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

Within a few hours of all of us learning that the 17+ month long defamation suit of Howard K. Stern vs. John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm had settled, Entertainment Tonight reported exclusively that Larry Birkhead is doing a reality show for the E network.

In doing the show with Dannielynn and Birkhead’s nephew, Justin, whom lives with Birkhead and is home schooled after losing his own father. Birkhead told Mark Steins of ET in part, “My life in the last couple of years has been a reality show. There’s been so many things out there that are not true, and there are so many things that I’ve taken a lot of beatings for and I haven’t set the record straight; nobody knows the true reality of how I live and what I go through.”

It appears that beside getting a new home with a yard, Dannielynn has her first show with dad Larry, read the complete article at ET.

http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/10/67158/.

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Dannielyn Birkhead, Dannielynn, Entertainment Tonight, Larry Birkhead, Larry Birkhead does Reality show with daughter Dannielynn

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

Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Strike John O’Quinn’s Multiple Motions for Summary Judgment based on not done corrected under local rules and also filed late and noted this is an ongoing problem with O’Quinn’s legal team and filing.

We will be putting the other paperwork that John O’Quinn filed on the night of October 3 and 4, after the Court closed and kept it coming until after midnight. There are a lot of double filings of documents with the three Motions for Summary Judgment.

As I said earlier, I will be putting something up later today about my thoughts of what WAS NOT filed with the multiple Motions for Summary Judgment. Stay tuned, we hope you read, research and share with us what you find as we go through all of this.

It appears that the Florida Federal Court for the Southern District does care. The Court has issued today, October 6, an Order for John O’Quinn to Show Cause why Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Strike O’Quinn’s filings for Summary Judgment should not be granted, O’Quinn’s Reply is due no later than October 8.

©Rose Turner
October 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, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Larry Birkhead, Rita Cosby, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Virgie Arthur

In the Original Complaint filed August 4, 2008, the executor of the estate for Anna Nicole Smith, Howard K. Stern, filed that this suit “is an action for compensatory, equitable, and punitive relief arising from actions taken by Defendants with respect to personal property”. However, the Answer filed on September 16, by G. Ben Thompson is stating his “Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff Howard K. Stern’s Complaint for Libel (the Complaint)”. I am not sure of the strategy behind this Answer and the ignoring of the Estate’s claim of wrongful taking of property and Thompson and saying it is about the fact that G. Ben Thompson did not “commit Libel” against Howard K. Stern.

Many of us watched Entertainment Tonight as Ford Shelley along with the John and Jane Does he used to help him remove all of Anna Nicole Smith’s, Dannielynn and Howard K. Stern’s possessions and then had the locks changed to her [the Horizons] house. Ford Shelley’s statement was that Anna had asked him to remove these items upon her death.

We then watched ET again as Howard K. Stern returned home to find the house pilfered with a note attached to a Lampshade explaining who had been there and why.

Pol’ Atteu’s statement, in the article of May 18, 2008, during his interview here at Rosespeaks.com talks about the day Ford Shelley removed all of these possessions from Horizons. “That’s one of the hardest things Pol’ ever had to do: stand there and watch them pillage Anna’s home. At the time, there was NO establishment of residence in place. Technically, there was no LEGAL way to stop Ford Shelley and crew from doing what they did. While that was going on, an attorney for Howard, Wayne Munroe, was in court to get a court order to get the house back, which would have prevented Ford and crew from doing what they did. Pol’ was outside with the Police waiting, so even if he wanted to do something, he couldn’t. It was the most helpless feeling. And, to make it even worse afterwards and walk in to see what a disheveled mess was left behind. Once those court orders were in place, Pol’ had the locks changed to prevent them from coming back and then immediately went to the Bahamas Police Station to file the theft report.”

One by one we again watched as the media exploited all of Anna’s stolen personal videos that had been altered to show both Anna and Howard in a very bad light. Geraldo, Greta and Nancy Grace couldn’t get enough of Anna Nicole Smith’s very private life and her personal struggles.

G. Ben Thompson’s Answer is fairly typical of most Answers in federal court I have read in regards to the Original Complaint. That is except right off, G. Ben Thompson states instead of “libel” that he is denying anything in the Complaint that “implies or infers any liability on his behalf for any alleged damages had by the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith”.

The Answer contains statements of, “Defendant admits the allegations”; “Defendant denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained…” and “The Defendant denies the allegations.” It is better reading if you put the Original Complaint of the Estate next to G. Ben Thompson’s Answer to get the gist of what each is saying. [Stancil] Ford Shelley’s Answer is due on September 29, per the stipulation agreed to by the Executor of Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate.

Among the things that stuck out to me in Ben Thompson’s Answer was number 18 in which Thompson says, “Defendant denies the allegation “…that Ms. Smith maintained a home in the Bahamas known as Horizons, but admit[s] the Defendant owns a home in the Bahamas known as Horizons that Ms. Smith was permitted to live in”. Most of us remember that Ben Thompson dropped any claims of ownership to Horizons when he sued his previous attorneys in the Bahamas, the bank, the previous owner of Horizons, and the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith [Dannielynn] in the Bahamas in August 2007.

Thompson denies all of the following: The dispute first arose after the death of Ms. Smith’s son, Daniel, on September 10, 2006. Thompson had an eviction notice served on Ms. Smith on October 20, 2006, the day after the funeral of Ms. Smith’s son, Daniel. In mid-November 2006, Thompson had the power at Horizons turned off while Ms. Smith was in the home with her newborn daughter. However, Thompson admits in his Answer that, “in October 2006, Ms. Smith sued Thompson over ownership of Horizons, and Thompson filed a counterclaim against Ms. Smith. On November 20, 2006, the court in the Bahamas entered an injunction (the “Injunction”) against Thompson and his agents, which prohibited Thompson and his agents from entering Horizons.” Thompson goes on to say he is not sure if the Injunction was posted at the all entrances of Horizons, but denies he ever had “publicized the contentious dispute with Ms. Smith in the international media, including holding a press conference in early November 2006”. [See photo with article note that Bahamian attorney Knowles is in the photo at the news conference], wonder when this press conference was held in the Bahamas? Thompson goes on to deny that Ford Shelley and he “appeared on the Fox News Network (”Fox”) show On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, on January 30, 2007, to publicize the contentious dispute with Ms. Smith.” I wonder why he would try that “don’t believe your lying eyes”, as Geraldo, said during many interviews with Shelley and Thompson. Following that in any of the allegations of Shelley going into the house or interviews following that alleged break in, Thompson states that, “[he] Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations”.

One of the most interesting denials in Thompson’s Answer is that Ford Shelley and others DID NOT take the tape now known as the “Clown Video”, doesn’t that kind of make that tape useless to Geraldo the AG of California and others if that chain of possession is broken by “I don’t know nothing about no clown video”? Another interesting thing is how did the tape that was the dispute of Horizon’s between Ford Shelley and Anna Nicole Smith that we have all seen make it on to Greta’s show if no one took it, did it fly itself into the hands of the show’s producers in time for Shelley and company to appear with it? Thompson also, had NOTHING to do with the taking and releasing of those pictures with Shane Gibson as well as the calls that were released later of Gibson calling Anna Nicole Smith when she was in California, so who did. Thompson also denies that there is any ongoing investigation in the Bahamas over the break in of Horizons and the taking of any personal property of Anna Nicole Smith. If not Thompson via Shelley then why was Shelley at the dentist and could not talk to Bahamian officials when they came to Myrtle Beach to talk with him? On the other hand, was the investigation closed after Thompson and Shelley’s testimony at the Inquest? Thompson does admit some items of Ms. Smith began to appear in the media, however [Thompson], denies knowledge as to who released them to the media or how they were obtained.

Thompson denies that [Ford] Shelly provided the Clown video to various media outlets. So if not Ford Shelley to Greta and Geraldo as Shelley appeared on those programs either in “crocodile tears” or at other times in “outrage” over how his “good friend” Anna Nicole Smith had been done wrong by Howard K. Stern, then how did those alleged edited tapes find their way into the media hands? That leads to another question, of why did friends of Ford and Gina Shelley remember being in the “Clown Video”? Why did they remember being around the pool in the blurred out part that appeared on Geraldo’s show in October 2007 along with Ford Shelley? This show allegedly was done right before Shelley was flying right out to give that video to the DOJ of California or the FBI.

Thompson is not sure about whether Ford Shelley shared items taken from Horizons with the media because Thompson “denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.” However, Thompson is sure that Shelley never falsely asserted during “media appearances that he had returned some of the Estate property to the Horry County, South Carolina authorities, or that Shelly falsely asserted that he had returned all Estate property in his possession to those authorities”. So is Thompson in a round about way is saying they still have some of this property, but he is unsure if it was ever taken?

Thompson denies that, “Stem has consistently demanded that Shelley return all property in his possession belonging to the Estate to Stem’s attorneys in Atlanta, Georgia”. Thompson denies that, “On or about May 22, 2007, in blatant disregard of Stem’s demands that Estate property be returned to Stem’s counsel only, Shelley delivered certain Estate property to Larry Birkhead (”Mr. Birkhead”), the father of Dannielynn Birkhead, who is Ms. Smith’s daughter, in Kentucky.”

Thompson denies that, “Shelley knowingly caused the transmission of the “copy” and other commands to a protected computer, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally caused damage without authorization. Shelley intentionally accessed a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, caused damage.” That is reminiscent of the USA vs. Lori Drew criminal case isn’t it?

In Thompson’s “Affirmative Defenses” Thompson states in part that, “By alleging the Affirmative Defenses set forth below, The Defendant is not in any way acknowledging or conceding that he has the burden of proof for any issue as to which applicable law places the burden on Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of un-clean hands. The statements complained of in the Complaint are privileged under the common law. The actions complained of concern a public figure and were published without the applicable degree of fault, including without negligence, gross irresponsibility, actual malice, or fault of any kind. Plaintiff’s claims fail because any injury or damages suffered by Plaintiff, which injury or damages The Defendants expressly deny, were proximately or directly caused, in whole or in part, by the actions of Plaintiff, or by the actions of others over whom The Defendants had no control.”

Pick up a copy of the Original Complaint and the Answer of G. Ben Thompson in our download section, open to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com and tell us what you think of the September 16 Answer filed by Thompson.

The new password protected blog for this article provided to regular posters who have expressed concern about their posts being c/p to other forums is at this link.

©Sunflower and Rose Turner – coauthors
September 20, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the authors.

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, and/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, Ben Thompson, Daniel Smith, Daniel Smith's Inquest, Dannielynn, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Geraldo At Large, Greta -On The Record, Greta Van Susteren, Horizons, Horizons law suit, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Nancy Grace, Patrik Simpson, Pol' Atteu, Pol' Atteu and Patrik Simpson, Rita Cosby

Rita Cosby testified in a portion of her deposition, which found its way to PACER last November 30 the first time around of Wilma Vicedomine fighting NOT to be deposed. In that deposition Cosby pretty much says, that everywhere in the blond ambitious Cosby’s book where it says “private investigators, or investigators say”, she is referring to Don Clark and Wilma Vicedomine (a/k/a Vice). Cosby admits she talked to Wilma when she returned from the now infamous Bahamas trip to “speak” to the nannies, and that she talked to Don Clark the night BEFORE this deposition.

We now have Wilma chatting away with Cosby as well as Mark Wilson Speer(s) (a/k/a Wilson a/k/a Marcus) talking to the O’Quinn law firm and appearing for Cosby’s party on October 3, 2007 all smiles for the photo ops with Cosby, Virgie Arthur, Don Clark, and John O’Quinn.

My question is could there be some information being shared between the cases in California, Houston, Florida, and New York, one might deduct from following the paper trail, the book and the photo ops, that perhaps allegedly they are all very friendly folks with each other, in my opinion.

If that is true that could explain the recent turn of events in the tightening of Court Orders in multiple jurisdictions on NOT sharing information with “third parties”, you know like with each other via phone, email or visits?

In a stunning move since Virgie Arthur is suing CBS in Texas, they have waived without prejudice their journalism shield in the New York Court of Stern vs. Cosby, Hachette, et al for a limited use of documents that Hachette Books wants to look at and possibly deposed Howard K. Stern with.

Remember in Cosby’s ambitious book where she says before Anna Nicole Smith’s body was cold and moved to the morgue that sly ole Howard K. Stern was on the phone contacting ET for the next photo op, and that Howard K. Stern was the one that booked the rooms for ET at the Hard Rock Hotel. It starts the tone in her book of a very cold and sinister man always looking for that next buck.

Cosby’s book at one point implies that Howard K. Stern only gave part of the proceeds from the selling of the funeral rights to CBS/ET to Richard Milstein for a trust account on behalf of Dannielynn and pocketed the rest. Do ya’ll remember the allegations in the Florida Court that Stern had sold the rights to the funeral for a million dollars? That made it into Cosby’s book as well as how Debra Opri, Virgie Arthur and even Richard Milstein did not trust Howard K. Stern’s deal with CBS/ET for the rights to Anna Nicole Smith’s funeral coverage.

On a side note where is Howard K. Stern’s Rolex and other flashy things like cars and such that he bought with those now we know, “non-existence insurance policies” and the ever growing selling photo ops of him to anyone before and after Anna Nicole’s death? Just a few questions that has always bugged me about this “sinister always money before anyone else man” that is still being spun around the net by people who allegedly have a very close relationship with Wilma.

On July 28, CBS, Cosby’s lawyer, Elizabeth McNamara, Hachette’s lawyers, Douglas Maynard and in house counsel Karen Andrews, Howard K. Stern and his lawyer, L. Lin Wood reached and filed a, “Consent Protective Order Governing Documents Produced by Non-Party CBS Corporation regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material”.

In this Agreed Consent Order, what is most striking is the limitations put on McNamara’s ability to share these documents with her client, Cosby. In fact the Agreed Consent Order specifically limits Cosby’s access and that her lawyer can “only disclose to Cosby; (a) The date of the document; (b) The parties signatories thereto; (c) The general subject matter (e. g. that it is a licensing agreement for the use of photographs); and (d) Whether financial consideration was provided, without specifying, estimating or otherwise characterizing the amount of such consideration”.

The Agreed Consent Order goes on to state, “These documents can be shown to Howard K. Stern during a deposition, hearing, or other proceeding without providing prior notice to CBS. However, in the case of a deposition, counsel must designate the section of the deposition transcript relating to the documents as Confidential Information Attorneys eyes only”.

The Agreed Consent Order further states; “Disclosure to witnesses other than Howard K. Stern during a deposition or hearing will be made only upon notice to CBS and by order of the Court.”

Why has CBS who is being sued in Texas agreed to this Consent on certain documents that Hachette Books wants? Why would they waive the right and fight over the “journalism shield laws” which are pretty strong? What if the documents dispute and throw out some of the most sensationalism rumors of “sinister only after money, Howard K. Stern”?

In the other Federal Court in Houston Texas the Minutes from the hearing before Judge Lee Rosenthal the docket as of July 30, states the following, “Minute entry for telephone discovery hearing on 7/23/2008 before Judge Lee H. Rosenthal. The information sought from Stern in initial disclosures, which counsel objected to providing without a protective order preventing dissemination to third parties, will be provided subject to such a protective order. CBS is not required to provide home addresses and telephone numbers of employees who are identified in initial disclosures. Appearances: Neil McCabe/Michael Meyer for Pltf. Charles Babcock for Deft. CBS and John Patton for Deft. Stern.”

There is that “protective order preventing dissemination to third parties” again, which seems to be echoing what CBS asked for in return for waiving their journalism shield in the New York federal Court.

So is the phone calls and possible alleged late night pillow talk from these different lawsuits in different jurisdictions about to be stopped for good? Was there ever any sharing of information between Houston and New York? Why is Cosby being denied a look through this glass window? All questions we will probably never know the answer to but these latest turn of events gives me a moment to pause and ponder these things, what about you?

Remember our documents relating to every case we are following is open to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

The password protective blog is at this url: http://www.rosespeaks.com/rose-blog/?p=357.

The password protected blog for regular posters can be found here. http://www.rosespeaks.com/rose-blog/?p=408.

©Rose Turner
July 31, 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.

Howard K. Stern filed his Answer in Federal Court in Houston today. I have for all of you to download and an article will be up later tonight. I have to go back and read Arthur’s Original Complaint filed in State Court in Texas in October 2007, to compare it to Howard K. Stern’s Answer.

One of the things that stuck out to me as not knowing this before is that Howard K. Stern’s lawyer had to subpoena the ET tape shown in Florida during the hearing determining where Anna Nicole Smith would be buried.

There are also some “House Keeping Motions and Orders” for Florida filed yesterday and today and those will be up shortly for you to download.

East Texas Federal Court grants Arthur’s Motion to Dismiss Turners’ subpoena as being Moot.

Our downloads are open to ALL not just registered members of Rose Speaks.com. Rose Speaks.com will also have some exciting announcements later tonight or first thing tomorrow.

Howard K. Stern’s Answer to Virgie Arthur’s Original Complaint.

Virgie Arthur’s Original Complaint against Howard K. Stern CBS/ET filed in Texas State Court in October 2007 and removed to federal court in December 2007.

East Texas Federal Court Order closes the case of Arthur vs. Turners, as Moot at the request of Virgie Arthur’s Attorneys.

©Rose Turner
July 10, 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: All Things Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles “Chip” Babcock, Chip Babcock, Daniel Smith, Daniel Smith’s Inquest, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, Entertainment Tonight, Howard and Anna, Howard K Stern, Krista Barth, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Nancy Hamilton, Neil McCabe, Rose Speaks, Rose Turner, rosespeaks.com, Virgie Arthur