on Jan 18, 2011 by jm
*****
As expected, the media report misses the entire issue at hand and concentrates on the ‘stripper – old man’ aspect.
The Justices were clearly well-informed about the intricacies of the case, Stern v Marshall. Richland for HKS/Estate was immediately interrupted by the Justices as they sought to have him explain the constitutional question about which he was asking for a determination from the High Court rather than allow him to spend time presenting orally what he and his team had already written. It was virtually a rhetorical question since the Justices later revealed that they were fully aware of the meat of the matter when Englert for Elaine Marshall/Estate stepped up.
Englert was trying to convince the Justices that his notion of the Bankruptcy Courts in America being merely advisory forums was correct. His argument was all theory (hot air) and not on point to Stern v Marshall; Justices Sotomayor than Ginsberg struck to the heart of the actual case before them. Sotomayor informed Englert that no one has a constitutional right to collect a debt, only to present their case to a Court for adjudication. Ginsberg further noted the key fact about Pierce; no one forced him to go the Bankruptcy Court, but he did. You cannot go to a Court and file a claim meant to benefit yourself without running the risk of that Court finding against you, which, unbelievably, is exactly what Englert was claiming he could do.
Sotomayor and Ginsberg made the Stern case perfectly. That is, if you go to a Bankruptcy Court where certain amounts of money are going to be distributed to creditors and you ask that Court to decide your claim you cannot then decide you do not like the decision and go elsewhere. Congress specifically gave Bankruptcy Courts the ability to fully decide cases when all parties submit to the Court’s jurisdiction, as is the case with ANS’s Bankruptcy.
HKS and LB had an excellent dinner later in the day in Washington, D.C. No doubt they were reflecting that the highest Court had successfully distinguished between theory and practicality. That is, although the constitutional question is extremely difficult when formulating an opinion that would apply for all cases that may ever arise in the future the question of whether or not the ANS Estate should have the amount of money awarded it by the Bankruptcy then District Court is straight-forward – yes.
Posted at 4:11 PM on Jan 19, 2011 by Only swim in the Ocean
and this reply to other posters… thankyou swims and PH
http://www.tmz.com/2010/02/10/dr-sandeep-kapoor-anna-nicole-smith-drugs-howard-k-stern-tmz-live2/120/#comments-anchor
That is interesting information factsonly. It is too bad that media was so fast to give either of these two losers the time of day. Regarding the current lawsuit, the JH and Speer malicious defamation is now part of the common belief for so many ill-informed or uncaring people.
Posted at 11:32 PM on Jan 15, 2011 by Only swim in the Ocean
There has been a great deal of misinformation about all Things Anna. I for one got from the Texas papers that Anna went for an inheritance first. I had no idea that she filed for bankruptcy first and Pierce interfered with that. I must say that Texas media went into overdrive in showcasing Anna in a negative way but considering where the money and power lied it’s understandable now. I certainly hope that the estate wins for her daughter and for all that the Marshall’s and team Cabal have done. I hope that in time a more upbeat and honest book will be written about her. We all saw via bloggers how Cosby’s book was shaped and those scoundrels that were given their five minutes of fame to further defame Anna and those who were truly there for her.
Here’s another month of waiting for Justice against JH ( wannabe Anna) and her part in it all.
Posted at 10:29 PM on Jan 17, 2011 by Patrick Henry
*****
The TX media is just bizarre in its presentation of the Stern v Marshall Case. The case is framed as a Probate case (it is not as Justice Ginsberg explained in 2006) and that any opinion favoring ANS’s Estate ‘destroys’ Estate planning for everyone else in the future. Not one word is spoken about the actual nature of the case – Pierce pursued ANS to the CA Bankruptcy Court to harass and punish her financially for conceivably (if he had been successful) for the remainder of her lifetime earnings with a claim that she defamed him when she gave interviews explaining why she was bankrupt.
The massive efforts of JHMII to avoid taxes on his Estate were upheld in Harris County Probate and never challenged by ANS/HKS. Pierce could have simply collected his inherited fortune and moved on. Instead, he inserted himself in ANS’s Bankruptcy for no noble reason and got his a_s kicked in the process. Only Pierce’s extreme arrogance and wealth allowed him to ignore one Federal Court, then another, and Appeal both when time came to pay up. The Marshall lawyers still maintain to this day that Pierce and anyone else (whomever that creep might be in the future) is technically free to ignore Court after Court if he does not get his way.
Posted at 4:30 PM on Jan 19, 2011 by Only swim in the Ocean
> A great piece about the lawyer w/ pics who represented ANS in DC…
http://www.bisnow.com/washington_dc_legal_news_story.php?p=12291
Anna Nicole Smith
Goes to Washington
“Yesterday, the late Anna Nicole Smith made her second trip from the pages of Playboy to the Supreme Court. Her estate, represented by Kent Richland, comes before The Nine in the 15-year legal saga’s latest development.
A name partner of LA-based appellate boutique Greines Martin, Kent Richland brings 40 years of appellate practice to DC for the SCOTUS trial. The day before his first oral argument Tuesday, we caught up with Kent at the Mandarin Oriental. In the mid-nineties, the courtroom soap opera began after oilman (and Yale Law grad) J. Howard Marshall’s brief marriage to Anna Nicole Smith; the dispute over Marshall’s will and trust continued through a CA bankruptcy court, TX probate court, the 9th Circuit Appellate Court, SCOTUS in ‘06, and now back again. The question at hand is bankruptcy court jurisdiction (so glam, right?), after conflicting decisions by bankruptcy and probate courts. Kent’s happy to say the US finds it an issue to address, and supporting his side will be the DOJ, repped by Deputy SG Malcolm Stewart. .
Kent’s coming against the estate of J. Howard Marshall’s son, Pierce Marshall, which claims the bankruptcy court exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding ANS deserves half of Marshall’s estate (and says the case should have gone to an Article III court). Kent aims to overturn Marshall’s 9th Circuit win on the issue last year. To prepare, he tells us for the past three months he spent 90% of his time and hundreds of hours a month on the case. With SCOTUS cases more fast-paced than other appellate work, Kent’s been preparing briefs and oral arguments concurrently. He tells us he watched SCOTUS in action as much as possible to familiarize with the court’s pace and tone, and justices’ styles and voices (with such a wide bench, he says, it’s best to know whose voice is asking the question). For last-minute prep, Kent’s been boiling down his opening argument and participating in a GU Law moot court.
Kent tells us he has a dream job—and he’s passed his love on to the kids: his son, Justin, is a legal anthropologist at UC Irvine Law, and his daughter, Sara, is an associate at Latham. (This could stem from Kent quizzing them on legal issues during childhood carpools.) Opposition representation Robbins Russell’s Roy Englert is a Supreme Court pro, but Kent’s no newbie: Above is a sketch from his most recent SCOTUS trial, repping the CA city of Ontario in the first Supreme Court case considering privacy in new media; he won unanimously. The first time Anna Nicole Smith’s case landed in the high court in 2006, (you may remember seeing snapshots of the actress walking through the District), on a probate matter state v. federal jurisdiction issue, it was another unanimous win. In a couple weeks, we’ll find out whether third time’s the charm.”
Thanks Beth and heath I don’t go to TMS much any more so really appreciate the links.Swims is great as always.Maybe someday we will find out who it is ,after all this is done at any rate?????
Countdown with Keith Olbermann is now off the air. Tonight was the last episode.