The newest nine papers filed in the Texas State Court lawsuit that we have access to, are now up. ALL OF THE EMAILS IN ANY OF THE EXHIBITS REQUESTING PRODUCTIONS OF PERSON’S PRIVATE EMAIL HAVE BEEN REDACTED AND THOSE PAGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE EXHIBITS BEFORE I UPLOADED THEM ALSO MOST OF THE NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN REMOVED OR THE PAGES THEY ARE ON HAVE BEEN REMOVED WHERE WE COULD AND STILL KEEP THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IN TACT. If you see something additionally that should be redacted please email us and we will redact those as well.

Howard K. Stern’s Response to Virgie Arthur’s Opposition has a couple of new and interesting facts alleged.

Virgie Arthur filed a Second Amended Original Petition has been filed with the latest alleged new facts and attempting to add Larry Birkhead as a defendant but the date to join additional parties was December 1. There is no way to predict if the Court will allow additional joiner of parties this late lawsuit.

The rest as you know we cannot comment on because one of the co-owners of Rose Speaks.com is a defendant currently in the lawsuit.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&cid=22.

©Rose Turner
December 11, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. 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 article are the opinions and sole property of the 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, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Howard K Stern, Larry Birkhead, Lyndal Harrington, Nelda "Rose" Turner, Nelda Turner, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, Virgie Arthur

Rose Speaks.com cannot comment on documents which were released to another site; we cannot comment on how the other site received those documents except to state that those documents are not listed on the Harris County Clerk’s site with the case number of this suit available for purchase by the public as of today December 5.

We have worked very hard to achieve an Agreed Protective Order with all of the parties, Plaintiff Virgie Arthur, Defendants Harvey Levin/TMZ, Teresa Stephens, Howard K. Stern, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Lyndal Harrington and myself. Our lawyers have worked since August it was agreed by all parties and signed by the Judge on December 3. That Agreed Order is up on the Harris County Court site as a public document that anyone can purchase at $1.00 a page as any of the public filings can be purchased for $1.00 per page, something Rose Speaks.com can sadly not afford to do.

We fought for this Agreed Protective Order just so what is happening on that other site and now Topix.net would not occur including the feeding frenzy we have been told about that began last evening, December 4. We have fought for the privacy of all bloggers, we will continue to fight for the privacy of all bloggers while we also continue to cooperate with every discovery request we have received. We will continue to cooperate and follow both our lawyer’s instructions as well as the Court’s Orders.

Therefore, we are at a disadvantage here; we will abide by the Court’s Order signed on December 3, we do not have any idea how the other site ended up with a Motion to Compel dated December 3, which is not available to the public through normal avenues as far as we know.

This will be the only statement we will or can make; we intend to abide by the letter, as well as the spirit, of the Agreed Protective Order as agreed to by the parties and signed by the Court. As with all of our transparency including this case when we receive a copy of that Order since it is public we will have it in our download section.

We deeply apologize for any hurt/pain, panic or betrayal you have felt by the documents released and the requests in that Motion to Compel that appears to be based on an old member list of another site.

Please respect the position of both the spirit and the actual Order signed by the Court. We will have nothing further to say on why this was released, who might have released it and why what is happening on Topix because of this Motion to Compel being released with exhibits. We are sure if any violations of the Court’s Instruction or Orders have occurred that the site owner that received those papers will be more than happy to appear in court and answer any and all questions that might be asked. Including how these papers were received if not through the public avenues such as the Harris County Court’s URL of: https://e-docs.hcdistrictclerk.com/eDocs.Web/Login.aspx.

We want to thank each of your for the outpouring of concern as to how this happened and we know that you all will respect the fact that we cannot discuss any of this.

As always, thanks for flying Rose Speaks.com, we will have a new article up and several new cases to follow as well as a new public section of the site announced shortly.

Ken and Rose, co-owners of the site, and all of your admins/moderators who put in countless numbers of hours to make the site run as smoothly as it does.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. 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 article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

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

Tags: Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Harvey Levin, Havana, Howard K Stern, Lyndal Harrington, Nelda "Rose" Turner, QV, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur, Von

In the Southern District Federal Court for Florida, on Friday, October 17, Krista Barth and Robert Klein squared off and argued on behalf of their clients for an hour and half.

The hearing was in connection to John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm Motion for Protective Order for the financial information with the O’Quinn legal team wanting to wait until 30 days before trial to turn that information over. The O’Quinn legal team is also requesting that Howard K. Stern does not have access to the information because Stern “can’t be trusted”. The Minutes of the Court Proceeding states the Court read the Motions, Memorandum of Law submitted by both side, had the hearing and took the matter under consideration and will issue an opinion in the near future.

In other news the Southern District Federal Court of Texas, issued an Order for a November 4 hearing on the status of the case, and the discovery progress in that case between the parties. That hearing is scheduled for November 4 at 4:00 PM.

The Texas State District Court in Houston, the Honorable Tony Lindsey issued an Order on October 15 setting a hearing on the Motions for Art Harris and Bonnie Stern to hear oral arguments on the Jurisdictional issues brought up by the co-defendants. That hearing per the Court Docket, is set for 1:30 PM on November 21, however the court has also issued in its Order that the parties may request a hearing sooner then November 21.

Howard K. Stern’s Answer to the O’Quinn’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on Stern is a public figure and as such cannot prove “malicious intent”, still appears to be due on October 27.

The New York Federal Court has Order that all depositions of the last five witnesses, Don Clark, Wilma Vicedomine, Mark Speer, and both nannies must be completed by Monday, October 20 in preparation for that trial.

In the Federal Court for South Carolina of the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith vs. G. Ben Thompson and Stancil Ford Shelley, there are two filings due, one by Monday October 20, 2008 of the Rule 26(f). The other required filings in the South Carolina Federal Court are due on November 3, 2008 and includes the Rule 26 & 26 (a).

It looks like October and November is going to be two months of many happenings in all cases, in all jurisdictions with filings due and hearings happening. Be sure to keep up with our calendar on the front page of Rose Speaks.com as we keep up with all upcoming dates in all of these cases.

I will have the debunking of the blond ambitious, Rita Cosby, chapter 13 part 2 up tomorrow and I will also have my predictions about the upcoming trial of Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books.

©Rose Turner
October 19, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. 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 article are the opinions and sole property of the 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, Bill Ogden, Bonnie Stern, CBS, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Chip Babrock, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Entertainment Tonight, Harvey Levin, Howard K Stern, John "Jay" Patton, John O'Quinn, Ken and Rose Turner, Krista Barth, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Mark Speer, Nancy Hamilton, Neil McCabe, Nicole Jennings Wade, Rita Cosby, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The John O'Quinn Law Firm, Thomas Gregor, TMZ, TMZ.com, Tom Gregor, Virgie Arthur, William "Bill" Ogden, William Ogden, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

In the Reply filed today in the Southern District Federal Court, instead of attempting to reach an agreement, which is the usual course of Motions for Protection, (I. E. you ask for everything and then settle somewhere in between), here it is a firm NO. Which leads to why these filings instead of making a reasonable deal with Howard K. Stern’s lawyers?

I did note that the Florida lawyer for John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn law firm did become confused about which case that Rita Cosby’s excerpt was filed in Texas. It was not the Texas proceeding it was in fact for this very Florida Proceeding but filed in another federal court in Texas. That Motion to Quash and Motion for Protection was filed by Wilma Vicedomine in the Southern District of Texas Federal Court at the same time that O’Quinn filed a Motion for Protective Order for Wilma Vicedomine in Florida. I guess it is easy to confuse which case is filing what Motions and to protect Wilma Vicedomine where, she seems to be everywhere doesn’t she? However, can this be a preview that Wilma Vicedomine is about to become important in the Texas suit and/or suits as well? Was this a mistake by John O’Quinn’s legal team in Florida, or a preview that Wilma Vicedomine’s (Vice) role in all of this extends in more than the two suits we are already aware? How many people are now in line for O’Quinn assets for money due them?

On page seven of the Reply filed by the Florida legal team for John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn law firm; it states in part the following. “Although the Defendants fully recognize that they are not permitted to reargue matters covered in their Motion For Protective Order and original Memorandum of Law …” Then they do exactly that for three pages, repeating the unsubstantiated and unauthenticated claims about the “type of people not able to be trusted that Howard K. Stern and his head lawyer Lin Wood are”.

Again I would point out that the papers did NOT appear on Art Harris’ site “mere moments” after they were filed, it was HOURS, after the hearing for that day held via phone about trying to protect Wilma Vicedomine from testifying in the Florida Proceedings. Which continues to bring up the small tidbit of why are they so afraid of Wilma Vice [Vicedomine] being deposed?

Any bets on if the Court in Florida will have hearings on these latest filings and counter filings to try to unravel all of these issues?

Pick up this new filing in our documents section, open to All not just members of Rose Speaks.com and come back and discuss it with us, this article will be added to later tonight or first thing tomorrow.

©Rose Turner
October 7, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. 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 article are the opinions and sole property of the 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, Daniel Smith, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Lin Wood, The O'Quinn Law Firm

Yes I just plagiarized Clinton’s “It’s the Economy Stupid”, but after watching the debate last night it just seemed like a good take off on a title for this article.

In filings on September 25, did the John O’Quinn legal team blindside the court and Howard K Stern’s legal team? Originally, O’Quinn’s lawyers asked for an extension of time to turn over the financial paperwork due to Hurricane Ike. In that, “Motion to Extend Time”, O’Quinn’s legal team never mentioned a “Motion for Protection” looming in the future in place of the documents that they had pled successfully the week before to extend the time by a few days.

Then we have the assault on both Howard K. Stern and Lin Wood and the ability for ANY Court to trust either of them with “confidential information”. The Motion goes on to request that the Powell Goldstein law firm NOT share any of that information with their client Stern. The Motion for Protective Order as well is asking that O’Quinn and his law firm not having to provide the financial information until 30 days prior to trial; because the existing Agreed Confidentiality Order is not strong enough to make sure, O’Quinn’s worth is not released to the media.

In other words the lawyers can see them, an expert can see them but the client can’t because both Stern and Wood have ALLEGEDLY lied in the past and had proven to Court’s they both had been dishonest and had “leaked” papers. HUH??? The legal team is making this allegation for John O’Quinn who barely escaped from the clutches of the Texas A. G. in 2002 after years of skating on the edge of legal ethics. Including being fined, tried, sued, etc. and being probably the most instrumental reason Texas passed sweeping tort reform in Civil Suits against the type of companies O’Quinn became a billionaire suing.

My prediction is that we will see Lin Wood, the head of Stern’s legal team, become deadly serious this coming week. This is no longer just a fascinating case of watching two Titans fight in my opinion this is going to become very personal for Wood. I expect a methodical but potential deadly response to be filed in the Florida Court this coming week.

On Friday, with Wood presumably in New York for the pre-trial conference on the Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette books, another lawyer on Stern’s legal team filed a letter with the court. That letter forced Robert Klein to admit to the court that papers had not been turned over that had been previously reported to the court as having been turned over to Stern’s lawyers. Klein’s letter was in regards to the fact that O’Quinn’s legal team, when they stated in the September 15 Ex Parte Hearing that those papers had been handed over, now they are admitting that it was not quiet true. Wood wrote a letter to the court requesting those be addressed on September 12, now the legal team of O’Quinn had to admit that they were not factual in their representation on September 15 to the court but they had now handed over those “missing documents” as of September 24.

Then there is the Dawna Kaufman emails approximately eight of them to and from Don Clark and Wilma Vicedomine of which O’Quinn’s legal team told the court on July 21 they had goofed and those needed to be handed over because they had wrongfully claimed “work product” on them and had caught their own mistake. However, now O’Quinn’s legal team is asking that those same emails be looked at “in camera”. I have to wonder what is in those emails that they would fight handing them over since they are only in relations to the tabloid media that O’Quinn himself said if you believe the tabloid media then “you be stupid” cause no reasonable person would ever believe tabloid articles and/or shows.

The most stunning filing though was on September 25, the Affidavit of Rusty Hardin, Jr. Many have asked over the last 18+ months was this really all along about the Marshall money and nothing else? Many of us could never connect the Marshall attorney, Hardin, to John O’Quinn and now O’Quinn appears to have connected those dots together for all of us. You have to wonder why show that part of their hand at this point? Which led to the title of this article, “It’s the Money Stupid????”

The Affidavit of Hardin included what appears to be one page of a partial transcript of a hearing in Texas that was not authenticated or even dated. I notice that Hardin also left off listing the date of that time period in his Affidavit. So help me out here folks, for someone that never followed the saga of Anna Nicole Smith’s life, when did that hearing take place in Houston?

Do you think this connects the dots and is it about the Marshall money and not about Virgie Arthur? It left me pondering a lot about that.

This next week I expect Wood to come out with cold steel resolve in his Response to this latest alleged roadblock to gain production of documents. We also have the little fact that under the Civil Rules this Motion for Protective Order should have been filed within 14 days of service, this was instead filed on the date the Court had extended the discovery to be due because of Hurricane Ike. I did note that in the Court’s Order for Expedited Briefs Response and Replies, Stern was given to “no later than Friday, October 3, 2008”; O’Quinn was then given “no later than Tuesday, October 7, 2008, at 5:00 p.m.” to Reply to Stern if they choose to file a Reply. Could the Court be giving us a hint that the Court does not want any more filings after the court closes on the dates those filings are due?

I keep seeing that First Protective Order and Memorandum of Law by the New York Court filed over and over again in other court proceedings to slam L Lin Wood, his honesty, including that he leaks like a ship going down. However, I know of two sites other than Art Harris who had those papers in the morning well before the telephone hearing in Houston in connection to Wilma Vicedomine’s Motion to Quash and well before Wood stated he sent them to Harris after 5 P. M. The first time I read that Memorandum by the Court in New York, I did not know whether these other web site owners should take that as an insult or a compliment that they hunt through PACER and have records almost as soon as they hit the press. The judge specifically stated that because of the 275 pages filed it was very unlikely that any site could have had those and had them up without Wood’s help. Neither of the sites, I know about having the papers by 11 A. M. had ANY help from Wood and both sites “allegedly” are very heavily visited. Did Judge Chin give those sites high grades for finding the papers early in the morning of that day, or did he not realize how fast those watching this case find those little tidbits? Something I have been pondering since the Memorandum was first released. Added to that another site owner seems to continue to brag that the lawyers sit on that site almost all day long. I would think if that is true then the lawyers from all sides follow who has what and when, I would if I were them to get a feel for the public consumption about all things still related to any lawsuit about Anna Nicole Smith.

Be sure to pick up the newest filings in our download section, open to ALL, not just site members.

I will also have an article up about the Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books and I am going to go out on a limb in that article and make some predictions as to what I think will happen before the trial date in the New York Southern District Federal Court.

©Rose Turner
September 27, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. 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 article are the opinions and sole property of the 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, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, O'Quinn's Don Clark Ex-FBI, Rita Cosby, Robert Klein, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Virgie Arthur, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

L. Lin Wood’s office sent a letter to John O’Quinn’s and The O’Quinn law firm’s lawyers, (see the file in our download section open to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com), saying they would provide a copy of the Order they had agreed to in the New York Southern District Federal Court to keep the Florida suit from becoming a media circus. Was this a gracious and ethical offer to the O’Quinn legal team or pure stupidity 101?

Once again the ones who allegedly did the horrible defaming have been offered and granted protection under the Consented Protective Order signed by the Florida Court yesterday, [September 4]; my question is why?

Certainly, when the allegations were made by John O’Quinn of the Will of Anna Nicole Smith being faxed to Howard K. Stern five days before her death thus setting the stage of why that happened unless Stern knew Anna would soon be dead; later that was proved wrong. Then there was the seven life insurance policies touted and talked about on every media that O’Quinn could get on as “motive” to murder Anna Nicole Smith; only now O’Quinn admits he was wrong. There was the constant mantra of “Motive, Means and Opportunity”, all three components to allege that Stern had in fact killed Anna Nicole and her son Daniel Smith, again later to be proved wrong. Then we have John O’Quinn saying if anyone really believed him when he said those things to Greta and Nancy Grace they could not have possibly believe that to be true, it was hyperbole. Has he read TMZ.com or Topix.net, many of his followers not only believed him but continue to push those allegations.

It matters not that Stern has been cleared by every investigative entity; the murder allegations are still a daily mantra by those that think John O’Quinn is a hero, which would never have misrepresented anything to any of them through the media. Yet O’Quinn seems to be saying if you believed my lips, then you are dumb because no one with comment sense would have believed me; and yet those people continue to type out about Stern killed two people has hidden money, cashed in life insurance policies and made off with the money.

Now though John O’Quinn the associates of the O’Quinn law firm including Wilma Vicedomine, are getting just that offered and accepted of protection from Stern’s lawyers led by L. Lin Wood. Was this the gracious, logical, ethical provision that Wood offered and O’Quinn’s lawyers took them up on or is it stupidity 101?

A note from us here at Rose Speaks.com about the feverish accusations out there on the internet, please read the two consented protective Orders out of New York and now this one out of Florida. You will note that not even everyone in the legal offices have access to confidential and highly confidential records turned over via subpoenas to the officers of the court (I. E. either legal teams attorneys). Sun NEVER sent me a list of neither IPs nor her chat record logs, Art Harris has NEVER sent me a list of IPs, and TMZ.com has NEVER sent me a list of IPs. The only lists of IPs ever sent to me were from two site owners who are considered to be in the inner fold of Red and others; therefore you might look within for what was released to lawyers if anything was and not at Rosespeaks.com, TMZ.com, Art Harris.com or Sun.

The password protected blog for regular posting members for this article can be found here.

©Rose Turner
September 5, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. 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 article are the opinions and sole property of the 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, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, L. Lin Wood, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

In the answer filed by TMZ and Harvey Levin on June 16 in the 190th Court in Harris County, they make the following statement:

“C. Request for Disclosure

14. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Defendants request that the plaintiff disclose, within 30 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2.”

Looking at Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, we find the following:

RULE 194. REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE
194.1 Request.
A party may obtain disclosure from another party of the information or material listed in Rule 194.2 by serving the other party - no later than 30 days before the end of any applicable discovery period -the following request: “Pursuant to Rule 194, you are requested to disclose, within 30 days of service of this request, the information or material described in Rule [state rule, e.g., 194.2, or 194.2(a), (c), and (f), or 194.2(d)-(g)].”

194.2 Content.
A party may request disclosure of any or all of the following:
(a) the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;
(b) the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;
(c) the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party’s claims or defenses (the responding party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial);
(d) the amount and any method of calculating economic damages;
(e) the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the case;
(f) for any testifying expert:
(1) the expert’s name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the subject matter on which the expert will testify;
(3) the general substance of the expert’s mental impressions and opinions and a
brief summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting such information;
(4) if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control
of the responding party:
(A) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert’s testimony; and
(B) the expert’s current resume and bibliography;
(g) any indemnity and insuring agreements described in Rule 192.3(f);
(h) any settlement agreements described in Rule 192.3(g);
(i) any witness statements described in Rule 192.3(h);
(j) in a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills that are reasonably related to the injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills;
(k) in a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills obtained by the responding party
by virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party;
(l) the name, address, and telephone number of any person who may be designated as a responsible third party.

Looking at Texas Civil Procedure Rule Rule 192.3(h) we find the following:
192.3(h) Statements of persons with knowledge of relevant facts. A party may obtain discovery of the statement of any person with knowledge of relevant facts–a “witness statement”– regardless of when the statement was made. A witness statement is (1) a written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved in writing by the person making it, or (2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other type of recording of a witness’s oral statement, or any substantially verbatim transcription of such a recording. Notes taken during a conversation or interview with a witness are not a witness statement. Any person may obtain, upon written request, his or her own statement concerning the lawsuit, which is in the possession, custody or control of any party.

So using the above from the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, what are TMZ and Harvey Levin asking for and what is due to their lawyers by July 16?

(a) Is easy, they just want the correct names of ALL of the parties in the lawsuit, which is already shown on Virgie Arthur’s filings.

(b) Is simple too, does Virgie Arthur have any “Does” listed as not knowing but can be added later? Look at Howard K. Stern’s filing against Rita Cosby and Hachette Books for an example of this. In this state case TMZ is asking for the following from Virgie Arthur, the Plaintiff in this state suit, for the following: the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;

(c) Again this is easy to get, it is the legal theories and in general, the factual bases of the Plaintiff’s claims or defenses, NOT the whole thing or the what will be proffered at trial but who are the other people in this lawsuit, in Virgie Arthur’s case what is her “legal theory or factual bases for bringing the lawsuit”. In the people whom have already been served, what if any defenses are they using and what is the factual bases of those claims. (I. E. Art Harris and Bonnie Stern are alleging lack of personal jurisdiction. Lyndal Harrington and Rose Turner has filed a “Special Exception Response”, download the filings to see both what the Special Exception and then Original Answer filed with all of the Respondents (Defendants) that have filed to date. I would imagine this is where the lawyers will introduce themselves, give the list of people they represent, and provide a copy of what has been filed to date to TMZ by July 16.)

(d) In this part it appears that TMZ is asking Virgie Arthur for the “the amount and any method of calculating economic damages”.

(e) This next part is a brief description of who knows what, again for the plaintiff. However, I would think this is the lawyers introducing themselves and opening up channels to provide the requested information so no Motion to Compel has to be filed. It would be easy I think for Virgie Arthur as well as the defendants to provide this, in the federal suit this would be the “initial Rule 26 disclosure” if that makes this part easier to understand for all of you who have been following the federal suits in all of this. TMZ is asking Virgie Arthur’s lawyers for a brief list including the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection to the case. Are they fact witnesses, the parties or who, and how does TMZ reach them or an attorney representing them.

(f) This is asking if Virgie Arthur has retained any experts yet, or have, her or her representatives talked to any expert and if so then TMZ is asking for the information they are allowed at this part. I would think that would also include just a simple “No Expert has been retained or has had a conference with yet in regards to this lawsuit” It is my reading of this if you don’t have the person yet, then TMZ is out of luck for now. This does however make sure if TMZ is going to hire an expert they don’t’ contact or have a conference with a potential expert for the Plaintiff in this case.

(g) This is just does the Plaintiff have insurance to cover the costs, similar to what John O’Quinn handed over to Howard K. Stern’s lawyers in regards to his insurance policy and what it covers and are the premiums up to date. Remember TMZ is now suing Virgie Arthur for all of their costs to defend themselves. They want to know if Virgie Arthur can pay this at the end of the lawsuit. I think I read somewhere that Perez Hilton paid $85k in defense of a SLAPP suit in California just to the point of it being dismissed by the court. Therefore, if TMZ prevails how do they get their money back from Virgie Arthur if she does have “legal insurance”?

(h) This is settlement agreements, has Virgie Arthur reached any settlement agreements with the other defendants and if so under the provision of Rule 192.3(g) TMZ wants that information. I have added the Texas Civil Rules of Procedures in our download section for Virgie Arthur vs. those of us she is suing in state court.

(i) TMZ wants any witness statements described in Rule 192.3(h), looking at that it would appear to me they are asking for Chrystal Baker, Yvonne Waddle (Barnhart), and anyone else that Virgie Arthur has not filed the witness statements from yet but has in her lawyers’ possessions. This might also include the affidavits that were presented in the Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern and CBS suit. Isn’t there a family member of Virgie Arthur with an affidavit filed in that suit? However, TMZ might not be entitled to that since the Arthur vs. Stern and CBS suit contains entirely different allegations. Unless when Howard K Stern files his answer, I feel that he will again state in part; a “lack of personal jurisdiction” then those affidavits filed in federal court I believe will be turned over. This brings up an interesting point; the judge in the federal suit has said she has “personal jurisdiction” over Howard K. Stern because ET is a nationally shown program including Texas. Will that hold true for TMZ.com because residents in Texas read it? I predict this is going to bring the whole internet and who all it reaches into question in this suit.

(j), (k) and (l) are self explanatory if all of this to the point medical care as a result of damaged Virgie Arthur any mental aguish or pain has been received by her.

Lauren brought up a good point in this last night and I have not read Lin Wood’s filing in federal court about what media attorneys do when they come in to defend against a suit like this. If you want to read that article it is in the Howard K. Stern vs. John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn law firm and associates that was filed on July 2 in the Florida Federal Court.

So where would you prefer to be sitting right now if you were in this suit? Once July 16 comes and goes will TMZ and Harvey Levin, when they receive this information from Virgie Arthur’s lawyers, be able to reach out and get some additional information from those whom have given “sworn declarations” that were filed in two of the federal courts here in Texas?

Give us your thoughts on this Saturday regarding these Texas Rules and how TMZ and Harvey Levin are using them. Hopefully we will have a good discussion here.

©Rose Turner
July 5, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. 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 article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

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