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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©Rose Turner
December 21, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

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

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

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

This article will be enlarged tonight with more of my thoughts about these Motions coming up and what we will be allowed to see.

We now have the rules for the Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed by Rita Cosby and Hachette Books and the Reply of Howard K. Stern to those Motions. Wonder if this is why we have those seven pages released from the Florida suit on Don Clark.

On December 2, 2008, New York Southern District Federal Court sets page limits on Rita Cosby’s Motion for Summary to 50 from the normal 25 Judgment and then Howard K. Stern’s reply can be 75 pages; Hachette intends to use the 25-page limit per the Civil Rules of Procedures.

So now, our attention shifts in part to the New York as Florida is officially closed even on PACER as of today.

I think now is a time to debunk the rest of chapter 13 of the real blond ambitious, Rita Cosby.

You can find all of the documents in our download section, opened to all not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

©Rose Turner
December 2, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

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

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Douglas Manynard, Elizabeth McNamara, Howard K Stern, Jack Harding, John Patton, Krista Barth, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Mark Speer, Nicole Jennings Wade, O'Quinn's Don Clark Ex-FBI, Randy Scott Zelin, Rita Cosby, Tom Bednarek, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicecomine

G. Ben Thompson missed the filing date the Court set of November 3 for his mandatory filing of the Rule 26 f of initial disclosures, also Howard K. Stern’s attorney pointed out that due to Thompson’s attorney being ill they had not been able to hold the required conference via phone.

The Court approved Susan Brown to represent Ben Thompson. Howard K. Stern has attorneys approved for Pro Hac Vice status, including Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Nicole Jennings Wade of Powell Goldstein as well as his South Carolina attorneys.

The best reading in my opinion is the Rule 26f filings required by the Court of which to date Ben Thompson has not answered. Ford Shelley lists only 3 witnesses, himself, his wife Gina Shelley and Howard K. Stern. However, in Shelley’s rule 26-3-a local rule filings, he lists only himself and his wife Gina Shelly as witnesses or persons that have information relevant to these allegations.

What caught my eye was the list of people who have possessions of some of the items alleged to have been taken out of Horizons the day after Anna Nicole Smith’s death.

1. Defendant Shelley has possession of a copy of a clown video.
2. All documents and tangible items related to litigation in the Bahamas which are in possession of the Bahamian authorities.
3. All documents and tangible items in possession of the California Department of Justice as to any investigation relating to Ms. Smith.
4. All documents and tangible items in possession of co-defendant Ben Thompson and/or his agents.
5. All documents and tangible items in possession of Larry Birkhead and/or his agents.

Which leaves the question of who has the ORIGINAL copy of the infamous Clown Video?

Howard K. Stern’s filing is a tad more revealing about where Stern’s team is going. In his required Rule 26-f list of the following witnesses.

(1) Howard K. Stern
(2) Larry Birkhead
(3) Pol’ Atteau
(4) Rita Cosby
(5) Don Clark
(6) Wilma Vicedomine
(7) Stancil “Ford” Shelley
(8) G. Ben Thompson
(9) Tom Pirtle, on of Virgie Arthur’s Texas lawyer at the burial hearing
(10) Tracy Ferguson an attorney that is part of Callendar’s in the Bahamas that G. Ben Thompson is suing.
(11) Gaither Thompson
(12) Melanie Thompson
(13) Gina Shelley
(14) Representatives of Fox News
(15) Representatives of Biscayne Professional Associates (possibly the company that imaged Anna Nicole Smith’s computers and hard drives when the Estate recovered them)

Howard K. Stern lists several Counts that make the basis of the Estate’s case against Ford Shelly and Ben Thompson and a couple caught my attention.

Count Three: Statutory and common law commercial appropriation of right of publicity:

Under California law, the right of publicity survives the death of a celebrity. Thus, any person who uses a deceased person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner . . . without prior consent from the executor of the deceased person’s estate commercially misappropriates the deceased person’s right of publicity. Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1.

There can be no dispute that Ms. Smith held a fully descendible right of publicity
in her Estate property. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1. Further, Shelley has admitted to removing documents and materials from Horizons after Ms. Smith’s death. There is no question that these documents and materials are owned by the Estate. Further, there is no dispute that these items removed by Shelley contained Ms. Smith’s name, voice, signature, and photograph. Shelley used the property by, among other things, distributing it to third parties, including media entities. Shelley had no prior consent from the Executor to use the property he stole from Horizons.

Count Six: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:

Whoever knowingly causes transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct causes damage and Forensic analyses confirm that Shelley copied and deleted files contained on the password protected computers and external hard drives owned by the Estate, which Shelley unlawfully removed from Horizons. Shelley lacked authorization to access the computers and external hard drives. Shelley’s conduct caused damage and losses in excess of $5,000 in a one-year period. causes losses of at least $5,000 in a one-year period, violates federal statute. 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(5).

Forensic analyses confirm that Shelley copied and deleted files contained on the
password protected computers and external hard drives owned by the Estate, which Shelley unlawfully removed from Horizons. Shelley lacked authorization to access the computers and external hard drives. Shelley’s conduct caused damage and losses in excess of $5,000 in a one-year period.

Stern’s Local Rule 26-3-a, lists most of the same witnesses with the exception of Wilma Vicedomine which leads to ask when and why did she become involved with Ben Thompson and Ford Shelley?

Howard K. Stern’s lists the following evidence and documents in the same disclosure that he and/or the Estate (Dannielynn Birkhead as the sole heir) might use to prove the claims.

The following categories of documents in the Executor’s possession, custody, or control may be used to support his claims:

(1) All documents referred to in the Complaint.
(2) Documents relating to the investigation into Defendants’ unlawful conduct in the Bahamas.
(3) Media interviews of Defendants.
(4) Communications between Defendants and third parties regarding the factual circumstances that form the basis for the allegations in the Complaint.
(5) Deposition transcripts of third parties in other litigation regarding the factual circumstances that form the basis for the allegations in the Complaint.
(6) Forensic analyses of Ms. Smith’s computers.
(7) Communications from counsel for Defendants which support the factual basis for the allegations in the Complaint.

So folks why did Ben Thompson miss the date of November 3 and has not notified the court or ask for an extension due to one of his lawyers being ill? Who edited the Clown Video and who has the original now? Why is Tom Pirtle listed, but the rest of Virgie Arthur’s legal team in Florida are not? Then we have Don Clark on both disclosures but Wilma Vicedomine as the lone separate person missing in one of the filings.

Could the Clark/Vicedomine investigation lead us from California, to Florida, to New York to South Carolina in the alleged attempts to have Howard K. Stern arrested and tried for something, anything it appears if the filings are to be believed.

Remember you can pick up all of the documents related to the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith suing Ben Thompson and Ford Shelley, opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

In other news on November 4, 2008 Court Order from Florida that Postpones the Requirement of John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm financials until November 10, 2008 the deadline for the two sides to file a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.

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

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

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Annn Nicole Smith's Estate, Ben Thompson, Biscayne Professional Associates, California Department of Justice, Clark/Vice investigation, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Ford Shelley, FOX News, G Ben Thompson, Gaither Thompson, Gina Shelley, Horizons, Horizons in the Bahamas, Horizons lawsuit, Howard K Stern, John "Jay" Patton, John Patton, L. Lin Wood, Laminack Partle & Martines LLP, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Melanie Thompson, Nicole Jennings Wade, O'Quinn's Don Clark Ex-FBI, Pol' Atteu, Rita Cosby, Stancil "Ford" Shelley, Susan Brown, Tom Pirtle, Tracy Ferguson of Callendar's in the Bahamas, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

On October 21, 2008, a Court Order from the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that Stern can use Rita Cosby’s deposition and confidential documents because her attorneys and Hachette had not objected at the September 26 hearing. However BECAUSE Rita Cosby and Hachette’s counsel had no objection as long as the discovery materials were filed under seal the Court has found that Stern can also use third party depositions and documents. The Court noted in its Order that because “Defense counsel had not clarified that defendants cannot waive any objections that non-parties who have produced confidential materials may have. Any confidential discovery materials utilized from the present matter as well as any excerpts or paraphrasing of that confidential discovery material, must be filed under seal in the related action to protect the producing non-parties’ interests”.

This means the New York Court has found that there can be a limited crossover of using the non-parties material in the Response to the Summary Judgment in Florida. Examples would be using Larry Birkhead, Pol’ and Patrik, Mark Speer, and say Don Clark and Wilma Vicedomine’s depositions and documents supplied during their deposition and discovery for the New York case. Makes me wonder why allegedly Wilma Vicedomine was out blogging about a “chat that occurred in Sun’s chat channel” especially from what has been sent to me she or others allegedly on her behalf stated the date was off by at least a month if not two months.

In other news the Florida Southern District Federal Court Granting the Unopposed Motion for extra pages in Howard K. Stern’s Response giving him 30 total pages, and granting John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm a total of 20 pages in their Reply.

Will Stern’s legal team use the nannies, Mark Speer, Tom Bednarek, and/or Larry Birkhead’s depositions or excerpts of them? What do you think Howard K. Stern will use and from those confidential files? Will he use Wilma Vicedomine and/or Don Clark’s deposition? Did Vicedomine, [Vice], and Clark think they were safe because their depositions were ONLY for the New York case and so “they thought” they would not be used for the Florida Suit. How will this affect the filing coming up by Howard K. Stern due October 27 in Florida?

Down load the documents from our Howard K. Stern vs. John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm and the Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books, which are OPENED to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com, and then let us know what you think.

On October 22, 2008, there is a Court Order from the Southern District Court in Florida, granting Stern’s request for 5 additional pages on Response of Material Facts for a total 15 pages.

©Rose Turner
October 21, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

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

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith's Bahamas nannies, Anna Nicole Smith's Will and Estate, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Hachette Books, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Krista Barth, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Mark Speer, O'Quinn's Don Clark Ex-FBI, Patrik Simpson, Pol' Atteu, Pol' Atteu and Patrik Simpson, Rita Cosby, The John O'Quinn Law Firm, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Tom Bednarek, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

The Southern District Court in Florida issued an Order on October 14, 2008 for a hearing on October 17, 2008 at 1:30 PM. The hearing is to address John O’Quinn and The O’Quinn law firm’s Motion for Protective Order in relation to releasing financial information to Lin Wood except they are willing to release those 30 days before trial. The Motion before the Court is also asking that Howard K. Stern have no access because of “trust issues”.

The Court also issued an Order on October 15 to reset the Calendar Call Date from December 24 at 10 AM to December 23 at AM, due to a Court holiday.

Following the Wilma Vicedomine deposition on October 13, an alleged friend released the following information on October 14, which was sent to me.

“Per Targets (on Topix.net)
Wilma’s deposition was a smashing success and Stern and Wood are not happy about it.

…The depo lasted 10 hours and Wilma was represented by her own private attorney. Wilma told the truth and, just as we have been predicting all along, her testimony sucked the life out of Stern’s case.

…Klein is representing Clark today. [October 14]

…And that, my friends, is all I can say about it because that’s all I know. The contents of the depo itself is under seal. If any of it gets leaked, someone is going to jail.”

I am gathering from the above statement that Howard K. Stern in spite of his intense dislike for Texas and Houston in particular that he did in fact, [not as I predicted], go to Houston Texas to look Wilma Vicedomine eye to eye. It appears from Targets statement that Howard K. Stern overcame his dislike of Texas to see what Wilma had to say about her actions over the last year plus in his life and that of Anna Nicole Smith, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn Birkhead, etc.

Glad I did not have any money down on my bet. REMEMBER folks, anyone being deposed can share anything they want about the deposition, just as Pol’ and Patrik did to us, some of what they said following their depositions was published and some of it was off the record. There is NOTHING wrong with Wilma Vicedomine sharing the above information “on the record” via an alleged friend, spokesperson, to post on the internet. It is the parties, Howard K. Stern, Rita Cosby and Hachette that cannot release any information on any of the discovery, depositions etc.

It would appear if Targets statement turns out to be true that Wilma Vicedomine felt very good and confidant about her deposition.

I wonder if we will hear something from a “spokesperson” on behalf of Don Clark. Will Don Clark allow someone to address his deposition on the record and permit that “statement” to be put on the internet on his behalf?

In other news in the New York Court Howard K. Stern has added an additional attorney to his legal team, Amy Stewart of POGO filed for Pro Hac Vice status on October 1 and the Court approved that request with an Order on October 8, 2008.

Remember you can pick up all documents for all cases we are following in our download section, opened to ALL, not just members for Rose Speaks.com.

©Rose Turner
October 15, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

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

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Debra Opri, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Hachette Books, Howard K Stern, Jack Harding, John O'Quinn, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Mark Speer, O'Quinn's Don Clark Ex-FBI, Rita Cosby, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Topix.net, Virgie Arthur, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©Rose Turner
October 13, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

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

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Howard K Stern, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Rita Cosby, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omnibus Order Page 39
The fact that all of the information provided by Vicedomine and Clark was not included in Blonde Ambition also refutes Defendants’ contention that the information is readily available to Plaintiff and, therefore, should not be com