Here is the main description and the download has now been FIXED!

Oct 18 2012 California Appeals Court Reverses Remands with Direction the Trial court Dismissing and/or lowering the Charges on Howard K. Stern and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich

The clear thing that sticks out if the first paragraph:

The People of the State of California appeal after a series of rulings which resulted in the dismissal of charges against two defendants, Dr. Khristine Elaine Eroshevich and Howard Kevin Stern. Mr. Stern?s new trial motion was granted. Two conspiracy counts were then dismissed pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1385, subdivision (a) (section 1385). We will reverse the new trial and dismissal orders.

Next the Court gives some directions to Judge Perry Court of alternative positions to take to still dismiss the charges on Howard K. Stern:

We agree with the prosecution that Mr. Stern?s new trial motion could not be granted nor the charges dismissed on the ground the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. But, as we will explain, what can occur to Mr. Stern once the remittitur issues is limited by the double jeopardy provisions of our Constitutions.

Here, we conclude the trial court incorrectly granted Mr. Stern?s new trial motion; the evidence was not insufficient as a matter of law. As will become clear, the former jeopardy effect of the erroneous order granting Mr. Stern?s new trial motion is the same as an acquittal. Similarly, we conclude the trial court dismissed the charges against both defendants based on an erroneous finding the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. Thus, we reverse the orders granting Mr. Stern?s new trial motion and dismissing the case pursuant to section 1385 as to both defendants. Once the remittitur issues, the trial court may take up the remaining new trial motion issues, dismiss on other grounds pursuant to section 1385, or even impose sentence. But, there is one thing the trial court may not do and that is to order Mr. Stern to be retried.

Some background on the proceedings are given by the Court of Appeals:

Dr. Kapoor was acquitted of all charges. As to count 3, the jury found defendants conspired between June 5, 2004, and September 10, 2006. As to count 1, the jurors found defendants conspired between September 11, 2006, and February 8, 2007. The jury found defendants conspired to commit two crimes. The first target offense was to obtain controlled substances by fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11173, subd. (a)2.) The second target offense was to unlawfully give false names or addresses in prescriptions for controlled substances in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11174.3

Dr. Eroshevich was also convicted of two other charges. She was convicted in count 7 of obtaining controlled substances by fraud or misrepresentation in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11173, subdivision (a). Further, she was convicted as charged in count 9 of giving a false name or address in a controlled substance prescription in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11174.

Next we have a summary of the Trial Court’s Ruling of Judge Robert L. Perry:

Howard K. Stern

Preliminarily, the trial court found Ms. Marshall suffered from chronic pain syndrome; further, her “drug-seeking behavior” was primarily due to inadequate control of pain rather than addiction. The trial court was further persuaded the overriding purpose in procuring controlled substances in names other than Ms. Marshall?s true name was to protect her privacy. With respect to prescribing medications in a false name, the trial court concluded the law was vague as to what constitutes a false name. The trial court found no basis for charging a conspiracy ending on September 10 and a new one beginning the very next day on September 11, 2006. More significantly, the trial court found, “[T]here is [no] evidence in the record at all that Howard Stern lacked a good faith belief that the practice of obtaining prescription medicines for [Ms. Marshall] in names other than [her true name] could be against the law.” The trial court found Mr. Stern acted to protect Ms. Marshall?s privacy, as had most of the doctors and hospitals that had dealt with her. The trial court concluded: “When I consider all the evidence, and even viewing it in a light most favorable to upholding the verdict, I find it is clearly insufficient. Under these circumstances, I find no reasonable trier of fact could find that Howard Stern had a specific intent to violate either of these target crimes . . . and I do grant a motion for new trial to Mr. Stern on these [conspiracy] counts . . . .” Immediately after granting Mr. Stern?s new trial motion, the trial court stated: “[B]ut I?m going further. [¶] I find the evidence at trial was so lacking and insufficient to show a specific intent to join a conspiracy on the part of Howard Stern to commit these target crimes, that I do believe the interest of justice supports the dismissal of these counts as to Mr. Stern, and I so order. And this, of course, is under Penal Code section 1385 . . . .”

The minute order prepared for Mr. Stern sets forth the trial court?s reasons for dismissing counts 1 and 3 as required by section 1385: “On the court?s motion, counts 1 and 3 are dismissed due to insufficiency of the evidence. [¶] The court further clarifies that it is dismissing counts 1 and 3 in their entirety, which includes all hung target offenses, due to insufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.”

Dr. Khristine Eroshevich

Having dismissed the conspiracy counts as to Mr. Stern, the trial court turned to Dr. Eroshevich?s motion. The trial court concluded: “I don?t think there was an agreement between the two of them to violate the law, and . . . I don?t think the conspiracy counts can stand [as to Dr. Eroshevich], and so I dismiss those as well . . . .” The clerk?s minutes for Dr. Eroshevich contain no statement of reasons for the dismissal. The minutes state concerning Dr. Eroshevich: “The cause is argued and the court grants defense motion to dismiss counts 1 and 3 pursuant to . . . section 1385 due to insufficiency of the evidence.” No other language pertinent to the dismissal of counts 1 and 3 as to Dr. Eroshevich is contained in the clerk?s minutes. We will later discuss the effect of the absence of any language in the trial court?s oral order or the clerk?s minutes concerning: the substantial evidence standard of review; having viewed the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdicts; and that no reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Hatch, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 273; People v. Salgado, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 10.)

However, the trial court denied Dr. Eroshevich?s motion for a new trial or to dismiss as to counts 7 and 9: “I choose not to disturb the jury?s verdict regarding [Dr.] Eroshevich on counts 7 and 9. There is no doubt in the court?s mind that based on the evidence [Dr.] Eroshevich acted out of a heart-felt desire to help her friend. Obtaining a prescription in the name of another person, Charlene Underwood, without [Ms.] Underwood?s knowledge or consent was clearly wrong and constituted a violation of the law. As a doctor[,] [Dr.] Eroshevich well knew she should not have done this and it is clear to the court that she acted with the required intent to defraud.” However, the trial court “vacated” the count 9 conviction on grounds it was not appropriate to punish Dr. Eroshevich twice for the same act. The trial court then reduced count 7 to a misdemeanor. The prosecution has not appealed the trial court?s orders with respect to counts 7 or 9.

However, DON’T get to excited here, the Appeals Court gave Judge Perry several options to dismiss the charges or other options but not that of a NEW TRIAL. This is becoming the cases that never ends!

After I read through this I will be back with more to say! So stay tuned to Rose Speaks.com tonight as we unravel what this opinion actually means and share what you think it means after you read it!!!!!

Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following. Be sure and “Like” The Parenting Channel Face Book page for the latest in parenting and grand parenting.

©Rose Turner
October 18, 2012
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

Mike Yepremyan was murdered November 2009 and the trial began just a few weeks ago June 2012. The jury selection is always one of the more uninteresting aspects of the process, ‘Select a Jury’. Let me just say this for the defendants how the lawyers select a jury can be a crap shoot. On many real big high profile cases there are ‘specialists’ who help with the process. These experts will look at the shoes,’shined not shined’, the hair, all kind of mannerisms to try and pick the most favorable. Little like how I pick peaches at the market, all by hand!

On the Yepremyan murder case it was the lawyers, Michael Levin, Esq. Alex Kessel, Esq., Levin is representing Zareh Manjikian and Kessel is representing Vahag Jurian. Also present everyday is Hovic Dzhuryan and his sister Kat Vardanian, Anthony Brooklier is representing Kat and George Mgdesyan is representing Hovic. Did either Brooklier or Mgdesyan assist in the jury selection? I am not sure, all of these guys are well trained and respected for their work as ‘Get me off the hook’ go to guys. The biggest name in the bunch is of course is Anthony Brooklier, one of the biggest names in defense in So. Cal. right up there with Harland Braun, Esq. Kessel and Levin are very good at their craft also, Mgdesyan, I have never heard of until this trial.

I met with Brooklier with one of the defendants in the Anna Nicole Smith trial and after a great lunch of Spaghetti and Meatballs my client ‘flew the coop’. I was done with her and Brooklier was not retained, I still see that as a big mistake…..welcome to my world of making suggestions.

Judge Gregory A. Dohi of the Los Angeles Superior Court is presiding, Dept. E. Judge Dohi has only been a judge since being appointed August 29, 2007. Prior to that he attended a mid level university back East, Harvard!! And then went to Boalt Hall School of Law, one thing we can say is that this guy has educational credentials in the highest categories of law.

Judge Dohi was admitted to the bar in 1991 and joined the District Attorney’s office as a prosecutor. (Judge Dohi handled the pre-lim of Robert Blake Feb. 26, 2003 after he supposedly ‘whacked’ his wife after a nice Italian dinner at Vittello’s in Studio City). I wonder if they had ‘Meatballs’?

When Judge Dohi is not siting on the bench he is a professor at Southwestern School of Law. His honor ran for his ‘bench seat’ in 2010 and won the election, no one else it appears ran against him, this is often the case for sitting judges. Judge Dohi also sent Jodie Foster’s father, Blake Foster, to prison for 5 years for scamming home owners. Not bad, Judge Gregory A. Dohi, welcome to being a jurist in Southern California.

The only issue that I have is that with this education, with this employment background he has to know the law backwards and forwards. On paper this guy does not look like he would be easy to sell a bridge to…..we will see.

Some feathers are being ruffled as to having Mike Yepremyan’s parents, Artak and Arni sit outside the courtroom while certain witnesses testify. Former friends of Mike’s that both of the parents had spoken to after the murder of their son. Is this any kind of violation of ‘victims rights’? I am not sure. What I am hearing and understanding, is a Judge not wanting to make any mistakes that in the event of a conviction, so will start the appeal process. If there are convictions and there is any money left certainly there will be an appeal, that is fairly common in cases like this.

Remember, I promised to do all I could to make this story known around the world. I got it in the Los Angeles Times, Column One front page above the crease, we discussed it throughout the internet, all of the local news channels and the icing on the cake for me is Luce Villareal, taping for what will be a segment on DATELINE. If you will, prior to my participation in this case this was a ‘two line story’ on the L.A. Times webpage……not anymore!

I am not positive as I have not been served yet with a subpoena, maybe when I return from vacation in a few weeks as to my having to testify? We will see! My reason and thoughts on this was last week’s question by Mr. Kessel to Danielle, Mike’s former girlfriend, ‘Do you know a Mr. Nazarian? ‘ or something along those lines. I am very sure, everyone knows Mr. Nazarian, just Google me! Hell, I Google myself sometimes when I am bored to see what Mr. Nazarian is doing.

As many of you know we have closed the forums here at Rose Speaks.com as we just did not have the time to do a good job moderating it for all of you. We are glad to announce that we have paired up with The Parenting Channel.com to carry a lead in to any of the cases we cover that has anything to do with a child or teen. We are ecstatic to have been able to do this. So lead in-ins for our blog articles will appear on The Parenting Channel’s blog and a section of The Parenting Channel forums has been set up on any trials we cover of children and/or teens. I encourage all of you to join both the blog and the forums, it is going to take off where Rose Speaks.com left off after the Anna Nicole Smith and Casey Anthony trials

Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following. Be sure and “Like” The Parenting Channel Face Book page for the latest in parenting and grand parenting.

©Rose Turner
July 7, 2012
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The three will be talking about Whitney Houston and what their sources are telling them in regards to possible causes of her death.

Dr. Wecht, Dawna Kaufmann, and John J Nazarian will share their opinions on what caused the death of Houston.

John will have something to say about the ex-body guard, Alan Jacobs, who was Houston’s director of security from 1995 until 2002, quit because he said Houston and her now ex-husband Bobby Brown, and those around Houston would not allowed allow him to do his job. Jacobs said that working for the star was like ‘living in the eye of a hurricane’ and added he was ‘constantly trying to fight the swirl of activity that’s around you’. Jacobs had, “eliminated access to her by certain people I thought were negative influences. The reality of it is that you can protect someone from everything but you can’t protect them from themselves.’

Jacobs has said he told Houston, “[I told her,] ‘You hired me to do a job, to protect you … but I cannot protect you from yourself.” Jacob has added that Houston replaced him with family members who would not confront her and dropped the ball on protecting her. He also revealed that one of Brown’s family took over his job – but did not do it properly.

Dr. Wecht and Dawna Kaufmann have both been in touch with their sources within the M. E. office and has reaction and what information they have obtained.

Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D. – Forensic Pathologist & Attorney
Dr. Cyril H. Wecht is an expert in Forensic Medicine who has frequently appeared on several nationally syndicated programs, national News Magazine shows, and HLN, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. His expertise has been utilized in high profile cases involving the assassinations of both President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the death of Elvis Presley, the O.J. Simpson case, the Michael Jackson case, the Daniel Wayne Smith case, the Anna Nicole Smith case and the JonBenet Ramsey cases. He is certified by the American Board of Pathology, in anatomic, clinical, and forensic Pathology, and is also a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists and the American Society of Clinical Pathologists.

Dawna Kaufmann – Author/Investigative Journalist
Dawna Kaufmann is an accomplished true crime journalist. Her new book, “From Crime Scene to Courtroom: Examining the Mysteries Behind Famous Cases,” written with Dr. Cyril Wecht, blasts open the death probes involving Michael Jackson, Casey Anthony and five other criminal cases. Kaufmann has covered hundreds of high-profile homicide and missing person cases for national publications. She is also an award-winning producer and writer, with a multitude of credits in television, including late-night comedy programming and prime-time network variety series.

Comment telephone lines are open to call during the show at 818-572-8030 long distance charges will apply. If you have a question about Houston’s death, there’s a good chance that John or one of his guests, Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dawna Kaufmann, will know the answer or have a good analogy of what they think happened.

Follow John J Nazarian On Face Book on Twitter and on Linked In and see who John J Nazarian is following.

The Texas Lawyer announced the settlement late today.

“This afternoon, Darla Lexington, the longtime companion of prominent Houston plaintiffs lawyer John O’Quinn, settled her dispute with O’Quinn’s estate and the John M. O’Quinn Foundation over assets from his estate. O’Quinn died in an automobile accident in October 2009.

…Lexington sought court orders to force the executor of O’Quinn’s estate to return property she alleged belongs to her because of her common-law marriage to O’Quinn and because she received the property as gifts.

The estate and the foundation, which is the sole beneficiary of the estate in O’Quinn’s will, claimed that Lexington was not entitled to the property because O’Quinn specified in his will that he was not married and he left his estate to the foundation.

…Jimmy Williamson, a partner in Williamson & Rusnak in Houston who represents Lexington, says the terms provide for Lexington and her security. Kathy Patrick, a partner in Gibbs & Bruns in Houston who represents the foundation, could not be reached for immediate comment.

“I’m very happy we came to a mutual agreement and the foundation can go on and honor John,” Lexington said this afternoon.

Executor Gerald Treece, an assistant dean and professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said he is pleased with the settlement. “As the person John selected as the executor, I’m very happy to do what was in John’s best interest and also please Darla and the foundation,” Treece said.

The settlement averted what lawyers expected to be a five-week trial beginning on Jan. 9 in Judge Mike Wood’s Probate Court No. 2 in Houston.”

One thing I noticed was the trial was to start in Judge Mike Wood’s Probate Court, the same court that Anna Nicole Smith took on Pierce Marshall!

In other news in Houston Texas today, Jerry Eversole received a break from U.S. District Judge David Hittner who sentenced, the former Precinct 4 commissioner to 3 years probation in a case that could have landed him in federal prison for up to three years and cost him up to $100,000 in fines.

KUHF reported today that Eversole was accused of accepting bribes from developer Michael Surface. The sentence is for lying to a federal investigator about money and lavish gifts the government alleges Eversole received from Surface, a longtime friend, in return for lucrative county contracts.

“Eversole had been charged with conspiracy, accepting a bribe, and making false statements on tax returns in 2003 and 2004. All those charges were dismissed.

…Eversole refused comment on his sentencing and instead, let his attorney Rusty Hardin speak on his behalf. Hardin says he was ready to play hardball with government prosecutors, if need be.

“The judge read a provision in his sentencing memo, in which we took exception, and I said that I thought it was unseemly for the government to seek to have him punished for the counts they chose to dismiss, and that they could have asked for a trial on. We’d let a jury decide and they chose not to do that. And then they wanted the judge to punish him for something they didn’t have the courage to try.”

We encourage all of you to join other posters to discuss all of the cases we cover. Diamond Girl runs the community part of the site and remember discuss the evidence don’t attack other posters. If you read a post that upsets you just scroll past that comment http://community.rosespeaks.com/.

Visit our Download Section and pick up all of the documents related to any cases we follow; we put up papers throughout the trials, and then leave them up as part of the history of the cases we cover.

Follow Us On and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following.

©Rose Turner
January 4, 2012
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

“I made this video for the 5 year anniversary of Anna Nicole Smith’s Death.

What is Anna Nicole Smiths legacy? – Playmate, reality show diva, actress, businesswoman, super model, tragic beauty. These words describe the legacy left behind by Anna Nicole Smith. Above the ditzy blonde bombshell, she embodied more than her infamous Marilyn Monroe …look-a-like status….Whether or not she planned it…she grabbed Hollywood by the horns and took the public for a ride.

The world didn’t adopt a true Anna addiction until those iconic photos from Anna Nicole GUESS ads were posted in every magazine. From the moment her Guess ads appeared on billboards worldwide, we were hooked. Her “gold digging” habits with her 80-year-old oil tycoon husband, J. Howard Marshall, made us take a second look. Her Death a third look. But what made this woman so different from the rest? She was “entertaining the world every day of her waking life”, consciously or unconsciously, and arguably the most beautiful woman to ever live.

Now that she’s passed, we’re still captivated. Her life is the epitome of every soap opera we’ve ever seen rolled into one. Like Marilyn Monroe the world is also still waiting for a cause of Anna’s death. The rumor mill says she died of a drug overdose, but there were no pills found in her blood or stomach. Other rumors are that she choked in her own vomit, she killed herself, or she was murdered. Some of her friends say she died of a broken heart. Even with Anna Nicole’s death, the world wants more of her in any shape possible. The gossip-spreading keeps her alive. As far as the entertainment industry goes, there hasn’t been–and never will be another Anna Nicole Smith. No other celebrity has left such a deep scar in the media because her life was a roller coaster the world couldn’t stop watching.

This GUESS campaign featuring Anna Nicole Smith gives us one of the most classic pictures of Anna from her prime. These GUESS images will become as iconic as those of Marilyn Monroe that are just as tattooed in our minds. Before you laugh remember that people in 1962 had many of the same thoughts of Marilyn that some people have today of Anna. Time and death makes legends out of beautiful blonde women.”

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. Diamond Girl runs that entire section don’t hesitate to contact her to make suggestions on how this forum is more user friendly.

Visit our Download Section for all documents on the cases we are following.

Follow Us On and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following.

©Matthew Paul
December 30, 2011
Matthew Paul is a friend of Rose Speaks.com on Face Book
Used with permission of Matthew Paul. Visit Matthew Paul’s You Tube Channel to see more videos and learn more about this gifted person.
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The Huffington Post dispatched a reporter to Texas this summer to investigate rumors about Rick Perry’s personal life, hoping for an irresistible story about hypocrisy.

Enter L. Lin Wood Jr.

Retained by Perry’s gubernatorial campaign committee, the acclaimed libel lawyer fired off a letter to the website in August, threatening to sue if the story ran – an aggressive response even for a candidate whose aides later admitted they entered “Def Con 9” mode when long-circulating rumors began to swirl anew as Perry prepared to run for president.

The Huffington Post’s founder Arianna Huffington said recently the website didn’t spike the story because of Wood’s letter, but because there was “simply no there there.”

Still, Wood’s behind-the-scenes work for Perry – and his more public efforts last month to shoot down allegations of sexual impropriety leveled at former Perry rival Herman Cain — suggest there’s an appetite among high-profile campaigns for a more aggressive response to damaging stories. And though some Washington scandal veterans argue Wood’s confrontational approach— which blends litigation-style PR with legal threats and actual lawsuits — is better suited for Hollywood and supermarket tabloid stories, others predict the demand for those services will only expand as scandals increasingly dominate political coverage that spreads rapidly online.

“I’m not out looking for business,” Wood told POLITICO. “But I think that any candidate for public office would be well advised to have the benefit of an experienced opinion on whether a particular article or a particular accusation might rise to the level of being actionable defamation, because I’m afraid that the environment is such that this type of reporting is not going to get better. I’m afraid that it’s only going to get worse.”

Wood is also representing failed Senate candidate Jeff Greene, who lost a Democratic primary in Florida last year, and is suing newspapers over stories that linked him to a real estate scheme. In a letter sent in the heat of the campaign to the St. Petersburg Times, Wood called their story “journalistic fiction” and suggested he would file a lawsuit for “many millions of dollars unless the Times immediately corrects its libel” by retracting the story.

Wood’s past clients show his work had been mostly outside politics until recently. I predict with Wood going out on his own now in a boutique law office we might see him more on the political stage and it would be smart to hire him before the other guy does is my motto.

Wood’s past clients include Democratic Rep. Gary Condit, in the reporting of the death of intern Chandra Levy. Wood became the star Libel Litigator in the country when he made his reputation by helping exonerate Richard Jewell. Wood went on to represent clients in a host of high-profile cases, including the parents of JonBenét Ramsey, the young woman who accused basketball star Kobe Bryant of sexual assault and of course multiple lawsuits in the Anna Nicole Smith saga.

Ray Sullivan, a Perry spokesman, told POLITICO that the governor’s team decided to hire Wood in August when “we got wind that” Huffington Post — which he described dismissively as “a liberal web-based media outlet” — “seemed intent on quickly writing lies about the governor, and we were concerned about the speed at which those lies could be published online.” Sullivan characterization of the situation matches one outlined in more detail in an ebook by Mike Allen and Evan Thomas, which explained that Perry’s aides were “distressed to learn that Jason Cherkis, a Huffington Post reporter, was in Austin prowling around on a story that had been gossiped about for years in the Texas capital: is Perry gay?”

The rumors included “a detailed story about a supposed assignation with a former [male] state official,” wrote Allen and Thomas.

Wood “authored one strongly worded letter to the media outlet, which never replied and never wrote the story,” Sullivan told POLITICO. Wood “did this one thing and that’s it. We never told him to stop and he’s not billing us now as far as I know. The purpose for which he has been retained is completed,” Sullivan said.

Arianna Huffington, president of The Huffington Post Media Group, told POLITICO that the decision not to run a story had nothing to do with the letter. “We looked at what we had; we realized that it was not a publishable story, and it was over,” she said. “The story was already killed before we got the letter from Lin Wood. I never even read the letter.” She added: “If we feel good about a story or stories, we run them, no matter what the legal threat. That’s not an issue. We have a great legal department and have no problem taking on legal challenges.”

Lin Wood’s work for Cain went differently. He began work more than a week after POLITICO first revealed that two women had received financial payouts after accusing Cain of sexual harassment. Additional accusations of harassment followed, as did an allegation from an Atlanta woman named Ginger White that she’d had a 13-year affair with Cain. L Lin Wood labeled all the allegations “lies,” urged women considering making additional allegations to “think twice” and wrote a letter to White’s lawyer asking for her phone records to “ascertain whether the decision to grant interviews was politically motivated and to determine whether she has received or [been] promised money for participating.” Wood also investigated the backgrounds of White and at least one supporter of another Cain accuser, and highlighted their financial problems, which he asserted the media had willfully ignored.

“What I find naive is the failure on the part of members of the media to be asking the tough questions of the accuser, someone who has obviously a troubled past, who has an incentive potentially financially to go out and to make these kinds of unfounded accusations,” Wood told Piers Morgan in an interview on CNN a few days after White went public about her alleged affair with Cain. “Why don’t you look at yourself, Piers, and the members of your media and recognize that you in fact and the media are participating in the deterioration of our political process?” In that interview if I remember correctly Wood never brought out the scandal consuming the U. K at the moment of illegal wire tapping which involves even Morgan’s previous employer.

Wood told POLITICO he has had “informal conversations or communications” with the lawyers for Sharon Bialek, who accused Cain of harassment, and White, “but there have been no formal demands made under applicable statutes at this point in time.”

Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon said he “really enjoyed working with Mr. Wood,” who he said talked with “several individuals in leadership positions” on the campaign. But Gordon stressed that the lawyer worked for Cain personally and not the campaign, which would have been required to disclose payments to him.

Don’t be surprised if more defamation specialists like Wood get involved in politics, Richard Painter predicted, adding “accusations – and how to deal with them both in offense and defense – is an important part of the political game. This will be more common. It is most unfortunate, but that’s the way it is.”

Political lawyers serve their clients well by trying to block damaging stories from running and by seeking to stop the spread of those that do, said Trevor Potter, who was the top lawyer for [John] McCain’s presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2008. “In my experience, it is not unusual to hire lawyers and to have them intervene with news media to essentially litigate a story in the hopes that it can be knocked down and proven unsubstantiated before it is printed,” said Potter. “And obviously, from the campaign standpoint, you don’t want to have an accuser out there doing a press tour day after day. On the other hand, if you can’t prove it’s false, that’s a political problem, not a legal problem.”

Wood told POLITICO that it’s not about politics for him, explaining “my representation of political figures in my career is not based on a political ideology.”

Though he worked on Richard Nixon’s 1972 presidential campaign (recalling he was “extremely disappointed … to learn that in fact he was a crook”) and contributed to the presidential campaigns of Republicans John McCain and George W. Bush and Democrats John Edwards and Barack Obama, Wood said “I don’t claim to be a political person.”

The principles driving his work do not “vary based on whether it’s a presidential campaign or a senate campaign or a state campaign or even a non-political attack on someone’s reputation,” said Wood, who in his late teens spent about a year covering high school football and basketball for his hometown newspaper, The Macon News. “I just happen to take the view that the rules should be the same for public figures, political candidates, and even private individuals, and that is a rule that goes back and insists upon fundamental principles of journalism being adhered to by the media.”

Ah you have to wonder if Bush would have been a one term president if John Kerry had been smart enough to hire Lin Wood BEFORE the swift boat ads took hold?

This is offense PR at it’s best, and as explained in Lin Wood’s own words he is not about political ideology. In today’s instant stories online in some cases without a scintilla of evidence I have long said we would not have had great presidents in the past like Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy. Wood sees where there is a need and will continue to fill that need in my opinion for years to come in the political arena. You can’t blame Wood’s belief in Nixon, I often say I voted for the guy both times and he broke my heart. Nixon is probably the single one reason I am a moderate independent that normally splits my vote today.

Be sure and read the whole story at POLITICO and the well documented links in the article that will give you a lot of background on Perry, Cain and Wood. Wonder how the democrat Jeff Greene’s litigation is going?

We encourage all of you to join other posters to discuss all of the cases we cover. Diamond Girl runs the community part of the site and remember discuss the evidence don’t attack other posters. If you read a post that upsets you just scroll past that comment http://community.rosespeaks.com/ I seldom step on the forums that belongs to the members and is in great hands with Diamond Girl and she will be having a robust discussion there that all of you are invited to join. However, as I do have time I enjoy reading and participating in the discussion.

Visit our Download Section and pick up all of the documents related to any cases we follow; we put up papers throughout the trials, and then leave them up as part of the history of the cases we cover.

Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following.

©Rose Turner
December 18, 2011
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.