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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Howard K Stern, Larry Birkhead, Lyndal Harrington, Nelda "Rose" Turner, Nelda Turner, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, Virgie Arthur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bill Ogden, Bonnie Stern, CBS, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Chip Babrock, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Entertainment Tonight, Harvey Levin, Howard K Stern, John "Jay" Patton, John O'Quinn, Ken and Rose Turner, Krista Barth, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Mark Speer, Nancy Hamilton, Neil McCabe, Nicole Jennings Wade, Rita Cosby, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The John O'Quinn Law Firm, Thomas Gregor, TMZ, TMZ.com, Tom Gregor, Virgie Arthur, William "Bill" Ogden, William Ogden, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

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

“C. Request for Disclosure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 27, 2008, 6:47PM
By CINDY GEORGE

A Houston judge won’t allow Anna Nicole Smith’s mother to add Texas bloggers to a federal defamation lawsuit against the model’s companion, Howard K. Stern, and CBS Studios, calling it a tactic to get the case back to state court.

The lawsuit is one prong of a two-case legal battle between Virgie Arthur, a Montgomery County resident, and Stern. Another defamation case is filed in state court.

In her federal complaint, Arthur alleges that Stern arranged an Entertainment Tonight interview in which her daughter. In the program, Smith claims Arthur allowed her to be abused as a child…

Arthur’s state lawsuit said Stern recruited his sister, bloggers and celebrity journalists to continue the smear campaign online.

The original federal case also named KPRC Channel 2, but U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal’s 31-page ruling also said the station should not be among the defendants.

Though Arthur’s lawyer, Neil McCabe, was turned down on his request to add more defendants, he said he was pleased with the judge’s ruling.

“If anybody should not be happy, it should be Mr. Stern who is now going to have to be defending himself in federal court and state court in Texas,” McCabe said. “(Arthur’s) reputation is in Texas, therefore he can be sued where he intended to hurt her reputation, which is in Texas.”

The state lawsuit centers on a story titled “Virgie Has Son with Her Stepbrother” posted on the celebrity web site TMZ.com. McCabe said Arthur and her son’s father were not stepsiblings prior to their relationship.

Arthur and Stern have been at legal odds since Smith’s death in February 2007, from conflicting claims about the right to bury the former model to custody of her baby daughter, Dannielynn.

To read the rest of the story go to the Houston Chronicle link.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5860909.html

Also I will have an article up this weekend that will give us a deeper glimpse into the Rita Cosby suit, and who the players are that has until now been sealed. Stay tuned to Rose Speaks.com, we think the new revelations will cause a lot of comment and dialogue.

Wow what a fast year this has been. Thanks to all of you, it has been a fun year and we hope a tad of educational year with the court documents for the cases we cover.

Some of you have been here with us since we started out with about 10 views a day and on borrowed space on a site that belongs to one of our friends. Some of you have come and some of you have gone. Some of you have written for Rose Speaks.com and what a gift you have given to share your talents with all of us. We have grown from 10 people a day to more than we ever thought an obscure blog could have and we are humbled at the outpouring of caring from all of you during growing pains, hacking and the latest stress causers a few of us are going through.

Who would have thought at this point and place in my life I would get the chance to do what I love, read legal papers and share them, wow what a gift. This thing called the internet is amazing, it allows even those of us sick to reach out and be part of the world. For some it is the window to the world and it keeps us current on so many wonderful things. It allows each of us to search for “our truth” on so many different topics. We can agree or disagree on any subject Rose Speaks.com covers, and do it with class and not mud slinging we see on other sites.

All of you have shown not only us but the world that there is still civility, you can post on a blog and not be consumed with hate of each other nor participate with any online lynchings, because they are just “fun”, or you feel you have the right to do that. We have sadly learned of a term called “blog wars” but we have also learned a term of “blog friendships”. The internet and blogs in particular are like a buffet table, you can always take what you like from each site and leave what you don’t and do it with kindness. What a gift that is to each other, attack the subject and not the poster. Growing pains and life lessons all learned from clicking on a monitor and hearing the computer begin with each new day.

Thank you all for visiting Rose Speaks.com and contributing your talents, thoughts and life lessons, Rose Speak.com would not be the site it is today if not for each and every one of you.

Let’s hope the next year brings us some interesting court cases, new friendships and support of internet stalking and cyber bullying laws being changed because of the Lori Drew case.

A special thanks to our and your moderators, Lyndal, Daisy, Heath and Roxanne; they give many hours, take a lot of B. S. and still they keep helping and all for free. You are very special ladies, thanks for your time and your insight and your guidance to both the owners and the members, without you there would be no Rose Speaks.com.

From all of here at Rose Speaks.com a most humble thank you!

Ken and Rose Turner
June 24, 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.

I said I looked forward to reading TMZ and Harvey Levin’s filings in state court on the Virgie Arthur sues 7 to 9 different people for defamation.

TMZ and Harvey Levin are also asking that Virgie Arthur be made to pay their legal fees. If Ms. Arthur is determined to have no money or not enough to cover the expenses of the defendants could her lawyers be hit with a bill if the court finds this suit is frivolous?

TMZ and Harvey Levin also brings up that the statute of limitation has expired. It would appear the 5th Circuit Appellant Court in the Belo suit agrees.

The “story” appeared on TMZ on April 19. However, the story was “republished” by TMZ from another blog that allegedly submitted the story to TMZ after publishing on the other blog on April 18. That blog, we have been told, received the information from a Court TV blog that had it up in March 2007. Then to make this more confusing the Court TV blog had stated they recovered the information from a genealogy site for “famous people” who had the “step-brother” story up before Anna Nicole Smith’s death in February 2007. That site appears to have had it up for several years on the internet for any blog or news sites to “republished”.

Looking through the statutes and the 5th Circuit Appellant Court ruling in Jan. 2008 it does appear that the time limit runs out one year and one day after first appearing on the internet, which means it ran out way before TMZ republished it only adding a poll to the story on April 19, 2007.

Personally, I believe, if you read the CBS and KPRC Answer to the Arthur suit that was filed in State Court and then removed to the Southern District Federal Court, you might find the reason for the filing of these suits, which are going on at the same time.

I do have a few questions; can Howard K. Stern be sued in federal and state court at the same time for defaming Virgie Arthur? Do civil courts also have a double jeopardy clause? If Virgie Arthur is found by the federal court to be a “public person”, will the state court honor that or could they come up with a private person in one court and a public person in another court? Can someone caught up in this and then defamed by bloggers file a suit in federal court due to the bloggers living in various states while being a defendant in the existing suit if they can prove both harm to them and/or financial lost to their business? If so would that have to be filed in Texas also, or could it be filed in another federal court in the state where any of the possible plaintiffs can claim they received the most financial damages to businesses or reputations.

You can pick up a copy or the TMZ and Harvey Levin Original Answer in our download section open to All, not just members. We have also put up the Belo Case that was recently decided in the 5th circuit court for you to read.

You can also pick up a copy of the Civil Rule of Procedures for Texas, from the Supreme Court of Texas, Rules and Standard links.

©Rose Turner
June 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.

Lots of papers filed and lots to cover here.

The hearing for Howard K. Stern vs. John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn law firm on O’Quinn’s Motions to Dismiss has been ordered by the Southern District Federal Court to go forward on June 25, but Lin Wood can do arguments via phone if needed. Did Mr. Wood’s affidavit say if he would be out of the country or in the country on June 25? I think that will play a big part in his decision on how to proceed.

TMZ and Harvey Levin are bringing in big guns in the state suit of Virgie Arthur vs. 9 people in differing state and federal courts in Texas. The lead attorney Harry Susman clerked for Supreme Court Justice Kennedy and his practice per his bio on the firm’s web site state that Harry Susman, “[I]s not confined to a particular area. For example, during 2007, he is handling a range of “bet the company” cases around the country.” Richard Hess the second chair is new but all attorneys for the Susman Godfrey L.L.P. law firm hit the ground running or they aren’t hired. Mr. Hess clerked, as does most of their new hires, for a federal judge. Mr. Hess clerked for federal judge, The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, from 2004 - 2005. Personally, I look forward to their filings.

Bonne Stern filed a Response, which reads like Art Harris in a Special Appearance to dispute personal jurisdiction. In my opinion, and NO I have not talked to any lawyers in detail about this, I do know that Ogden, Gibson, Broocks & Longoria, L.L.P. are not going to take clients that have any conflict with other parties that the firm represents in any case. With that said, does the Ogden, Gibson, Broocks & Longoria, L.L.P. law firm believe the alleged conspiracy theory is going to be easy to address? On the other hand, as hiney einy likes to point out abut the O’Quinn firm, which she claims is doing comprehensive background checks on the owners and moderators of Rose Speaks.com and all of our members. Of course, to read hiney einy about what McCabe is doing, and he did quote an article about her writings so it does appear she is able to get in touch with McCabe therefore she must be speaking with his permission about the extensive background checks. As hiney einy says that “must,” mean that all lawyers do background checks on their own clients. As I said, I have not talked to any of the other parties about Ogden, Gibson, Broocks & Longoria, L.L.P. doing background checks on potential clients, (Art Harris and Bonnie Stern). However, looking at Ogden, Gibson, Broocks & Longoria, L.L.P. client list including the Hearst Corporation, their associations and ratings, and the firms professional ethics, I am sure glad we here at Rose Speaks.com have Mr. Ogden and his legal team on our side.

In the state district court in Houston, Virgie Arthur’s legal team has asked for permission to staple the notice of suit filed on Teresa Stephens last known home address, implying she still lives there. If hiney einy is in the know and as she brags, sends everything to McCabe, then like most of us, she would know allegedly, Ms. Stephens has moved twice since that address and the neighbors at the address in Bedford Texas can verify that. Couldn’t Ms. Stephens be found via voters records or one of those famous complete background checks that hiney einy brags about? Or, did they mail a certified letter with delivery to addressee only as they did with other parties in this suit and already know Ms. Stephens no longer lives there?

Finally, Judge Chin has admitted Krista Barth Pro Hac Vice as an addition to Howard K. Stern’s legal team in New York. I had never read up on her career or the different jurisdictions she keeps her license to practice law up to date. I must admit that reading her credentials are amazing to me, what a smart woman she must be to be able to do that.

In addition, Judge Chin has left it up to Rita Cosby’s lawyers to decide if Howard K. Stern’s lawyers can file what they need to in the Southern District Federal Court in Florida openly or under seal. Remember Ms. Cosby saying she knew she was 120% no 200% sure of her book and was not worried? Well I hope her attorneys say we have nothing to hide, go ahead and put it out there for public consumption. However, my bet is they will say NO WAY, that to protect Ms. Cosby’s “right to privacy” is essential and her legal right. Mmmmmmmmmm wonder why none of the Wilma Vicedomine’s people take a lesson on that about taking people’s “rights to privacy” to heart? As a matter of fact, I wonder how Ms. Vice and the law firm she works for feels about hiney einy and about 5 others “bragging” about how close they are to Vice’s bosses and how often they get emails asking those “bloggers” for help? Not to mention all of the perks they love to brag about.

You can pick up the Southern District Federal Florida Court Ruling here.

You can pick up Bonnie Stern’s Filing here, and her affidavit of support of her filing here.

Krista Barth’s Request to be admitted Pro Hac Vice as part of Stern’s legal team here.

Judge Chin’s Order admitting Krista Barth to his Court for the Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby, Hachette Books et. al. here as part of Howard K. Stern’s legal team.

Judge Chin’s decision that Rita Cosby’s lawyers have the final say about if what Howard K. Stern needs to file in the Florida Federal Court can be filed with full public disclosure, or if Ms. Cosby’s “right to privacy” is more important than the “public’s right to know” here.

I have some final thoughts here. We have Rita Cosby’s home address from the filing of that lawsuit in October 2007 filed in New York and we blacked it out before putting the court filings up on our site. We did the same with John O’Quinn, Howard K. Stern, Virgie Arthur, etc. because we do believe that putting private information out in the public arena via the internet is a HUGE breach in the “right to privacy” of any person, whether considered public or private individuals, and can in fact put that person in physical danger.

However, per Wilma Vicedomine’s bloggers, and the very sites that the law firm she works for quotes in some court filings, our same “rights to privacy” as private not public people are not deemed to be important or even entitled. That which we respect and try to protect belonging to the very public people involve in these lawsuits by always blacking out their personal information, us mere private persons do not “deserve” that same measure for our safety and “right of privacy”. I think we all have to wonder as, hiney einy, Red, Kerry, QV, Baba Cat and others continue to put things about us out there with half-truths; out and out lies as truth; accusations of crimes never committed; slandering us; endangering us; and destroying lives, who has asked them to do that? All the while they are saying that “core group of people” have been promised they will be protected by Vice’s bosses. Do they really think that is true? I have a piece of friendly advice before you go out and jump past any of the parties in any of these lawsuits “right to privacy”, you might want to take note of Ms. Cosby, as a public person, is entitled to her “right to privacy”, perhaps there is a valuable lesson to learn there if you look.

©Rose Turner
June 18, 2008
This is an Editorial Opinion of Rose Turner. 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.