Late last night, at midnight I received the filings by Richard W. Hess of Susman – Godfrey Law Firm; the Motion for Summary Judgment by TMZ Productions Inc. and Harvey Levin in the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern defamation suit pending in the 80th District Court, Harris County.

The hearing for the Motion has been set before the Court for Friday, May 5, 2010 at 8:30 A. M. before the Honorable Larry Weiman in Houston Texas.

In the filing for Summary Judgment TMZ and Levin state that the April 19, 2007 article that Arthur and her stepbrother had a child together is literally true, substantially true as a matter of law and that the unpublished details of Virgie Arthur’s stepbrother relationship are far more damaging than what TMZ published. They also state that the Cause of Action of Conspiracy to Defame is not true and as such should be dismissed.

TMZ.com and Levin state that the stepbrother story was a NON-TMZ publication that the Summary Judgment should be granted on a non-evidential Motion as Texas Statute allows.

Attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment is a sworn declaration by attorney Richard Hess with the following:

Exhibit A: TMZ.com’s April 19, 2007 Article

Exhibit B: Interrogatory Responses of Virgie Arthur

Exhibit C: Texas Department of Health Birth Roll for 1949 – David Luther Tacker Sr.

Exhibit D: Texas Department of Health Birth Roll for 1951 Virgie Mae Taber (Arthur)

Exhibit E: Marriage Record of Paralee Allman and George William Tacker

Exhibit F: Texas Department of Health Birth roll for 1966 (David Luther Tacker, Jr.)

Exhibit G: Texas Department of Health Birth Roll for 1967 (Vickie Lynn Hogan)

Exhibit H: Texas Department of Health Birth Roll for 1972 (Donald Ray Hart, Jr.)

After I have time to read the Motion, Declaration and Exhibits I may have more observation on this Motion for Summary Judgment.

Some of you wanted to read the Chrystal Baker Sworn Statement from May 9, 2008 for some comparisons.

TARRANT COUNTY LATEST FILINGS

March 5, 2010 Odell Files to Join Vicedomine’s Motion to Dismiss or for Special Exceptions.

March 10, 2010 Stephens Motion for Continuance and more time to Answer multiple filings.

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
March 10, 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: 80th District Court Harris County, Anna Nicole Smith, April 17 2007 Virige Arthur article, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Bryan Cave LLP, Celebrity Trials, Certified Marriage Record, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, David Luther Tacker, David Luther Tacker Jr., Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, Diana Marshall Esq., Donald Ray Hart Jr., George William Tacker, Harry Susman Esq., Harvey Levin, Honorable Larry Weiman 80th District Court Houston, Howard K Stern, Interrogatory, Judge Larry Weiman, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Literally true, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Paralee Allman, Richard Hess Esq., Richard W. Hess, Rose Turner, Substanially True, Summary Judgment, Susman Godfrey LLP, Teresa Stephens, Texas Defamation Statute, Texas Department of Health Birth Roll, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ Article Virgie Arthur, TMZ Productions Inc., TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

Here are the papers, I have to read through these to know what they are referring to. Art Harris also filed a Notice of Hearing on March 9 2010 on his Motion for Protective Order to be heard on April 16, 2010 for 11:00 A. M in the 80th District Court in Harris County.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit A filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit B filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit C Part 1 filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit C part 2 filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit C part 3 filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit D filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit E filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit F filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit G filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit H filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit I filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

March 8, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit J filed with the Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Opposition to Discovery.

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS IN HOUSTON FILED TODAY, MARCH 9, 2010:

March 9, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions with the First COA on Howard K. Stern and counsel L. Lin Wood.

March 9, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit A Motion for Sanctions with the First COA on Howard K. Stern and counsel L. Lin Wood.

March 9, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit B Motion for Sanctions with the First COA on Howard K. Stern and counsel L. Lin Wood.

After I have time to read through theses if I have any thoughts on the latest filings I will post those here with this article.

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
March 9, 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: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

On March 8, 2010 Larry Birkhead without waiving his pending Personal Appearance disputing Jurisdiction filed his Original Answer to Virgie Arthur’s Fourth Amended Complaint and the point he was Designated as a Responsible Third Party in June 2009.

I have not read the Amended Motion to Designate Responsible Third Party in a while as I would guess most of you have not so I have included that for discussion.

Please don’t refer to me as an “alter ego” of Virgie Arthur, remember attorneys file all kinds of rhetoric on behalf of their clients. I think the record of articles on this blog would prove just the opposite about me and how many times I have written that if my son, who I am estranged from died, I would have decided to handle it completely different from the way Virgie Arthur choice to handle the death of her estranged daughter. I do hope one day I am able to write about being a ping pong ball in the midst of these mega super lawyers on behalf of their clients.

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
March 8, 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: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Diana Marshall Esq., Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

For now I am putting up these papers and then will come back to fill in the article with what I AM allowed to say about discovery which by the very nature of the Agreed Protective Order in this case is very minimal.

March 3, 2010 Art Harris’ Motion for Protective Order.

March 3, 2010 Exhibit A Art Harris’ Motion for Protective Order.

March 3, 2010 Exhibit B Art Harris’ Motion for Protective Order.

March 3, 2010 Exhibit C Art Harris’ Motion for Protective Order.

March 3, 2010 Exhibit D Art Harris’ Motion for Protective Order.

March 3, 2010 Exhibit E Art Harris’ Motion for Protective Order.

March 3, 2010 Exhibit F Art Harris’ Motion for Protective Order.

March 3, 2010 Exhibit G Art Harris’ Motion for Protective Order.

March 3, 2010 Exhibit H Art Harris’ Motion for Protective Order.

March 3, 2010 Exhibit I Art Harris’ Motion for Protective Order.

March 3, 2010 Exhibit J Art Harris’ Motion for Protective Order.

March 3, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Response to Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel

March 3, 2010 Howard K Stern’s Exhibit A filed with Response to Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel

March 3, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit B filed with Response to Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel

March 3, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit C filed with Response to Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel

March 3, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit D filed with Response to Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel

March 3, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit E filed with Response to Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel

March 3, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit F filed with Response to Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel

The old documents filed on February 25, 2010 that I did not know about until these appeared on other sites by those site owners and then partially transferred to Topix.net. I was able to received copies of these this morning.

February 25, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Response to CBS Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court’s Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

February 25, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit A filed with Arthur’s Response to CBS Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court’s Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

February 25, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit B filed with Arthur’s Response to CBS Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court’s Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

February 25, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit C filed with Arthur’s Response to CBS Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court’s Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

May 8, 2009 Transcript of Hearing.

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure involving Discovery.

Now that I have read everything on these multiple Motions and Response with exhibits etc. filed by everyone else, I have a few comments, including those emails of my filed on February 25.

Most of what you see in filings about discovery is a SMALL very SMALL part of what is being produced and what is going on behind the scenes.

1. I alone have 2 filed cabinets, 4 legal boxes, 2 additional boxes and a stack over 3 feet high of documents produced in this lawsuit that I am going to have to buy one more legal box and still have tons of it left over to overflow from my desk. Most of us Pro Se litigants have BEGGED to not be sent any more “paper” but to PLEASE serve us by agreement via email. Some of the parties involved have understood and said “sure”, others continue to bombard us with paperwork in a quantity that our local mailman told Ken to thank the law firms for keeping his job stable.

2. You have a GREAT divide between the haves and the have nots, squarely related to those with attorneys and those of us trying to muddle through all of this while being honest and not knowing that there are zillions of loopholes to attempt to screw the Pro Se Litigants because we don’t have the legal knowledge. A lot of days I actually have chest pains from all of this.

3. NONE of you should ever slam Special Master Craig Ball and the reason is at least two of these top law firms in Texas USE him all of the time as an expert forensic examiner in a host of cases. (It is NOT the O’Q Law Firm BTW). Mr. Ball strikes me as the type that has a lot of experience walking the mine fields this type of suit puts him squarely in. I read one article by another attorney about how great it is to attend one of Mr. Ball’s seminars and that he refers to himself as a “recovering attorney”. He was also nominated and won consultant of the year for 2009. So before you say he was bought off, try to be objective here and realize he has a great sense of humor to survive all of the pulls on him by law firms knocking him right now in this lawsuit, but will turn around and immediately hire him for the next big case. He has a lot of respect for those he has worked with before, and stays clear of the name calling. After all as one of the law firms keep putting in filings this is called “gamesmanship”, the other lawyers and Craig Ball have a lot of experience in this “gamesmanship” that the rest of us do not have as Pro Se Litigants.

4. I have talked to a lot of different lawyers throughout the state about this new e-discovery that is taking hold in both state and federal courts as the ability to this is a fast moving new aspects of lawsuits. EVERY ONE of them have told me that “Rose I can explain away almost anything on someone’s computer, but if a party to a lawsuit destroys things on their computers you might actually go to jail or it will cost someone a LOT of money to try to keep you out of jail”. Folks that hit home with me and I took it so seriously is why I had all of these DVDs of hundreds if not thousand of megs I have turned over in evidence.

5. This brings us to the DVDs EVERY party and every law firm involved in this suit is entitled to all of the production. Thus I did three DVDs in January, which EVERY party has a copy of them. I did 1 or 2 more DVDs in May or June by Court Order that AGAIN every party and law firm has received as well. I have done at least 3 if not four DVDs for production that CBS has asked for, including all drafts, case law etc. I have learned throughout this lawsuit. I think almost everyone has those DVDs from January 2009 through February 2010. As well as those I turned over in February in plenty of time for CBS to do any prepping they needed before the hearing on February 26.

6. I was asked to verify in emails between Mr. McCabe and myself to just verify a rough number of about how many DVDs and how many hundreds if not thousands of documents I have been requested from multiple law firms to produce, that is what I verified in those emails. I think all of the parties in this suit has “favorites” they prefer to work with but we are not given that option.

7. I HAVE no dog in this fight and I am trying to survive with my ethics in tact I HAVE NOTHING to lie about or attempt to cover up, and I BELIEVED that alone would be enough. Sadly I have learn that is not the case and it is really only about “gamesmanship”. It has nothing to do with honesty or trying to be up front with these other parties. Some of them are nice and some of them are hired guns that if you have enough money they will try to win and get the client out of any potential jail time or looking bad because that would reflect on the lawyers. It is kind of hard to stand up and say “Hey your honor, my client destroyed everything on a computer or more and what can I say now”. You know that attorney-client privilege that prevents a lawyer from ratting out a dishonest client.

8. Of the lawyers involved in this fiasco, the one firm I have found always trying to take the high ground and never throwing a fellow party under the bus is Bryan Cave. IMO they have represented their client in a superb way without trying to take down an “unimportant” fellow party in this mess.

In the end each of you can think about me what you want to but the ONLY thing I have going for me is honesty, it does not work everyday in this hell I am in, but it does on most days. BTW Ms. Contrary, my hard drives have already been cleared of containing any illegal things on it, if not that is the first thing that would have been reported to the Court and law enforcement nor have I been asked for any money from any of these firms to say something one way or the other. I have done nothing illegal to go to jail for; so suck it up.

Now for our regular members I am going to start a thread in the member only forums where you can ask me questions and I will answer if I can without crossing the line which none of can do in this hell of a suit.

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
March 4, 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: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

In the Order issued last Friday, February 26, 2010 which granted CBS Motion for Final Summary Judgment, Judge Larry Weiman of the 80th District Court for Harris County did not state a reason, which is typical in District Courts in Texas.

It is interesting to note that the Order signed on Friday, February 26 is the PROPOSED ORDER that CBS filed on October 1, 2009 at the same time the Motion for Final Summary Judgment was presented to the Court. It appears this settles also the claim that Howard K. Stern and/or Art Harris “conspired” with CBS on any of the three interviews. The two quoted in Federal Court and this one in State Court.

Interlocutory Orders are rarely given by Civil District Courts in Texas, except perhaps in Family Court in regards to temporary Orders of child support, visitation etc. In Civil Courts in Texas an Interlocutory Summary Judgment would have allowed Virgie Arthur, in this case, if she uncovered evidence during the pending of the rest of this suit to file a Motion for the Court to Reconsider it’s decision on the CBS Summary Judgment and/or Order.

Interlocutory in Texas Statute is most often used for Appeals when a Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied; which then allows the proceedings to be stayed while the Interlocutory (fast tracked) Appeal is being heard by the Appellate Court on a much shorter time frame then normal Appeals for the whole Case. It is my understanding from someone observing the hearing last Friday, this is what Mr. Charles “Chip” Babcock argued to the Court. That it would in fact be his right for CBS Studios Inc. if the Court denied his Motion for Final Summary Judgment to immediately file an Interlocutory Appeal. If you want some case laws regarding this I will be glad to provide those I researched.

The setback in this “Final Summary Judgment” for Neil McCabe on behalf of his client is that Virgie Arthur cannot file an Interlocutory Appeal. CBS has been totally dismissed from this case unless it is called back in as a third person non-party witness. This Final Order on the Motion for Summary Judgment means CBS Studios Inc. is gone from this suit until such time that this case is totally over and some party files a “General Appeal” on the whole case. This is not good news for Arthur since CBS was the ones with “deep pockets” and the one that she could recover the most from in a jury trial.

In other news the 352nd District Court for Tarrant County has granting Wilma Vicedomine’s request for a hearing on her Special Exceptions and Motion to Dismiss under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 13.001 of Teresa Stephens suit in its entirety, that hearing is set for March 11, 2010 at 1:30 P. M. at the same time Judge Suddeth hears Neil McCabe’s and Don Clark’s Motion on Special Exceptions.

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

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: 352nd Disctrict Court in Tarrant County, 80th Disctrict Court Harris County, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Howard K Stern, Judge Larry Weiman, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

The Court site for the 80th District Court in Harris County this morning granted Charles “Chip” Babcock Motion for Protection from the Discovery Requests by Virgie Arthur for CBS Studios Inc. – Entertainment Tonight

I am assuming this is based on the Court has still not decided on the Motion for Summary Judgment by CBS that has been pending in the same Court since November 16, 2009.

The Court Site shows Neil McCabe on behalf of Virgie Arthur had “hearings held” on to Motions to Compel Discovery. I “think” that the only two Motions pending today both were about CBS’ Motions.

As soon as we get more information we will post it here and also any paperwork.

February 26, 2010 Court Order Granting CBS Studios Inc. request to Stay Discovery and for Protection pending the Court’s Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CBS last November.

CBS WINS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FEBRUARY 26, 2010. THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING SINCE NOVEMBER 16, 2009 WAS DECIDED BY THE COURT LATE TODAY AND THE COURT GRANTED THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSED CBS FROM THE STATE CASE which in this case is called a no-evidence Motion for Summary Judgment in Texas since about 1997 .

80th District Court in Harris County Submissions Docket for November 16, 2009 READY DOCKET SUMMARY JUDGMENT – MOTION FOR FINAL (TRCP 166A) BUSH, AMANDA GRANTED

February 26, 2010 Letter to Judge Larry Weiman stating that CBS’ attorney argued in error that if the Court Dismissed the Summary Judgment then CBS could file an Interlocutory Appeal is incorrect per Neil McCabe’s letter to the Court this afternoon.

Here is a copy of the Original filing of CBS Motion for Final Summary Judgment filed in October 2009.

CBS Studios Inc. stated that what was in front of Judge Weiman was a “matter of law”, not of “defense”. It contains four things that any one of them had to be proven “matter of law”, which is what CBS stated in the Motion filed and why Judge Larry Weiman granted the Summary Judgment, in state Court the Judge only has to agree to ONE point in the Motion to issue a Summary Judgment and then the Court looks no further. In my research today I found that state Courts do not issue Memorandum of Law as we are used to in federal Court. The State Court also does not have to state in its Order even which one of the four listed that the Judge found sufficient to grant the Summary Judgment. and as such CBS was entitled to have the lawsuit against them being dismissed entirely. This was based on the fact that the Larry Hart Interview was the following per CBS Motion:

1. It is NOT defamatory as a matter of law
2. It is not “of and concerning” Virgie Arthur
3. Stature of limitations (I am unclear how the Court could rule this as a matter of law since the lawsuit was filed April 21, 2008 and the interview was both conducted and shown in May 2007). In Texas as most states the statute of limitation is 1 year.
4. Res Judicata (it can not be tried twice and as such is barred by a matter of law), However the federal court ruled the claims were different and although had some of the same defendants it was about different shows and articles, therefore Arthur would not be prejudiced to have a case in both federal court and State court.

Now that said and the fact the Court did find that at LEAST ONE of CBS’ claims to be true and as such the Judge did not grant a “partial Summary Judgment” on some of the four things listed. We know it was granted but will the Court tell us on which one or just that it was granted. As Beth pointed out State Courts do not go into the long memorandum of law we are used to reading in federal Courts. My research today shows the Appellate Courts recommend that judges keep the Order simple so they don’t accidentally open up a “matter of defense”.

What makes that significant? An example if you have say 12 priests beyond question in honesty on one side of a case and a known liar on the other side, that case could not be dismissed as a “matter of law” because it would be up to a jury to determine whom to believe.

So do you all see the ramifications on ALL of the defendants this will have? As one of you said, this could very well be the beginning of the end of the Harris County case, which would make all of the defendants breathe a great sigh of relief.

My further research today in Appellate Procedures here in Texas is that if Arthur decides to appeal, she must pay the filing fee as well as pay a bond that is sufficient to cover CBS’ Appellate costs if she loses. Simple Appeals began at about $30k, so you can imagine what this would cost up front to file an Appeal.

What are your thoughts?

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
February 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: 80th Disctrict Court, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Harris County 80th District Court, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Howard K Stern, Judge Larry Weiman, Judge Larry Weiman - 80th District Court, Judge Larry Weiman Harris County Texas, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

On February 23, 2010 Virgie Arthur filed a Motion to Compel for Discovery in regards to Admissions and Interrogatories. Arthur also filed a Notice of Submission for the 80th District Court to look at Arthur’s Motion for March 8, 2010 at 8:00 A. M.

Arthur filed seven Exhibits with her Motion to Compel they are:

Exhibit A Virgie Arthur’s First Request for Admissions to Howard K. Stern dated April 21, 2009.

Exhibit B Howard K. Stern’s Objections and Responses to Virgie Arthur’s First Request for Admissions dated May 21, 2009.

Exhibit C Virgie Arthur’s Second Request for Admissions to Howard K. Stern dated January 10, 2010.

Exhibit D Howard K. Stern’s Objections and Responses to Virgie Arthur’s Second Request for Admissions dated February 12, 2010.

Exhibit E Virgie Arthur’s First Set of Interrogatories to Howard K. Stern dated January 15, 2010.

Exhibit F Howard K. Stern’s Objections and Responses to Virgie Arthur’s First Set of Interrogatories dated February 12, 2010.

Exhibit G A copy of the First Court of Appeals Stay on all electronic imaging for Howard K. Stern’s computers until further Order by the Court dated May 19, 2009.

On February 24, 2010 CBS filed two Responses, one Response is in regard to Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel production of CBS’ full Insurance policy and the other is a Response to Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from CBS, that one has thirteen (13) exhibits, all of theses Motions to Compel and Responses as well as CBS’ Motion to Stay Discovery is to be heard this Friday, February 26, 2010 at 10:30 AM.

CBS filed thirteen Exhibits with their Response to Arthur’s Motion to Compel they are:

Exhibit A Arthur’s First Request for Production and Supplemental Request for Disclosures to CBS dated December 23, 2009.

Exhibit B CBS Studios Inc.’s Objections to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production and Supplemental Request for Disclosures dated January 25, 2010.

Exhibit C Affidavit of Kathleen M. Adair of the Jackson Walker verifying when filings were received by their office.

Exhibit C-1 Email from Cadena in Neil McCabe’s office attaching the letter and several filings with the Court dated December 22 and December 23, 2009.

Exhibit C-2 Fax Sheet from Neil McCabe’s office with copies of several Motions filed with the Court dated December 23, 2009.

Exhibit C-3 Letter from Neil McCabe’s Office sent to Court with filings and showing the delivery to the other Counsel and Pro Se Litigants dated December 23, 2009.

Exhibit C-4 are filings from Neil McCabe’s Office showing how doucments were transmitted to the other Counsel and Pro Se Litigants dated December 23, 2009.

Exhibit C-5 are filings from Neil McCabe’s Office showing how doucments were transmitted to the other Counsel and Pro Se Litigants dated December 23, 2009.

Exhibit D Arthur’s Unopposed Motion to Modify Agreed Protective Order in Federal Court in Order to use certain materials from the lawsuit to use in the State Lawsuit.

Exhibit E Order by the Federal Court allowing Arthur to use certain materials from that suit in her State suit.

Exhibit F CBS filing to Stay Discovery and for Protective Order with all of the Exhibits filed in the 80th District Court in Harris County and scheduled to be heard on Friday, February 26, 2010 at 10:30 A. M.

Exhibit G CBS filing a copy of the Dallas Texas appellate ruling CBS refers to in the Response to Arthur’s Motion to Compel.

Exhibit H CBS’ Response and Opposition in Part to Arthur’s “Unopposed” Motion to Modify Agreed Protective Order that was filed in the federal court.

IN TARRANT COUNTY:

The 352nd District Court set a Hearing by Court Order on Neil McCabe and Don Clark’s Special Exceptions for March 11, 2010 in Tarrant County.

I will add my thoughts on both the Harris County Motion to Compel as well as my take on the Court Order Hearing on Neil McCabe and Don Clark’s Special Exceptions.

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
February 23, 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: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur