Rose Speaks.com will be updating this weekend for the BLOG part only. The blog main data base will be rolled back and changed over at about midnight [Sunday December 28], IF the current theme works then all will go smoothly, if not it will be a tad bumpy through part of Monday. Yes we did not finish on Saturday night so it is being done tonight [Sunday] If the blog is down a few hours late at night never fear the full blog is always saved in a roll back database. We will also be adding some new features like a much easier category section, and a translation into several other languages we have been asked to add. We hope we keep improving and you keep stopping by to read.

We thought we might add this bit about cases, old and new ones you have told us you would like Rose Speaks.com to follow. If you want something added to this list, please post it here and let us know.

Casey Anthony – Caylee Anthony – George and Cindy Anthony – Lee Anthony - Anthony case.

The Mike Corona case out of Orange County California, and the interwoven cases that have all come from this case (I.E. Don Haidl and before Corona’s case how it relates to Haidls’ son’s case, And the tail of the two Debbies)

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his staff and family as they all began to lawyer up.

Dr. Cyril H. Wecht - Because you just can’t make this up, the government needs help in a change of venue to “convict” the doctor on the second go round, cause the people love him.

D. C. Madame, Deborah Palfrey and her Estate.

Henry T. Nicholas III - California Billionaire, just had to allegedly possess and with intent to distribute drugs, with secret rooms beneath his homes. You have to just love California and what they bring to us, last year Anthony Pellicano and this year Henry T. Nicholas III.

The Hogan family’s continued problems and associated lawsuits.

Michelle Braun, Millionaire Madame and her Client list you are not going to believe who all is included and those she intends or might take down with her unlike the D. C. Madame, Deborah Palfrey.

Lori Drew, the ultimate case of cyber bullying and what her conviction is going to do to the rest of the nation in new laws.

A couple of Rock Bands just to spice things up here on Rose Speaks.com with people who know them well and are willing to give us their take on the current woes a couple of these bands find themselves in.

Thanks to Sprocket the ongoing Phil Spector trial in California, take two.

Roland Carnaby Civil Rights case from Houston Texas of an alleged CIA or FBI operative gun down, who died from gun shot wounds causing death due to blood lost, and why no one is standing trial for this death listed as a “homicide”.

Two Yale Law Students who decided to sue anonymous blog posters for defamation and what this also might generate in online defamation and/or law changes.

New Cases that catches the attention of John J. Nazarian P. I. – Security Consultant, whatever catches the fancy of Mr. Nazarian, we hope he will share with Rose Speaks.com.

All things Anna Nicole Smith related as many of those trials come to an end in 2009. Which by the way the New York Judge has granted Howard K. Stern’s legal team’s request for more time to answer Rita Cosby’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The new date due is February 6, 2009, based on that all of the paperwork filed by Elizabeth McNamara on December 15 was wrong and so had to be refiled on December 19, 2008.

If there is a case you would like to see us follow, let us know, and if we can we will. If you would like to follow a case and write articles for the blog, we welcome you, just drop us an email.

There will be a new article up on Casey Anthony today, and debunking of the blond ambitious, Cosby’s book will be up before the stroke of midnight on December 31.

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

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, Deborah Palfrey, Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, George and Cindy Anthony, Hachette Books, Henry T. Nicholas III, Howard K Stern, Hulk Hogan, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, John J. Nazarian P. I., Lana Clarkson, Lee Anthony, Lin Wood, Lori Drew, Michelle Braun, Phil Spector, retrial, Rita Cosby, Rod Blagojevich, Roland Carnaby, Roland Carnaby Estate, Rose Speaks.com site maintenance, Rose Speaks.com site updates, Sprocket, Susan Carnaby, The D. C. Madame, The Hogan family

In Los Angeles California, today will begin the trial of Lori Drew for “Violating the Terms of Service of My Space.com”. When you read that sentence, I think we all go WTH, violate the terms of service of an internet site and go to jail? Yet in the Landmark case of the government vs. Lori Drew that is exactly what is happening and it could change the internet world forever.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles will try to prove that Drew knew she was breaking the Terms of Service of the social networking website MySpace.com by creating a fictitious 16-year-old heartthrob named Josh Evans to woo, then humiliate a minor girl to the point she killed herself. The ultimate Cyber Bully, but is this trial fair to the rest of us that could be affected forever by this case.

As a headline in a newspaper in Australia said yesterday, this could result in something to the affect of, “Say goodbye to anonymity on the web.” The online paper goes on to say:

“So what did they charge with?

How about ‘conspiracy and fraudulently gaining access to someone else’s computer’.

Yup … that’s it and as much of a twist of the laws as it might be this is exactly what they got indictments against Ms. Drew which has more than a few legal scholars a little worried. The one thing that was in Lori Drew’s favour though was that the judge hearing the case had originally said that any evidence relating to … suicide would be excluded from the trial. Considering that the young girl’s death had nothing to do with whether any computer fraud laws were broken this made sense.

Unfortunately, though the judge has now reverse his decision and this evidence will be allowed. In light of how emotionally charged this whole matter is evidence such as this will make it very hard for a fair trial to be heard on the charge of computer fraud; as that is the only charge against Lori Drew.

So how does this affect any use of anonymous accounts or aliases?”

After months of many of us saying that this was a horrible example of an adult bullying a child but it did not meet the criteria of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and would never see a courtroom we have now been proved wrong and the trial of Lori Drew begins today. In recent weeks U. S. District Judge George Wu appeared to have agreed with most of our armchair take in this with his initial hints of rulings to be expected with comments leaning toward either dismissing the case outright or barring prosecutors from mentioning the death of the minor child. However, on Friday, Judge Wu stunned a globe of sites/forums/blogs following the case by deciding that the case would go forward, suicide and all. In an irony he mentioned a Law and Order television program on NBC called SVU that had a segment last week based on the Lori Drew case.

Dean Steward, Drew’s lawyer had said that if the suicide of the girl was allowed into the trial that the jury would convict his client, himself and anyone sitting near him. Perhaps he maybe closer then he might think in that assessment with the Pro Bono Expert Orin Kerr deciding he could not attend the trial citing that this is the last week of classes at George Town University on the East Coast after paying the fee to appear Pro Hac Vice to represent Drew.

The case against Drew marks the first time the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act has been used to pursue allegations of cyber bullying rather than computer “hackers”, those whom have intentionally access a computer without access or exceeds the access they know they have to take something from that computer or network.

State and local governments have passed laws to address cyber bullying, in part out of frustration after local, state and federal prosecutors in Missouri stated they could not find a statute to try Drew under. NO ONE is claiming that cyber bullying is not a horrible phenomenal effect on the world web net where anonymity is the rule of the day and thereby allows bullies to do things they would seldom think of doing face to face. There are federal laws pending in congress to address cyber bullying now pending for the new congress to take up next year.

Why is Drew then being tried in Los Angeles? Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles tried the computer fraud approach, claiming jurisdiction because MySpace.com’s computer servers are in that court’s district.

The statute being used has been challenged so extensively in pretrial motions that many of us have predicted the trial would never take place and more people on the internet then ever before understands what “hacking” is. It does not mean what many of us thought of the old vision of someone “hacking” into a site to take it down so in that respect this case has served as a teaching tool to millions of internet users.

Per one of the best articles outlining the case out of Saint Louis, Missouri, it restates in easy to understand language the basis of what the government has to prove including all four parts of the Computer Fraud act of:

“That Drew “intentionally accessed a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization.
That the access involved interstate communication.
That Drew obtained information that way.
That it was done “in furtherance of a tortious act in violation of the laws of any State.” In this case, the alleged tort is the intentional infliction of emotional distress, with the suicide as proof.”

The government’s case hinges on the fact that Drew violated the MySpace “terms of service,” which prohibit lying when registering, or soliciting information from someone under 18 and/or harassing other users. As we have noted almost all sites, including Rose Speaks.com has Terms of Service and a Privacy Statement as does others sites examples of TMZ.com, MySpace.com, Topix.net and thousands of other online forums/sites/blogs.

The article in the Saint Louis papers states in part, “To prove the elements of emotional distress, prosecutors normally would have to show the conduct was intentional and “beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

If Drew is convicted, each charge carries a potential penalty of five years in prison. Judge Wu did rule however that the jury could find her guilty of a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized access to a protected computer that would mean much less than a year, and possibly probation for Drew.

The girl who committed suicide father, Ron Meier, is in Los Angeles, where he says he will stay until the end of the trial.

Per the Saint Louis newspaper article, “Meier did say that a guilty verdict and even minor punishment would be enough if it came with a broader awareness of cyber bullying.”

I think we all hope that laws that fit the crime as many here at Rose Speaks.com knows address cyber bullying. It has become almost insane in nature as to how some of our members and moderators have been stalked online and have had everything about their private lives that can be dug up put out on the internet to scare and/or harass them.

We are hoping one of our Los Angeles Court Watchers will be writing on this case from inside the courtroom this week so stay tuned to Rose Speaks.com for the latest in coverage of the USA vs. Lori Drew.

You can pick up all of the papers in the Lori Drew Case in our download section Opened to ALL not just registered members.

©Rose Turner
November 18, 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: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Cyber Bullying, Dean Steward, Josh Evans, Judge George Wu, Judge Wu, Lori Drew, MySace.com, MySpace Cyber Bully case, Orin Kerr, Orin S. Kerr, Ron Meier, TMZ.com, Topix.com, U. S. District Judge George Wu

In papers filed through yesterday, November 12, it appears that alleged Cyber bully, Lori Drew seems headed for trial on November 18, just a few days from now.

The AP reports on the hearing held on Monday November 10 that, “Prosecutors in the trial of a woman accused of a MySpace hoax that allegedly led a 13-year-old girl to kill herself will likely be prohibited from presenting evidence of the suicide, a federal judge said Monday.

U.S. District Judge George H. Wu told attorneys he was leaning toward excluding the evidence from the trial of Lori Drew, who is accused of using a fictitious profile on the social networking site to drive …her daughter’s former friend, to hang herself.

Drew has pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing computers without authorization.

‘I don’t necessarily think the suicide is relevant to the crime charged,’ Wu said, adding he thought details of the … [girl's] death would unfairly prejudice the jury. He said he planned to announce his final decision Friday, November 14”.

This will be the first alleged case of Cyber Bullying to be tried under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Section 1030 (a) (2) of cyber crimes. This will also be the first time that violating a site’s TOS/Term of Use is without stealing some type of information will be used under the statute. The government has argued that this is applicable due to the part of the statute that states, “the section … provides: any person who intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains … information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate of foreign communication … shall be subject to a fine, imprisonment or both.”

Could this case forever change the internet and users of forums/blogs? Will the government be able to fine a jury that has not read about this case and its tragic end? Can any juror completely disregard that this case was brought because of a minor’s suicide? Without the tragedy of the suicide this becomes just another case out of thousands each year of some person violated the TOS of a site and either enters a site without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and that it crosses state lines. Much like what happened here at Rose Speaks.com a few months ago. Of course that did not end in anyone’s death but did lead to online identity, theft of monikers, email address and with a few of our members had passwords stolen.

If this case goes forward and Lori Drew is convicted then the whole internet will have to begin to enforce TOS/Terms of Use on ALL sites. Many of us begin to tighten up and enforce the most outrageous violations, Court TV closed it forums, TMZ.com began to ban some users who violated their TOS, and we try to always enforce our Terms of Use. Topix.net appears to be the last anything goes Wild West of the internet. Since they are located right next door to My Space, well at least in the same community as TMZ.com is, will that last frontier began to enforce their own TOS?

Many of us are heartsick over the young girl’s tragic death and this alleged outrageous cyber bullying by an adult, Lori Drew, on a child. However most site owners I predict will be watching the trial next week very closely because of the broad ramifications it could have on all forums and blogs. Can you imagined the extra employees and hours expended on sites like TMZ.com and Topix.net if Lori Drew is convicted. Ultimately, this trial will come down to the violation of a site’s TOS.

Personally I did not feel it would get this far even in the court system, and Judge Wu has indicated he wants to hear from My Space.com employees as to can you prosecute someone that you cannot prove read and understood the TOS of a site like My Space.com. Judge Wu has also indicated that he wants to know what Lori Drew stole from MySpace.com in order to prosecute her under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Section 1030 (a) (2) of cyber crimes. Both of those I predict will be high thresholds for the government to prove.

In another irony in this case, Lori Drew filed to have a “bench trial”, Judge Wu only hearing and deciding the case, and it was the government who filed not waiving their right to a jury trial. Could that signal that the government knows it has a weak case and needs the sympathy of a jury for hope for a prosecution. You add to that the fact that the Court might exclude the minor’s suicide and that leaves the case pretty mundane, in my opinion.

Please don’t mistake that I think this case should not go forward or that I don’t care about what happened to that child. If what is alleged that Lori Drew did is correct then her acts are despicable, but do they meet the criteria of “hacking”, “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access”.

I hope this tragic case brings some self-patrolling by forum/blog site owners to pledge that they will enforce the TOS that almost all of us require you sign you have read and agreed to on ALL sites. In my opinion that would be a fitting memorial to one of the worse cases of cyber bullying, any of us have ever heard about.

Rose Speaks.com will be following this case, trial and appeals if any through the completion beginning on November 18.

You can pick up the newest filing today on USA vs. Lori Drew in our download section which is open to ALL, not just registered members. BE AWARE SOME OF THE INFORMATION IS VERY DISTURBING ESPECIALLY THE COMMENTS OF LORI DREW ABOUT THE COMMUNICATIONS TURNING INTO SEXUAL CONTENT.

©Rose Turner
November 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: "alleged" cyber bullying of Lori Drew, Cyber Bullying trial of Lori Drew, Lori Drew, Lori Drew goes to trial on death of teen, USA vs. Lori Drew

There were new filings in the USA vs. Lori Drew in the California Federal Court hearing the case including the October 14 Application for records of another minor girl.

An Application for an Ex Parte Application of a Subpoena Deuces Tecum to Sprint Cell phone records was requested to be Court Ordered on October 14 by Lori Drew’s defense team. It appears that after receiving the mirror of the hard drives from the FBI, the defense forensic expert examined the mirror copy of both the Drew computer hard drive and the M. family’s hard drive, and has concluded that M.T.M. was not the sender of one of the messages that the USA is basing their case on.

The Subpoena Deuces Tecum is to get the cell phone records from Sprint to find another minor girl with the initials of S.D. who actually sent the message, in question, in the indictment to the fake “Josh Evans” Myspace.com account.

A Stipulation of Protective Order by the parties concerning the court-approved subpoena to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Lake St. Louis, Missouri of the minor M. T. M.’s records was also presented to the Court for its approval on October 14.

On October 15, 2008, the Court issued an Order Resetting the Trial Date to November 18, 2008; however, the hearing on the Motions to Dismiss is set for October 30, 2008 at 8:30 AM and the Court has Ordered that defendant, Lori Drew, be present.

The renown specialist on the internet Orin Kerr, attorney, was granted Pro Hac Vice status by the Court after his application to be part of the legal team representing Lori Drew, his application says he is defending her on a Pro Bono basis.

I still predict this case will never go to trial because although Lori Drew violated My Space.com TOS, she did not still anything, and now with a top attorney that specializes in computer law, I see them beginning to chip away at the government’s case.

All of the documents for this case are available in our download section, OPEN to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

©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: Cyber Bullying, Lori Drew Cyber Bully case, Lori Drew Cyber Bullying Case, Lori Drewn, My Space Cyber Bullying suit

Orin S. Kerr is an associate professor of law at The George Washington University Law School and a leading scholar in the subjects of computer crime law. Before joining the faculty at The George Washington University Law School, Kerr served as a law clerk for Judge Leonard I. Garth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He later took a leave of absence from the law school to clerk for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court during October Term 2003. On September 30, 2008, Orin S. Kerr applied Pro Hac Vice to represent Lori Drew on a Pro Bono Basis.

As the Court requested on October 6, 2008 the legal team led now by Orin S. Kerry Responded on behalf of Lori Drew as requested by the Court, explaining she did not commit any “Theft” of property or information “owned” by MySpace.com. In part, the Supplemental Filing addressed, According to Judge Kozinski, unauthorized access statutes protect the privacy of owners of computerized information just as if trespass statutes protect the privacy of physical space. …By analogy, not all efforts to gain access to a computer using trickery or misrepresentation exceeds authorized access: The mistake must extend to the essential character of the act itself, which is to say that which makes it harmful or offensive, rather than to some collateral matter which merely operates as an inducement. In other words, it must be a substantial mistake concerning the nature of the invasion or the extent of the harm. “ The Supplemental filing goes on to state, “Under Theofel, violation of a Term of Service can only make an access unauthorized or in excess of authorization if the violation ‘go[es] to the essential nature of the invasion’ that 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) was designed to prohibit.

Violations of Terms of Service that involve “some collateral matter” other than “that which makes it harmful” may trigger liability for breach of contract, but they do not violate the prohibition on access without authorization or exceeding authorized access. … The Senate Report accompanying the 1996 passage of 18 U.S.C. §1030(a) (2) (C) explains that the essential nature of the invasion contemplated by the statute is interstate or foreign theft of information by computer. (“The proposed subsection 1030(a) (2) (C) is intended to protect against the interstate or foreign theft of information by computer.”).

Congress enacted § 1030(a) (2) (C) to effectively overrule the Brown decision. Under the new statute, interstate thefts of information from one state to another state would violate §1030(a) (2) (C) instead of § 2314:

This subsection would ensure that the theft of intangible information by the unauthorized use of a computer is prohibited in the same way theft of physical items are protected. To the extent any “theft” occurred, that theft was from M.T.M. in Missouri to the defendant in Missouri. It was “theft” down the street, not a theft of property in one state that was then transmitted to another state.

It would be a different case if the government claimed that the defendant had stolen property belonging to MySpace.com. MySpace’s servers are located in Los Angeles County, and a defendant who used the Internet from Missouri to steal information belonging to MySpace in California would be engaging in an interstate theft. This would be the kind of conduct that 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) (2) (C) was designed to prohibit.”

In Response to the legal team for Lori Drew, the USA on October 6, 2008 filed its Supplemental as requested on September 23, 2008, by this Court. The governments filing addresses those three items the Court wanted to be briefed further on stating; “posed three questions to counsel: (1) Whether the Court could exercise its discretion to decline to assert jurisdiction over the case based on federalism concerns even if the allegations in the indictment regarding interstate communications were adequately pled and prove, ..(2) whether Section 1030 (a) (2) only prohibits the “theft” of information … (3) if so what was the information that was stolen.”

On October 7, 2008 the Joint Stipulation by the USA and Lori Drew lawyers, to have a hearing on the additional Responses of Explanations the Court Requested to be heard on October 30, 2008 and postponing the trial to November 18, 2008.

I agree as I continue to say that what Lori Drew did was despicable and she should become the poster for cyber bullying, however I do not think she can be prosecuted under the current laws. That still leaves the question, as you read these papers, of for those who came into the Rose Speaks.com email server as well as over 60 other accounts on the email server, because of a vulnerability, did they commit a crime under the existing statutes? Does it make it worse that they especially bragged on other forums they sent that information to a law firm for the sole purpose to give that firm an advantage in existing litigation?

Please pick up the most recent filings in our download section, open to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

©Rose Turner
October 9, 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: Cyber Bullying, Lori Drew, Lori Drew Cyber Bullying Case, Orin Kerr, Orin S. Kerr

In a Court Order and minutes on September 23, the Court is not sure the USA can prove that Lori Drew “stole” anything with her violations of the MySpace.com TOS.

The Court asked the USA and for Lori Drew’s lawyers to extend Drew’s trial date from October 7 to a date in the future by agreement and to notify the Court of that joint decision. The Court is also asking for brief to explain what did Lori Drew “steal”, that is what a lot of us have been saying is what will become the focal point of having this case dismiss.

What Lori Drew is horrid, but she did not steal email addresses, user names, password, nor committed identity theft. The existing laws do just not cover Cyber Bullying, nor did Lori Drew in my opinion steal anything, which is a basic for the Cyber Crime statutes, other than stalking which Ms Drew was NOT accused of doing to the young girl.

The USA prosecutors have also filed two Motions to exclude evidence used in Missouri in both state and federal investigations. They want it excluded either because of the “hearsay” provision or that what those entities used as evidence to in Missouri to make the determination there was nothing that they could do with existing state or federal laws in this situation.

I still predict as sad as what Lori Drew did this case will be dropped and the U. S. Congress will need to broaden or enact laws on Cyber Bullying.

You can read all of the documents involved in this case in our download section open to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

©Rose Turner
September 29, 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: Lori Drew, MySpace Cyber Bully case, MySpace.com

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