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

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.

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

On October 31, 2008, John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm filed a Motion that requested that they not be made to turn over financial documentation based on the settlement reached on October 30. In that filing to the Florida Court the lawyers for O’Quinn and the O’Quinn law firm stated in part, “[T]hat the matter before the Florida Federal Court was fully resolved during a confidential mediation on Thursday, October 30, 2008. Pursuant to the mediation agreement that was executed by and between the parties, a stipulation and order will be submitted to this court, memorializing the agreement, and providing for the retention of jurisdiction by this court for the enforcement of the terms of the settlement”. The lawyers for O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm stated in that Motion that they anticipated that a “draft of the Order” would “be submitted to the Court at some point toward the middle part of next week”. That would be an estimate of the formal stipulation would be filed some time between November 4 and November 7.

On November 4, 2008 there was a Court Order from Florida Federal Court that Postponed the Requirement of John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm to provide the ordered financials on O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm until November 10, 2008, which was the “deadline for the two sides to file a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice”. It appears that has still not been done.

Could there have been a collapse in the finalizing of that “Agreed Settlement”? If so, will the trial go forward on December 29? Since O’Quinn’s lawyers requested more time for the Mediation and was granted that until December 1, will the two sides actually have until that date to meet with each other and the Mediator to work out any part of the stipulation that the two sides have found they cannot agree with?

It appears the Court would like to know those answers as well. On November 12, 2008, the Federal Court for the Southern District of Florida has now ordered Stern to “Show Cause why the Stipulation of Settlement with Joint Motion to Dismiss with prejudice”, was NOT filed within the 10 days that the court set. That would have made them due no later than November 10, if no settlement has been reached it would now appear that the financial statements of O’Quinn is also due. The standard phase of failing to filing a “Show Cause” by Stern could result in dismissal of the case.

I am taking this that the Court would like for Stern to clue them in as to what the hold up is or is it full steam ahead to trial because something broke down during the finalizing of the Mediated Settlement. Could the fact that someone pretending to be Wilma Vicedomine posting on Topix.net less than 24 hours of the agreed settlement that, “Howard K. Stern settled for attorney fees with no money for him to even buy a pair of shoes”, now hurt the settlement? If you don’t remember that see my article dated October 31 about someone being stupid enough to pretend to be Vicedomine with inside information of the settlement. If that was in fact a leak of any of the potential terms of the settlement where will this case go now?

I would bet we know something by the end of this week with a filing by Stern’s lead lawyer, Lin Wood with the Florida Court.

Please join us in chat tonight to discuss this case and all of the other cases Rose Speaks.com is covering or just to kick back and get to know each other.

Pick up the papers in our download section opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com, read them and share your thoughts with us.

©Rose Turner
November 12, 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, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, L. Lin Wood, Larry Birkhead, Lin Wood, The John O'Quinn Law Firm, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Virgie Arthur, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine

On November 4, in the Southern District Federal Court in Houston Texas the Court held a Status Hearing and set some dates. Via the Court Minutes on the Docket, we have a glimpse into what is left to do in that suit and the Court set Dates to have that completed.

The parties advised the Court that there were a total of seven depositions to be completed in this case. The Court has stated that all of the depositions in the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern and CBS must be complete by January 16, 2009. Arthur’s lawyers was granted the taking depositions of Howard K. Stern and 5 of their choosing, of current or former CBS employees present at the interview that made the basis of this suit. CBS will take an additional two depositions. CBS did not indicate whose deposition they still had to take; wonder if that would be any bloggers? The Court also set the deadline that all Dispositivie Motions (I. E. Motion to Dismiss, Motions for Summary Judgment, etc.) are due in the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern and CBS to the Court by February 6, 2009.

It would appear that the Court will set a pretrial conference and the trial date after the Court makes decisions on the multiple Motions to Dismiss for multitude of reasons expected to be filed after the taking of the last seven depositions.

It appears from the Court Docket of the Minutes that all discovery of in the area of subpoenas for records not covered with the above eight depositions are complete.

I have to wonder if we will see mention of the Clark/Vicedomine investigation in this case before all is said and done. It would appear that the “bloggers” internationally and in other states that came forward with records and sworn statements are not going to be used as any basis for this case since the interview was taped in 2006.

The Court also issued on November 5, an Order and Memorandum of Law from the Southern District Federal Court in Houston Texas denying all 3 Motions filed by Jonathan Lee Riches d/b/a Gordon Gekko as frivolous.

You can pick up the All of the documents related to this case opened to All not just members of Rose Speaks.com and then tell us what you think about the deadlines set by the Court; do you think this will ever make it to trial? Also be sure to join us in chat tonight to discuss these latest developments and to just kick back and enjoy the company.

©Rose Turner
November 6, 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, CBS, CBS Enthertainement Tonight, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Charles Babcock, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Dannielynn Birkhead, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Entertainment Tonight, ET, Howard K Stern, Larry Birkhead, Lin Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Neil McCabe, O'Quinn's Don Clark Ex-FBI, Virgie Arthur, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vice Virgie Arthur, Wilma Vicedomeine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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