Howard K. Stern filed the following under Seal on October 27, as requested on October 24, in the Howard K. Stern vs. John O’Quinn and The O’Quinn Law Firm. Therefore, what does this tell us and why?

The following were documents filed yesterday as per the Court Order:

1. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Absence of Actual Malice and any attached exhibits or appendices.

2. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts and Plaintiff’s Statement of Additional Material Facts and any attached exhibits;

3. The confidential deposition transcripts of Rita Cosby, Wilma Vicedomine, and Jack Harding taken in the Stern v. Cosby matter which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York;

4. The confidential deposition transcript and VIDEO of Don Clark which was taken in the present matter and in Stern v. Cosby; and,

5. Documents produced pursuant to Confidentiality Orders entered in the present matter and Stern v. Cosby; and

6. Stern’s Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and attached exhibits.

We have discussed the depositions and confidential documents of Rita Cosby, the depositions “transcripts”, of Wilma Vicedomine and Jack Harding. However, why was Don Clark’s transcript of his deposition with the VIDEO filed? What is on that video that the Stern legal team wants the Court to look at? Why the VIDEO of Don Clark and not just read the transcript of his deposition?

In O’Quinn’s filing for Summary Judgment we got to see a lot of documents including the Affidavit of Don Clark slamming Howard K. Stern and still doing the “mantra” of Howard killed two people and he still thinks that, as well as he thinks the Will was faxed 4 days before Anna Nicole Smith’s death. Clark’s Affidavit also states that Ron Rale and Bonnie Stern had access to the Will thus knowing what it contained prior to Anna Nicole Smith’s death.

Although to go on as defense by the O’Quinn team is allowed to file things publicly in their filings but Stern had to filed under Seal as agreed. What did Stern say in his filings? We will never know unless both or either the Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books and/or the Stern vs. O’Quinn suit goes to jury trial. Do you think either of these suits will go to trial so we have access to these filings under seal?

Do any of you have or can find the “show transcripts” that Clark is referring to in regards to Ron Rale and Bonnie Stern? It appears to me in all of the media transcripts filed it seems those are not filed with the Court.

I will have the debunking of the blond ambitious Rita Cosby’s chapter 13 of her book and then I will have some “predictions” of what I think will be happening in both of these cases as they head to trial.

Pick up the papers to these suits that are open to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com. There was also a housekeeping Order issued by the Court yesterday in Florida, granting the Pro Hac Vice requests of John Patton and Amy Stewart. It appears that the same team of lawyers is going to be overlapping these two cases, who would have ever thought they might be connected.

©Rose Turner
October 28, 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: Amy Stewart, Anna Nicole Smith, Bonnie Stern, Daniel Smith Inquest, Daniel Smth, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Douglas Maynard, Elizabeth McNamara, Howard K Stern, Jack Harding, John "Jay" Patton, John O'Quinn, John Patton, Krista Barth, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, M. Krista Barth, O'Quinn's Don Clark Ex-FBI, Rita Cosby, Ron Rale, The John O'Quinn Law Firm, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Virgie Arthur, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

In filings that began to appear on PACER at about 11:45 PM on October 3, and going well into the morning of October 4, John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm has filed numerous Motions to Dismiss with a Summary Judgment against Howard K. Stern in the Southern District Court of Florida. There is also the Motions for “Leave” to file late by O’Quinn’s Florida legal team; although Don Clark’s Affidavit shows, it was not even faxed until after 7 PM [CDT - 8 EDT] on October 3. There is an update today that Robert Klein contacted Lin Wood about filing some of this “late”, [Again], and of course Lin Wood is not agreeing to the late filing. It is not as if this deadline just “appeared” it has been set since August 23, 2007 by the Court to have it filed ON or BEFORE October 3, 2008 at the latest. What gives with these after 8 PM Friday night filings with O’Quinn’s legal team?

What I find striking is the lack of Affidavits (only three filed), Admissions, Deposition Transcripts, Answers to Interrogatories, Document Productions during discovery, etc. to set out the “factual” basis for a Motion for Summary Judgment. What I have seen is many tabloid media writings filed to support that O’Quinn did not defame Stern, because just look at the “blog postings”. Then we have tabloid media filed to say, “You can’t find that someone defamed another based on Tabloid Media”. Are you confused yet on this double standard, is it going to become what the definition of “is” is, as in the Clinton years? Wasn’t Clinton impeached over that “meaning”? Being impeached and convicted are VERY separate issues by the way in the U. S. Congress. Do not get me wrong I am, and have always been a HUGE Clinton supporter, and think it silly we even had to spend that money on the investigation of what “is” is.

We still have a LOT of papers to download in the massive amount of documents filed last night and this morning. You are not going to believe all of the exhibits, little substance it appears so far and a lot to tabloid media and blog postings.

Pick up the latest documents as we get them loaded for you in the Howard K. Stern vs. John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm, defamation suit in our download section, open to All not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&cid=8.

©Rose Turner
October 4, 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 Nicold Smith, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn Birkhead, Debra Opri, Don Clark, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Krista Barth, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Ron Rale, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

It has been passed around in court filings from last June in California, to Florida, to New York that Mark Speer(s), a/k/a Speer, Spear and Spears, seems to have almost as much connection to all of the lawsuits in differing jurisdictions as does Wilma Vicedomine, which leads to the question of why?

In the California dueling banjos of the Birkhead sues Opri sues Birkhead cases there are a few facts they did agree on. The main one being that a disagreement over money given to Opri on or about March 2, 2007, which ended up in her client trust fund, caused a disagreement on March 13 following a hearing in California.

After that the tale gets hazy, Larry Birkhead has always claimed he fired Opri on March 13, Opri has maintained she fired Birkhead on March 15 and released a statement stating that right before a hearing in the Bahamas on the morning of March 16, 2007.

Court Filings by Opri shows she filed on March 20, 2007 to be released as Birkhead’s attorney of record in California and that the court granted that on April 23, 2007.

We have many allegations if you all remember of whether Rita Cosby secured Opri for Birkhead and if Opri then released confidential information to Cosby as a thank you for the high profile client. That is a lot of he said, she said, except that Cosby does say in her book she did introduce them but did not know of any financial arrangements. Greta of Fox, during a L. A. Times article on the woes of Debra Opri did recount a conversation she had with Birkhead in September 2006 in which she said Birkhead told her Opri was going to represent him free. Opri, Cosby and Paul Barresi all agree they met and became friends during the Michael Jackson Criminal Trial in California in 1993.

Then there are all of those people in all of these suits, especially the lawyers of Cosby, Opri, Arthur tend to keep mentioning the Marshall monies Dannielynn might get one day, which seems to be an ongoing current in all of these cases and with all of these people.

In Opri’s filings, and statements made by both Ford Shelley and Ron Rale there was a meeting in Rale’s hotel room between Shelley, Birkhead and Howard K. Stern about funeral arrangements for Anna Nicole Smith as well as attempting to reach agreements on all disputed facts including Horizons and a private DNA test for Larry Birkhead. This meeting occurred the night of the last day of hearings in Florida in February 2007. However, until Cosby’s book was published that is the only meeting anyone has ever talked about other than Opri thanked Stern on the last day of hearings for Stern agreeing to allow Birkhead permission to see Dannielynn during Birkhead’s next visit to the Bahamas.

In Court Filings in California, Opri seems to “believe and states” that Birkhead and Harvey Levin of TMZ.com were “good friends”. Larry Birkhead bragged about that per Opri’s filings, including releasing her bill to TMZ.com, and it does appear that TMZ.com had the exclusive following Birkhead’s ten-hour deposition this week. So perhaps that allegation is true, after all it would appear that possibly TMZ.com might have bought some of Birkhead’s celebrity pictures over the years to me, what do y’all think?

Then comes the surprise why did John O’Quinn’s law firm claimed “privilege” on all third party correspondence that ended up with Wilma Vicedomine to “check out” but not those that ended up with the rest of the firm including Don Clark. Thus, the law firm released the long rambling email of Carolyn Herring, which several thought was hiney einy of Florida only after reading that email it is clear that Ms. Herring lives in Texas in the Dallas Fort Worth area. There is a long rambling correspondence with a Howard Lynn, which is just that. Then there are emails from a Joyce Cornwell of Florida that is interesting, as well as a nurse from Denton Texas offering her service “pro bono” to Virgie Arthur. Many of you have pointed out the interesting email from someone claiming to be with the Montel Williams show, which is interesting only in that Cosby ended up on that show with Don Clark and others selling her book in the fall of 2007.

There is a fan email from Marilyn Williamson of Fenandina Beach Florida, dated March 28, 2007. Ms. Williamson is proud to say she figured out John O’Quinn’s strategy in getting Howard K. Stern to file a slander suit against O’Quinn for the “m” word so O’Quinn could get jurisdiction over Stern in Texas, now that is an interesting email since it now appears to have a ring of truth to it.

However, I found three emails of particular interest, one from Virgie Arthur’s Bahamian lawyer, Debra Rose. That email states to Don Clark the following:

“Debra Rose wrote:

Don,
We are aware of the Bahamian connection; add to that the son of Roger Gomez, Roger Gomez, Jr., was recently an associate of the law firm of Lockhart and Munroe, Howard Stern’s attorneys.

DEBRA”

You have to wonder why O’Quinn did not claim attorney-client privilege on that one for Virgie Arthur.

But then there are some interesting letters and two very interesting emails, the letters are to and from Brian Cavanagh in Florida as well as the FBI in Miami asking for a more thorough investigation into Anna Nicole’s death.

The letter to the FBI states in part the following:

Dated April 16, 2007

“[A]n expert, Mr. David Liebman, a two time president of the National Association of Document Examiners, says the signature appears to be a forgery is also enclosed. Additionally I [Clark] have enclosed a copy of a magazine article that identifies the expert who says he believes the signature of the Will is a forgery.

Based on the investigation conducted by this law firm, the media and private citizens, we strongly believe that Anna’s death was anything but an accidental overdose. We believe that there should be a thorough investigation into Ms. Smith’s death, which would not be complete without including the circumstance surrounding the death of her son, Daniel smith, who died in the Bahamas on September 10, 2006 under almost identical circumstances…

Don Clark then names both DEA agents and telephone numbers in California that are conducting an investigation, Lisa Troncoso and Alma Tongson, as well as Jon Genens an “investigator” for the State of California Medical Board, are investigating the methods of procuring prescription drugs”.

Clark thanks SSA Patrick G. Brodsky, for taking the time and meeting with him [Clark] on “April 11, 2007 to discuss what I [Clark] believe to be severe mis-steps and incomplete investigations conducted by the Seminole Police Department”, (OUCH!), “surrounding the death of Anna Nicole Smith. I am available to provide you with any assistance I can to ensure justice is done as it relates to Ms. Smith’s death and the death of her son Daniel. I can be contacted at any time at the below numbers…”

Don Clark sends a CC to Valerie Parlave, Assistant Special Agent In charge, FBI, Miami Division.

Then we have the letter dated August 2, 2007 from Brian T. Cavanagh to Don Clark that states in part:

“August 2, 2007

From Brian T. Cavanagh

“…letter dated July 23, 2007, and our follow-up telephone conversation this week with a “representative of your firm”.”

No date but in response to the August 2, 2007 letter Don Clark makes some interesting statements.

Don Clark says in part “…However, I and others in the law firm do believe that the investigations was not conducted in sufficient depth to determine actual motives and more detailed actions of the individuals surrounding Ms. Smith from prior to her travels between the Bahamas and the Hard Rock Hotel on the Seminole Reservation. I [Clark] believe that a more detailed look into individuals associated with Ms. Smith and the actions of each of the individuals prior to her clinical time of death will produce different results.

…Frankly sir, we don’t question the coroner’s conclusion that Ms. Smith died of an overdose of various drugs, but we do question that her death was accidental. We find it extremely unbelievable that a person in Ms. Smith’s mental and physical condition, which has been established by witnesses and according to Howard Stern, was never left alone, could have the quantity of drugs found in her body as a result of ingestion or by using a syringe herself.

Below, is a partial list of individuals and what information they should provide. Some of the witnesses may require subpoenas. However, I believe their information is key to developing the whole truth surrounding Ms. Smith’s death.

Witness number 1 is Mark Speer.

Now in August of 2007 we seem to have a different story from Tas including “information regarding computers and cell phone activities”, as well as Moe, [which goes to Moe Moe tell us it ain't so did you sell out prior to Cosby's book], Dr. Khris and the Bahamian nannies…”

Don Clark goes on to say he is, “now prepared to meet with you and your staff for the purpose of providing you with additional information, names of potential witnesses and some pertinent documents, which I believe will provide sufficient probably cause to re-open the investigation into the death of Anna Nicole Smith.”

My question is if Mark Speer was so crucial to the investigation into the death of Anna Nicole Smith why throw Mark under the bus now in July 2008?

We have Mark Speer, connected to all things California, Florida, the Bahamas, and New York as a source for Cosby’s book and now when it appears he is not needed tossed under the bus to fend for himself. You ask why we know this happened to Mark? I suggest you pull the 2 emails from Mark Wilson dated March 20, 2007, the date that Opri filed to be removed as Birkhead’s lawyer in California, very interesting timing. Both emails from “Mark Wilson” are desperate to reach John O’Quinn to tell him he worked free with Opri and Birkhead and that he has important information for O’Quinn about a “SECRET MEETING”. In the second email dated the same day the “SECRET MEETING” is added as occurring at “HORIZONS” and that Dannielynn might be in danger and what he is willing to do and for free… WOW so many working free here. However, it is that secret meeting at Horizons, which found its way into Cosby’s book. Not to mention at her New York book signing party there was Mark Speer with Don Clark, John O’Quinn and Virgie Arthur all big smiles for the photo ops.

What is interesting is Mark Wilson also goes by Mark Speer, a/k/a Mark Wilson Speer etc., and that Mr. Wilson/Speer has been a member of Rose Speaks.com from almost the beginning or Rose Speaks.com. Even after we were hacked into in November and December 2007, Mr. Speer joined quietly again on January 22, 2008 under the name of Marcus, Ooooooopppppppppss we need to add that name to the many names of Mark Speer(s). On another interesting note, it appears we had or have a pending member that is actually Wilma. These things make you all snuggly to know these people want to be close to us including trying to join our new forums, doesn’t it?

Therefore, with this article the main site member list is NOW CLOSED to all except admins. That said we welcome both Mark and Wilma. Although I must say I would have more respect if you had joined with your “real name” like John Nazarian did, just my opinion. Oh and Mark, you have my email address feel free to contact me if you would like to chat.

The password protective blog is at this url: http://www.rosespeaks.com/rose-blog/?p=357.

©Rose Turner
July 25, 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: All Things Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith’s Will, Anna Nicole’s Nannies, Celebrity Trials, Daniel Smith, Daniel Smith’s Inquest, Dannielynn, Debra Opri, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Dr. Kapoor, Dr. Khris, Greta -On The Record, Greta Van Susteren, Harvey Levin, Horizons law suit, Howard and Anna, Howard K Stern, John J. Nazarian, John Nazarian, John Nazarian PI, John O’Quinn, Krista Barth, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Mark Speer, Nazarian, Nazarian P. I., O’Quinn’s Don Clark Ex-FBI, Paul Barresi, Rita Cosby, Ron Rale, Rose Speaks, Rose Turner, rosespeaks.com, TMZ, Virgie Arthur, Wayne Munroe, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

In a quick turn around time wise in compare to the Texas Southern District taking two months to issue it’s Memorandum of Law, the Court’s Order and Memorandum of Law quoting, the U. S. Supreme Court in case law, Florida Federal Court rules it has jurisdiction over John O’Quinn and the Associates of the O’Quinn law firm.

It is interesting to note that the first show that the Court displays as the allegedly defamation occurred is none other than Rita Cosby on MSNBC, might this be a trend beginning to tie all of these suits together?

The Court also took note of something many of us have said, that we had not heard of Howard K. Stern prior to the Florida hearings in February 2007. For those like me that never followed Anna Nicole Smith, I have always felt that was significant that the first I ever heard of Howard K. Stern was one morning when Rita Cosby interviewed John O’Quinn about insurance policies and the Will allegedly being faxed to Howard K. Stern five days prior to Anna Nicole’s death. Something we all know was not based on factual information now.

The Court also dismissed Howard K. Stern’s attorney L. Lin Wood’s filing of Supplemental facts as being untimely made in relation to the June 25 hearing before the Court. However, personally I am happy that Mr. Wood did file that because otherwise we would not have been able to read that paper without knowing someone that subscribed to West Law.

The Court stating that it has jurisdiction on both John O’Quinn and the Associates of the O’Quinn law firm leaves me with a question of will Neil McCabe have to Recuse himself from representing the law firm since he is an associate of the firm that is being sued. Equally, what will this do to other associates of the firm, namely Don Clark and Wilma (Vice) Vicedomine?

Pick up the Court’s Ruling from our download section open to All not just members of Rose Speaks.com and then let us know your thoughts of the Court’s Ruling.

In something I found ironic over the weekend the Society of Professional Journalism announced it speakers for the September 2008 meeting. They released the following on one of the speakers:

“Hi, I’ll Be Suing You Today!

Description: If you libel or slander someone on a major story, L. Lin Wood could be the man who’ll sue you. Once called “the lawyer for the damned,” he has represented Richard Jewell, the family of JonBenet Ramsey, Gary Condit, and Beth Holloway (mother of Natalee). In 2007, he signed on to represent Howard K. Stern, executor of Anna Nicole Smith’s estate. He’ll discuss defamation concerns and what NOT to do during a “media frenzy.”

Speakers: L. Lin Wood, partner, Powell Goldstein LLP

©Rose Turner
July 14, 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: All Things Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith’s Will, Celebrity Trials, Daniel Smith, Daniel Smith’s Inquest, Dannielynn, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Elizabeth McNamara, Greta -On The Record, Greta Van Susteren, Howard and Anna, Howard K Stern, John O’Quinn, Krista Barth, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Nancy Grace, Neil McCabe, O’Quinn’s Don Clark Ex-FBI, Rita Cosby, Ron Rale, Rose Speaks, Rose Turner, rosespeaks.com, Virgie Arthur, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

Rita Cosby has filed her “Disclosure 26 witness list” but NOT in the New York Federal Court where she has been able to get the court to agree to a gag order on almost anything Hachette Books and she feels is going to expose her to embarrassment or public ridicule. The court did issue a new “Consent Amended HIGHLY Confidential Order” as the lawsuit goes forward and while asking some witnesses to, now after the fact of the book, give Rita Cosby and Hachette Books very sensitive and personal information as the objection filed in California by Larry Birkhead’s lawyer, Michael Trope shows. The Order also allows Howard K. Stern to play by the same rules. Again, I would add it would have been nice if Cosby had tried to vet her sources before the book instead of after the book, in what now appears allegedly as an attempt of saving her Azz so to say.

We had to dig to come up with the papers in California but come up with them we did, as well as a subpoena served on CNN in Atlanta Georgia by Howard K. Stern. Yes, we have to prowl through the national databases occasionally but as with these papers we found filed in California it is well worth it.

Now what does the witness list tell us about Rita Cosby’s defense? First, we noticed she has many of the same witnesses as Howard K. Stern. However, Cosby now tells us that Bruce Littlefield of New York, alleged friend of Cosby’s good pal; James Edstrom was her “ghost writer”. James Edstrom, whom by the way is NOT on the witness list, I wonder why when he brags about being Cosby’s official photographer for years. Perhaps he will be added to the gang of Cosby’s defenders, as the trial gets closer, isn’t that what good friends are for? Perhaps James Edstrom was never a long time good friend and like so many others in this tragic tale, just hung onto the coat tails of Cosby for a bit to get his own publicity. Any of you know how long Edstrom has been Cosby’s “good buddy”? I continue to say this book read so bad that you have to wonder who wrote it and how quickly, you would think an “award winning journalist” would have taken some writing classes to get her degree. Who is Bruce Littlefield anyway, did he do some garage sale shopping books?

Back to the witness list and who are on it and who is NOT on it which can be, I predict very telling about this blond ambitious “who dunnit” novel passed as fact to readers, in my opinion. We now know that many of the allegations of sure fire, yeppers we know it, stand behind it 120% no 200% is not quite there, it now appears.

Looking at the witness list we see that “grouping of people” we have suspected will tie this up with a Los Angeles, Houston, Florida and into New York of people with similar interests and agendas, in my opinion. After you read it be sure and give us your opinion on this “grouping of people” and if you think they were “reliable” sources for Cosby’s ambitious book. You can do that here on the blog or on the new forums, named “Stern Vs Rita Cosby, Hachette Books, et al”.

Let’s start with the Texas connection: We have some that both Rita Cosby and Howard K Stern listed including, Virgie Arthur, Don Clark a private investigator for the O’Quinn law firm and the biggest surprise, per Cosby list, once again Wilma Vicedomine listed as a PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR. She is listed on Stern’s list as just a “witness”, not as a private investigator as she ranks on Cosby’s list. So all of you out there that said, she is not important and never passed herself off as a private investigator when we interviewed Pol’ Atteu and Patrik Simpson, they seem to be vindicated here. Why might you ask, simply because Cosby and Hachette both have listed Wilma as just that, a private investigator? I did not know Wilma had a Texas PI license, they are hard to come by. However, per Cosby and Hachette’ list we now know that in fact she claims to be just that, a private investigator; however as the O’Quinn law firm continued to state in December 2007 only for the cases of Virgie Arthur. Can one now get a P.I. license in Texas by the mere fact of knowing a “real” P. I.? Of course, she could be a “P. I.” in training “studying under” Don Clark. I bet some of you can check into the requirements in Texas to claim that special title and get back with us on when Vice accomplished this feat. However, it does appear Wilma is in fact a Private Investigator if Cosby is to be believed.

Then we have a surprise witness on Cosby’s and Hachette’s list, John O’Quinn, was he a source or did he only loan Cosby Wilma and Clark as sources? Is Cosby going to hang these Texas people out to dry so to say if it comes down to “outing” them as prime sources for her book? Did John O’Quinn ever meet Anna Nicole Smith or Daniel Smith? What could he have been a source for in Cosby’s book, other than then what he now claims? If you believe Rita’s past now cancelled show, just like Greta’s On the Record, you have to know that is not real news, and no one believes what is on those shows, called “infotainment. Wonder if he told Cosby that no one watching her now cancelled show on MSNBC would ever accept that as anything but “infotainment”. O’Quinn has gone on to continue to say that Greta and Cosby should never be believed, that has to make both women feel warm, snuggly and loved, NOT. If you doubt that about John O’Quinn’s opinion of Cosby just read the latest filings in the federal court in Florida. None of Anna Nicole Smith’s other family members or friends are listed on Cosby’s list, although some are listed on Howard K. Stern’s list filed publicly with the New York court back in November 2007. Which by the way is when Cosby filed this list, she just chose not to make it public, must have been one of those “confidential documents”.

Then let’s swing out to California, and we have Mark Speer (only now we “think” his name is Spears, or Speers, or Spear), he was “the security person”, working for Debra Opri, the long time good friend of Rita Cosby. Then as we peruse the list we see, some more interesting people on Cosby’s list, some that did and some that didn’t make it on Stern’s list. Cosby and Stern both agree that Mark and Jackie Hatten as well as Jack Harding are all important to this case. I wonder what Jackie Hatten said in her deposition and watching her in court during the trial should be great entertainment. We have all now had a good look at jailhouse Mark Hatten; did Cosby ever look into who this guy really was before interviewing him via phone in prison for her book? You would think that “award winning journalism” might have caused her to stop for a second or two to determine his “believability scale”.

Now getting back to the ever changing tales of Jack Harding the P. I. who did talk to Daniel Smith but only briefly met him for coffee at Starbucks with Ray Martino; Jack Haring whom as the weeks following Anna Nicole’s death “story” grew and evolved kind of like Pinocchio’s nose. Jack Harding, remember him, the P. I., whom we were able to debunk on this site, using his multitude of ever changing interviews. Jack went from saying there was “one brief” meeting to having “several meetings”, from being told Daniel Smith had a previous prescription problem to saying that Don Clark had contacted him and offered to pay his expenses to the Bahamas for the Inquest. Which brings up the question, why didn’t someone as important as Jack Harding not make it on the Bahamas officials “main” people who needed to testify list, but did make it on Don Clark’s list? Jack Harding ended up, it appears, being a major source of information for Cosby’s book, did she not pick up that this guy’s story kept changing? She based almost a whole chapter on what Jack Harding had to say, including having to save John Nazarian from being treed, ah I mean fenced by Harding’s dogs.

Both Cosby and Stern continue to agree in California that Ray Martino is important; Larry Birkhead whose lawyer is trying to reign in the broad reaching subpoena with Cosby and Hachette’s lawyers to see if the new “Consent Amended Order” is enough for Cosby to be able to go through all things concerning Larry Birkhead. If I had the money to make a bet, I bet that “fishing expedition” into Birkhead’s life will be severely limited by the federal court in California if Birkhead and Cosby’s lawyers cannot reach an agreement. I might add here that Cosby and Hachette are “beefing” up their list of Pro Hac Vice lawyers to appear if a court hearing is needed in California.

Stern and Cosby both have Anna Nicole’s ex-assistant, Kim Walther on this list; as well as Ron Rale, Anna’s lawyer and ex-law partner of Howard K. Stern and still friends with Howard K. Stern. On Cosby’s list he is just listed as a friend to Howard K. Stern. Is Ron Rale the attorney close to Stern and Birkhead that Rita said in interviews that she had several conversations with before and during her writing of the book? Everyone in all lawsuits, in all states wants the ET employees, especially Bonnie Tiegel and Mark Steines; it appears they are listed in this lawsuit as well as the Houston Texas federal suit and the Florida federal suit. Am I the only one here seeing overlapping players in all three federal suits?

Both lists have Dr. Kapor and Dr. Khris listed. However, with Cosby bragging about how her book got all of the investigations kicked back into high gear, Florida and the Inquest in particular, I wonder if she can get either doctor to appear. I know we continue to lose our Constitutional Rights, but last I heard if these doctors are still being investigated by anyone then I doubt Cosby is going to get any “good and spicy” testimony from them to back up her and Littlefield’s books claims.

Now we have some interesting developments in all of this: First Pol’ Atteu and Patrik Simpson, they are listed on Stern’s witness list but NOT on Cosby’s witness list. However, we might note that making a full disclosure to us for their deposition that stated they had dinner with Cosby, her lawyer and her lawyer’s assistant in New York in mid-March and then received a subpoena in April by Cosby’s people. Remember that Pol’ and Patrik swears to us in their “full disclosure” that they only talked about raising children, and Pol’ and Patrik were “curious” about Rita so decided to take her and her lawyer up on an offer for dinner. Second, during our interview with Nathan Collins, he said up front that Hachette’s private investigators had interviewed him; he is on Stern’s list as possibly having information about Cosby’s book but not on Cosby’s list.

Then we have two surprises on Cosby’s list, John Nazarian, again why didn’t she talk to him while writing her book she put his email addy in the book so we all could email Mr. Nazarian? By the way, thanks Rita for doing that, after your book came out we emailed him and he ended up writing about the Anthony Pellicano trial for us. However, I have to wonder how many idiots emailed him thanks to you putting his email address in your book. Bottom line is that Cosby really could have contacted him if she had wanted. He would not have talked to you about any clients, like Birkhead and Stern, but I bet he could have talked to you about being treed (ah fenced) by Harding’s dogs and then saved by Harding himself. However, if Cosby had done that homework about vetting her sources that “intimidation chapter” about Mr. Nazarian would have probably had to end up on the editor’s floor.

Drum roll here, we then have Debra Opri listed as a witness. Am I the only one seeing a pattern of lawyers or ex-lawyers as key players end up on Cosby’s list of people who can vouch for her “who dunnit” book? Can Opri discuss an ex-client like Birkhead? I mean she did that June 6, 2007 filing that became almost the entire bases for chapter 12 of Cosby’s book. It is just a “minor fact” that the June 6, 2007 filing by Opri had been stricken by the California Court before the book was published, perhaps she can testify as to why she filed that in the first place. I am willing to bet that little filing has cost Ms. Opri some television appearances, some clients, but she did get a new Hollyweird term named after her, the “I’ve been Opried”.

The South Carolina, Florida and the Bahamas list of people are also overlapping in the lawsuits. However, Cosby gives us two surprises here, it appears we now know the name of the boat handyman she based so much of her book on, Todd Smith. The other person that seems to be very absent from Cosby’s list is the “male employee confidante” from the Bahamas that so much of Cosby’s book about Stern mistreatment of Anna Nicole was based on. Which brings up my next question, is it cool to put a character who is perhaps fictitious into a “non-fiction book” even though it reads like a “who dunnit” novel? Perhaps L. Lin Wood and Howard K. Stern were right in their interviews about saying this guy never existed.

I suggest you pull Stern’s witness list and the Cosby and Hachette witness lists and compare them side by side. For me it was all of the same people gathering in all of the different jurisdictions from sea to sea and to foreign countries. It seems to be a close-knit circle of “friends-enemies”, and a lot of “who dunnit” alleged theorists.

©Rose Turner
June 9, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

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

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

On July 7 the lawyer for Larry Birkhead, Michael Trope and the lawyers for Rita Cosby and Hachette books, Elizabeth McNamara and Douglas Maynard will be dancing together in a Federal Court in Los Angeles. Will it be a tango? I doubt so it seems they are squared off for a showdown. My question is wouldn’t it have been better if Cosby had talked to Larry Birkhead BEFORE the book was published and not in court through lawyers?

The original Larry Birkhead on January 28, 2008.

Cosby and Hachette alleges that Larry Birkhead does not intend to comply with the subpoena, avoid service and was only served on January 28, 2008 after the “defendants were able to effect service by incurring the expense of 24 hour surveillance on Birkhead’s residence.” The defendants go on to complain that “Mr. Birkhead’s counsel requested two extensions of Mr. Birkhead’s time to respond to the Subpoena so that Mr. Birkhead, who apparently left the country shortly after the Subpoena was serve, would have sufficient time to return to California and conduct a search of his records. After Defendants granted the extensions, Mr. Birkhead served Defendants with objections to the Subpoena that asserted the same “rote objections” to each and every one of the Subpoena’s requests, and refused to produce a single document responsive thereto.”

Cosby and Hachette’s lawyers go on to allege that; “Mr. Trope subsequently refused to respond to Defendants’ request that Mr. Birkhead provide them with key categories of documents or, alternatively, certify that no such documents exist, by June 15, 2008 or to provide them with documents that could be obtained by Mr. Birkhead prior to his purported June return to California, such as emails that can be electronically accessed and litigation documents, (many of which Defendants have not been unable to obtain), maintained by Mr. Birkhead’s attorneys.” Mr. Trope also refused to provide Defendants with dates when Mr. Birkhead is available for a deposition or to accept service of a deposition subpoena on Mr. Birkhead’s behalf. In fact, since April 11, 2008, Mr. Trope has refused even to respond to Defendants’ numerous emails and voice mails.

The lawyers for Cosby and Hachette go on to complain to the court that they need permission “to serve Mr. Birkhead with a deposition subpoena by sending the subpoena to Mr. Birkhead and his counsel, Trope and DeCarolis, LLP, via pre-paid First Class Mail, Return Receipt Requested”, so they can save money. HUH??? Wouldn’t they have saved a LOT of money by vetting Ms. Cosby’s sources before the book was published?

Larry Birkhead fires back in his opening part of the joint stipulations through his lawyer that, “Defendants served Larry Birkhead-a-nonparty-with a wildly overbroad subpoena that purports to require him to divulge documents concerning his sexual history, his finances, and his personal and business relationships with others.” Birkhead’s lawyer goes on to allege, “The subpoena also commands Birkhead to search through thousands upon thousands of email to determine which ones contain the salacious information that Defendants seek.” Birkhead lawyer goes on to state, “that he [Birkhead] has not had the opportunity to return to Los Angeles with enough time to comb through his belongings to search for the records among potentially thousands of documents. Doing so would conceivable require weeks of nonstop searching. He [Birkhead] would have to cease working and stop carrying on his normal life. Requiring this nonparty to fly to Los Angeles to search for needles in a haystack…”

Birkhead’s lawyer, Michael Trope ends with a thought provoking argument in my opinion of, “The protective order [New York agreed protective order entered into by all parties], would not help Birkhead to the extent that a party referred to a protected document at trial, in which case the information would be divulged for publicly. A party could mention confidential information, for instance, during closing argument with impunity.” Birkhead’s lawyer goes on to point to Paragraph 9 of the protective order to state, “That witness could then leak the confidential information to the press or anyone else. Nor would a protective order undo the injury that Birkhead would suffer by having to produce documents-if they existed-that are highly personal and private, for the mere production would inure his interest in privacy.

Mr. Michael L. Trope concludes, “Despite the overbroad, invasive subpoena has met and conferred in good faith with Defendants’ lawyers in an attempt to resolve these discovery disputes. Birkhead does not have any documents in most of the subpoena’s categories, and counsels have agreed to eliminate certain categories.” Would that be a possible BINGO, perhaps even alleging they know some of what Ms. Cosby wrote cannot be substantiated factually?

Birkhead’s lawyer ends with the statement of, “True, Birkhead has repeated many of the same objections in response to each category, but, again, that is only because the subpoena keeps making the same kind of unwarranted intrusions. Those objections remain valid, and Defendants must bear the burden of showing that they have the right not only to obtain the records from this nonparty but also to compel him to drop everything else in his life to go on a scavenger hunt.”

Mr. Trope puts out that he “confirmed” that “Birkhead remains willing to search for and produce non-privileged, non-confidential responsive documents that he knows to be easily accessible and in his possession or control. But Birkhead simply does not possess or control any documents in most categories”.

At this point, you need to emails and letters between Michael Trope and Deborah Newman in regards to each of these requests and objections, as well as the excerpts of transcripts of the Florida hearing.

Request 1:
This deals with everything, in my opinion, relating to Anna Nicole Smith’s pregnancy, what Anna had said about her desire to become pregnant, Anna Nicole’s drug use. It goes on to want Birkhead to provide all documents relating to any testimony Birkhead provided regarding to Anna Nicole drug use. Everything Birkhead might have relating to Anna Nicole’s death including the Seminole Police dept. and/or Broward County Medical Examiner’s investigation into Anna Nicole’s death. This state, “including affidavits, witness statements, documents filed in court on your behalf, or sworn testimony (including any drafts) from January 1, 2004 through the present”.

My take is part of this is public to all via that Florida is the “Sunshine state” and what is not available in public records or transcripts from Florida, is probably covered by work product, attorney client privilege, and that famous “right to privacy” that Cosby demands but appears to not want to give others, in my opinion.

I have to chuckle at the part of “truth is an absolute defense against libel”, yea and doing your homework to make sure you have the “truth” before publication might have avoid the whole lawsuit Ms. Cosby now finds herself embroiled in.

Part of this goes to “any emails to or from Ms. Smith, or any emails relating to Ms. Smith, including deleted emails… Defendants also requested that Mr. Birkhead conduct a search of the hard drives of any computers used by him to access his email by June 15, 2008, in order to retrieve deleted emails not previously produced, and that such emails be produced by that date. I found this part of particular interest; “[i]n light of Defendants inability to obtain documents filed in the probate proceedings relating to Ms. Smith in Los Angeles Court, and the Florida proceedings relating to custody of Ms. Smith’s body…”

I thought the Florida proceedings were open to all and Cosby had a front row seat, she had no problem reporting on the Will and it being faxed 5 days before Anna Nicole’s death, did she forget to get the other things she needed for the book? Also if they want emails, have they thought of asking Ford Shelley for these since he openly bragged on Geraldo On March 31, 2007 that copies of Anna Nicole Smith’s hard drives had been copied and kept or given to someone for safe keeping and Howard K. Stern’s lawyer via a forensic expert confirmed that in deed copies were made. I thought Ford Shelley and Cosby were “close friends now”, or is there a problem with “possible stolen computers copied” being used in the New York proceedings as well as it was a problem in Florida. Using alleged stolen things seems to be getting many people in a potential checkmate in this entire web of who dunnit as I like to describe Cosby, the real blond ambition. Let’s also remember how close friends Debra Opri and Cosby is, Mmmmmmmmm could that be a potential problem in all of this?

Birkhead’s lawyer makes a good point, in my opinion, of why is Cosby, AFTER THE FACT, now demanding documents about Anna Nicole’s pregnancy and drug use. Hello, Ms. Cosby, Dannielynn is going to read all of this one day, isn’t she as Anna Nicole’s sole heir entitled for her father to protect sensitive documents, or at least the ones that are not already out there for the world to view?

It appears from what I am reading here that Mr. Birkhead’s lawyer is saying, “The California Constitution has elevated the right to privacy to an inalienable right, one that extends to a person’s confidential financial affairs as well as to details of his personal life.” There is that tacky “right to privacy” that Cosby appears, in my opinion, to holler the loudest about while saying others are not entitled to that same “right to privacy”.

“Similarly, the California Constitution’s “right to privacy” protects a party’s sexual practices”. I like that Constitution; it has that tacky “right to privacy” statement in it; by the way did Cosby ever answer that “gay question” yet? Not to mention what Pol’ and Patrik said about their own deposition and some of those nagging embarrassing issues coming out about some non-parties in that room.

Request Number 2:
Which is asking for, “All documents or communications relating to Daniel Smith, including without limitation videotape, audiotape or photographs, and documents or communications, including Mr. Smith’s death and affidavits of witness statements, documents filed in court on your behalf, or sworn testimony (including any drafts)”.

In part, Birkhead objects that this invades the “right of privacy” of Larry Birkhead and of third parties including but not limited to Anna Nicole Smith and Daniel Smith. Birkhead also appears, in my opinion, to be attempting to protect Dannielynn’s rights, God bless him for that.

Which brings up a question, I thought Cosby was bragging everywhere in particular on two internet radio shows that her book ALONE forced an Inquest into Daniel’s death, so if that giant bragging right is true, then she should have all of this already, right?

Cosby and Hachette’s lawyers say, “By all accounts, Daniel was very close with his mother and lived with her during the majority of her relationship with Plaintiff. Daniel is described in Blonde Ambition as having grave concerns regarding Plaintiff’s treatment of his mother, including that Plaintiff accepted money in exchange for allowing men into Ms. Smith’s bedroom and “purposely kept his mother out of it”. Here you need to download the April 1, 2008 interview with Greta On the Record about Larry Birkhead’s testimony at the Inquest.

Doesn’t Cosby stand by her sources 120% no 200% in her book so why come to Larry Birkhead now if he was not needed to write and publish the book? She has Jackie Hatten, Mark Hatten and Jack Harding (chuckles) I think Cosby and company should allow these persons credibility stand alone before a jury of her peers, after all she is an “award wining journalist” and “best selling author”. She had no problem offering up those “sources in the book”; why not use them now?

Birkhead has a simple statement in response to Cosby and Hachette’s “request here”, “Birkhead does not believe he has any documents which are responsive to this request.”

So it looks to me at least, like Cosby is stuck with the Hattens and Harding, right? I so want to be at this trial in New York to cover it for Rose Speaks.com, I must begin to look up friends in that area of the country.

Request Number 3:
“All documents or communications relating to Howard K. Stern and all things about Howard K. Stern, including the Estate of Anna Nicole.” It also is including all media deals including “referrals” or anyone acting on behalf of Howard K. Stern for any reason what so ever is the short version of this request. It goes on including travel, gifts, or expenses, Mr. Stern, or any entity in which Mr. Stern has an interest, has received from media organizations, such as television show and magazines. Or that Mr. Stern received or taken from Anna Nicole and/or Anna Nicole Estate. This request goes on to want ALL things about Howard K. Stern and any sexual relationship Mr. Stern has had with anyone. Of course we end with Anna Nicole drug use, let the woman rest in peace folks. That being said this is a WOW; didn’t Cosby do her basic homework on Howard K. Stern before writing this “best selling book”?

Birkhead keeps his objection simple here, but also gives us some specific information and so my question is since Cosby insists on all things about her be filed under seal for “her right to privacy”, why didn’t Cosby and Hachette’s lawyers offer that same option to Larry Birkhead? Birkhead objects in part to the” right of privacy”, to Birkhead, Howard and Anna, that it might be covered by confidentiality agreements because of Dannielynn. However, he does tell us that Howard K. Stern made a deal with ET for $300k and put the full sum in a trust account for Dannielynn and that Larry Birkhead might have requested and received $20k from Mr. Milstein from the Trust account for his daughter, Dannielynn. The rest of it goes to that public record in multiple jurisdictions that perhaps Cosby should have check before doing the book. For a lot of this Cosby is going to have to hope that Mark Spears (previously known to us as Mark Speer), the Hattens, and Harding come through for her on the witness stand. Perhaps she can throw Debra Opri into the mix since they are such great friends. Wonder who will throw whom under the bus first in that group?

Request Number 4:
“All documents or communications, including emails, relating to Dannielynn’s paternity or custody.” Now this request is simple and to the point until you read the lawyers argument back and forth in the filing.”

Michael Trope on behalf of his client cites the “Right to privacy of Larry Birkhead, Anna Nicole Smith and Dannielynn”.

Cosby and Hachette then goes on to say they need this to prove witnesses who witnessed offers to Birkhead from Stern (that would be Mark Spears and Ford Shelley) really saw and witnessed what Ms. Cosby stated as fact in her book.

I keep saying and here I do it once again go to the witnesses, if Larry Birkhead was not important before the book was put out there allegedly to destroy a lot of lives for the sake of revenge and/or money, in my opinion, then Larry Birkhead should not be important now for Cosby to prove her claims.

Request Number 5:
Removed from seeking discovery of this question by Cosby and Hachette.

Request Number 6:
All documents or communications including emails, relating to Mark Speer (also spelled as “Spear”, “Speers”, or “Spears”) BINGO now we have Mark Spears name, or is that 4 names?

Michael Trope on behalf of his client cites the, “Right of privacy of Larry Birkhead and third parties, including but not limited to Mark Speer, a.k.a. Mark Spear, Mark Speers, and Mark Spears”.

Cosby and Hachette quotes Mark Spears as what alleges to me it appears as a major source for Cosby’s book, and wants Birkhead to prove it for her. That goes back to the question of; wouldn’t it have been better to interview Larry Birkhead about what Mark Spears said before she wrote the book?

However, Mr. Trope does answer with, “Birkhead does not believe any documents responsive to this request are in his possession, unless the name of Mr. Spears appears in pleadings in connection with Birkhead’s litigation with Debra Opri.”

This leads to my question as to why a “highly decorated retired officer of the L. A. Police Department have 4 aliases? Another question would be why did he not file his sworn statement in the Opri suit under his real name of “Spears”?

Request number 7:
“All documents or communications, including emails, relating to the person referred to as “Byron” in Debra Opri’s Petition and Supporting Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration dated June 6, 2007.”

You can pick that up in our download section open to members. I remember I believe that most of chapter 12 the “sex chapter named DNA” was based on this filing. It is interesting to note that the California court had stricken this filing before the release of Ms. Cosby’s book I believe, but will go back and get the exact date unless one of you have that handy. This goes to the question since Opri’s filing at the time looked more like a woman scorn and slashing out then an attorney filing a legitimate Motion, in my opinion, could Opri allegedly filed that as a favor for her good friend Cosby to give her some “cover” from the fall out of the book?

Michael Trope on behalf of his client cites in part that this, “Invades the Right of privacy of Larry Birkhead and of third parties, including, but not limited to “Byron” (assuming that he exists).”

Defendants’ lawyers say that need this from Larry Birkhead because of the part of the book about Larry Birkhead being “gay” as related to Cosby by Virgie Arthur and Debra Opri’s June 6, 2007 filing.

Michael Trope answers