In the Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books, on December 11, 2008, there was a letter addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Elizabeth A. McNamara requesting the Court for permission to file Motion for Summary Judgment for Rita Cosby and Hachette Books under seal. The Court DENIED the request to file the papers under seal “except that the parties may file a set of papers publicly, with confidential exhibits omitted and references to any confidential matters redacted, with a second complete and unredacted set that will be filed under sealed”.
Looks like the New York Court is going to allow us to see publicly some of the information that Cosby and Hachette is attempting to show in the Motions for Summary Judgment due to the Court by December 15.
What do you think we will be allowed to see and gleam for the filings due on Monday? Debunking chapter 13 will be up this weekend, lot’s to discuss in this case as well as several others we are following.
Remember that ALL documents filed in this case are in our download section, opened to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
This first article of a three-part series will deal with the letter to the Honorable Denny Chin, Judge for the Southern District of New York, in Manhattan from Rita Cosby’s attorney Elizabeth McNamara dated November 26. This letter was endorsed by Judge Chin and made into an Order regarding the extra pages in the Motion and Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment that both Cosby and Hachette Books will be allowed to file in this defamation case with extra pages in the Reply by Howard K. Stern and put on PACER on December 2.
Many of us wondered when the column by Thomas Zambito appeared in the New York Daily News dated December 3, why the attorney for Howard K. Stern, L. Lin Wood did not release a statement refuting Mr. Zambito’s article. It could be argued that this column could potentially taint any jury pool of this case, which has for the most part subsided from the mainstream media.
I have no answer for that but let’s talk about the sensationalism of the title; “Anna Nicole Smith’s pal Howard K. Stern is beyond being libeled”. The short column goes on to state in part that “…Stern’s reputation is so bad that not even… claiming he and Smith’s boyfriend were gay lovers is libelous, the author’s lawyer claims.” The column quotes from the letter by Ms. McNamara to Judge Chin stating, “Given the mountain of negative news stories that were previously published about plaintiff, Mr. Stern is libel-proof.” The column ends with a strange reference of, “He [Stern] cites one in which Cosby quotes actress Jackie Hatten claiming she walked in on Stern performing oral sex on Larry Birkhead - the father of Smith’s baby.” Whoa Mr. Zambito, what a finished and by the way do you know where Jackie Hatten is, and has Cosby found this important witness that she might need to appear if this case goes to trial?
Mr. Zambito seems to have the “celebrity beat” of federal suits in the Manhattan Federal Courts. In 2005, Elizabeth McNamara gave Mr. Zambito a couple of quotes from another suit she was involved in with the Manhattan Federal Court.
So both articles aside in this first of a three part series let’s look at what Ms. McNamara is stating will be the blond ambitious Rita Cosby’s main claims in the Motion for Summary Judgment.
1. Lack of actual malice
2. Parts of the passages are not defamatory
3. Parts are substantially true or constitute protected opinion
4. Given the mountains of negative news stories that were previously published about plaintiff, Mr. Stern is libel proof.
“Actual malice in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as “knowledge that the information was false” or that it was published, “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking. The publisher must entertain actual doubt as to the statement’s truth.” That is a tough one to overcome for a public person such as Howard K. Stern has become since the death of Anna Nicole Smith.
The next issue to address in McNamara outline of defenses is, “Parts of the passages are not defamatory”. “In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. …Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts which arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. “Unlike libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.”
Next is Cosby’s claim that parts of her book is covered by a basis in law calling those passages as “constitute protected opinion”. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that a statement that is provable true or false, for example, is not an opinion. In the 1990 Supreme Court decision of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, simply put is that, “The Supreme Court said that newspaper columns and other forms of commentary may be libelous if they “imply an assertion of objective fact” that the plaintiff can prove is false.” (I. E. can Stern prove that the allegations of the gay sex tape that made up the part of Cosby’s book that made it a best seller as being “false”.) That is an overly simple example in the above decision. In that decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist gave an example. He said the statement, ”In my opinion Mayor Jones is a liar,” would be actionable, while the statement, ”In my opinion Mayor Jones shows his abysmal ignorance by accepting the teachings of Marx and Lenin,” would be protected opinion. Simply put if the person suing can prove that the “opinion was stated as fact” and that statement can be proved as false, then there is a serious chance the court will not find that statement as being “constitute protected opinion.” Remember at the beginning of this case, Judge Chin simplified this into “the book speaks for itself, either it is true or it is false”. Add to that Ms. Cosby has openly admitted that she did not interview anyone with a different “opinion” as to where she wanted her book to go because she knew they would try to prevent the book from being published. That in itself should have given a seasoned reporter that knew the basic rules of vetting sources and checking “facts”, some pause of concern. You can also read the Oral Arguments in front of the Supreme Court in relations to this case in our download section.
Then we have the claim that “Mr. Stern is libel proof.” I think that will be a slippery slope for Ms. Cosby and her publisher. On February 12, 2007, we have Star Magazine David Caplan on MSNBC, stating, “Nothing was really known about Howard K. Stern and so after Anna Nicole Smith’s death everyone began to investigate who Howard K. Stern really was”. That statement shows that nothing horrendous was known about Howard K. Stern at the time of Anna Nicole Smith’s death. Then we have the February 14, 2007 interview of Rita Cosby with Virgie Arthur where it was Rita Cosby who was the first one in a husky whisper to say, “Howard K. Stern facilitated a murder or was an accomplish”. It was at this time that Dan Abrams, a lawyer and Cosby’s boss, gave a warning about those type of statements could lead to a libel suit. It was soon after that interview that MSNBC announced Cosby’s contract would not be renewed. We also have Cosby saying she only researched the book from April to June 2007 that could be a problem also for Cosby.
Add to that the pesky rulings in the past of, “However, a court will not dismiss a defamation action merely because the plaintiff already has a bad reputation. Schiavone Construction Co. v. Time, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 1511, 1516 (D.N.J. 1986), rev’d, 847 F.2d 1069, 1072-73 (3rd Cir. 1988). Finklea, 742 S.W.2d at 516 (“[E]ven the public outcast’s remaining good reputation is entitled to protection.”) Rather the statement upon which the defamation claim is based should relate to the same matters upon which the prior bad reputation was founded, or to substantially similar matters.
In extreme cases, a plaintiff’s general reputation may be so bad that a court will hold a plaintiff libel-proof on all matters. For example, Charles Manson or Adolph Hitler could not be damaged by defamatory statements. Langston v. Eagle Publishing Co., 719 S.W.2d 612, 623 (Tex. App. 1986). I don’t think any of us think for a minute that Stern rises to the element of Manson or Hitler.
So perhaps the mantra led by John O’Quinn and company that Howard K. Stern “murdered” two people will get a pass from the court. However, the gay allegation and the “absolute statement that the tape existed with no doubt about that” is what sold Cosby’s book now that is going to be a tough sell to any court in my opinion.
The couple of things Cosby has going for her is that Lin Wood has never taken a defamation case all the way to trial, whereas Cosby’s lawyer Elizabeth McNamara has taken cases all the way to trial and won (I. E. The Da Vinci Code). Wood also admits that the “Actual Malice” is an almost impossible standard to meet. He also stated in that same article though that one day the right case to take to trial will present itself. Hopefully Wood will take this case all the way to trial.
Those things being said, I just don’t think that gay tape and that Howard K. Stern was Larry Birkhead’s gay lover without proof of that is going to pass the smell test of getting this case dismissed on a Motion for Summary Judgment by Cosby and Hachette.
Part 2 of the 3 part series will be a look at what Lin Wood has been able to do for his list of high profile clients and what they ended up with as a result of Wood taking their cases. The final part will be my personal take on why the Florida case settled out of court so quickly once they met with the mediator on October 30, 2008.
Join us tonight in chat to discuss this case and tell us what you think is going to happened with the blond ambitious Cosby. You do have to be a registered member of the chat, but we think you will enjoy both the company and the topics.
Remember that the documents for the cases/trials we cover are in our download section, opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
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.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
On 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?
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.
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.
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.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
I am posting this here because the law suits are going into the discovery phases and “non party fact witnesses” subpoenas for the most part are not filed with the court via PACER unless the person that has been filed with a subpoena makes a Motion to Quash or for a Protective Motion.
The new files are the Order to seal the deposition of Tom Bednarek, Cosby’s friend [boy friend(?)], and part of the allege nannygate, filed under the Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby, Hachette Books, et al.
There are 4 new documents under the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern, CBS, and KPRC. There are the January 16 Motion of Krista Barth to be admitted Pro Hac Vice as part of the legal team for Howard K. Stern in Texas, the order granted that request and signed by the judge. Both of these are what I call “housekeeping Motions and Orders” in that whenever an attorney asks to appear in a state they are not licensed in (I. E. Lin Wood in Florida and New York) you have to file a Motion and pay a fee to be recognized in that jurisdiction. The other new filings are of course the Subpoenas served to Ken and me on January 29. We have no idea why or what the strategy is for making them public via PACER, guess we will find that out as all of this plays out.
Also yes, there is a ”wanna be” site of Rose Speaks that does appear to sell “porn” or link to porn, did anyone know if you accuse someone of committing a crime that you know is not true, that can bring a heap of trouble. (I. E. for me to sale porn would be a violation of the IRS federal statutes because it would show on my tax records that I would not be “reporting that income”, therefore to state I am, is to state a known falsehood about me and/or that I am committing a crime.). Yes, I do know all of you are smart enough to tell the difference from the “real” Rose Speaks and the “wannabe” disgusting site, however an interesting question, who is getting the money for the porn sells advertise on that blog? These people have WAY too much time on their hands and should use it for something constructive, in my opinion. By the way, people who have that much time on their hands, could you please put up a link to the “real” Rose Speaks here, I would greatly appreciate that.
Anyway, enough of the boring stuff just wanted everyone to know as a transparent site, besides being served with the subpoenas we also bought them from PACER and put them up under the right legal suit and court case.
There will be an updated Inquest article today. I have enjoyed reading the great points all of you have brought up about the witnesses at the Inquest in the previous article responses. The final debunking of chapter 13 of the blonde and ambitious Ms. Cosby will be up to talk about late tomorrow for a discussion on Monday.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner, 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 blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
Right when you think nothing in these cases can possibly get more complicated or any stranger it does. On January 15, two top white-collar criminal attorneys were added to the “team” for Tom Bednarek, Ms. Cosby’s beau and alleged nannygate helper of Douglas T. Burns and Randy Scott Zelin. It appears from court documents obtained through the public access site, that one of these power house lawyers, Randy Scott Zelin was added as an additional attorney for Rita Cosby, Hachette Books, Tom Bednarek and John or Jane Doe, as in Bruce Littlefield, the co-author of Ms. Cosby’s blonde ambitious book.
Hachette’s original lawyer Douglass B. Maynard’s, per part of his profile, on his firm’s site states; “Douglass B. Maynard focuses on complex civil litigation, white collar criminal defense and corporate investigations. …He was lead litigation counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the WorldCom bankruptcy proceedings. …Mr. Maynard also has significant experience handling libel and other media law cases. …Mr. Maynard was associate general counsel of Time Inc., where he actively litigated cases in a variety of areas, including libel, copyright, trademark, antitrust and consumer marketing. While at Time Inc. he tried two libel cases to verdict, one for Time magazine and one for Sports Illustrated magazine.” Mr. Maynard joining this case back in October 2007 would go back to his days and expertise of work in litigating libel cases it appears to me.
We then have added to this strange mix, Rita Cosby’s good friend and counsel, Michael “Mickey” Sherman, who is also a practicing criminal-defense attorney. Mr. Sherman is a frequent expert commentator on MSNBC, CNBC, the previous Court TV, Geraldo Live, Fox News, NBC and other networks. I believe if I remember correctly he gave Access Hollywood an interview right after Howard K. Stern filed his lawsuit against Rita Cosby and Hachette, at which time he was the one that said one of Ms. Cosby’s sources was a twenty-five [25] year veteran of the FBI. That interview is what, in my opinion put the focus that Ms. Cosby’s source for her allegations in her book was Don Clark, a twenty-five year veteran of the FBI. Mr. Clark later vehemently denied being Ms. Cosby’s source. However, it appears that Ms. Cosby disagrees with that assessment.
The sudden addition of two of the top and best white collar criminal defense attorneys in New York, if not the nation, does make one pause and wonder what is going on, that Mr. Bednarek and Ms. Cosby feels the need to “lawyer-up” further. My gut tells me these two guys do not come cheap, but then money appears not to be an issue for Mr. Bednarek or Ms. Cosby. Adding Douglas T. Burns and Randy Scott Zelin is going to cause major speculation as to what is going on in Judge Chin’s tightly closed courtroom around any proceedings concerning the Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby, Hachette Books U.S.A. et. al., John or Jane Doe lawsuit. For some unknown reason, it is beginning to appear that the blonde ambitious Ms. Cosby’s growing legal team is needing to add some new specialized lawyers.
Randy Zelin has been a frequent guest of Nancy Grace over the past years including in regards to the Daniel and Anna Nicole Smith deaths. In at least one show he appeared with Art Harris, I wonder if Mr. Harris knows Mr. Zelin, if I had money to put a wager on that it would be to say, “Yes”. Douglas T. Burns has also made appearances on major networks regarding Daniel Smith and Anna Nicole Smith’s death, including Fox per the picture with his Martindale profile. I would think both men are well enough versed on this Greek tragedy to hit the ground running with very little “catching up” involved. This appears to be necessary in Judge Chin’s determination to fast track this case through discovery and on to trial.
Our site members can pull the January 15 filing from our download section of the addition of these two white-collar criminal lawyers. So why do you think that two powerhouse white-collar criminal lawyers were brought on board? I bet people would pay to be a fly on the walls of any upcoming depositions in regards to any potential influencing or intimidating of witnesses.
The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner, 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 blog article are the opinions and sole property of the blog site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
