Archive for the “Anna Nicole Smith's Will” Category

Anna Nicole Smith

I have not had time to read through these filings yet, but wanted to get them up for all of you.

July 26, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Filing for Rehearing as a real party of interest with the First Court of Appeals.

July 27, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Supplemental Brief in Objecting the Jurisdiction of Texas for the hearing on August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM.

July 27, 2010 Exhibit A filed with Howard K. Stern’s Supplemental Brief in Objecting the Jurisdiction of Texas for the hearing on August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM.

July 27, 2010 Exhibit B filed with Howard K. Stern’s Supplemental Brief in Objecting the Jurisdiction of Texas for the hearing on August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM.

July 27, 2010 Exhibit C filed with Howard K. Stern’s Supplemental Brief in Objecting the Jurisdiction of Texas for the hearing on August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM.

July 27, 2010 Exhibit D filed with Howard K. Stern’s Supplemental Brief in Objecting the Jurisdiction of Texas for the hearing on August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM.

July 27, 2010 Exhibit E filed with Howard K. Stern’s Supplemental Brief in Objecting the Jurisdiction of Texas for the hearing on August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM.

July 27, 2010 Exhibit F filed with Howard K. Stern’s Supplemental Brief in Objecting the Jurisdiction of Texas for the hearing on August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM.

July 27, 2010 Exhibit G filed with Howard K. Stern’s Supplemental Brief in Objecting the Jurisdiction of Texas for the hearing on August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM.

July 28, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Response to Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Vacate Discovery Order of May 2009.

July 28, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Response to Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Clarify of set aside the Rule 11 Agreement.

July 29, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Reply to Virgie Response to Stern’s Motion to Vacate the May 2009 Discovery Order issued by Judge Lindsay.

SOUTH CAROLINA FILINGS IN THE ESTATE OF ANNA NICOLE SMITH VS. FORD SHELLEY, BEN THOMPSON ET AL.

July 22, 2010 Melanie and Gaither Thompson III Answer to the First Amended Complaint.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
July 27, 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.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 37 Comments »

Anna Nicole Smith

CALIFORNIA FEDERAL FILINGS IN VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. BONNIE STERN

July 13, 2010 Joint Status Report in federal court in California or Virgie Arthur vs. Bonnie Stern in the Adversarial case. This type of report has to be filed every 90 days until the lawsuit in Texas is settled.

SOUTH CAROLINA FILINGS IN THE ESTATE OF ANNA NICOLE SMITH VS. FORD SHELLEY, G. BEN THOMPSON ET. AL.

July 16, 2010 Certificate of Service showing mailed to Pro Se Defendant G. Ben Thompson.

July 16, 2010 Susan M. Brown waver of service by her attorney for both Ms. Brown and her law firm.

July 19, 2010 Ford and Gina Shelley Answer to the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith through the Executor Howard K. Stern First Amended Complaint. Gaither B. Thomposn II and Melodie Thompson Response is due July 27, 2010 and Susan M. Brown’s answer is due by August 6, 2010.

LATEST FILINGS IN TEXAS OF VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. HOWARD K. STERN, ART HARRIS, TMZ, LARRY BIRKHEAD, HARVEY LEVIN ET. AL.

July 19, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Notice of Hearing on Motion to Postpone Howard K. Stern on his Objection to Jurisdiction.

July 20, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Motion Motion for Continuance of deadlines and trial on the Texas state case.

July 20, 2010 Virgie Arthur Notice of hearing on her Motion for Continuance for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM.

July 21, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Objection to Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Consolidate cases of the Breach of Contract with the Defamation and Conspiracy to Defame.

There is more paperwork and filings coming out today or tomorrow on several of these cases, as well as the pretrial hearing in California or several Motions we will add those as we get them.

I was sent a link to began to research on a federal case of Murder that goes from Broward County Florida, Dr. Perper all the way to New York that it appears reads like a suspense novel and how it took the federal government stepping in since the murders were related but in two different states. It looks interesting to me wtih more twists and turns then the cases surrounding Anna Nicole Smith and since it has some of the people in common with it to the Smith cases I think we would like to cover it as well as All things Micheal Jackson and the Cynthia Sommer’s federal case.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
July 20, 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.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 19 Comments »

Virgie Arthur in Last Public Appearance March 2008

LATEST FILINGS IN HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS LAWSUIT

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Supplement in Opposition to Virgie Arthur Motion to Compel. Exhibit A is the First Court of Appeals decision regarding Stern’s Writ of Mandamus which is linked in this article.

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Vacate Discover Order of May 11, 2009.

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit A filed with Stern’s Motion to Vacate Discover Order of May 11, 2009. Exhibit B is the First Court of Appeals decision regarding Stern’s Writ of Mandamus which is linked in this article.

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Notice of Oral Hearing for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM for the latest filings by Stern.

July 14, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Letter to the First Court of Appeals filed with Arthur’s Motion of an En Banc hearing.

July 14, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc with the First Court of Appeals Opinion released on July 1, 2010 pointing out what Arthur sees as factual errors in that Opinion.

July 14, 2010 Stephens’ Writ of Mandamus denied by the First Court of Appeals. IMO this changes the options available to the defendants who appear to not be covered under the Opinion granting the Writs for Stern and Harris. I notice this denial was handed down by the same panel that granted the other two Writs

LATEST FILINGS IN THE HARRIS COUNT 80TH DISTRICT COURT ON VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. HOWARD K. STERN ET. AL.

July 16, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Affidavit of Neil McCabe in support of Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit A filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit B filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit C filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit D filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

Before Howard K. Stern, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich trial starts on August 2, 2010, Rose Speaks.com is going to complete Dr. Cyril H. Wecht and Dawna Kaufmann two chapters from A Question of Murder” with interviews with both authors. We have been able to verify that Dr. Khristine Eroshevich is on her fourth set of criminal lawyers. The latest one is suppose to be of the Phil Specter “fame”, Bradley Brunon, and we all know how that ended up for Specter, but when Brunon represented Specter, the first go around he was able to get a hung jury for Specter. That said our independent source said; “Bradley Brunon, you may know that name from Phil Spector’s first trial and he certainly is an excellent, very accomplished, veteran defense attorney”.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
July 17, 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.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 59 Comments »

Howard K. Stern and Steve Sadow

July 11, 2010 Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Compel.

July 11, 2010 Harris’ Exhibit 1 filed with his Reply to Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Compel.

July 11, 2010 Harris’ Exhibit 2 filed with his Reply to Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Compel.

July 11, 2010 Harris’ Exhibit 3 filed with his Reply to Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Compel.

July 12, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Notice of Unavailability for ANY hearings any party sets that he=lawyers for him also or for trial from August 1, 2010 through October 15, 2010. Yes this will cause all of the discovery hearings that Stern’s attorneys have to be present, depositions, and will move the trial back to probably close to the end of the year. Stern’s lawyers are going through the August 6, 2010 hearing so if his Special Appearance is granted he will be gone. My feeling is that since the articles were read in Texas like the federal court found in that suit, Stern will probably lose this, let’s hope not though.

Howard K. Stern’s Motion to consolidate cases for the alleged defamation and conspiracy and the Breach of Contract case. I am not sure what the statue is on this and will look up what is quoted. I can see the Court handling BOTH cases and allowing the discovery to go for both cases to conserve resources, however Stern already has set for August 6, 2010 as part of the hearing the very Rule 11 Agreement that this breach of contract is regarding. I guess this was a housekeeping Motion to get the same court I am not sure though if you can consolidate one case with 2 parties into a different case with multiple parties.

July 12, 2010 Howard K. Stern Submission ONLY for the Motions filed today to be set for July 26, 2010. Since Arthur did not agree to the Motions, I would think her response will ask for a hearing which will bring everything to a halt until the fall on this Texas case for discovery hearings, and depositions.

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS GRANTS HOWARD K. STERN’S WRIT OF MANDAMUS

July 12, 2010 First Court of Appeals grants Howard K. Stern Write of Mandamus in a thirty five page opinion. I have not read the opinion.

LATEST FILINGS IN HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS LAWSUIT

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Supplement in Opposition to Virgie Arthur Motion to Compel. Exhibit A is the First Court of Appeals decision regarding Stern’s Writ of Mandamus which is linked in this article.

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Vacate Discover Order of May 11, 2009.

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit A filed with Stern’s Motion to Vacate Discover Order of May 11, 2009. Exhibit B is the First Court of Appeals decision regarding Stern’s Writ of Mandamus which is linked in this article.

July 14, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Notice of Oral Hearing for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM for the latest filings by Stern.

July 14, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Letter to the First Court of Appeals filed with Arthur’s Motion of an En Banc hearing.

July 14, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc with the First Court of Appeals Opinion released on July 1, 2010 pointing out what Arthur sees as factual errors in that Opinion.

July 14, 2010 Stephens’ Writ of Mandamus denied by the First Court of Appeals. IMO this changes the options available to the defendants who appear to not be covered under the Opinion granting the Writs for Stern and Harris. I notice this denial was handed down by the same panel that granted the other two Writs

LATEST FILINGS IN THE HARRIS COUNT 80TH DISTRICT COURT ON VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. HOWARD K. STERN ET. AL.

July 16, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Affidavit of Neil McCabe in support of Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit A filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit B filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit C filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

July 16, 2010 Exhibit D filed with Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance on Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance set for August 6, 2010 at 2:30 P. M.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
July 12, 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.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 102 Comments »

Ford Shelley and G. Ben Thompson in the Bahamas

As the California Criminal Trial of Howard K. Stern, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and Khristine Eroshevich looms for August 4, 2010, the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith tightens the noose on four major witnesses.

You have to wonder if this will affect the credibility of Ford Shelley, G. Ben Thompson, Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson as well as attorney Susan Brown. It also appears that Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III for the South Carolina Federal Court decided to issue this Order without need of a Hearing.

On July 1, 2010 the Court in South Carolina issued an Court Order allowing the addition of Gaither Thompson II, Gina Shelley, Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia. The new defendants have twenty one (21) days to answer the Amended First Complaint so don’t look for this to go to trial before the criminal charges in California is tried to conclusion.

HERE ARE THE HIGH POINTS I FOUND IN THE COURT’S SEVEN (7) PAGE ORDER

“Plaintiff asserts causes of action for conversion, wrongful taking of estate property in violation of California Probate Code § 850, et seq., statutory and common law commercial appropriation of right of publicity in violation of California Civil Code § 3344.1, unjust enrichment/restitution, unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professional Code § 17200, et seq., violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) and civil conspiracy.

That the Estate’s property has been distributed to other entities including Geraldo Rivera with Fox News, the O’Quinn Law Firm, former television journalist Rita Cosby, and the California Department of Justice.

Counsel for Ford has consented to the filing of the proposed Amended Complaint. See Email from MacDonald to Lantta dated October 28, 2009. Thompson has not filed a Response in opposition the motion. The only opposition comes from proposed new Defendants Brown and the Law Firm. 1 Brown argues that allowing the amendments would be prejudicial to her and would be futile as to the claims against her. Brown does not appear to oppose the addition of Gaither, Melanie and Gina as Defendants in this action or to the addition of factual allegations regarding Ford’s distribution of Estate property to other third-parties.

[Brown] argues that she would be prejudiced due to the fact that she has not had the opportunity to participate in discovery as a party. However, in his Response, Plaintiff asserts that he is not opposed to amending the deadlines in this case to allow Brown to conduct discovery.

Brown argues that, as former counsel in this case, she is immune from the claims Plaintiff seeks to allege. Generally, an attorney is immune from liability to third persons arising from the performance of his or her professional activities as an attorney on behalf of and with the knowledge of his or her client. See Hunt v. Mortgage Electronic Registration, 522 F. Supp.2d 749, 758 (D.S.C. 2007). However, both Thompson and Ford testify that they did not authorize her to distribute Estate property to the O’Quinn Law. Firm.

The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Amended Complaint, which is attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff must serve the Amended Complaint within 15 days of the date of this Order. Defendants must respond in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ok after reading the First Amended Complaint I see this is the same exhibit filed with the Court in September 2009, so nothing new here; just has not read it in almost a year.

FILINGS ON JULY 1, 2010 WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT.

July 1, 2010 Court Order allowing the First Amended Complaint to include Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1, 2010 First Amended Complaint filed by the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit A filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit B filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit C filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit D filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit E filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit F filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit G filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit H filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit I filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

Summons to Serve on Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson

Summons to Serve on Susan M. Brown and the Law Offices of Susan M. Brown

LATEST FILING IN THE TEXAS CASE I have not had time to read any of these papers.

July 7, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Response to Art Harris Motion to Compel Production.

July 7, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit A filed with Response to Art Harris Motion to Compel Production.

July 7, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit B filed with Response to Art Harris Motion to Compel Production.

July 7, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit C filed with Response to Art Harris Motion to Compel Production.

July 7, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit D filed with Response to Art Harris Motion to Compel Production.

NEWEST FILINGS IN THE VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. HOWARD K. STERN BREACH OF CONTRACT.

July 1, 2010, Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance to Object to personal jurisdiction.

July 1, 2010 Stern’s Exhibit A filed with Stern’s Special Appearance to Object to personal jurisdiction.

For now we are NOT going to buy these papers due to cost, if it gets traction after the beginning of the Criminal trial or the August 6, 2010 hearing on Stern’s Special Appearance, then we will begin to purchase these papers as well.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
July 6, 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.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 80 Comments »

Anna Nicole Smith

July 1, 2010 First Court of Appeals issued a new opinion, denied Arthur’s request for a rehearing, corrected the original opinion issued in April 2010. The court has granted Harris Motion for Mandamus for the three Orders to Compel. It appears to me on first glance that the Court has now extended In Re. Weekley Homes to cover appointing a Special Master in cases such as this. Which IMO is good and should continue to be expanded in Texas.

July 1, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s SurReply with exhibits attached to Howard K Stern’s’ Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order, the Reply says Stern had been served with the new lawsuit but has not reply… I think and would have to look it up that he has 21 days to reply and if the information that Arthur is depending on says he was served on June 18 then I think his answer is not due until July 9 (21 days later). It does have an interesting implication on the Cosby lawsuit settlement.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Motion to Compel Virgie Arthur to produce documents in relation to discovery.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit A filed with Motion to Compel Virgie Arthur to produce documents in relation to discovery.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit B filed with Motion to Compel Virgie Arthur to produce documents in relation to discovery.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit C filed with Motion to Compel Virgie Arthur to produce documents in relation to discovery.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit D filed with Motion to Compel Virgie Arthur to produce documents in relation to discovery.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit E filed with Motion to Compel Virgie Arthur to produce documents in relation to discovery.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit F filed with Motion to Compel Virgie Arthur to produce documents in relation to discovery.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit G filed with Motion to Compel Virgie Arthur to produce documents in relation to discovery.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit H filed with Motion to Compel Virgie Arthur to produce documents in relation to discovery.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit I filed with Motion to Compel Virgie Arthur to produce documents in relation to discovery.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit J filed with Motion to Compel Virgie Arthur to produce documents in relation to discovery.

July 1, 2010 Art Harris Notice of SUBMISSION ONLY OF THIS MOTION FOR JULY 12, MOTIONS TO COMPEL ALWAYS HAVE TO BE SET FOR A HEARING. One has to wonder why Harris’ attorneys wanted all of this up for the public once again right before a long holiday weekend.

A brief few comments, lawyers can put anything they want to in a filing even if they know it is false at the time. They are covered by judicial immunity with filings and in a courtroom as just gamesmanship and being a fierce advocate for their client.

Ms. Hamilton is well aware of the truth and what she is saying here is out and out BS.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Some of the defendants need to say “Ms. Turner was honest 2 years ago and she is honest in this deposition”, and obviously it is in Art Harris’ best interest to say Ken and I have been paid off, that Ken is an “email drop” for communications between Virgie Arthur, her family lawyers etc. when the deposition clearly shows I have never had any communication with any of the main parties in this lawsuit except for Larry Birkhead. I remember at the beginning of these lawsuits the Plaintiff’s attorney accused Ken of being an “email drop” only for the evidence to show how false that was. However we are merely collateral damage in this free for all it appears.

Our bank account sure does not reflect any payoffs or bribes Ken and I have received and the whole deposition as Lin Wood said in a filing will show something completely different. That goes double for what Jackson and Walker feels the need to say about Ken and me right now.

Some times the best defense if your client is in trouble is to go on a strong offense against another party and call it just “advocating”, sadly lawyers do not have to prove things they say in filings, nor can the person being defamed and once again being accused of illegal activities have any recourse for an attorney doing just that.

Like I have said before Mr. Babcock and his wife, Ms. Hamilton, wear the hire gun label with pride, it is all about business and little about truth.

I have redacted those things said that should be covered by the Agreed Protective Order AGAIN, as I have redacted personal information of witnesses and parties to this suit. Ken and I would never want someone else to go through what we have since our address and phone number was made public over 2 years ago. That said, we can not do anything about Harris’ counsel filing this as pubic information on the Harris County Clerk of Court website.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
July 2, 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.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 46 Comments »

Micheal Jackson Suicide or Murder

Why was Dr. Conrad Murray only charged with one felony of manslaughter? Why are the doctors who treated Michael Jackson in California not being charged for over prescribing? Who were Michael Jackson’s California doctors? More important was it suicide as Dr. Murray’s attorneys seem to be hinting? We have the range from suicide to murder with a settling of one felony count of manslaughter.

Now that Joe Jackson, Micheal’s father, has filed a wrongful death suit in the Central California Federal Court against Dr. Murray, we may get a look into the thinking of everyone in this sad saga. The papers are not up on the public site to purchase yet, but when they are we will be following this case til it’s conclusion. The papers are on TMZ.com to download and beginning next week we will be following this case through legal filings as we like to do here.

LATEST TEXAS FILINGS

Here are the latest filings in the Texas state court in Houston on the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern, Larry Birkhead, Art Harris, Harvey Levin, TMZ Productions Inc. etc. I consider these filings as I often say as housekeeping issues and nothing earth shattering new. There has been some additional discovery release involving court proceedings in the Bahamas in relation to Daniel Smith’s Inquest. I will check on Monday and see if they are public record and if so will post them for discussions. It is rare that we get to look into how another country courts conduct investigations and hearings.

June 21, 2010 Turner’s Notice Notice of Submission of the Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties due to a filing error in May 2010. This is for submission only without hearing and is set for June 28, 2010.

June 22, 2010 Art Harris Notice of Submission of the Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion for Leave. This is for submission only without hearing and is set for June 28, 2010.

June 25, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Motion Objecting to any mediation to settle this lawsuit while discovery is not complete and the Appeals pending in the First Court of Appeals are decided.

Arthur’s Notice of hearing to be conducted on August 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM in conjunction with other Motions set for hearing for both Howard K. Stern and Virgie Arthur on the same date.

June 30, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Fifth Amended Original Petition.

July 1, 2010 First Court of Appeals issued a new opinion, denied Arthur’s request for a rehearing, corrected the original opinion issued in April 2010. The court has granted Harris Motion for Mandamus for the three Orders to Compel. It appears to me on first glance that the Court has now extended In Re. Weekley Homes to cover appointing a Special Master in cases such as this. Which IMO is good and should continue to be expanded in Texas.

July 1, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s SurReply to Howard K Stern’s’ Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order, the Reply says Stern had been served with the new lawsuit but has not reply… I think and would have to look it up that he has 21 days to reply and if the information that Arthur is depending on says he was served on June 18 then I think his answer is not due until July 9 (21 days later). It does have an interesting implication on the Cosby lawsuit settlement.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
June 26, 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.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 84 Comments »

Member of the Boxxet Network of Blogs, Videos and Photos Best of Anna Nicole Smith