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

I want to say first and foremost, I don’t ever want to read a slam against the Texas Courts again (just kidding) but WOW!!! For those who live in California is this Jury Questionnaire typical? This is the first of 3 steps to get on the jury of the Dr. Sandepp Kapoor, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Howard K. Stern in Judge Robert J. Perry court.

We read through it last night, laughed but also felt like this pool of potential jurors should feel violated.

Rule One: “You can not write on the back or add extra pages”, but how are you suppose to pass along the gossip about friends and what you really think of them? I have had a murder in my family of a cousin and her daughter over child custody, how can you explain all of that and my Aunt’s feelings in 2 lines, including the father died in California but the murders and custody was in Texas? How are you suppose to tell about picking up prescriptions, calling for an antibiotic for you or a child to save an office visit fee. How are you suppose to tell about the friend who is a nurse and said that phobias of hospitals is a good thing and not something you wanted to get over, and then proceeded to tell about huge potential fatal mistakes doctors made that the nurses had to correct or the patient would have died? How do you talk about the nurse you know who works for a plastic surgeon and the tales you heard, which may or may not have been true? How do you say in two lines about patients MUST be proactive in their care and hell yes, at my age I fire stupid doctors to their face.

Yea some cops are honest, some are not and then you have the cops who commit perjury, [remember that cop in the OJ case], and of course some cops are down right sexy. How do you explain a huge cover up of a murder not by the D. A. but by cops covering for cops and that “blue line”. How many of us watch CSI, Law and Order, the ID channel? How do you explain that any one that keeps up with the news just in California knows about the horror that happened to Cynthia Summers? How do you say that once convicted even if your opinion on hind sight you found that D. A.s are more worried about conviction rates and fighting to not overturn convictions even when clear evidence later were shown that cleared the wrongly convicted?

I don’t watch Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, Inside Edition, Extra, TMZ or Fox infotainment news. But if you are even a semi intelligent news watcher, not mention the last week of news cycle about a right wing propaganda site putting up what they knew was an edited video to pull the scab off of racial fears for “page views” or “hits”?

How many of you d have favorite blogs, have a Face Book Account, a My Space, Twitter? Not to mention that for some reason LinkedIN was not listed and was it left off because it is a social media from professionals to network. Then you get into Google Alerts. How many get their news on the run in this busy world via a laptop computer or online reputable news like the AP online?

Then you get down to everything on this questionnaire becomes public record with ONLY your name protected? Is California going to pay your legal expenses when that neighbor, friend, family member, nurse who ever sues you in a Civil Court for running your mouth about them and medications, illnesses, legal problems and you just shared their life?

I was going to fill out this form in the worse type of joke, of spouse, the squeeze on the side, the lover, doctor, lawyer , Indian chief and there is not enough room so can I call home. I got to page four and said F – this.

Ken asked me who drafted this questionnaire that could not spell website [cite] correctly. I said usually the defense and D. A. fills out a wish list that the judge “rules on”, but this looks like a judge decided to take that large latitude they get in their courts because of that black robe. I wish we knew who suggested these questions and then how much did the judge impose because of his personal views?

Then once you get through this giant invasion of not only your privacy rights, but everyone you know; you get to go through a bankrupt California state doing a background check and we still don’t know if that is from speeding tickets, forgetting to pick up your dog’s poop, or something serious. If you get through both of these then you get to go threw jury Voir Dire, where the attorneys get at you hoping the court dismisses you, or the other side does so you don’t have to use one of your “precious strikes”. Not to mention as I said the extreme right wing Bible Thumpers, holier than thou or good cons will get in and a lot of good juror potentials will strike out. It is little comfort for you, your family and friends they want to know about is: “Remember: Questions are not asked to embarrass you. They are intended to make sure members of the jury have no opinions or past experiences which might prevent them from making an impartial decision.”

Here is a Jury Questionnaire from a federal court for a murder trial that involved a crime family.

My questions is that can this jury pool get through this first part, then the background check and then the Jury Voir Dire on August 2 and August 3 by the assistant D. A. and the defense attorneys and be ready to be impaneled for Opening Arguments on August 4, 2010.

Do yo think this is going to end up with the Fox Infotainment News Crowd, the Bible Thumpers, the holy then thou crowd and just those who con to get on a jury or is this a real attempt to get a “fair jury” of “one’s peers”? Share your thoughts with us.

LATEST FILINGS IN THE HARRIS COUNTY COURT IN VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. HOWARD K. STERN BREACH OF CONTRACT

July 22, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s First Amended Original Petition against Howard K. Stern.

LATEST FILINGS IN THE TEXAS 80TH COURT IN HARRIS COUNTY OF VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. HOWARD K. STERN, TMZ.COM, LARRY BIRKHEAD, HARVEY LEVIN ET AL.

July 23, 2010 TMZ.com and Harvey Levin Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys by Susman Godfrey.

July 23, 2010 TMZ-Levin Notice of Submission of Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys by Susman Godfrey for August 9, 2010 at 8:00 AM.

July 23, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Reply to Virgie Arthur Response to Stern’s Motion to Consolidation cases.

July 23, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Response and Opposition to Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance of Howard K. Stern’s hearing Objecting to Personal Jurisdiction.

July 23, 2010 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit B filed with Stern’s Response and Opposition to Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Continuance of Howard K. Stern’s hearing Objecting to Personal Jurisdiction. I did not put up exhibit A as it is the First Court of Appeals Opinion granting Stern’s Writ of Mandamus.

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 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.

Judging from my Google alerts, Judge Robert J. Perry is going to become the latest judge to make the list of judges who are household names. I first ask the question, why is this already being picked up by the international media? Anna Nicole Smith has been dead for over three years, and when alive was a B class celebrity. In fact in death she has become a much bigger celebrity. I had never followed her in life and have heard on numerous occasions that I am not the only one.

Judge Robert Perry is whittling down the jury pool to what might become either Fox News right wing Bible Thumpers or just plain good cons.

A jury of ones peers, well that never happens, ones peers are seldom that. For the most part the only requirement is reading, writing, able to think and being a breathing human being, but in the Anna Nicole Smith case this is about to change.

If you don’t want to serve on this jury here is what you need to do.

1. Bring a large bag of prescription medications and asked to be accommodated like any juror seeking disability accommodations as required by both federal and the laws of most states, even here in backward Texas.

2. Talk incessantly about your own illness, your doctors and most importantly agree to waive your legal rights and spill everything to the judge and lawyers, while the news media is quickly making notes of what you say for their next article, about every ache, pain, medical condition and of course every pill, patch, shot, etc. you have taken in the last few years. In the written jury questionnaire mention the great feeling of the drugs used for your last colonoscopy. Tell them you like that high feeling and that you might abuse cold medication.

3. Be sure and tell them about your grandmother, grandfather, your parents, your brother or sister, hell even throw in aunts, uncles and neighbors who you feel any empathy for due to medical conditions and of course inform this Court of any prescriptions you have ever picked up for anyone.

Now that will get rid of about everyone over the age of fifty-five and any person that feels anything for a fellow human being and the court appears in yesterday’s rulings to guarantee you will be gone within the fist thirty minutes on August 2nd as the jury is being picked.

That leaves the under fifty crowd, watch Fox News, [Infotainment], for your news and already have judged that people who take medications, or are ill, disabled etc. must inherently be bad and it appears you are in like glue on this jury.

How many good potential jurors is this going to exclude in the guise of “getting rid of the kooks” or as Judge Robert Perry stated; “The problem with celebrity trials is it has a tendency to bring out kooks, frankly.”

Now you are down to twenty to forty five year old jurors of your peers. Weed out parents with young children that need care, those who are care providers for the disabled, throw out any juror who questions being drilled about medical conditions and even prescriptions they take. That will whittle it down to the Fox news watchers, Bible thumpers and those with a holier than thou complex or really good cons.

Then you will go through a back ground check by Judge Perry, to be sure you are “clean enough” to be a jury of ones peers.

See there are many ways not to get involved in this mess in California, and who would want to be on this jury? Yes some have illusions of making the news with interviews at the end, but those are going to qualify under these rules. The lawyers will never know your name and the judge’s staff will be browsing the internet to be sure the jurors don’t blog about the case. DO WHAT??? Blog about the case, I thought jurors were not even allowed to talk about the case, read about the case, would that not include blogging in your night time hours???

A bankrupt California state spent most of Tuesday, July 20 discussing Motions related to “…arguments about publicity, the Internet and the effect of social media and blogs on the jury. Judge Perry plans to keep the names of jurors secret from lawyers, who complained that would make it impossible to track whether they were blogging or reporting on the trial via social networking websites. However, Judge Perry did agree to ask prospects if they have blogs or have social media accounts.” You know those pesky networking sites like Face Book, My Space, even LinkedIn which most professionals belong to, in fact just throw out anyone with a home computer to be safe here.

Judge Perry also intends to ask his staff to check periodically to make sure jurors are not blogging about the case. Of course most posters don’t use their real names so the jury should be asked about any monikers ever used on the internet. However this all goes back to I thought you were not suppose to read or discuss a case if you are on that jury, silly me, I am not up with the times of twittering while sitting in Court. Oh yes eliminate everyone with a Twitter account.

I am hoping more courts go in this direction, [said tongue in cheek], it will save all of us in this new era where many of us use Google the AP, the HuffingtonPost.com, The Washington Post.com, The online versions of the Houston Chronicle, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and even Google alerts to get out of jury duty by just confessing these sins. Throw out the fact that for most these are all ways that today’s news junkies get their information. More and more print media is going out of business while the advances in news by internet increases with new technologies and more and more of us turn on our computers to get our news. It appears that is ok with this Judge, however not being in Court yesterday I don’t know this for sure, but to be safe just don’t admit you ever posted a comment on any site whether a reputable news site or TMZ. Better yet, tell the judge you don’t believe in any of these new fangled gadgets, ah no, then you would be in the age group of aches, pains and medications which is automatically excluded. What is a modern day juror to do???

Perry also intends to take the unusual step of checking the names of jurors against criminal records to see if they are hiding anything. If you are a con without a criminal past you are in the jury pool, bring a bathing suit and towel for fun and games for the next six to 10 weeks. However this newest step by Judge Perry creates my next question is criminal as in a speeding ticket or criminal as on parole??? However good cons are going to say the right things if they want on this jury and the honest people who have real doctors, real medical conditions or family members who do, just fill out that form, get your six dollars for the day and you are on your way back to the office or home. Oh be sure you say you believe all policemen and investigators or lie proof and there is a election this year in California, use that as extra “insurance”, [cough cough].

Another tidbit you can do to get out of this jury, whisper the two words that are guaranteed to send you home. What two words can you say that will cause the D. A. and most Judges to go screaming in the night to make sure you are no where near their court room?

Wait for it….

Wait for it….

Jury Nullification… the act of saying this is bullshit. In the old days, our forefathers wanted jurors that went by common sense and their conscious and jury nullification was encouraged to prevent run away legislature or unfair laws. However today, it is a guarantee to get out of jury duty which is why the jury instructions normally says, “you are only to judge this case by the facts involving the law as I instruct you to do”.

John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: “It is not only his right but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” That is not true today, if you even admit you know about your right as a citizen on a jury to use exactly what our forefathers wanted, you are practicing jury nullification which is a big no no in today’s society of complex laws and nustso statutes.

Now if Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Smith’s former lawyer-boyfriend Howard K. Stern knowingly fueled a known addict’s addiction and threw caution to the wind, then convict them. That is how it should go down.

If they did more then what is common practice in the world of Hollyweird, then convict them. If you sense a potential juror is a kook, of course dismiss them. That is why there are jury consultants, but don’t trample on privacy laws to be sure you get that Fox News listener and exclude the CNN and MSNBC crowd.

I loved this exchange yesterday as reported by the AP and I bet Harvey Levin and the TMZ.com staff cringed as the AP led with this exchange:

“Rose made the unusual disclosure that she was filing all of her legal documents under seal to keep them from falling into the hands of celebrity website TMZ. The judge said he was going through her sealed motions and unsealing many of them.

“I don’t think you should file under seal just because you don’t want the media to see it,” Perry said.

“Everything I file ends up on TMZ,” Rose said.

“Who cares?” said the judge.

“Our jury pool is out there,” said the prosecutor.

“Do we even want people who watch TMZ on the jury?” asked the judge.

“We’re going to get them,” Rose said.

“I hope not,” said the judge.”

One way to guarantee those people are not part of the jury pool is just ask any potential jurors if they know who or what is TMZ.com.

Does that mean TMZ.com has received a failing grade in intelligent readers? If so the Court should cruise around “T”, at least TMZ has slowly begun to enforce the TOS and Privacy Policy instead of remaining like the wild west of internet posting.

Be sure and print this article and carry it with you the next time you get a jury summons in Hollyweird, where the right wing nut cases and good cons are welcomed as jurors and those “normal people” get sent home.

Ah the joy of doing ones civic duty of serving on a jury.

THIS ARTICLE DOES AND INTENDS TO POINT OUT THE LUNACY OF HOLLYWERID CELEBRITY TRIALS. Because frankly, who the hell would want to serve on one of these juries???

Now on a serious note: Judge Robert J. Perry has a tremendous amount of discretion. Judge Perry is known as a no-nonsense judge with a distinguished legal background as a former federal prosecutor, he is often selected to preside over high profile trials. In Dec. 2009, he barred television cameras and other electronic recording devices from the trial court in another high profile trial reaffirming his penchant for mitigating intense media coverage in the interest of a fair trial in his courtroom.

Perry has been a trial judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court. Since 1992, he has presided over more than 580 felony jury trials, including 237 murder trials, 28 of which were death penalty trials.

He was honored as “Judge of the Year” by the Los Angeles County Bar Association Criminal Justice Section in 2009 and by the Century City Bar Association in 2002. Born and raised in Glendale, California, Judge Perry is a graduate of Claremont McKenna College and Loyola Law School. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles for 12 years, and then was in private practice with Epstein Becker and Green, and later with Douglas Dalton.

In short, you could not ask for a better judge for a criminal high profile case, and he likes Stern’s attorney Steve Sadow, so what more could anyone ask for in this case. Lessons learned over the last three years appear to have paid off in changing the Court back to Judge Perry who presided over the preliminary hearing which means he has the background on this case.
He has also ruled against the prosecution and at times has added lesser charges to jury instructions stating the state had not reached the standard of the charges assistant district attorneys have asked to present to a jury.

Google Judge Perry, he is impressive in the way he handles cases that could become powder kegs of any racial tensions in the past and handled them 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 21, 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, arguments about publicity, B class celebrity, backward Texas, Beverly Hills, blogging, Califorhia election year, California, California Criminal Courts, California Superior Court Judge Robert J. Perry, Celebrity Trials, CNN.com, criminal check of jurors, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, disability accommodations, disablity, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, drugs, effect of blogs on the jury, effects of social media, effects of social media on jury, Face Book, forefathers and jurors, former federal prosecutor, Fort Wroth Star Telegram online, FOX News, Google alerts, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, holier than thou, Hollyweird, Hollyweird Criminal Justice, Hollywood, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Honorable Robert J. Perry, HOUSTON CHRONICLE - online, Howard K Stern, HuffingtonPost.com, Infotainment, Internet news, Internet news and jury, John Adams second President, Judge Robert J. Perry, Jury, jury cons, jury kooks, Jury Nullification, Jury of peers, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, LinkedIn, LUNACY OF HOLLYWERID CELEBRITY TRIALS, MSNBC.com, My Space, networking sites, news media, no-nonsense judge, penchant for mitigating intense media coverage, prescription medications, prescriptions, right wing Bible Thumpers, RX drugs, social media, Steve Sadow Esq., Texas, The Washington Post.com, TMZ.com, Twitter account, twittering while sitting in Cour, Virgie Arthur

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: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Hachette Books, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Susan M. Brwon Esq., The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

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: A Question of Murder, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Bradley Brunon Esq., Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Dawna Kaufmann, Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Howard K Stern, J. Christopher Smith Esq., L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Steve Sadow Esq., The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

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: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dr. Kapoor, Dr. Khris, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Hollyweird Criminal Justice, Hollywood, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Howard K Stern, J. Chirstopher Smith Esq., Judge Larry Weiman, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Nancy Hamilton Esq., Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Steve Sadow Esq., The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

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: Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith's Estate, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Art Harris, Attorney General Jerry Brown, attorney-client privilege, Bahamian lawyer Tracy Ferguson, Beverly Hills, Birkhead, BKD LLP, BKD LLP Computer forensics, Bonnie Stern, Bryan Cave LLP, California AG Jerry Brown, California Business & Professional Code § 17200, California Civil Code § 3344.1, California Department of Justice, California Probate Code § 850, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, civil conspiracy, commercial appropriation, commercial appropriation of right of publicity, Computer forensic expert, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), conversion of Estate Property, crime-fraud exception, crime-fraud exception attorney-client privilege, Dannielynn, Danny Santiago, Debra Opri Esq., Don Clark, Dr. Kapoor, Dr. Khris, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Elisa Miller Esq., Elizabeth McNamara Esq., Florence South Carolina, Folkens Law Firm, Ford Shelley, FOX News, G Ben Thompson, Gaither Ben Thompson II, Geraldo - Live, Geraldo At Large, Geraldo FOX News, Geraldo Rivera, Gina Shelley, Gina Thompson Shelley, Greta -On The Record, Greta Van Susteren, Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown, Hachette Book Group USA, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Hollyweird Criminal Justice, Hollywood, Hollywood California, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Horizons in the Bahamas, Horizons law suit, Horry County, Horry County Sheriff, Horry County Sheriff's Department, Horry County South Carolina, Howard K Stern, Joseph C Wilson IV Esq., Karl Alan Folkens Esq., L. Lin Wood, Law Offices of Susan Brown Esq., Lin Wood, Liz McNamara Esq., Louis David Nettles Esq., Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III, Melodie Thompson, Myrtle Beach, Myrtle Beach south Carolina, Neil McCabe, Nicole Jennings Wade Esq., Pierce Herns Sloan and McLeod, right of publicity, right of publicity in violation of California Civil Code, Robert Klein Esq., Rose Turner, Seminole Tribe Authorities, Shane Gibson, Shane Gibson former Bahamian Minister of Immigration, South Carolina Federal Court, statutory and common law, Steve Sadow Esq., Susan M. Brown Esq., Susan P MacDonald Esq., The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Tom Pirtle Esq., Tracy Ferguson Esq., Tracy Ferguson of Callendar's Bahamas, unfair competition, unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professional, unjust enrichment/restitution, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Virgie Arthur, wrongful taking of estate property