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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
Today would have been Anna Nicole Smith’s forty-first birthday, and Howard K. Stern will turn forty this year either a day before or a day after, I can never remember which.
Today in the Bahamas comes one more promise made over a year ago as Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate in California was opened and the months of making sure her sole heir, Dannielynn Hope Birkhead was exactly that, her sole heir. Not Larry Birkhead, not Howard K. Stern but the daughter, which as part of her name picked out by Anna Nicole is “Hope”.
I never followed Anna Nicole Smith in life, as many of you did. I came to know her in her death with the start of the burial proceedings in Florida in February 2007 and now we find ourselves here today reflecting over the almost two previous years.
Today very quietly, the monument for Anna and Daniel Smith’s graves is being laid in a private ceremony for her daughter Dannielynn Hope Birkhead, her father Larry Birkhead and at their request a very inner circle of those whom Anna Nicole Smith loved and trusted. Howard K. Stern will be at the graves to see the stone placed, in one more promise he made the day the Estate opened in California. It is etched with the favorite picture of Anna’s of her and Daniel together; the picture that is on this page. Other than that, the rest of the monument’s appearnace has not be released.
I remember what Judge Seidlin said in tears in Florida, something like you two men work together give this baby girl a chance. I am sure one of you can find the exact wording. Do you believe it is all about the money that Stern and Birkhead have worked together for the last 18 months, is for the two of them or for Anna Nicole’s baby girl?
Dannielynn and her dad, Larry Birkhead is filming a reality show of raising Anna’s daughter and being a single dad. Howard K. Stern is still handling the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith in the U. S. as well as the Bahamas, to make sure that Dannielynn is Anna’s sole heir and that the money goes into a trust as Smith would have wanted to take care of her daughter. Birkhead and Stern both find themselves in other cases yet to be decided, but this is not the day to let our thoughts wander to those Courts.
After today one man continues to film, a reality show set for release this spring with the girl many have nicknamed “America’s baby”. The other man fades into the shadows; he has always appeared to me of never liking the red carpet but preferring a much more modest life.
Today though let us just pause and contemplate that the monument that was promised; once the perfect stone was found, once the etching in that stone was perfect, it would be laid over mother and son. That promise to Dannielynn for her mother comes about today through I am sure in some part due to the graciousness of Larry Birkhead. Birkhead gave us a glimpsed into today in his interview with a magazine a couple of months ago. I would think we would not have known of today if Birkhead had not told us, so many of you who were fans of Anna Nicole Smith in life have him to thank for allowing all of us to know the monument will be placed today, on a grave, overlooking a lake in the beautiful Bahamas.
Rose Speaks.com has become successful by our coverage of all things Anna Nicole Smith and yet we too have begun to move to other celebrity or high profile cases.
However, those can wait to begin again tomorrow. We stop today to wish for all who loved and still misses Anna Nicole Smith wherever you wake up or spend today, our deepest condolences, thoughts and prayers go out to you on the lost of a beautiful woman, a beautiful star that burned out way before her time.
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.
There has been a lot of discussion forwarded to me from Topix.net and other sites, alleging that they know what Howard K. Stern settled for in Florida. In part, it is being said that L. Lin Wood was the one to “rush to settle with John O’Quinn and The O’Quinn Law Firm. That Wood settled for just his legal fees to be paid. There is to be no apology or acknowledgement to Howard K. Stern for the falsity or wrongful accusations of murdering Anna Nicole Smith or her son Daniel Smith; holding Dannielynn hostage and that Stern did not even recover enough money, after Wood gets his share, to get a pair of shoes”. What is up about a damn pair of shoes all of the time? This must be an inside joke that I am missing but it appears on every discussion blog/forum/board when ever money and Stern are mentioned together. Why is the term “murderer” still floating all over the internet on forums and topic boards when the suit where the allegations originated is now supposed to be settled in principal?
The other thing that is going around Topix.net and other sites is that L. Lin Wood ALWAYS settles out of court because he does not win litigation if it goes to a jury and has a horrible record of losses when he has attempted to try a case to completion. So let’s play the game of What’s My Record (yes a Rose Speaks original game), and then throw in the term I so love, “let Google be your friend”. Remember when playing this game that good lawyers settle at least 80% of lawsuits out of court. If what is being alleged on Topix.net and other sites has a scintilla of truth, does Powell Goldstein LLP or Bryan Cave LLP have any good trial lawyers? If either firm does have good trial litigators would they add them to Stern’s legal team at this point in the “game”?
My challenge for you if you so choose to accept, (yes a take off on “Mission Impossible” wording), research and tell us what percentage if ANY of cases won by Wood if he goes to trial with a case. Does he win none, does he win some, does he win less that 5%, let us know.
On an update, there was no papers filed in the Florida Court on Friday, November 14 of a joint stipulation of settlement and joint Motion to Dismiss, perhaps Stern has decided he wants “one new pair of shoes” since that seems to be the topic of Topix.net and other sites.
Share with us what you find on L. Lin Wood winning in front of a jury if that is available on the world wide net, and I will check PACER and let you know what I find over the years say since 1990 to present tried to a jury verdict and if tried to a jury verdict the percentage appealed.
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 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.
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.
