In the Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books, on December 11, 2008, there was a letter addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Elizabeth A. McNamara requesting the Court for permission to file Motion for Summary Judgment for Rita Cosby and Hachette Books under seal. The Court DENIED the request to file the papers under seal “except that the parties may file a set of papers publicly, with confidential exhibits omitted and references to any confidential matters redacted, with a second complete and unredacted set that will be filed under sealed”.

Looks like the New York Court is going to allow us to see publicly some of the information that Cosby and Hachette is attempting to show in the Motions for Summary Judgment due to the Court by December 15.

What do you think we will be allowed to see and gleam for the filings due on Monday? Debunking chapter 13 will be up this weekend, lot’s to discuss in this case as well as several others we are following.

Remember that ALL documents filed in this case are in our download section, opened to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

©Rose Turner
December 13, 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, Barth, Bryan Cave LLP, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Douglas Maynard, Elizabeth McNamara, Howard K Stern, Jack Harding, Jackie Hatten, Jay Patton, John Patton, Krista, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkehead, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Nicole Jennings Wade, Powell Goldstein LLP, Rita Cosby, Tom Bednarek

This article will be enlarged tonight with more of my thoughts about these Motions coming up and what we will be allowed to see.

We now have the rules for the Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed by Rita Cosby and Hachette Books and the Reply of Howard K. Stern to those Motions. Wonder if this is why we have those seven pages released from the Florida suit on Don Clark.

On December 2, 2008, New York Southern District Federal Court sets page limits on Rita Cosby’s Motion for Summary to 50 from the normal 25 Judgment and then Howard K. Stern’s reply can be 75 pages; Hachette intends to use the 25-page limit per the Civil Rules of Procedures.

So now, our attention shifts in part to the New York as Florida is officially closed even on PACER as of today.

I think now is a time to debunk the rest of chapter 13 of the real blond ambitious, Rita Cosby.

You can find all of the documents in our download section, opened to all not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

©Rose Turner
December 2, 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, Dannielynn Birkhead, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Douglas Manynard, Elizabeth McNamara, Howard K Stern, Jack Harding, John Patton, Krista Barth, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Mark Speer, Nicole Jennings Wade, O'Quinn's Don Clark Ex-FBI, Randy Scott Zelin, Rita Cosby, Tom Bednarek, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicecomine

Now we have that saying, “The lawsuit was settled amicably”, we are pleased with the outcome however, because of a Confidentiality Agreement, and we have nothing more to say. Voila!!!

The only surprise in the Stipulation for Settlement was that part of Don Clark’s deposition regarding this litigation, seven pages, would be unsealed by agreement. Wonder what is in that seven pages and if that is going to be used in one of the other multiple lawsuits involving Howard K. Stern or the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith.

The Florida Court issued its Order today, to Dismiss with Prejudiced, and accepted the Stipulation of Settlement and Order the Clerk of Court to Dismiss and close this lawsuit.

This one is down and how many more involving Stern and or the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith is there to go??

©Rose Turner
December 1, 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, Dannielyn Birkhead, Don Clark, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Krista Barth, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Virgie Arthur

Why did Howard K. Stern and/or John O’Quinn file a sealed document, unnamed on November 18, to be sure the Court had a copy before the deadline for the Show Cause Order due no later than November 19.

In the filing by O’Quinn’s lawyer on October 31, requesting the Court to release them from all Court Order productions of any future documents the Motion filed by Robert Klein stated in part:

“This matter was fully resolved during a confidential mediation on Thursday, October 30, 2008. Pursuant to the mediation agreement that was executed by and between the parties, a stipulation and order will be submitted to this court, memorializing the agreement, and providing for the retention of jurisdiction by this court for the enforcement of the terms of the settlement. It is anticipated that the draft order will be submitted to the Court at some point toward the middle part of next week.”

On November 4, the Magistrate for the Southern District of Florida issued an Order granting the Motion in part and denying it in part stating the following:

“The Court notes that the parties have ten (10) calendar days from their notice of settlement of October 30, 2008 to file a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. If that is filed and the Court dismisses the case with prejudice, the parties will be relieved of their discovery duties. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Be Relieved of Obligation to Produce Financial Statements Pursuant to Magistrate’s Order [DE 243] is hereby GRANTED in part;
2. The Magistrate Judge’s October 24, 2008 Order [DE 234] for Defendants to produce financial discovery documentation described in the Order is hereby STAYED until November 10, 2008.”

So what is going on? In the other cases I found on PACER where Lin Wood was the lawyer for defamation cases as well as other defamation cases I pulled to compare, they are all pretty straightforward IF an agreement is reached. They each file a “Stipulation of Settlement”, including providing the retention of the court involved having jurisdiction for the enforcement of the settlement. In the ones I have found, they normally say that a settlement has been reached that the parties are filing the “Stipulation” with the Court, and that the “Stipulation” shows that each side will pay their own legal fees. This is followed up within a few days with a Motion and Order to Dismiss with Prejudice and then PACER will show the case “terminated”.

Why did that not happen in this case as stated in Robert Klein’s filing that such a stipulation was expected to be filed with the Court for approval around November 4 or 5? What is in the “Sealed Document”? Well here is my “GUESS”.

I think some mild problem in the wording of the settlement or something one of the parties thought of after the mediation and wanted that included in the final papers. My guess is the Sealed Document probably outlined for the Court in detail what had been worked out, what they still needed to work out and the date they thought it would be completed. Remember when Robert Klein filed that he had the flu, the court did extend mediation until December 1. My feeling and OPINION, not FACTS but OPINION, is that as long as the parties are working hard; making a good faith effort to resolve any wording on the Stipulation; and has it completed by December 1, then all will be well with the Court. However, did O’Quinn have to turn in his financial statement and information after November 10? On the other hand, was that also addressed in the Sealed Document filed on November 18? We will just have to wait and see won’t we.

One of our members Fifi was kind enough to look at how she perceived Lin Wood’s history of working multiple cases involving the same client(s) and came up with this “long term” plan. Fifi stated she feels based on if she sees the situations applying to a situation of multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions; some over lapping with parties, third person non-party witnesses; and containing some of the same allegations and/or parties. “Lin’s history he usually has a long term plan. There are three basic steps he usually follows, sometimes they overlap, but generally, it’s a slow process. Step 1 - Quell the media storm. Step 2 - Litigate against the most extreme defamers. Step 3 - Rehabilitate the client’s reputation.”

Perhaps Lin Wood decided if there is to be a court fight that New York is the better case to prove the allegations against Howard K. Stern in black and white, pun intended.

I will be taking a detail look at the following writing by Mr. Wood, “Suing the News Media in the Age of Tabloid Journalism: L. Lin Wood and the Battle for Accountability 2006”. We invite you to download this in our document section and share your thoughts with us.

The documents for this case as with all of the cases we are following are opened to ALL and not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

©Rose Turner
November 21, 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 Birkhead, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Robert Klein, The John O'Quinn Law Firm, The O'Quinn Law Firm

On November 4, in the Southern District Federal Court in Houston Texas the Court held a Status Hearing and set some dates. Via the Court Minutes on the Docket, we have a glimpse into what is left to do in that suit and the Court set Dates to have that completed.

The parties advised the Court that there were a total of seven depositions to be completed in this case. The Court has stated that all of the depositions in the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern and CBS must be complete by January 16, 2009. Arthur’s lawyers was granted the taking depositions of Howard K. Stern and 5 of their choosing, of current or former CBS employees present at the interview that made the basis of this suit. CBS will take an additional two depositions. CBS did not indicate whose deposition they still had to take; wonder if that would be any bloggers? The Court also set the deadline that all Dispositivie Motions (I. E. Motion to Dismiss, Motions for Summary Judgment, etc.) are due in the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern and CBS to the Court by February 6, 2009.

It would appear that the Court will set a pretrial conference and the trial date after the Court makes decisions on the multiple Motions to Dismiss for multitude of reasons expected to be filed after the taking of the last seven depositions.

It appears from the Court Docket of the Minutes that all discovery of in the area of subpoenas for records not covered with the above eight depositions are complete.

I have to wonder if we will see mention of the Clark/Vicedomine investigation in this case before all is said and done. It would appear that the “bloggers” internationally and in other states that came forward with records and sworn statements are not going to be used as any basis for this case since the interview was taped in 2006.

The Court also issued on November 5, an Order and Memorandum of Law from the Southern District Federal Court in Houston Texas denying all 3 Motions filed by Jonathan Lee Riches d/b/a Gordon Gekko as frivolous.

You can pick up the All of the documents related to this case opened to All not just members of Rose Speaks.com and then tell us what you think about the deadlines set by the Court; do you think this will ever make it to trial? Also be sure to join us in chat tonight to discuss these latest developments and to just kick back and enjoy the company.

©Rose Turner
November 6, 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, CBS, CBS Enthertainement Tonight, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Charles Babcock, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Entertainment Tonight, ET, Howard K Stern, Larry Birkhead, Lin Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Neil McCabe, O'Quinn's Don Clark Ex-FBI, Virgie Arthur, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vice Virgie Arthur, Wilma Vicedomeine

G. Ben Thompson missed the filing date the Court set of November 3 for his mandatory filing of the Rule 26 f of initial disclosures, also Howard K. Stern’s attorney pointed out that due to Thompson’s attorney being ill they had not been able to hold the required conference via phone.

The Court approved Susan Brown to represent Ben Thompson. Howard K. Stern has attorneys approved for Pro Hac Vice status, including Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Nicole Jennings Wade of Powell Goldstein as well as his South Carolina attorneys.

The best reading in my opinion is the Rule 26f filings required by the Court of which to date Ben Thompson has not answered. Ford Shelley lists only 3 witnesses, himself, his wife Gina Shelley and Howard K. Stern. However, in Shelley’s rule 26-3-a local rule filings, he lists only himself and his wife Gina Shelly as witnesses or persons that have information relevant to these allegations.

What caught my eye was the list of people who have possessions of some of the items alleged to have been taken out of Horizons the day after Anna Nicole Smith’s death.

1. Defendant Shelley has possession of a copy of a clown video.
2. All documents and tangible items related to litigation in the Bahamas which are in possession of the Bahamian authorities.
3. All documents and tangible items in possession of the California Department of Justice as to any investigation relating to Ms. Smith.
4. All documents and tangible items in possession of co-defendant Ben Thompson and/or his agents.
5. All documents and tangible items in possession of Larry Birkhead and/or his agents.

Which leaves the question of who has the ORIGINAL copy of the infamous Clown Video?

Howard K. Stern’s filing is a tad more revealing about where Stern’s team is going. In his required Rule 26-f list of the following witnesses.

(1) Howard K. Stern
(2) Larry Birkhead
(3) Pol’ Atteau
(4) Rita Cosby
(5) Don Clark
(6) Wilma Vicedomine
(7) Stancil “Ford” Shelley
(8) G. Ben Thompson
(9) Tom Pirtle, on of Virgie Arthur’s Texas lawyer at the burial hearing
(10) Tracy Ferguson an attorney that is part of Callendar’s in the Bahamas that G. Ben Thompson is suing.
(11) Gaither Thompson
(12) Melanie Thompson
(13) Gina Shelley
(14) Representatives of Fox News
(15) Representatives of Biscayne Professional Associates (possibly the company that imaged Anna Nicole Smith’s computers and hard drives when the Estate recovered them)

Howard K. Stern lists several Counts that make the basis of the Estate’s case against Ford Shelly and Ben Thompson and a couple caught my attention.

Count Three: Statutory and common law commercial appropriation of right of publicity:

Under California law, the right of publicity survives the death of a celebrity. Thus, any person who uses a deceased person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner . . . without prior consent from the executor of the deceased person’s estate commercially misappropriates the deceased person’s right of publicity. Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1.

There can be no dispute that Ms. Smith held a fully descendible right of publicity
in her Estate property. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1. Further, Shelley has admitted to removing documents and materials from Horizons after Ms. Smith’s death. There is no question that these documents and materials are owned by the Estate. Further, there is no dispute that these items removed by Shelley contained Ms. Smith’s name, voice, signature, and photograph. Shelley used the property by, among other things, distributing it to third parties, including media entities. Shelley had no prior consent from the Executor to use the property he stole from Horizons.

Count Six: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:

Whoever knowingly causes transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct causes damage and Forensic analyses confirm that Shelley copied and deleted files contained on the password protected computers and external hard drives owned by the Estate, which Shelley unlawfully removed from Horizons. Shelley lacked authorization to access the computers and external hard drives. Shelley’s conduct caused damage and losses in excess of $5,000 in a one-year period. causes losses of at least $5,000 in a one-year period, violates federal statute. 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(5).

Forensic analyses confirm that Shelley copied and deleted files contained on the
password protected computers and external hard drives owned by the Estate, which Shelley unlawfully removed from Horizons. Shelley lacked authorization to access the computers and external hard drives. Shelley’s conduct caused damage and losses in excess of $5,000 in a one-year period.

Stern’s Local Rule 26-3-a, lists most of the same witnesses with the exception of Wilma Vicedomine which leads to ask when and why did she become involved with Ben Thompson and Ford Shelley?

Howard K. Stern’s lists the following evidence and documents in the same disclosure that he and/or the Estate (Dannielynn Birkhead as the sole heir) might use to prove the claims.

The following categories of documents in the Executor’s possession, custody, or control may be used to support his claims:

(1) All documents referred to in the Complaint.
(2) Documents relating to the investigation into Defendants’ unlawful conduct in the Bahamas.
(3) Media interviews of Defendants.
(4) Communications between Defendants and third parties regarding the factual circumstances that form the basis for the allegations in the Complaint.
(5) Deposition transcripts of third parties in other litigation regarding the factual circumstances that form the basis for the allegations in the Complaint.
(6) Forensic analyses of Ms. Smith’s computers.
(7) Communications from counsel for Defendants which support the factual basis for the allegations in the Complaint.

So folks why did Ben Thompson miss the date of November 3 and has not notified the court or ask for an extension due to one of his lawyers being ill? Who edited the Clown Video and who has the original now? Why is Tom Pirtle listed, but the rest of Virgie Arthur’s legal team in Florida are not? Then we have Don Clark on both disclosures but Wilma Vicedomine as the lone separate person missing in one of the filings.

Could the Clark/Vicedomine investigation lead us from California, to Florida, to New York to South Carolina in the alleged attempts to have Howard K. Stern arrested and tried for something, anything it appears if the filings are to be believed.

Remember you can pick up all of the documents related to the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith suing Ben Thompson and Ford Shelley, opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

In other news on November 4, 2008 Court Order from Florida that Postpones the Requirement of John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm financials until November 10, 2008 the deadline for the two sides to file a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.

©Rose Turner
November 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, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Annn Nicole Smith's Estate, Ben Thompson, Biscayne Professional Associates, California Department of Justice, Clark/Vice investigation, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Ford Shelley, FOX News, G Ben Thompson, Gaither Thompson, Gina Shelley, Horizons, Horizons in the Bahamas, Horizons lawsuit, Howard K Stern, John "Jay" Patton, John Patton, L. Lin Wood, Laminack Partle & Martines LLP, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Melanie Thompson, Nicole Jennings Wade, O'Quinn's Don Clark Ex-FBI, Pol' Atteu, Rita Cosby, Stancil "Ford" Shelley, Susan Brown, Tom Pirtle, Tracy Ferguson of Callendar's in the Bahamas, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

Howard K. Stern filed the following under Seal on October 27, as requested on October 24, in the Howard K. Stern vs. John O’Quinn and The O’Quinn Law Firm. Therefore, what does this tell us and why?

The following were documents filed yesterday as per the Court Order:

1. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Absence of Actual Malice and any attached exhibits or appendices.

2. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts and Plaintiff’s Statement of Additional Material Facts and any attached exhibits;

3. The confidential deposition transcripts of Rita Cosby, Wilma Vicedomine, and Jack Harding taken in the Stern v. Cosby matter which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York;

4. The confidential deposition transcript and VIDEO of Don Clark which was taken in the present matter and in Stern v. Cosby; and,

5. Documents produced pursuant to Confidentiality Orders entered in the present matter and Stern v. Cosby; and

6. Stern’s Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and attached exhibits.

We have discussed the depositions and confidential documents of Rita Cosby, the depositions “transcripts”, of Wilma Vicedomine and Jack Harding. However, why was Don Clark’s transcript of his deposition with the VIDEO filed? What is on that video that the Stern legal team wants the Court to look at? Why the VIDEO of Don Clark and not just read the transcript of his deposition?

In O’Quinn’s filing for Summary Judgment we got to see a lot of documents including the Affidavit of Don Clark slamming Howard K. Stern and still doing the “mantra” of Howard killed two people and he still thinks that, as well as he thinks the Will was faxed 4 days before Anna Nicole Smith’s death. Clark’s Affidavit also states that Ron Rale and Bonnie Stern had access to the Will thus knowing what it contained prior to Anna Nicole Smith’s death.

Although to go on as defense by the O’Quinn team is allowed to file things publicly in their filings but Stern had to filed under Seal as agreed. What did Stern say in his filings? We will never know unless both or either the Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books and/or the Stern vs. O’Quinn suit goes to jury trial. Do you think either of these suits will go to trial so we have access to these filings under seal?

Do any of you have or can find the “show transcripts” that Clark is referring to in regards to Ron Rale and Bonnie Stern? It appears to me in all of the media transcripts filed it seems those are not filed with the Court.

I will have the debunking of the blond ambitious Rita Cosby’s chapter 13 of her book and then I will have some “predictions” of what I think will be happening in both of these cases as they head to trial.

Pick up the papers to these suits that are open to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com. There was also a housekeeping Order issued by the Court yesterday in Florida, granting the Pro Hac Vice requests of John Patton and Amy Stewart. It appears that the same team of lawyers is going to be overlapping these two cases, who would have ever thought they might be connected.

©Rose Turner
October 28, 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: Amy Stewart, Anna Nicole Smith, Bonnie Stern, Daniel Smith Inquest, Daniel Smth, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Douglas Maynard, Elizabeth McNamara, Howard K Stern, Jack Harding, John "Jay" Patton, John O'Quinn, John Patton, Krista Barth, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, M. Krista Barth, O'Quinn's Don Clark Ex-FBI, Rita Cosby, Ron Rale, The John O'Quinn Law Firm, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Virgie Arthur, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine