Where were the remains before December 11, and should persistent meter reader Roy Kronk be questioned or rewarded? Mr. Kronk’s lawyer, David Evans, is now saying his client, the meter reader, should get the reward money form Crimeline. Here we go again is it about the money? However, the much more serious question is what did Kronk see at the site where the remains were found that everyone else missed during multiple searches?
Roy Kronk made two calls to the Orange County Sheriff’s dispatch center and one call to another line. These calls by Kronk were made on consecutive days of August 11, 12, and 13, stating that in a swamp near the home of George and Cindy Anthony he had seen something suspicious by a tree that was down, that looked white. On August 11 and 13 the Orange County Sheriff Dept. sent deputies to look at and walk with Kronk in the area he was reporting. In the audio tapes released, it appears that Kronk was apparently very familiar with the area.
Sheriff Beary said this area was “known” to us, but was flooded in early searches. According to officials from the Orange County Sheriff’s office in Florida the proximity of its discovery, 1200 feet, to the grandparents’ home has drawn growing attention from the media and law enforcement officials. Has the Sheriff’s department changed their account of searching the area, allegedly in first statements released right after December 11, of the area being under water, to now saying that the area had been searched by cadaver dogs and cleared? So what did Roy Kronk see that the investigators missed? What was it that made him call 3 times in August and then follow up his own lead by going back to the same area on December 11, four months later?
The area less than a half-mile from the Anthony home where Casey Anthony lived with her daughter Caylee seems to be drawing contradictory accounts of that area and when it was first searched. Neighborhood groups said the area had not only been well searched by people but also by deputies with cadaver dogs. On Saturday, December 13, Michelle Bart, the family’s previous spokesperson, had said to News 13, “The family is suspicious of the circumstances leading to the findings. “It’s been searched dry, it’s been searched wet, it’s been searched in between. It’s been searched over by Tim Miller [of Texas EquuSearch] twice, who we hold in high regards with his professional organization.”
Jessica D’Onofrio television reporter on the scene for Local 6, Orlando Florida was on Larry King on Friday December 12 and strongly disagreed with the assistant attorney general, from Florida, about whether the area where the remains of the child were found was under water from July until November. You can hear Ms. D’Onofrio saying in the video that cadaver dogs had in fact searched that very area.
Hurricane Faye hit this area of Florida with rain on August 18, almost a full 30 days after the search in that area began. Neighborhood groups said that area had been thoroughly searched several times in the beginning before Hurricane Faye.
Tim Miller’s Equi search from Texas said they came in on August 30, 2008. On September 7, Equi Search had called off searching because of environmental conditions and concern. However, when they returned on November 8, 2008 that area was dry and accessible but at that the time had been fenced off making it impossible for Equi Search to go into that area. Why was it fenced off and when was that area fenced off? Why didn’t that construction team while fencing this area see anything or at least explore this area? Who was the construction company that fenced off this area? Will they come forward in days to come to explain how they missed the remains of a child when those remains were so close to the road, allegedly only 15 feet?
As with so many of the high profile cases we follow, I am left with more questions then answers and some sources investigating the ever changing story have promised us more revelations that will only add additional questions and no answers.
In the end the glaring questions are why, were the remains not found in August when Mr. Klunk first reported them? Why did it take a meter reader going back a fourth time to find these remains? Then there is the question no one seems to want to ask, when and how did the remains get there if that area had in fact been searched and cleared by the Orange County Sheriff’s department?
Stay tuned as we continue to dig through voluminous amount of information released by Orange County, I am just not buying the quick let’s lynch the mother, that Greta Van Sustern and Nancy Grace have been building as a mantra over the last few weeks.
We promise to have more in interviews both transcribed and audio for you to decide your own truth as Rose Speaks always suggest each of you do with an open mind and not buying the “spin” of infotainment news.
We are working to also get all of the documents up in “bite size” pieces for each of you to go through. Our documents are open to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
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.
On Thursday, a meter reader stepped off the main road for some reason; took a stick to move a plastic bag; and the world for George and Cindy Anthony and their family would perhaps forever change, or does it?
By now most of us have all heard the gruesome details of a child’s skull coming out of the plastic bag and the horror of the meter reader and the company employees caught on the 911 tape from where he works.
With this to me comes more questions then answers. Why so close to the Anthony home? Why when George and Cindy Anthony were out of state and the whole U. S. or those following this saga knew they were? Why were the remains of this child not found before? If they have not been there the whole time, by whom and when were they put there? You see I have more questions then answers.
I hope the last almost two years have taught each of us to look beyond the rating pushed infotainment shows. I even read last night that Nancy Grace saw a major jump in the ratings for her evening television show this week and next week, Greta Van Susteren will have the highest ratings. Producers for both shows scramble to book the best of the talking heads in competition for ratings. Makes you sick until you think of it in pragmatic terms, ratings equals advertising dollars, which equals keeping your show at the top in this tough market for every advertising buck out there.
Linda Kenney Baden, wife of Dr. Michael Baden of Fox Noise paid talking head, has been added to Casey Anthony defense team. Wonder if that will give Dr. Michael Baden a job on the defense team like with the publicity he received on O. J.’s team? Wonder if it will neutralize Baden as a talking head since it would not be appropriate for pillow talk to appear on Fox Noise for money and ratings.
Pick up a copy of the emergency Motion Hearing papers from December 11 to have access to any forensic evidence if the body turns out to be that of Caylee that was filed on behalf of Casey Anthony by her defense team.
We will be bringing you a news clip later tonight or tomorrow that we hope you all find something to think about in this race for ratings, and some times as we have seen before throwing truth out the door.
We are sorting through the massive amounts of paperwork the Orange County D. A and Sheriff’s department as they release them and we will try to get them in bite size and discussion size papers. Remember that the documents we have on this case is in our download section opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
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.
I have been remised on writing about this case because of the number of google alerts a day that comes out. This case is saturating news media in print, internet news, the blogosphere and on the 24-hour infotainment “news” shows, which many of us saw in the Anna Nicole Smith saga.
In some ways, it feels like February 2007 all over again. Before you think I am not worried about where Caylee Anthony is and what happened to her, rest assure, I don’t watch the news about her because it makes me sick, and like all of you I feel so helpless and confused with the differing reports we all are getting.
I do feel something happened to her and her grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony or her mother, Casey Anthony knows what that was or could point the police in the right direction. Will they come forward with the truth, who knows!
However, the state has passed out thousands of pages of information because Florida is the “sunshine state” meaning they believe in the transparency of the courts, papers filed etc. unless it involves a minor. We all saw what that “sunshine” allowed to be shown and passed around for dissecting on the 24/7 infotainment channels called “news”, and how they devoured all things Anna Nicole Smith. Could that be happening with the Caylee Anthony case? In fairness the state of Florida has also released the multiple Motions Casey Anthony’s attorney, Jose Baez, has filed to gain access to some of the state’s evidence against Caylee’s mother.
With all that said; here are some of my thoughts of who is “cashing in” on this poor girl’s disappearance and what is “feeding the beast” of greed.
Since I find it almost impossible for me to write about this poor child, I decided to turn and look at the greed in this case. We have the former spokesman, Larry Garrison, for the Anthony family selling pictures to NBC for $6,500 for one interview and then allegedly pocketing the money. The emails from NBC to Cindy Anthony that appears to substantiate that, thus exit stage left Larry Garrison as the family spokesman, one wonders if it was just the alleged $6,500.00 or more than that Mr. Garrison had pocketed as a “licensing fee”. Why did he not see that it went into a fund to find out what really happened to Caylee; that is for him to answer.
We next have the bounty hunter bondsman, Leonard Padilla, all decked out in his California western gear for interviews. Mr. Padilla we have seen from putting up the $500k bond, parking outside the Anthony home seeking the truth, of course all in front of the beast that he knows how well to feed; those 24/7 infotainment channels which they all try to pass as news channels. He seemed available to every paper, local and national station that would interview him. Then we have Padilla changing his mind about Casey’s innocence and revoking that bond and back to jail for Casey Anthony with cameras tipped off and rolling at her home. Padilla was once again touting his theory of what has happened to Caylee but this time he no longer believed in Casey Anthony’s innocence, and again made the rounds of any media that would have him as to why he changed his mind and how he came to that. Worse of all Padilla has been accused of allegedly planting “evidence” in a river in Florida, to collect money to continue the search. Padilla made sure and called the media for the cameras before calling the police now that shows real caring for preserving any evidence that “might have been found”. However decked out in California western ensemble he once again appears to have made all of the show circuits, print media anyone that would interview him. It seems it matters not what snake oil Padilla is selling this day the beast called “infotainment” must be fed.
How many interviews do we have by the investigator working for the family Mr. Dominic Casey, I have not heard of many perhaps he is not as colorful of a P. I. as Padilla is riding that infotainment beast. For any of you who missed Padilla never fear he intends to be back in Florida again this week fresh with a benefactor for him to continue his “search”, “spin”, etc. Does anyone else have visions of Jack Harding and his many appearances and the ever-changing story or is it just me?
Then we have the greatest beast of all 24/7 news/infotainment, same ones as before just a new case and “fresh” new interviews. This beast needs to be fed often so we have Greta, “On the Record” and Geraldo “At Large” on Fox promising us to get the “real” truth and not to stop until it is found. We have Nancy Grace on HLN nightly, with all of the experts she can get that Fox has not booked first.
In the state of Florida thousands of documents released they include both the grand jury indictment and the witness list of people to be called as witnesses for the state and they too seem to be trying Casey Anthony in public long before her “televised trial” in January for Capital Murder.
How did we get here, very simple, this thirsty beast of news/infotainment is fed by the ratings which in turn translates to bringing in paid advertising. Keep in mind what O’Quinn said in his filings in Florida, if you believe what is said you be stupid cause no one believes those shows. That is probably about the truest statement I have seen in his filings and one all of us need to take to heart. Forget who gave us that advice but it shall forever stay with me in regards to what was done to Howard K. Stern and what might be done to anyone who the beast turns upon to feast.
If we were not obsessed with this beautiful angelic child, if the news/infotainment did not continue to weave, if there were no needs for the ratings to feed the beast… well that discussion is best saved for another day.
Now do I think Casey Anthony had something to do with her daughter’s disappearance and her family helped in the cover up, I am not sure, but what ever has happened to Caylee is heart wrenching. I hope we read and discuss every document and every interview by police that is released by the state of Florida in this case and find each of our own truths.
Rose Speaks.com will house all of the documents in this case as they are released, right up and through the televised trial in January. We have about 91 documents up now in what we hope we have broken down to bite size pieces and we are working fast to get the latest documents released to the public up for you to read and then discuss with us. Remember our documents are opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
Stay tuned, I have another article that will be going up today about Howard K. Stern. Remember that little trip we all took in that other 24/7 “news/infotainment” we craved in what seems like such a long time ago by infotainment clock. We were willing to feed the beast at the cost of his reputation for life.
I am not saying these cases are even remotely similar, except for many people cashing in, sadly in way too many ways.
I also want to thank all of you for the ten days I just took off from the site including the blog they were much needed. However, I am back and will be trying to keep up with all of the cases you want to see covered here for what I hope will be intelligent discussion. If you have one, email me, if we can make it happen in coverage that will work that gray matter we have called brains and make us think, then let’s discuss that and see where we shall go together. We will always and until the last case cover all things Anna Nicole Smith, but please remember we are opened to all of your suggestions as to which celebrity or high profile cases/trials you want to see here.
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.
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?
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.
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 with Rita Cosby or her representatives, as well as all documents concerning Blonde Ambition. Defendants object to the requests as overly broad with respect to the time frame involved and assert that the request is not limited in scope to this litigation. Defendants also object to the requests on the grounds that the requests seek to breach the work-product protection. The Court agrees that the request is overly broad in scope since it is not limited to issues presented in this case. However, the Court finds that Defendants have waived some of the work-product protection when Vicedomine disclosed facts of the Firm’s investigation to Rita Cosby, the author of Blonde Ambition.
Omnibus Order Page 57 Based on this waiver by disclosure, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to discover any communications made to Rita Cosby regarding the investigation conducted by the Firm, whether or not those communications or materials were included in the Blonde Ambition book.
Omnibus Order Page 58
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to discover all of the Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials through the time of O’Quinn’s last statement. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to discover any of the Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials created after O’Quinn’s last statement if they have been disclosed to Rita Cosby or on the Internet.
Omnibus Order Page 59
Although the Court recognizes Defendants’ objection on the basis of work product, as noted above, the Court finds that Defendants waived any such protection through March 27, 2007, by placing the investigation at issue in this case. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to discover all of the Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials through the time of O’Quinn’s last statement. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to discover any Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials created after O’Quinn’s last statement if they have been disclosed to Rita Cosby or on the Internet.
So with the highlights here of the August 29, Omnibus Order outlining the context of the depositions, what would you ask Wilma Vicedomine in those seven hours? In addition, state in priority what those should be and why. Remember 7 hours with Wilma Vicedomine, make the questions count and tell us what you would ask her. If you cannot download the documents that you need email me and I will email these documents to you so you can participate this weekend in this “game”.
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.
Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Strike John O’Quinn’s Multiple Motions for Summary Judgment based on not done corrected under local rules and also filed late and noted this is an ongoing problem with O’Quinn’s legal team and filing.
We will be putting the other paperwork that John O’Quinn filed on the night of October 3 and 4, after the Court closed and kept it coming until after midnight. There are a lot of double filings of documents with the three Motions for Summary Judgment.
As I said earlier, I will be putting something up later today about my thoughts of what WAS NOT filed with the multiple Motions for Summary Judgment. Stay tuned, we hope you read, research and share with us what you find as we go through all of this.
It appears that the Florida Federal Court for the Southern District does care. The Court has issued today, October 6, an Order for John O’Quinn to Show Cause why Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Strike O’Quinn’s filings for Summary Judgment should not be granted, O’Quinn’s Reply is due no later than October 8.
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.
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.
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.
