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

I have not had time to read these because of the hundreds if not thousands of pages filed by Virgie Arthur regarding two days of my deposition last night. The two depositions are in the forums for members as I go through the corrections and exhibits to see what might need to be redacted. Those supplemental filings late yesterday will be going up here part today and the rest tomorrow.

July 30, 2010 Art Harris Second Motion to Compel documents from Virgie Arthur, this is set for submission only for Monday August 16, 2010 at 8:00 AM.

July 30, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit A filed with Harris’ Second Motion to Compel documents from Virgie Arthur, this is set for submission only for Monday August 16, 2010 at 8:00 AM.

July 30, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit B filed with Harris’ Second Motion to Compel documents from Virgie Arthur, this is set for submission only for Monday August 16, 2010 at 8:00 AM.

July 30, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit C filed with Harris’ Second Motion to Compel documents from Virgie Arthur, this is set for submission only for Monday August 16, 2010 at 8:00 AM.

July 30, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit D filed with Harris’ Second Motion to Compel documents from Virgie Arthur, this is set for submission only for Monday August 16, 2010 at 8:00 AM.

July 30, 2010 Art Harris Notice of Submission of Harris’ Second Motion to Compel documents from Virgie Arthur, this is set for submission only for Monday August 16, 2010 at 8:00 AM.

July 30, 2010 Affidavit of Neil McCabe authenticating the supplemental documents filed with the Court on Friday July 30.

July 30, 2010 Day one of Rose Turner’s redacted deposition taken on April 2, 2010.

July 30, 2010 Reporter Certification of day one of Turner’s redacted deposition taken on April 2, 2010.

July 30 2010 Exhibit 002 filed as an exhibit to Turner’s April 2, 2010 deposition.

July 30, 2010 Exhibit 003 filed as an exhibit to Turner’s April 2, 2010 deposition.

July 30, 2010 Exhibit 004 filed as an exhibit to Turner’s April 2, 2010 deposition.

July 30, 2010 Exhibit 005 filed as an exhibit to Turner’s April 2, 2010 deposition.

July 30, 2010 Day four of Rose Turner’s deposition taken on May 12, 2010.

July 30 2010 Exhibit 36 filed as an exhibit to Turner’s May 12, 2010 deposition.

July 30 2010 Exhibit 37 filed as an exhibit to Turner’s May 12, 2010 deposition.

July 30 2010 Exhibit P 3b filed as an exhibit to Turner’s May 12, 2010 deposition.

July 30 2010 Copy of Virgie Arthur’s Memorandum of Law filed earlier in Arthur’s Response in Opposition of the Special Appearance of Bonnie Stern and Art Harris.

July 30 2010 Copy of Virgie Arthur’s Opposition of the Special Appearance of Bonnie Stern and Art Harris.

July 30 2010 Copy of Virgie Arthur’s Opposition of the Special Appearance of Howard K. Stern.

July 30 2010 Copy of Chrystal Baker’s Sworn Statement from 2008

This is everything filed by Virgie Arthur on July 30, 2010 EXCEPT for the hundreds if not thousands of emails between other defendants and me. There is also two parts of the filing that I do not have copies of today.

I will be moving some links and discussions from the previous article to here that relates to Judge Perry’s latest rulings as well as the new non-charged co-conspirators of Anna Nicole Smith and Bonnie Stern. I will include my thoughts on the recent rulings later today.

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 31, 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, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Don Clark, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Hollywood Criminal Justice, 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

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

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

I am not putting up Art Harris Filing the First Court of Appeals Decision to the Supreme Court of Texas as it is the same as what was sent to Judge Weiman of the 80th Harris County District Court.

TERESA STEPHENS FILING IN TARRANT COUNTY FEDERAL COURT

March 1, 2010 Stephens Motion for Relief from Judgment and reopen case or file an Appeal.

March 1, 2010 Stephens Brief in Support of Relief from Judgment and reopen case or file an Appeal.

March 22, 2010 CNN and Time Warner Response to Stephens Motion from Relief from Judgment and reopen case or file an Appeal.

April 8, 2010 Order Denying Motion for Relief and Appointment of counsel for Stephens.

TERESA STEPHENS FILING IN TARRANT COUNTY DISTRICT COURT

April 13, 2010 Stephens Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal.

April 16, 2010 O’Dell’s Response to Stephens Motion for Continuance.

April 16, 2010 O’Dell’s Motion Compel and Sanctions for Stephens and Glenn.

April 19, 2010 Vice Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 1 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 2 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 3 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 4 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 5 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 6 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

NEWEST FILINGS HARRIS COUNTY VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. HOWARD K. STERN

April 28, 2010 Art Harris Response to Virgie Arthur Motion to Compel Discovery.

April 28, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit C Response to Virgie Arthur Motion to Compel Discovery.

April 28, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit D Response to Virgie Arthur Motion to Compel Discovery.

April 28, 2010 Virgie Arthur Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Declaration Neil McCabe Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Virgie Arthur Affidavit Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit B Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit C Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit D Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit E Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit F Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit G Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit H Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit I Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit J Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit K Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit L Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit M Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit N Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit O Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit P Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit Q Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit R Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit S Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit T Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit U Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit V Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Carolyn O'Dell, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Emmet Glenn, 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

Howard K. Stern mailed his Response to the First Court of Appeals on Friday, March 12 to be entered by the Appellate Court on March 15. Stern’s Response is to Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions against Stern and attorney L. Lin Wood.

March 12, 2010 Response by Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit A filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit B filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit C filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit D filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit E filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit F filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

Status Conference held with the Honorable Larry Weiman of the 80th District Court of Harris County on March 12, 2010 at 3:30 PM.

Those in attendance in person:

Diana Marshall for Larry Birkhead
Neil McCabe for Virgie Arthur with a young associate that I did not get the name when Mr. McCabe introduced him.
One or two lawyers for TMZ not sure if it was Richard Hess and/or Harry Susman, whoever was there for TMZ did not talk at all during the conference.
A male attorney from Jackson Walker that I had never heard the name before and he did not speak during the conference either.

Those in attendance by phone conference:

L. Lin Wood for Howard K. Stern who was on vacation in Utah and on a day trip up a mountain but wanted to be present.
Luke Lantta for Howard K. Stern who was in the office in Atlanta Georgia
Rose Turner who was in my home in Gladewater Texas.
Charles “Chip” Babcock entered the telephone conference partial through the conference but did not speak during the conference hearing.

The conference stated at 3:30 PM and lasted until almost 5 PM, other than introducing myself and asking one question about the Special Master Craig Ball although I was part of the conference by phone I took notes.

The main parties talking with Judge Weiman were Mr. Wood and Mr. McCabe.

Diana Marshall coming in for two rambling comments, that I thought could have been better stated in one or two sentences. However, Ken thought when I told him that perhaps it was one of those misdirections to get off of her client, Larry Birkhead doing a deposition before any hearing for a Special Appearance on Jurisdiction that he filed or providing the server he uses for emails. If that was the purpose she succeeded in running out the clock and not having any deposition or production of doucments or naming an email server of her client brought up by the Court or the parties.

Ms. Marshall was a good friend of John O’Quinn’s had ran in his social circle, belong to the same country club and knew him very well, HOWEVER that said, she has stated before that she never forgets who butters her bread, the client, in this case Birkhead. Ms. Marshall seemed to side more with Mr. McCabe then she did with Mr. Wood, although I frankly got lost in part of the two long ramblings I felt she did toward the Court and of course the clock.

The judge impressed me he knew the statutes and he controls his courtroom, he is cordial to all but he is a very smart guy and had a beautiful voice.

At one time they were referring to a Rule 11 agreement between Stern and Arthur that had been put in the record in 2008, Wood did not have a copy with him and Mr. McCabe did have it but was going to go through the file to pull it out, and INSTANTLY the judge had his copy from the jacket of documents he had related to the case and read it into the record himself. Now that was impressive to me and showed he had read all of the filings and anything else that might come up on Friday.

Mr. Wood pushed for a hearing on the long pending Special Appearance of his client, Judge Weiman asked if there had been a hearing at all on the Special Appearances and Wood and McCabe said something like briefly in December 2008. The Court spent time on Howard K. Stern’s deposition on both jurisdiction and merits asking at one time in order to move the case along would Mr. Wood be willing to have two depositions, one for jurisdiction and then if needed one for the merits of the case later.

The Court then asked why something in regards to Howard K. Stern’s deposition had not been decided before this time, and that brought up could Steve Sadow, Stern’s criminal attorney be there, which McCabe had previously not wanted and Wood had insisted on it. Mr. McCabe very quickly said he would be willing for Mr. Sadow to be present as long as he abides by Texas state statute, which allowed him to be there but not to talk, make co

Tags: 80th District Court of Harris County, Amamda Bush Esq., Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Bryan Cave LLP, CBS - Entertainment Tonight, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Chrystal Baker, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Diana Marshall Esq., Entertainment Tonight, First Court of Appeals Texas, Harry Susman Esq., Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Houston Texas, Howard K Stern, Jackson Walker LLP, Judge Larry Weiman, Judge Larry Weiman - 80th District Court, Ken and Rose Turner, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, QV - Queen of Vondonia, Richard Hess Esq., Rose Turner, Steve Sadow Esq., Supreme Court of Texas, Sweet Havana, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur, Yvonne Barnhart Waddle, Yvonne Waddle

In filings with the court late Friday, July 31, 2009, the date Birkhead’s production of documents were due Birkhead’s lawyers filed a “Supplemental Response and Second Amended Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production and Motion for Protection/Reconsideration without waiving his Special Appearance objecting to Texas Jurisdiction.”

Here are the highlights that caught my attention in the fiery Ms. Diana Marshall’s filings.

Under Discovery must be limited to Texas Connections: Larry Birkhead says even if the allegations were true which he claims they were not then the TMZ story would be directed at a judge in the Bahamas and not Texas. This section ends with an ironic picture painted by Birkhead’s Texas lawyers of; “Plaintiff, [Arthur], had then and has now, a battery of lawyers, private investigators and hired guns; ironically Plaintiff complains about some industrious folks around the United States, including one or two in Texas, armed with computers who had the audacity to research public records without getting paid a nickel.”

Massive Discovery Abuse: “Plaintiff has induced this Court to enter orders effectively permitting Plaintiff to fish, rummage, terrorize, confiscate, search and seize. The pro se defendants accused largely of exercising freedom of the press have been bankrupted, threatened, arrested, jailed, sanctioned and robbed of privacy and the right to counsel. One lawyer after another has had to drop out of the case and stop representing any party with limited resources. Prior to any limited discovery to explore jurisdictional issues, vast, expensive, burdensome and voluminous production has been sought, requiring the specially appearing parties to scour, locate, read, copy, organize and analyze quantities of internet chatter, financial records, personal email and even unrelated litigation – unconstrained by any relevance to the alleged merits, much less Jurisdictional issues. …The Court’s recent ruling appears to have expanded Plaintiff’s request for production number one (1).” That appears to be referring to the change in date from September 20, 2006 through March 14, 2008 originally stated by the Court in discovery to now September 2006 through the present as is stated in the most recent Orders by the Court. Birkhead’s filing goes on to say, “[T]he Plaintiff’s attorneys’ vast wealth permits them to hire a forensic examiner to copy the whole file cabinets, the “hard drives” and internet servers, [yahoo], of those then defendants; and, so, the Court then ordered that all of them be confiscated, seemingly casually.

Plaintiff’s counsel is seeking to harass and burden people with the hope that they will finally fall prey to the no-case-playbook — winning by trumped up spoliation claims or sanctions. Compared to this blitzkrieg, Rambo was a sissy.”

Constitutional Right to Limitation of Discovery: “…Plaintiff’s counsel, Neil McCabe, has admitted quite candidly that his discovery requests are “form” and are not limited to jurisdictional issues. That reality is undeniable. On July 17, 2009, the Court heard Defendant’s objections that the “form” document request served by Plaintiff on all defendants, including Larry Birkhead, was not tailored toward the jurisdictional issues, nor was it limited in scope to Texas jurisdictional contacts, nor was it limited solely to the alleged act of delivery of the “step-brother” story to Californian Harvey Levin – the sole alleged conduct of Larry Birkhead…”

Birkhead seeks Protection: “…A citizen who has never traveled to Texas is entitled to be free of the tyranny of a party dragging him to a jurisdiction remote to him so as to fish through his personal, financial and legal documents. Plaintiff pursues Larry Birkhead with the ulterior motive of trying to interfere with the custodial rights of Larry Birkhead as a parent, and she is using the power of unbridled discovery, expense and burden to do so. None of this serves any definition of justice. …Larry Birkhead files these supplemental responses and objections, itemized following the seventy-five (75) subparts of Plaintiff’s document requests.” This filing was signed by Birkhead’s lead Texas attorney, Diana Marshall.

You have to like any lawyer that is willing to state their feelings with direct and none evasvie statements don’t you?

The objections you can read for yourself along with Exhibits B and C. We have decided not to put up Exhibit A, the emails, although I would like to know what the “redacted” part of the emails Larry Birkhead and I have exchanged, I am left wondering what the guy said about me in the margins of those emails. However, that is NOT the reason we decided not to put up the 60 pages of emails making up Exhibit A. We decided to not put them up for the simple reason that Birkhead’s email addresses, multiple ones, have been redacted where NO ONE else’s email addresses have been redacted. The fact that some of the emails were from Plaintiff, Virgie Arthur’s, grandchildren including name, email address asking questions and in some stating their parents nor their grandmother knew they had emailed Birkhead. It was those emails that weighed the heaviest on us as we made the decision to not put up Exhibit A. However, Exhibit B, Birkhead’s Privilege log and Exhibit C Mrs. Barth’s partial resume are in our download section for all of you.

In the filings and exhibits dated July 31, 2009 titled Larry Birkhead’s Supplemental Response and Second Amended Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production and Motion for Protective Reconsideration in regards to Virgie Arthur’s First Request for Production of Documents. Birkhead specifically states he is not waiving his Special Appearance by this additional filing asking the court for reconsideration of it’s ruling from the bench ordering Birkhead to comply on July 17 by July 31, 2009. There is also as we stated Larry Birkhead’s Exhibit B, Birkhead’s Privilege Log and Exhibit C the partial resume of Mrs. Barth, Howard K. Stern’s lawyer turned Larry Birkhead’s lawyer as of November 2007, you have to say that makes for strange bed fellows, and skating close on ice to conflict of interests in future representation of either man my research shows.

Birkhead then relates his original detailed objections and on page eight (8) of the filing begins his new Objections while also answering some of the document requests from the numerous sources. There are a few interesting things in this for all of us I believe.

In part two in relation “to [C]opies of all communications, including but not limited to email and other electronic communications, for the period of September 2006 to present, between you and the following or about the following:” on page twelve in regards to Howard K. Stern part C states that Stern “has been the long time attorney in the Anna Nicole Smith v. E. Pierce Marshall litigation. Communications made in that connection would be governed by the attorney/client or joint defense privilege, as a result of the rights of Birkhead’s minor child in regard to such litigation.” The “attorney/client or joint defense privilege” caught my attention and it is hard to discern if Birkhead is saying Stern has done some legal work for him or if this is all about the appeals connection to Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate and the Estate of E. Pierce Marshall litigation currently pending before the ninth circuit court of appeals.

However, what caught my attention the most in this part are three things, that on April 14, 2007, Howard K. Stern and Larry Birkhead entered into a “Trust Agreement” just 4 days after the DNA results were announced and before the final custody hearing in the Bahamas was held. The second thing that caught my attention is the reference to the “ANS, [Anna Nicole Smith], Trust” as of August 2, 2007. Birkhead states that he has located these documents and they are being withheld, and not even on the list in Exhibit B for the in camera section to be reviewed by the Court. The final thing that caught my eye here in this section is the date of “October 7, 2008 proprietary images”, it does not state if it is Anna Nicole Smith’s images, Birkhead’s or Dannielynn and that will be important in the section for communications in 2009 under Mrs. Barth’s list of work she is still performing for Larry Birkhead. It appears that perhaps Stern was doing this before 2009 for Birkhead. Some of this now appears to be part of Mrs. Barth’s duties, in my opinion, and I found it quite fascinating to ponder.

Then we get to what to me was the most interesting part and that is Mrs. Barth’s overlapping role of personal attorney for both Howard K. Stern and Larry Birkhead beginning on page 13. She, Mrs. Barth, per this legal document “has served as Larry Birkhead’s personal attorney regarding personal matters and as to the estate of Birkhead’s minor child”, a fascinating over lapping of two previous adversaries that could one day become adversaries again thus putting Barth in a quandary of probably having to drop both men as clients possibly right when she is so involved in Howard K. Stern’s criminal defense in California.

Objection A. states “No Texas Connection” and goes on to state where Mrs. Barth practices and what she specializes in which is not criminal law by the way. Objection B states in part, “No Case Connection. Plaintiff does not allege that Mrs. Barth was acting in Texas or that Barth has any role to play in any actions of which Virgie [Arthur] complains.” That part to me appears to omit the fact that Mrs. Barth did serve as Stern’s co-counsel as a pro hac vice attorney in the Texas Southern District Court in the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern and CBS which settled earlier this year.

Birkhead goes on to state that [documents] “communications between Birkhead and Barth have been located and will NOT be produced…” This includes it appears that Birkhead became one of Barth’s clients in personal matters as of Nov. 26, 2007 while still serving as Stern’s counsel in multiple cases in multiple forums including the Texas Southern District Federal Court.

Barth’s duties as Birkhead’s personal attorney, other than partying with him in California, have included, setting up the Larry Birkhead Estate and the Larry Birkhead Trust. I would love to read the correspondence referred to on April 23, 2009 of “Estate Images”. Why you asked because it was just days before I wrote a controversial piece involving Mrs. Barth and the bombarding of threats of lawsuits, the postings by Birkhead on this blog including snide comments about my illness, and emails from Birkhead wanting to “lecture me”. I have been told I am one of the few blog owners/journalists that has refused an interview with Birkhead, go figure. The other thing that is puzzling to me, is that on the day of her client’s, [Stern not Birkhead], criminal arraignment in California three different sources in the gallery say they heard Mrs. Barth with Howard K. Stern’s lead criminal attorney Steve Sadow, not discussing what they would bring up to the Court during the arraignment but instead Mrs. Barth’s snide [that is how they were described to me], remarks about both Rose Speaks.com and myself to Mr. Sadow. Now wouldn’t you think that as long and as many different venues that Barth appears and represents Stern in ESPECIALLY the California criminal court she would have better things to discuss prior to the hearing and not cracking jokes about a lone blogger in Texas? I am crushed especially since emails from Mrs. Barth in 2007 said, I had restored her faith in the goodness of people, oh well I shall live. I am waiting for the August 12 preliminary hearing to see if she still is making rude comments and cracking jokes about me or is down to the serious business of a criminal trial. From the Exhibit C of Birkhead’s filing this appears to be Mrs. Barth’s first hands on criminal trial.

Finally what caught my eye is on page 16 we have Birkhead stating he has NEVER had or is unable to locate any communications between himself and any employee of TMZ Productions Inc. or the managing editor Harvey Levin. That leaves me with the question did Birkhead hand deliver the stories that appeared on TMZ.com in person or did he dictate them by phone? The in person is the most plausible answer because of the documents he released with the exclusives to TMZ.com as in a copy of Debra Opri’s bill.

Later I am going to debunk some of the testimony of May 21st in the Texas state court in relation to Lyndal Harrington going to jail for the Memorial day holiday by Melinda Burleson and why Mrs. Burleson’s testimony will not hold up under scrutiny and records. It is nice though that she has submitted herself to Texas jurisdiction for future hearings in the Harris County case as well as possible spin off cases from those proceedings. If you lie in court in a quasi-criminal proceeding, which sends someone to jail in a civil suit, is it considered a crime, or just wanting to be a part of all of this so bad you will say almost anything and change sides with the frequency of a revolving door? Mrs. Burleson might get to see more of Texas and spend more time here then she bargained for, go figure.

It appears as of today that G. Ben Thompson’s attorney, Susan M. Brown, has NOT responded to the Motion to Compel her for a deposition pending in the case of Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate vs. G. Ben Thompson and Ford Shelley which will be covered in another article as will Mrs. Burleson and the debunking of her testimony.

In other Texas state filings see the description of the documents and links to them below:

July 28, 2009 Virgie Arthur’s Amended Certificate of Conference on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to add CBS. All defendant’s including Art Harris opposed the Motion, Turner was unopposed and Bonnie Stern did not respond showing she neither opposed nor unopposed the Motion by her lack of response.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2284.

July 30, 2009 Order from the Bankruptcy Court in California, granting Virgie Arthur a stay for the Adversarial Case go forward in California for discovery to show the claim was in fact either not provable and asking for discovery in that case because it could be brought to completion much quicker then the case in Texas state Court. The bankruptcy court for the time being is granting that the Texas case goes forward with an update to the California Court every 90 days of the status of the Texas case.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2285.

July 31, 2009 Teresa Stephens Multiple Motions filed in the Texas state court. The Motion is asking and/or responding to Arthur’s Motions. They included Stephens Responsive Objections to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Contempt; Judicial Notice of Fraudulent Court Records and Claims to Defendant Stephen’s Personal Property and Request Court Sanction and find Guilty of Contempt and Second Judicial Notice of Witness Statements as Adjudicative Facts; Motion to Strike Fraudulent Pleading or Statements and Exhibits in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Contempt and Motion to Strike Chrystal Baker’s Deposition; Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2290.

July 31, 2009 Teresa Stephens 532 Pages of Exhibits filed with her Multiple Motions filed in the Texas state court. The Motion is asking and/or responding to Arthur’s Motions. They included Stephens Responsive Objections to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Contempt; Judicial Notice of Fraudulent Court Records and Claims to Defendant Stephen’s Personal Property and Request Court Sanction and find Guilty of Contempt and Second Judicial Notice of Witness Statements as Adjudicative Facts; Motion to Strike Fraudulent Pleading or Statements and Exhibits in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Contempt and Motion to Strike Chrystal Baker’s Deposition; Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2292.

In other Larry Birkhead news, on September 25, 2009 at 8:30 AM is a status hearing on both cases of Larry Birkhead vs. Debra Opri and Debra Opri vs. Larry Birkhead in the California cases since the appeal of Debra Opri was denied and the case was sent back to state district court. From the records online it appears that Opri has some changes of lawyers and Birkhead appearing to have added lawyers, we might know in regards to discovery where the cases are going from here after this hearing.

Remember our documents are open to All not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

©Rose Turner
August 2, 2009
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 Charity, Anna Nicole Smith Estate, Anna Nicole Smith Trust, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Chrystal Baker, Dannielynn, Debra Opri Esq., Diana Marshall, E. Pierce Marshall, Elizabeth McNamara, Entertainment Tonight, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Hachette Books, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, J. Christopher Smith, Judge Tony Lindsay, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Melinda Burleson, Neil McCabe, Rita Cosby, Rose Speaks, Rose Turner, Steve Sadow, Sun68Ray - Melinda Burleson, Susan M. Brown Esq., Teresa Stephens, TMZ.com, Trust Agreement Stern and Birkhead, Virgie Arthur

If you can’t get a reality show past the initial filming before it is rejected with a beautiful daughter like Dannielynn Birkhead then something is wrong in Hollyweird. Have you looked at the reality shows coming out this summer? Some of them are horrible and I click past them as fast as I can.

However it does look like Dannielynn is doing a few cameo appearances in such reality shows as Tori Spelling’s daughter first birthday party where the gift bags were rumored to be worth about $2,500.00, wonder what goodies Dannielynn carried home?

There is also the news that her daddy, Larry Birkhead was recently dancing the night away with Paris Hilton at the Playboy Mansion. Hey perhaps they can do a reality show together, two cameo appearances rolled into a dynamite duo for a reality show? However if the gay rumors are true and they are flying again in Hollyweird then Paris might not be Dannielynn’s daddy’s type. Don’t get me wrong I know some great gay parents, look at Clay Akiens he made short work of announcing he was a gay dad and loved being a parent.

With that lead in let’s get on to the newest papers filed in regards to the Texas State District Court cases. The first two are older documents we just found and scanned to put up on the site.

November 13, 2008 Art Harris and Bonnie Stern’s Bench Brief in Support of their Special Appearance to Object to Personal Jurisdiction of the Texas District Court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2107.

November 13, 2008 Art Harris Supplemental Affidavit filed with the Bench Brief on personal jurisdiction in the Harris County District Court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2108.

June 1, 2009 Court Order from the 280th Court granting Rose Turner’s Motion to allow counsel to withdraw.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2091.

June 2, 2009 Art Harris – CBS- Exhibit E part 1 filed with Objection to Rose Turner’s Amended Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties. This is part 1 of 2 of the May 8, 2009 hearing before Judge Tony Lindsay.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2092.

June 2, 2009 Art Harris – CBS- Exhibit E part 2 filed with Objection to Rose Turner’s Amended Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties. This is part 2 of 2 of the May 8, 2009 hearing before Judge Tony Lindsay.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2093.

June 3, 2009 Virgie Arthur’s Amended Hearing Notice that the Motion for Contempt on Teresa Stephens had been reset to June 12, 2009 at 9:00 AM.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2094.

June 3, 2009 Virgie Arthur’s Response to the Appeals Court in regards to Howard K. Stern’s Motion for Writ of Mandamus.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2095.

June 3, 2009 Harvey Levin and TMZ Objection to Rose Turners Amended Motion for Leave to Designate Third Parties.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2096.

June 4, 2009 Howard K. Stern’s Response to Virgie Arthur’s Objection to Luke Lantta and Lin Wood to appear Pro Hac Vice before the Appeals Court in Texas.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2097.

June 4, 2009 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibit A – D filed with his Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Objection to Luke Lantta and Lin Wood to have Pro Hac Vice status in front of the Appeals Court on the Writ of Mandamus Motion.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2102.

June 4, 2009 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibits E filed with his Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Objection to Luke Lantta and Lin Wood to have Pro Hac Vice status in front of the Appeals Court on the Writ of Mandamus Motion.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2111.

June 4, 2009 Howard K. Stern’s Exhibits F – I filed with his Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Objection to Luke Lantta and Lin Wood to have Pro Hac Vice status in front of the Appeals Court on the Writ of Mandamus Motion.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2110.

June 5, 2009 Art Harris Supplemental Objection to Rose Turner’s Amended Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2098.

June 8, 2009 Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel Production from Larry Birkhead and to extend the Court’s Special Master, Craig Ball, and Order Ball to image Birkhead’s computer.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2099.

June 8, 2009 Notice of Hearing for June 19, 2009 at 9:00 AM on the Arthur Motion to Compel Production from Larry Birkhead and to extend the Order of the Special Master to image Birkhead’s computer.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2100.

June 8, 2009 Defendant Nelda “Rose” Turner’s Second Amended Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties, including CBS, Larry Birkhead, TMZ, Harvey Levin, Art Harris, Howard K. Stern, as well as the alleged confessed conspirators, Yvonne Waddle, Chrystal Baker, Allison Dillman and Kimberly Ramos.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2117.

The Texas Civil Procedures 33.00 about adding Designated Third Parties.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2109.

June 9, 2009 Virgie Arthur and Bonnie Stern’s Joint Status Report to the California Bankruptcy Court in which Arthur claims she will have 100 exhibits and 12+ witnesses at the California Trial, that Arthur will be ready for trial in 18 months and trial will last 10-14 days. Stern says that she has not received the documentation per the Rules of the Court, she will have less than 20 exhibits and only 3 to 4 witnesses and the trial will last less than 2 days.

June 10, 2009 Court Order from the Florida Southern District granting request to have the July 7 hearing closed to the public and held “under seal”.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2119.

June 10, 2009 Florida Court Order sealing all documents to be filed prior to the July 7 hearing.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2120.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2101.

June 10, 2009 Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Leave to file a Supplemental Response to Howard K. Stern’s Motion for Writ of Mandamus before the Appeals Court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2103.

June 10, 2009 Virgie Arthur Exhibit B filed with her Motion for Leave to file a Supplemental Response to Howard K. Stern’s Motion for a Writ of Mandamus.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2104.

June 10, 2009 Howard K. Stern’s Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response filed in regards to Stern’s Motion for a Writ of Mandamus pending before the Appeals Court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2105.

June 11, 2009 Lyndal Harrington’s Notice of Limited Appearance for her July 2, 2009 hearing for Show Cause as to why she should not be found in Contempt of Court again and jailed in the Harris County jail.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2106.

June 12, 2009 Defendant Nelda “Rose Turner’s Notice of Submission to the Court to be docketed on the Submission only docket for July 6, of the June 8, 2009 filing of the Second Amended Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2118.

June 12, 2009 Defendant Bonnie Stern Response to Special Master, Craig Ball’s report suggesting she intentionally deleted and scrubbed hard drives, she addresses it in whole and attaches both of Scott Bly’s Declarations.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2112.

June 12, 2009 Defendant Bonnie Stern’s Declaration submitted with her Response to Special Master Craig Ball’s Report and attaches exhibits to support her Response filed with the Court in regard to Craig Ball’s Report.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2113.

June 12, 2009 Defendant Bonnie’s Stern Exhibit 3 filed with her Response to Craig Ball’s Report to the Court. Exhibits 1 and 2 are Scott Bly’s Declaration, Exhibit 3 is an email from McCabe to Craig Ball on May 27, 2009 saying that the court and him had decided on May 22, 2009 that McCabe would pay to have Bonnie Stern’s computers imaged in California and not have to send them to Texas, Stern claims McCabe had never advised her of that before in any emails.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2114.

June 12, 2009 Defendant Bonnie Stern’s Exhibit 4 filed with her Response to Craig Ball’s Report to the Court, these are emails previously sent to the Court on May 19, 2009 with the filing of Answer to Show Cause before the Court on May 22, 2009.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2115.

June 12, 2009 Howard K. Stern’s Response to Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Leave to Supplement her Response to the Appeals Court in her Opposition to Stern’s Motion for a Writ of Mandamus.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2121.

This catches up all of the Texas State Filings we have. We will be catching up all of the other papers in other trials we are covering throughout the weekend. As always thanks for staying with us and flying Rose Speaks.com.

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FINAL PAPER FILED BY ELAINE MARSHALL

June 12, 2009 Estate of Pierce Marshall via Executrix Elaine Marshall filed the last document allowed before Oral Arguments. This is the Supplemental Reply Brief that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals laid out in the rules regarding Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate vs. Pierce Marshall’s Estate.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2131.

©Rose Turner
June 12, 2009
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, Chrystal Baker, Clay Akiens, Court Special Master Craig Bal, Crystal Baker, Dannielynn, Diana Marshall, Elaine Marshall, Harvey Levin, Havana, Howard K Stern, James "Jim" McCown, L. Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Paris Hilton, Pierce Marshall Estate, Queen Of VonDonia, QV, Rose Turner, Sweet_Havana, Teresa Stephens, TMZ.com, Tori Spelling, Writ of Mandamus, Yvonne Barnhart Waddle, Yvonne Waddle, Yvonne Waddle Barnhart