On the night of December 15 into the early morning of the 16th for about seven to nine hours, on PACER were the filings of Elizabeth McNamara’s Declaration in support of her client, Rita Cosby’s Motion for Summary Judgment with exhibits A – HH.

After the seven to nine hours that the documents were on PACER for the whole world or those of us with PACER accounts to download, Ms. McNamara filed a letter with the Court dated December 16. She was both advising the Court that the exhibits had been filed in error and requesting that she be allowed to file her Declaration corrected. Her letter went on to state she had contacted the other counsels in this case and had also contacted the Clerk of Court to remove the documents because some of them should have been filed under Seal. The Court granted this request on December 17, and Ms. McNamara got a “do over” on December 19, however, she also filed corrected versions of ALL of Rita Cosby’s filings that were due and had been filed with the Court on time by the Court’s Ordered due date of December 15. We have not yet completed rechecking those documents compared with the Originals filed on December 15 to see if any of them had been changed or redacted. However, all of those filings from both December 15 and December 19, minus the infamous document number 73 remain on PACER for everyone to download.

Rose Speaks.com did in fact download that now infamous filing of docket number 73, the Declaration of Ms. McNamara with all of the exhibits attached. We have struggled since the morning of December 16 as to whether to put up these documents including the Exhibits marked “confidential” or “highly confidential” filed with Ms. McNamara’s Declaration. We have pondered whether any of the other parties and/or their legal counsel involved in suits in other jurisdictions, (I. E. Texas both federal and state; California probate, South Carolina etc.), some of which have the same parties in those cases had downloaded the documents. Since they, [the papers], were put up in error by Ms. McNamara then that brings up the question of was any of the three versions of the Agreed Confidential Orders the Federal Court in New York had issued previously, each time tightening up the previously filed Agreed Order to protect the privacy of the parties? I have to say on a side note that what Ms. McNamara filed in error, makes those fourteen pages of Rita Cosby’s deposition filed by Lin Wood back in November 2007 look like a minor mistake and one hopefully that NOONE ever refers to in the future. Like with these papers, Rose Speaks.com had on November 29 - 30 downloaded those papers at 11 A. M. making Lin Wood releasing them to Art Harris after 5 PM on November 30 a moot point.

However, I regress to other days and other papers filed in error and not under Seal as the Federal Court in New York had intended and displayed by the additional Orders issued by the Court. The infamous document 73 with exhibits contained four of the eight excerpts of depositions referred to in Ms. McNamara’s Declaration. These excerpts of depositions were clearly marked confidential. I cannot begin to imagine the horror and personal violation that each of the four people whose excerpts were filed in error must feel. Some of the excerpts referred to delicate financial information with exhibits attached including one of the person’s social security number. The other filings that were marked confidential or highly confidential were multiple documents filed in the California Court regarding Dannielynn’s paternity in the fall of 2006. Clearly, both the California Family Court as well as Larry Birkhead never intended for any of these documents to be filed for the world to read. The documents ALL showed “highly confidential” marked on each of four exhibits of documents, including affidavits involving that suit filed under Seal as is my understanding required in Family Courts in California where a minor child is a subject of the suit. Mr. Birkhead’s attorney Michael Trope placed “highly confidential” on those documents before releasing them per a Court Order.

Other documents filed in error included the copy of the Royal Bahamian Police Affidavit filed by Ford Shelley on November 17, 2006, after the fight about Horizons had become front and center both in the Bahamas Courts as well as the Court of public opinion. There is also a partial filing of Howard K. Stern’s Affidavit filed with the Royal Bahamian Police dated September 10, 2006.

Ms. McNamara, in her Declaration, has marked exhibit R as being filed under seal and showing it redacted on her declaration as to the contents of the exhibit, in actuality all ten exhibits marked as exhibit R were filed by Ms. McNamara, some filed on December 16 and the rest filed on December 19 with the “do-over”. Exhibit R refers to the Court Proceedings, in the Bahamas related to Daniel Smith’s death and inquest.

After almost a week of discussions between Ken and myself weighing the “right of the public to know” versus the “right of privacy of these individuals” we have made a decision as to what to put up from this infamous filing of document 73 and what not to put up. We will NOT put up any of the four excerpts of depositions with exhibits filed in error. We will NOT put up any of the documentation involving the filings under Seal in 2006 with the family courts in California marked “highly confidential” in the accidental filing by Ms. McNamara on December 15. We did upload those exhibits that referred only to the CDs filed with the Court that were marked either “confidential” or “highly confidential”. We are also making available to download exhibit X, which is a brief excerpt from the book “Big Beautiful Doll” by Eric Redding. Although that exhibit is marked confidential since anyone can buy the book we felt like nothing in the Stern vs. Cosby case would be compromised. Exhibits BB and CC are identical except for about 15 pages marked “confidential” or “highly confidential”. Since this appears to be hand written notes by either Rita Cosby or her ghost writer Bruce Littlefield, those pages have been redacted and removed from what is available for you to download.

We hope you understand what we have gone through this week as we struggled with what we felt was the appropriate documents to put up for all to read. We hope each of you understand those documents we elected not to put up was strictly based on the fact we firmly believe those person’s involved, especially Dannielynn, “rights to privacy” trumps you the public, “right to know”.

Lawyers make mistakes as this filing clearly demonstrates. Hopefully, throughout the rest of the lawsuits involving these same people and lawyers, Lin Wood included, instead of the “mantra” of, (fill in the blank with a lawyer’s or party’s name here), cannot be trusted will now change. Our hope is that based on this horrible accident that in the future, as exampled in the case where Wood released 14 pages of a deposition, that the “mantra” of not being able to trust a lawyer and/or party will now be replaced with a sincere apology. As well as to figure out how to avoid in the future damage done by this type of mass filing of confidential papers which were available to the world via PACER for seven to nine hours.

These documents are in our download section, opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

There will be two more articles up today. One debunking either Hachette’s filing for Summary Judgment including declarations and exhibits or the debunking of Cosby’s filing for Summary Judgment including declarations and exhibits. The second article that will be put up today will be about Casey Anthony and what happens now in that sad saga since the remains of Caylee have now been found.

©Rose Turner
December 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, Bruce Littlefield, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Douglas Maynard, Elizabeth McNamara, Eric Redding, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Hachette Books, Howard K Stern, Jack Harding, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Michael Trope, Patrik Simpson, Pol' Atteu, Pol' Atteu and Patrik Simpson, Stancil "Ford" Shelley, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

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

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

Stern and other POGO, [Powell Goldstein], clients find themselves facing as some say POGO is about to be gobbled up and gone like the wind. That kind of sounds like Thanksgiving and a great southern novel rolled up into one.

I think all of us paused and wondered if L. Lin Wood would remain at POGO, or if he would leave to become his own boss/maverick again, what about this Merger/Acquisition and more importantly would POGO drop clients like Howard K. Stern and leave them to scramble to find new representation. Let’s face it folks, with the amount of POGO lawyers assigned to Stern’s legal teams in various state and federal jurisdictional lawsuits, until the “undisclosed monetary settlement”, of October 30, with John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm, POGO had received very little on it’s return in the last 17+ months. However whether Lin Wood remains with POGO or parts ways, I see that as not affecting his representation of Stern other than Stern making some decisions. Which by the way if I were Stern I would make some anyway. There are several things Stern could do based on a recent interview with L. Lin Wood where Mr. Wood stated, “He’s [Howard K. Stern] a down-to-earth good guy, a smart lawyer.” If needed I bet Stern could take over many of his own cases, slim down the teams, do a lot of his own research and briefs [memorandum of laws], cut costs and still continue to win. Stern could keep M. Krista Barth, remember her from the Florida hearings where at times she was doubled and tripled team by John O’Quinn, Debra Opri and the hoard of lawyers in that court? Stern could also keep Lin Wood; I bet Mr. Wood would not miss seeing the outcome of the New York case and the South Carolina case for anything. Then Howard K. Stern could “interview”, yes, clients do get to work with attorneys they feel are a match for their personalities; select one attorney to be his liaison, with the new and improved POGO and VOILA, you have a trimmer, but just as lethal legal team then the multitude of lawyers from POGO who are on each of Stern’s cases right now.

HOWEVER, that being said, I don’t see that there will probably be a need for that in the Stern camp.

According to Law.com a newsletter for attorneys, “Atlanta-based Powell Goldstein has found a merger partner. On Jan. 1, the firm will become part of Bryan Cave, a 945-lawyer international firm with deep roots in St. Louis.”

James J. McAlpin Jr. says, “This is a transformational event for us, it propels us into a different league.”

The article goes on to state that [POGO], Powell Goldstein’s partnership [yes Lin Wood if a full partner at POGO], voted unanimously to approve the deal Thursday afternoon and the Bryan Cave partners approved it by an overwhelming majority on Friday, following a week of electronic voting from the firm’s 17 law offices.

With Powell Goldstein’s 220 lawyers, Bryan Cave will have 1,165 lawyers, well above the head count [of POGO’s Atlanta competition] at King & Spalding.

W. Scott Sorrels, a 22-year PoGo veteran who’s leading the integration of the two firms on the Atlanta side with other partners believe they’ll be equal partners in the combined firm, even though it’s not a merger of equals”.

Sorrels goes on to say in the article released online late yesterday, October 31, “I am firmly convinced that our people will have a tremendous amount more opportunity on Jan. 1 than they did on Dec. 31. It exceeds our expectations. It’s like winning the Super Bowl and the World Series all in one.”

The article highlights the possible benefits in the merger by pointing out, “The two firms’ revenue per lawyer are commensurate. Bryan Cave’s RPL last year was about $590,000 — just $10,000 more than PoGo’s. McAlpin acknowledged that the Midwestern firm’s average profits per partner last year, at $690,000, were still much higher than PoGo’s $550,000, but did not seem bothered by the disparity. “You might as well play tennis with a better tennis player,” he said.

In another part of the long article, they go on to quote, “Bryan Cave’s chairman, Don G. Lents, said Powell Goldstein is a cultural fit for his firm as well. Our strategic view of the world is based on the fact that we are a relationship-oriented firm, built around … clients with whom we have longstanding relationships and represent in a variety of legal matters, instead of parachuting in on a big transaction or piece of litigation, he said.

Powell Goldstein will give Bryan Cave an entree into the Southeast, where it does not have a presence. Add complementary practices to the mix, a Washington, D.C., office that will double in size, plus a presence in Charlotte and Texas — where Bryan Cave, which has an energy practice, would like to be — and an interesting possibility becomes a deal.

Some Bryan Cave partners, like their partners-to-be from PoGo, prefer to characterize the deal as a combination, not an acquisition — even though their firm will absorb the smaller one.

“It’s a combination, not a slash-and-burn acquisition,” said Kenneth L. Henderson, the Bryan Cave partner who’s overseeing the integration. Henderson was a member of the 170-lawyer New York firm Robinson Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman that Bryan Cave acquired six years ago in its last major acquisition.

Several PoGo partners said almost all of the Robinson Silverman lawyers still are at Bryan Cave — a major reason they are comfortable with the merger.”

The article specifically mentions L. Lin Wood by saying, “McAlpin made a number of moves to get PoGo back into fighting trim. The firm started to winnow less productive partners to beef up its profits and revenue-per-lawyer, while bringing in several rainmaking lateral partners in 2005 and 2006, including high-profile plaintiffs litigator L. Lin Wood, who was adding companies to his client roster of famous people.”

McAlpin says in one part of the article, “…PoGo was looking for an international firm with as little of a Southeastern presence as possible.”

McAlpin goes on to say, “that he and his partners liked that their St. Louis suitor had a national footprint that included offices in New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles and Phoenix — but no office in the Southeast.

Bryan Cave’s 26-year-old London office, plus additional offices in Europe and Asia also were selling points. The firm has law offices in Shanghai and Hong Kong plus trade outposts in six other Asian locales. As part of Bryan Cave, PoGo’s lawyers would be able to handle their clients’ matters over large parts of the U.S. and the world, without having to engage local counsel.

Three of Powell Goldstein’s lawyers — McAlpin, Robin R. Green and Rick Miller — will join Bryan Cave’s executive committee. McNeill will continue as the Atlanta managing partner — for now for Bryan Cave –.”

The Atlanta office will be called Bryan Cave Powell Goldstein for the next two years before dropping the Powell Goldstein as their clients become comfortable in the move and then the Atlanta office will also be called Bryan Cave LLP with the other 17 multiple national and international offices keeping the Bryan Cave LLP name throughout the merger period.

“Powell Goldstein will mark its 100th birthday when the merger goes into effect in January. At that time, the firm’s Atlanta headquarters will become the largest local office of any of the city’s international firms, including those of Jones Day and Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, currently the largest.

With 158 lawyers and professionals, the Atlanta office will also become Bryan Cave’s second-largest office, in a close tie with its 154-lawyer New York office, according to the firms’ Web sites.”

The article outlines that the new larger multi-office firm will be beefing up its Dallas Texas office with additional staff to give it a further reach in places where currently Bryan Cave wants to enlarge their market and presence.

The article ends with McAlpin saying, “We’ve achieved our goal,” I believe this will do it. It makes us competitive with anyone in this marketplace in terms of product quality, depth and breadth of practice areas and geographic reach.

The Atlanta office will expand; we have the opportunity to recruit people who share our appreciation of collegiality and teamwork, whom we may not have been able to recruit before because of our platform.”

With the “settlement for an undisclosed amount”, with John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm last week, my bet is that Wood brought in more than the average revenue per lawyer at POGO of $580,000 per year. That should get him his choice of offices on January 1, to continue the litigation and I hope full public trials in the New York and South Carolina Cases for Stern. In my opinion, it will take a full public trial to begin to clear Howard K. Stern’s tarnished reputation courtesy of O’Quinn and Rita Cosby. I hope Wood adopts that philosophy he some times quotes as quoting, “…[S]unlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 305 (1964).”

So in your opinion after reading the article, looking at the information and tables provided in the article, will the merger help clients like Howard K. Stern, or will Lin Wood decide to become a one or two man firm in Atlanta once again? With this settlement will O’Quinn now be out of Stern and Wood’s lives on other pending litigation, since O’Quinn is known to just keep coming at you and eating up all resources? I had predicted that the Florida case would be tied up in trial and appeals for at least 10 years, so will O’Quinn now walk away and leave Stern and Wood to fight “bigger fish” in public trials?

On a personal, NO I DON’T BELIEVE IT NOTE. One of the alleged blogging pals of Wilma Vicedomine stated on Topix.net, in a post that was forwarded to me that the settlement reached on October 30, stating that “the only thing that hks got out of Mr. O’Quinn is a new pair of shoes. Zilch on the money “. Now do you believe that Wood and Stern walked away with “zilch money”? Also supposedly Vicedomine is out blogging away with her newest moniker of FYI from Houston, saying things like; “ROSE SAYS: Vicedomine, there is no way to spin this one, one billionaire down in the Lin Wood and Howard K. Stern “team” in this lawsuit and how many left? Well, now I can turn my complete attention to the Texas cases…” and quoting bloggers from Rose Speaks.com with what could be perceived as an alleged threat of: “To Daisy: I believe in justice too - yours are also coming.:-)” There is just no way I am ever going to believe that Wilma Vicedomine would be stupid enough to be out blogging away now that O’Quinn has listed her as an employee of his firm, I am sure she has more control then doing something that stupid. So whoever is pretending to be Vicedomine on Topix.net, stop it, you are giving her probably an unjust bad name. O’Quinn has a tighter control over his employees then to allow those kind of leaks, and statements made about pending litigations.

©Rose Turner
November 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, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Krista Barth, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, M. Krista Barth, POGO, Powell Goldstein, Powell Goldstein LLP, Rita Cosby, The John O'Quinn Law Firm, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

Most of us expect that Wilma Vicedomine or her alias of Wilma Vice is present in a deposition today. However, I have some questions and would like to have your input.

Who is there today, we know Lin Wood is there and any lawyer that Mr. Wood picks to be there to represent Howard K. Stern. We know that Rita Cosby’s lawyer is there, Elizabeth McNamara, and Hachette Books lawyer Douglas Maynard is probably there as well. Wilma Vice is being represented by Neil McCabe now as an “agent” [employee and therefore a party in the Florida lawsuit], of the O’Quinn Law Firm and Neil McCabe can invite any other lawyer that is listed to be there for the deposition from The O’Quinn Law Firm.

However is Robert Klein there, since he is not representing anyone in the New York case? His September 29 letter to Lin Wood said he would be in Houston this past weekend to prep for Don Clark’s deposition on October 14, but if that deposition is ONLY about Cosby’s book will Mr. Klein be allowed to sit in on these depositions.

The main parties have a right to be present also, that would be Rita Cosby and Howard K. Stern, would they show up? We know that Howard K. Stern loves Texas, NOT, so my bet is he is not there and would not step foot in Texas not even to look the woman in the eye that spent over a year trying to destroy him. My bet is that he will watch the video of this deposition to “meet” Wilma and not be there today. However, will Rita Cosby be there to support Wilma Vicedomine and Don Clark? Why did Cosby who fought so hard to keep everything she said and all of her documents in the New York suit to be held as confidential and never shared with anyone else or in any of the other lawsuits, suddenly changed her mind about handing all of that over to The O’Quinn Law Firm? The fact that her lawyer was willing to do that, addresses the Amended Complaint that Stern filed in Florida in which he alleged in part that people in The O’Quinn Law Firm “conspired” with Cosby on her book. Did Cosby and her lawyer prep for this deposition over the weekend with Wilma Vice? Was Wilma shown the video deposition of Cosby and all of Cosby’s confidential documents to prep for today? I am still amazed that Cosby would take a chance of handing over everything to the O’Quinn Law Firm in regards to her suit in New York, could this end up biting Cosby.

What are your thoughts on is Cosby there today to encourage her source for her book? Did Cosby hand over everything to help her sources? Who do you think are in that room today during the deposition?

Give us your thoughts we want to hear what you think is going on today behind those close doors in Houston Texas?

Then there is the question all of us would love to see the answer to, will Wilma throw any of her alleged email, chat buddies, or blogging buddies under the bus today? Will she hand over those that Wood alleges she gave instructions to post certain things on TMZ.com? Will we know their names as the Florida Suit and New York suit goes forward? How did those excerpts of Cosby book find its way to TMZ.com before the book was even released?

©Rose Turner
October 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, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Howard K Stern, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Rita Cosby, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

On Monday, October 13 and Tuesday, October 14, in Houston Texas all of the big gun lawyers in the Rita Cosby suit will meet and deposed Wilma Vicedomine and Don Clark. Those that will have the right to be present during the depositions is Elizabeth McNamara for Rita Cosby, Douglas Maynard for Hachette Books, Lin Wood, and any of the lawyers he decides that can be present that are on record in the Cosby suit for Howard K. Stern. Neil McCabe for Wilma Vicedomine and Don Clark and for some reason when you review the letters filed and dated September 29, Robert Klein will be present, unless Wood excludes him because the depositions are ONLY about the Cosby suit. I did notice that in Robert Klein’s letter he stated that he would be in Houston this whole weekend to “prep” Don Clark for his deposition. I am not sure why Robert Klein would have access to this deposition unless as I state below after the 7 hours allowed for the Cosby suit, Clark agrees to extend the deposition into late that night for the O’Quinn suit. However, my prediction is since the Court will not Compel the deposition in the Florida suit, the Clark/Vicedomine will be only 7 hours each and only address the Cosby suit.

Below is an outline of what Lin Wood has access to in documents from Wilma Vicedomine in regards to her conversations with Rita Cosby, her postings on the internet and in a chat channel, and any “orders” she directed other posters to go out to sites like TMZ.com to allegedly promote Wilma Vicedomine’s agenda to destroy Howard K. Stern.

Per the Civil Rules, Lin Wood has one day of 7 hours with Wilma Vicedomine. Let us “assume” that Lin Wood has prepared for this deposition for several months, based on the fact he has “thousands of messages in an online chat room dedicated to discussion of Ms. Smith’s death. In these alleged postings, Vicedomine allegedly discussed aspects of Defendants’ investigation, including strategy, efforts to have Plaintiff prosecuted, and conversations that she had with Arthur. Id. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Vicedomine directed chat room members to post specific statements regarding Plaintiff on the website TMZ.com.” If that allegation were true, I would bet that Lin Wood has a top forensic computer expert, which has tracked IP’s in the records subpoenaed from the chat room owner. If those IP’s track back and can be proved it came from Vicedomine via Moody International computers, home computers that Vicedomine owns, and any IP’s that track back to the O’Quinn law firm.

Below are excerpts from the Omnibus Order issued about Vicedomine and Don Clark’s deposition, which now can ONLY relate to the Rita Cosby suit and not the Florida suit. This is unless because Robert Klein is “prepping” Don Clark all weekend for the deposition on October 14, they can do the seven-hour deposition of the Rita Cosby suit, and then go into the night on the O’Quinn suit if Klein and Clark “volunteer” since they cannot be made to compel now.

So based on this, pull the subpoena for Wilma Vicedomine and decide if you were Lin Wood and had seven hours to depose Wilma about her information she gave Rita and put on the internet, what would you ask Wilma Vicedomine (Vice) during that seven hours?

Omnibus Order page 5
Thus, on October 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed a libel lawsuit against Cosby and Hachette, which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Howark K. Stern v. Rita Cosby, et al., Case No. 07-Civ-8536 (“Blonde Ambition Litigation”). D.E. 64 at 74; D.E. 121 at 6. Through the Blonde Ambition Litigation, Plaintiff discovered that Defendants’ investigator Clark, as well as another investigator assisting Clark, Wilma Vicedomine (“Vicedomine”), served as the source for many of the statements contained in Blonde Ambition.D.E. 121 at 6.

Indeed, in the Blonde Ambition Litigation, Cosby and Hachette list Vicedomine in their Initial Disclosures as an individual likely to have discoverable information. Specifically, the Initial Disclosures state that Vicedomine has information regarding the “truth of statements in Blonde Ambition, facts refuting Mr. Stern’s allegations of fault, [and] Mr. Stern’s conduct and reputation.” See Exhibits G & H to D.E. 121. Likewise, the Initial Disclosures identify Clark as having similar information. Id. Plaintiff asserts that while the investigation was ongoing, Clark and Vicedomine revealed information from their investigation to third parties such as Cosby. D.E. 133 at 3. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Clark attempted to persuade the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and Florida Attorney General to re-open the investigation into Ms. Smith’s death. See D.E. 133.

Omnibus Order page 5 and 6
Also during this same time frame, according to Plaintiff, Vicedomine posted her investigative progress on the Internet. Id. In this respect, Plaintiff asserts that Vicedomine, under various pseudonyms, shared intimate details of the Clark/Vicedomine investigation in Internet chat rooms. D.E. 121 at 10. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Vicedomine posted thousands of messages in an online chat room dedicated to discussion of Ms. Smith’s death. In these alleged postings, Vicedomine allegedly discussed aspects of Defendants’ investigation, including strategy, efforts to have Plaintiff prosecuted, and conversations that she had with Arthur. Id. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Vicedomine directed chat room members to post specific statements regarding Plaintiff on the website TMZ.com. Id. at 11.

Omnibus Order Page 31
Next, the Court considers Plaintiff’s additional assertion that Defendants committed disclosure waiver. Under the theory of disclosure waiver, a party waives work-product protection by disclosing to third parties information otherwise protected by the work-product doctrine. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that even if work-product protection existed for the details surrounding the investigation conducted by Vicedomine and Clark, any such protection was waived when Clark and Vicedomine disclosed details of the investigation to Rita Cosby, the author of Blonde Ambition. Further, Plaintiff argues that Vicedomine also divulged information gathered by the investigation to “countless people” via the Internet and in Internet chat rooms. D.E. 121 at 17; 133 at 14.

Omnibus Order Page 32
Instead, with respect to the argument that Vicedomine’s alleged disclosure of investigatory details to Cosby and over the Internet effectuated a waiver, Defendants argue that any waiver must be limited to the information actually disclosed, and not to the entire subject matter allegedly discussed. D.E. 142 at 13. Put simply, Defendants contend that Vicedomine’s actions at most waived protection for actual facts that Vicedomine revealed to Cosby which were also published in Blonde Ambition, or statements actually posted by Vicedomine on the Internet. Since that information is available to Plaintiff, however, Defendants contend that Plaintiff should not be permitted to depose Vicedomine in order to discover all of what Vicedomine told Cosby or all of the Firm’s or Vicedomine’s work product. Additionally, Defendants argue that any waiver of the work-product protection by Vicedomine and Clark with regard to their investigation on behalf of the Firm would not constitute a waiver on the part of Arthur, its client in the related Texas Lawsuit.

Omnibus Order Page 34
While situations exist where a disclosure is essentially compelled or made through excusable inadvertence, and courts are sometimes willing to maintain the work-product protection under such circumstances, see id., this is not one of those cases. Instead, Defendants point to nothing to suggest that Vicedomine and Clark did not purposefully and voluntarily make their statements to Cosby and on the Internet. Moreover, the types of disclosures made (i.e., to the author of a book and on the Internet) are entirely inconsistent with a desire to maintain the privacy of the information disclosed. Rather, books are published and statements are posted on the Internet precisely for the purpose of making them accessible to anyone and everyone. Certainly, at a minimum, the disclosures substantially increased the opportunity for a potential adversary to obtain the protected information.

10Although Defendants have suggested Vicedomine could not have waived the work product protection by engaging in her personal capacity (as opposed to her role as an agent of Defendants) in disclosures of information from the investigation, Defendants have not asserted that Clark and Vicedomine were not acting as agents of Defendants when they spoke to Cosby or made postings of information on the Internet.

Omnibus Order Page 35
Particularly under these circumstances, it is difficult to conceive of how Vicedomine could not have intended that her Internet statements be made available to anyone who wished to view them. Such behavior plainly increased the risk that Plaintiff would learn of Vicedomine’s disclosed work product materials. In fact, Plaintiff did find such materials.

Similar reasoning applies to the disclosures made with respect to Rita Cosby, the author of Blonde Ambition. Cosby interviewed Vicedomine for the purpose of writing a book, in significant part, about the very subject matter of Vicedomine’s interview, and nothing suggests that Vicedomine did not know this. In fact, Blonde Ambition published much of what Vicedomine told Cosby. There is nothing about divulging facts to an author writing a book about the information being disclosed that is consistent with guarding the privacy of information that is otherwise protected by the work product doctrine. Obviously, such conduct increased the possibility that Plaintiff would obtain and use the material. Under the circumstances where Vicedomine voluntarily spoke to a journalist seeking to write a book on the very subject for which information was provided, there could be no expectation that Cosby would maintain the secrecy of any of the information. And, significantly, much of the information conveyed was apparently used and published in the book.

Omnibus Order Page 35 and 36
The Court therefore finds that Vicedomine’s and Clark’s actions, as agents of Defendants, are inconsistent with the maintenance of secrecy of otherwise-work-product protected materials from their adversary. The disclosures were neither involuntary nor compelled, and they were not made to sources that were assisting Defendants in advancing their case. Instead, Vicedomine and Clark made the disclosures at issue to third parties and did so in such a way as to create a substantial risk that information would be received by Defendants’ adversary. Vicedomine and Clark’s actions waived the work product protection since they could not reasonably expect that future use of the information could be limited. Finally, it is significant that Plaintiff did, in fact, learn much of the information disclosed. See Continental Casualty Co., 537 F.Supp.2d at 761 (once an adversary has become aware of information disclosed, it cannot purge that information from its mind). For all of these reasons, Defendants have waived work-product protection in these instances.

Omnibus Order Page 36 and 37
The Court agrees with Defendants to the extent that the disclosures by Vicedomine (and Clark) do not extend so far as to effectuate a waiver of the entire subject matter of the investigation. Due to the sensitive nature of work-product materials and the policy behind maintaining their secrecy, generally speaking, when work-product protection has been waived, it is “limited to the information actually disclosed, not subject matter waiver.”

Omnibus Order Page 37 and 38
Applying this principle of law to these facts, the Court finds that although several disclosures have occurred, any waiver of the work-product protection does not extend beyond those discrete disclosures. Put more simply, the Court finds that Vicedomine (and Clark) waived any work-product protection for anything they said or gave to Cosby in her accumulation of information for Blonde Ambition, and Vicedomine waived the protection for any statements she actually posted or caused to be posted on her behalf on the Internet.

Omnibus Order Page 38
(THIS IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE BECAUSE THE COURT WILL NOT COMPEL VICEDOMINE FOR A DEPOSITION IN THE FLORIDA SUIT EXCEPT AS IT APPLIES TO RITA COSBY’S SUIT. HOWEVER THE ORDER ABOUT SUPPLYING ALL PSEUDNYMS HAS BEEN ORDER BY THE COURT AND SO CAN BE ASKED IN MY OPINION DURING THE SEVEN HOUR DEPOSITION) With respect to the allegation that Vicedomine disclosed otherwise-work-product protected information in Internet chat rooms, the particular statements that can be attributed to Vicedomine in this respect are not entirely clear, as the poster or posters of many of the statements at issue used pseudonyms. Therefore, Vicedomine shall verify all screen names and pseudonyms that she used on the Internet while discussing in public fora matters pertaining to the deaths of the Smiths, the paternity of Dannielynn, or Plaintiff. Defendants shall also be entitled to obtain copies of all postings that Vicedomine made in these public fora that relate to the underlying investigation conducted in furtherance of the Broward County proceedings. Furthermore, Defendants will be permitted to ask Vicedomine about these Internet postings during her deposition.

Omnibus Order Page 38 and 39
Additionally, with respect to Vicedomine’s (and Clark’s) statements made to Cosby, the Court finds that any actual statements made by Vicedomine or Clark to Cosby regarding the investigation have been waived and, thus, are discoverable. As for Defendants’ contention that discovery of this information is limited to statements that were actually published by Cosby in Blonde Ambition, the Court concludes to the contrary. Instead, Defendants are entitled to discovery of all statements Vicedomine and Clark made to Cosby relating to the investigation. Although some of the information provided by Vicedomine and Clark may not have been incorporated into Blonde Ambition, such a fact has no bearing on the scope of the waiver in this case. As noted above, Vicedomine voluntarily spoke to a journalist seeking to write a book on the very subject for which information was provided, and Defendants have not suggested that she had any expectation that Cosby would maintain the secrecy of any of the information conveyed. Consequently, Vicedomine made disclosures to Cosby in such a way as to create a substantial risk that information would be received by Defendants’ adversary.

Omnibus Order Page 39
The fact that all of the information provided by Vicedomine and Clark was not included in Blonde Ambition also refutes Defendants’ contention that the information is readily available to Plaintiff and, therefore, should not be compelled to be disclosed. See D.E. 142 at 13-14. In making this argument, Defendants contend that Plaintiff should not be allowed to depose Vicedomine in order to discover the “full gamut of her work product.” Id. Although the Court agrees that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery of all of Vicedomine’s work product, he is entitled to information disclosed to Cosby, whether included in Blonde Ambition or not. In this regard, the Court will permit Plaintiff to ask questions during Vicedomine’s deposition about what she told Cosby relating to her investigation.

Omnibus Order Page 45
Attorney-Client Privilege
With respect to the issue of attorney-client privileged information, Defendants conceded that no such privileged materials responsive to the subpoena duces tecum directed to Vicedomine exist. See D.E. 150 at n. 2. Defendants clarified that they inadvertently discussed attorney-client privilege in their objections to discovery. After further review of the documents at issue, however, Defendants realized that only the work-product doctrine protects the information listed on the Vicedomine privilege log. Id. Defendants stated, “At this time, there do not appear to be any documents protected by the attorney-client privilege.” D.E. 152 at n. 9.

Omnibus Order Page 51 and 52
Vicedomine Deposition Duces Tecum
Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [D.E. 111] seeks for the Court to issue a protective order precluding Plaintiff from deposing Wilma Vicedomine. According to Defendants, the investigation conducted by Vicedomine, as the Firm’s agent, and at the direction of the Firm, is subject to work-product protection. Hence, Defendants argue that Plaintiff should not be permitted to invade that privilege by deposing Vicedomine about the fruits of her investigation.

Omnibus Order Page 52
Plaintiff, in response, asserts that he should be permitted to take Vicedomine’s deposition for various reasons. First, Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to satisfy their burden under Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P., to demonstrate good cause precluding the requested discovery. Second, Plaintiff contends that Defendants waived any applicable work- product protection by placing the investigation at issue. Third, Plaintiff urges that Vicedomine waived any applicable work-product protection by disclosing details of the investigation to third-parties, and finally, Plaintiff claims entitlement to discovery of the underlying facts supporting or contradicting O’Quinn’s statements.

Omnibus Order Page 52 and 53
After careful consideration of these issues, including the briefs presented and the arguments made during the August 13, 2008, hearing, the Court has made a determination with respect to the scope of Vicedomine’s deposition duces tecum. As discussed previously, the Court finds that Defendants put at issue the investigation conducted by Vicedomine and Clark and, thus, waived any work-product protection associated with those materials through the date of O’Quinn’s last alleged statement on March 27, 2008. Likewise, the Court finds that Vicedomine (and Clark) waived any applicable work product protection when they disclosed certain details of her investigation to Rita Cosby and third-parties on Internet web-sites. This waiver applies to all materials actually disclosed by Vicedomine or Clark, including information disclosed after the date of O’Quinn’s last alleged statement on March 27, 2008. Finally, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to discover the underlying facts that pertain to the truth or falsity of any of the alleged statements set forth in the First Amended Complaint. If, however, these underlying facts are set forth in work-product protected documents that were created after O’Quinn’s last alleged statement on March 27, 2007, Plaintiff must obtain the information through means other than document production. Consequently, Plaintiff may inquire into these materials during Vicedomine’s deposition, but Vicedomine is not required to provide any work-product protected documents created after March 27, 2007, that contain underlying facts.

Omnibus Order Page 53
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [D.E. 111] is denied, at least to the extent that it seeks a wholesale ban on Vicedomine’s deposition. With respect to the duces Tecum attachment to the Vicedomine subpoena, the Court acknowledges that some of the document requests are extremely over broad. Indeed, at the August 13, 2008, hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the requests were overly broad. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that certain documents that fall within a narrower subset of the requests are discoverable. To summarize, Plaintiff may proceed with the deposition of Vicedomine and may pursue the following areas of inquiry:

(1) All underlying facts regarding the truth or falsity of the eight statements allegedly made by O’Quinn (i.e., the causes of the Smiths’ deaths and other allegations pertaining to Stern made in the statements at issue);
(2) All information (including work-product materials) regarding the Firm’s investigation up through March 27, 2008 (the date of O’Quinn’s alleged last challenged statement); and
(3) With respect to investigative materials or information gathered after March 27, 2008, Plaintiff may inquire about any otherwise-work-product-protected information where, as determined by the Court, a waiver of the protection has occurred through disclosure to third-parties. These categories include (a) anything disclosed by Vicedomine to Rita Cosby (whether or not such information was ultimately published in Blonde Ambition) and (b) any statements regarding the investigation, Stern, or the Smiths, as disclosed by Vicedomine on publicly accessible Internet websites.

Omnibus Order Page 54
With respect to the duces tecum demand attached to the Vicedomine subpoena, Plaintiff can obtain documents that fall within the categories announced above, except for facts which may be set forth in work-product protected documents that were created after O’Quinn’s last alleged statement on March 27, 2007, and which were not otherwise disclosed by Vicedomine to Cosby. Plaintiff must obtain this category of information through means other than document production (i.e., interrogatories or depositions).

Omnibus Order Page 55
Defendants must produce responsive documents that would otherwise be protected as work product if such documents were created after March 27, 2007, if the documents were disclosed to Rita Cosby or on the Internet.

Omnibus Order Page 56
Although the Court recognizes Defendants’ objection on the basis of work product, as noted above, the Court finds that Defendants waived any such protection by placing the investigation at issue in this case. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to discover all Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials through the time of O’Quinn’s last statement (i.e., March 27, 2007). Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to discover any Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials created after March 27, 2007, if such documents have been disclosed to Rita Cosby or on the Internet.

Omnibus Order Page 56 and 57
With respect to Firm Requests for Production 15 and 16 (O’Quinn Requests 20 and 21), Plaintiff seeks documents concerning communications w