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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Barth, Bryan Cave LLP, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Douglas Maynard, Elizabeth McNamara, Howard K Stern, Jack Harding, Jackie Hatten, Jay Patton, John Patton, Krista, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkehead, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Nicole Jennings Wade, Powell Goldstein LLP, Rita Cosby, Tom Bednarek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Whom It May Concern:

It has come to my attention via a web site run by QV through court filings she received from someone that my name, address, phone number, place of work is being sought. My concern is why? If Ms. Arthur perceived I defamed her by an opinion about her published on a web site owned by allegedly “your star witness” if she is to be believed, the question I have for you is if my opinion was based on what your star witness published why would you seek me? For that matter what do you seek approximately 30 of the previous members of that “alleged” star witness’ site?

For the record, my opinions of Ms. Arthur are based on her actions at that time. I formed my opinion based on my own my life experiences.

I do believe in self-fulfilling prophecy and because you do not agree or like my opinion does not make my opinion any less valuable or without worth or at the very least consideration. For all of you doing the basing on other sites remember if QV did this to her previous site members, what will prevent her from handing over current site members’ information. Food for thought!

My concern for today is why is this “alleged” star witness whom owns a web site is publishing email address and letting us know you are looking for us if all parties agreed to keep that confidential? You must be aware how it looks from my perspective, out right defiant and attempting to control through fear. I am left to question do you respect law or do you use law as a tool to intimidate and cause undue stress? I wonder do you perceive this group of bloggers as a threat and why? I am merely a part of a group of bloggers whom understood the elements of this story and wanted to reach out and show kindness to a stranger. In my heart, I believe he never did the things he was accused of, and perhaps he even needed some kindness along the way.

Nothing you do will change my heart, the group that is associated with Ms. Arthur tried and they succeeded for a time but I grew strength during adversity and have become a stronger woman because of it. They published my name, address, phone number, place of work, putting that all on other sites including my listings on topix and went as far to put my husbands financial information on topix. It caused me both loss of money, [incomes] and great emotional stress. This continues to this day for any of us who might disagree with Ms. Arthur’s “alleged” blogging team. They justify going so far as publishing articles where I have been interviewed in charity work I have done in the past, it is amazing the amount of time these alleged bloggers for Virgie Arthur spend hunting down anyone that disagrees with them, bullies them, and then describe even our homes. Perhaps in this new age of cyber bullying and changes of laws this too needs to be addressed.

Due to the way the group of Ms. Arthur supporters have conducted themselves I am left in a position to fear the need to protect my family, something no blogger who openly discusses issues should have to be faced with, it is intimidating and it reminds me of thug like behavior. It is your right to disagree with me but it is no ones right to attempt to silence me with fear.

©Editorial Opinion of Daisy, whose monikers seem to being batted about with no care for any right of privacy.
December 6, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This editorial opinion is the sole property of Daisy, unless otherwise stated. This editorial opinion is based on the opinion and thoughts of Daisy. This editorial opinion does not necessarily reflect those opinions of the site owners and should not be construed as being reflected of the site owners’ opinions unless so stated. 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.

Rose Speaks.com cannot comment on documents which were released to another site; we cannot comment on how the other site received those documents except to state that those documents are not listed on the Harris County Clerk’s site with the case number of this suit available for purchase by the public as of today December 5.

We have worked very hard to achieve an Agreed Protective Order with all of the parties, Plaintiff Virgie Arthur, Defendants Harvey Levin/TMZ, Teresa Stephens, Howard K. Stern, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Lyndal Harrington and myself. Our lawyers have worked since August it was agreed by all parties and signed by the Judge on December 3. That Agreed Order is up on the Harris County Court site as a public document that anyone can purchase at $1.00 a page as any of the public filings can be purchased for $1.00 per page, something Rose Speaks.com can sadly not afford to do.

We fought for this Agreed Protective Order just so what is happening on that other site and now Topix.net would not occur including the feeding frenzy we have been told about that began last evening, December 4. We have fought for the privacy of all bloggers, we will continue to fight for the privacy of all bloggers while we also continue to cooperate with every discovery request we have received. We will continue to cooperate and follow both our lawyer’s instructions as well as the Court’s Orders.

Therefore, we are at a disadvantage here; we will abide by the Court’s Order signed on December 3, we do not have any idea how the other site ended up with a Motion to Compel dated December 3, which is not available to the public through normal avenues as far as we know.

This will be the only statement we will or can make; we intend to abide by the letter, as well as the spirit, of the Agreed Protective Order as agreed to by the parties and signed by the Court. As with all of our transparency including this case when we receive a copy of that Order since it is public we will have it in our download section.

We deeply apologize for any hurt/pain, panic or betrayal you have felt by the documents released and the requests in that Motion to Compel that appears to be based on an old member list of another site.

Please respect the position of both the spirit and the actual Order signed by the Court. We will have nothing further to say on why this was released, who might have released it and why what is happening on Topix because of this Motion to Compel being released with exhibits. We are sure if any violations of the Court’s Instruction or Orders have occurred that the site owner that received those papers will be more than happy to appear in court and answer any and all questions that might be asked. Including how these papers were received if not through the public avenues such as the Harris County Court’s URL of: https://e-docs.hcdistrictclerk.com/eDocs.Web/Login.aspx.

We want to thank each of your for the outpouring of concern as to how this happened and we know that you all will respect the fact that we cannot discuss any of this.

As always, thanks for flying Rose Speaks.com, we will have a new article up and several new cases to follow as well as a new public section of the site announced shortly.

Ken and Rose, co-owners of the site, and all of your admins/moderators who put in countless numbers of hours to make the site run as smoothly as it does.

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: Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Harvey Levin, Havana, Howard K Stern, Lyndal Harrington, Nelda "Rose" Turner, QV, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur, Von

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now we have that saying, “The lawsuit was settled amicably”, we are pleased with the outcome however, because of a Confidentiality Agreement, and we have nothing more to say. Voila!!!

The only surprise in the Stipulation for Settlement was that part of Don Clark’s deposition regarding this litigation, seven pages, would be unsealed by agreement. Wonder what is in that seven pages and if that is going to be used in one of the other multiple lawsuits involving Howard K. Stern or the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith.

The Florida Court issued its Order today, to Dismiss with Prejudiced, and accepted the Stipulation of Settlement and Order the Clerk of Court to Dismiss and close this lawsuit.

This one is down and how many more involving Stern and or the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith is there to go??

©Rose Turner
December 1, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

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

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Daniel Smith, Dannielyn Birkhead, Don Clark, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Krista Barth, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Virgie Arthur