There is so much going on in all cases concerning Micheal Jackson’s Estate, Casey Anthony, Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate and Dr. Arnold Klein Bankruptcy turned into what seems is going to be another major event in the Jackson SAGAS.

Here are the papers on just the Michael Jackson Estate vs. Howard Mann and Vintage Pop, please also note on the right side of the front page is an updated scrolling court dates on a lot of cases I did this morning.

April 27, 2011 Vintage Pop Media Answer to the Estate of Michael Jackson vs Howard Mann and Vintage Pop. (270)
April 28, 2011 Court Order Setting Scheduling Conference Hearing for July 14, 2011 Estate of Michael Jackson vs. Howard Mann and Vintage Pop Media Scheduling Conference at 2:30 PM (303)

This Scheduling Order consists of the following dates and information involving the Estate of Jackson vs. Mann and Vintage Pop:

June 23, 2011 Estate of Michael Jackson vs. Howard Mann and Vintage Pop Media are to disclose information and confer on a discovery plan by this date.

June 30, 2011 Estate of Michael Jackson vs. Howard Mann and Vintage Pop Media “Rule 26(f) Report” due as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the Local Rules of this Court.

July 14, 2011 Estate of Michael Jackson vs. Howard Mann and Vintage Pop Media Scheduling Conference at 2:30 PM

Then we have the bankruptcy of Dr. Arnold Klein which WAS to be discharged as of today and gone!!!! Surprise like all of the cases involving Anna Nicole Smith and her Estate and the parties who knew her. Klein’s bankruptcy has turned into anything but “normal”. I started going through the files this afternoon and suddenly realized there were mass Motions and Memorandum of Law and revolving lawyers and claims and counterclaims. It is going to take me most of tonight to just see which ones to pull for ya’ll. However here is the Schedule of hearings I have read today.

May 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM Status Hearing on Arnold Klein’s Bankruptcy

May 18, 2011 9:00 AM Hearing on Multiple Motions on the Bankruptcy of Arnold Klein

Then we have poor Casey Anthony standing trial in the media circus that is said by the judge it will be bigger than O. J. Simpson’s murder trial. The sad things is Casey Anthony does not have the money to buy the dream team O. J. had, another reminder in the U. S., you are entitled to the best defense YOU have the money to BUY.

We are going to do something interesting with this case and I will put up some links to papers you may or may not have about this trial.

May 9, 2011 Jury Selection begins in Casey Anthony First Degree Murder Case in Florida. Already we are getting Nancy Grace’s grating voice on commercial that “she will have a panel” to cover the highlights everyday on her show. Thank God for remote control for the television, because Grace is not going to be beamed into this house.

May 16, 2011 Opening statements due on the Casey Anthony First Degree Murder Case in Florida. Rose Speaks.com will be giving twitter updates throughout each day of the trial.

Ken is setting up some new gadgets that is going to allow us and those of you who want to, twitter throughout the trial each day as we watch it on Tru TV the old Court TV. If you want to participate let us know you do on our twitter that we are sending out in about 5 minutes and Ken will work the magic that allows all of us to do this.

Do y’all want Diamond Girl to set up an open daily discussion each day for this case in the Community she runs? Let her know and I am sure if she can she will get with you about how you want to set this up.

On Anna Nicole Smith Estate vs. Susan M. Brown and the Brown Law Offices, Ford Shelley, G. Ben Thompson et. al. Ms. Brown is going to represent herself, what is that saying about a lawyer with themselves as a client?

May 6, 2011 Court Order Scheduling Dates including the Jury Trial of Anna Nicole Smith\'s Estate vs. Susan M. Brown, Brown Law Offices, Ford Shelley, G. Ben Thompson et. al. (102)

Here is a brief description of which dates are for what in that case:

May 13, 2011 Final Status Report due in in the Anna Nicole Smith Estate vs. Susan M. Brown, Ford Shelly, G. Ben Thompson et. al. Brown is going to be Pro Se as is G. Ben Thompson now

June 27, 2011, the parties shall file and exchange Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures in the Anna Nicole Smith Estate vs. Susan M. Brown, Ford Shelly, G. Ben Thompson et. al. Brown is going to be Pro Se as is Thompson now.

July 8, 2011 Mediation is to be complete in in the Anna Nicole Smith Estate vs. Susan M. Brown, Ford Shelly, G. Ben Thompson et. al. Brown is going to be Pro Se as is Thompson now.

July 11, 2011 the parties shall file and exchange Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) objections, any objections to use of a deposition designated by another party and any deposition counter-designations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6) in the Anna Nicole Smith Estate vs. Susan M. Brown, Ford Shelly, G. Ben Thompson et. al.

July 14, 2011 Motions in Limine must be filed by this date by all parties in the Anna Nicole Smith Estate vs. Susan M. Brown, Ford Shelly, G. Ben Thompson et. al.

July 14, 2011 Attorneys shall meet for the purpose of exchanging and marking all exhibits. See Local Civil Rule 26.07 in the Anna Nicole Smith Estate vs. Susan M. Brown, Ford Shelly, G. Ben Thompson et. al.

July 21, 2011 All Parties shall furnish the Court with pretrial briefs (Local Civil Rule 26.05) in in the Anna Nicole Smith Estate vs. Susan M. Brown, Ford Shelly, G. Ben Thompson et. al.

July 28, 2011 Jury selections begins Attorneys and parties are expected to be available for trial of this case during the months of August and September 2011 unless the court notifies you of a later date in the Anna Nicole Smith Estate vs. Susan M. Brown, Ford Shelly, G. Ben Thompson et. al. Susan M. Brown and G. Ben Thompson will be Pro Se for the trial.

We are going to do brief lead in daily that Sprocket’s site of Trial and Tribulation are covering, so we will try to stay up with all of you, but expect papers and articles on other cases like Cynthia Sommer and Narcy Novak to be on the weekends during the Casey Anthony First degree murder trial.

Be sure to participate in our COMMUNITY , get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the community where you can discuss things about the cases in a debate area of the site. Diamond Girl runs that entire section don’t hesitate to contact her to make suggestions on how this forum is more user friendly.

Visit our Download Section for all documents on the cases we are following.

Follow Us On Face Book at http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001254987261 and on Twitter at http://twitter.com/RoseSpeaks and see who Rose Speaks is following.

We will be listening to all of our readers about new cases. Do you have a tip for us on a case to follow? If so Contact Us, a link appears at the top of all pages; ALL TIPS ARE OF COURSE CONFIDENTIAL. If you would like to do some articles for Rose Speaks.com send us that information and we will give you our rules for guest writers.

©Rose Turner
May 9, 2011
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, 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. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Arnie Klein, Beverly Hills, Bryan Cave LLP, Casey Anthony, Casey Anthony Murder Trial, Caylee Anthony, Celebrity Trials, Cynthia Sommer, Dannielynn, Dr. Arnold Klein, Dr. Arnold Klein Bankruptcy, Estate of Anna Nicole smith, Estate of Michael Jackson, First Degree Murder trial Casey Anthony, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, George and Cindy Anthony, High Profile Trials, Hollywood, Howard K Stern, HOWARD MANN, JOHN BRANCA, JOHN BRANCA AND JOHN MCCLAIN, John Branca Esq. John McClain, Jose Baez, Jose Baez Esq., L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Michael Jackson, Nancy Grace, Nancy Grace Headline News, Nancy Grace HLN, Narcy Novak, Nicole Jennings Wade, Sprocket, Trials & Tribulations, Trials & Tribulations Daily life of a true crime junkie, VINTAGE POP MEDIA GROUP LLC

As I have read through the 39 page transcript of the criminal hearing from January 6, 2011, I notice several things I will comment on and ask you what are your thoughts to Judge Perry in this hearing? I will then close this chapter of the saga with some personal thoughts.

On the hearing on January 6, 2011 the appearances in front of Judge Robert L. Perry were:

THE STATE OF California. Renee Rose, Sean Carney, & David Barkhurst Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County..

Bradley Brunon attorney at law and his client defendant Dr. Khristine Eroshevich

Steven Sadow & Christopher Smith with their client defendant Howard K. Stern.

Judge Robert Perry first outlined the charges brought by the prosecution, summarized those charges as follows: “The District Attorney brought an extremely complex criminal prosecution in this matter involving three conspiracy counts and eight substantive counts against three Defendants which allege criminal acts over a period of approximately three years. The theory of the case was that the defendants wrongfully obtained excessive quantities of prescription drugs for Anna Nicole Smith, who was alleged to be addicted to said drugs. The charges involved allegations of furnishing statutes and violations of obtaining prescriptions by fraud or in false names. The three defendants collectively faced a potential of 23 guilty verdicts. The jury returned six guilty verdicts, four against Eroshevich, two against Howard stern. Dr. Kapoor, the lead defendant, was acquitted on all counts.

In the next part Judge Robert Perry gives us a rundown of the charges the Jury either found not guilty or found Howard K. Stern and Dr. Eroshevich on with first a statement that in the Court’s opinion “It is the court’s view that the verdict was a stunning repudiation of the prosecution’s case.”

Mr. Stern was acquitted on all eight substantive counts. Stern and Eroshevich were convicted of two conspiracies, count 1, a conspiracy alleged to have commenced on September 11th of 2006, that continued until Ms. Smith’s death on — in February of 2007. Count 3, which was alleged to have commenced on June 5th of 2004, which continued until September 10th of 2006, the day before the count conspiracy was alleged to have commenced. Regarding the conspiracies, the jury found that Stern and Eroshevich CONSPIRED to commit two target crimes: One, to obtain a controlled substance by fraud in VIOLATION of Health and Safety Code section 11173(a), and a second target crime to unlawfully give a false name in a prescription for a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11174. Eroshevich was also convicted of two substantive Counts, Counts 7 and 9. Count 7 pertained to the charge of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud in violation of 11173(a) of the Health and Safety Code. Count 9 charged a violation of giving a false name in a prescription for a controlled substance in violation of 15 11174. Both counts involved a single prescription for Hydrocodone, otherwise known as vicodin, written on November 24th, 2006, by Eroshevich in the name Charlene Underwood.

Judge Perry then gives us the breakdown on the charges the jury deadlocked on and what the vote was by the jury:

“The jury also hung in a split of 6 to 6 for Eroshevich on counts 5 and involving the same event, the prescription for Charlene Underwood. Count 5 charged a violation of unlawfully prescribing a controlled substance, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11153(a). Count 11 charged a crime of unlawfully prescribing a controlled substance to an addict in VIOLATION of 11156. In addition, the jury deadlocked on certain target crimes alleged in the conspiracies in Counts 1 and 3. The jury hung 5 to 7, 5 would be in favor of guilt, in favor of acquittal, for the target crime of unlawfully prescribing, administering, or dispensing a controlled substance to an addict. As to Count 1, that would be a violation of Health and Safety Code Section 11156, the jury hung 10 to 2 in favor of conviction for the target crimes on Count 1 of unlawfully prescribing a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11153, and excessively prescribing or administering drugs in violation of business and profession code section 725(a). As to the Count 3 conspiracy, the jury found not true that the Defendants conspired to prescribe drugs to an addict in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11156. They — the jury found, or held rather – rather hung 7 to 5 for the unlawful prescribing of a controlled substance, 11153(a), and unlawfully prescribing a controlled substance to a person not under a physician’s treatment for a pathology other than addiction to a controlled substance, a violation of Health and Safety Code Section 11154(A) and (B). The jury also found — or hung 5 to 7 in favor of acquittal for the target crime on Count 3 of excessively prescribing or administering drugs in violation of business and profession code section 24 725(a).“

“The court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. I have concerns about the conspiracy counts, in particular as to Mr. Stern and whether there is specific intent in the evidence to show that he had a specific intent to violate the two target crimes of which he stands convicted in both counts.” At this part of the hearing Judge Perry asked Steve Sadow to address those issues and what the evidence presented at trial.

I like the part that Sadow thanked the AP reporter and quoting from an article that appeared on January 6, 2011 saying: “I have to give due credit to the esteemed and honorable reporter Ms. Deutch for her article today. I don’t know if the Court saw it. But she found a quote that your Honor — a statement your Honor had made — and thank you, Linda. And that’s Howard K. Stern. What the evidence in this case showed is that he and Dr. Eroshevich had an agreement that prescriptions for Anna Nicole would be written in Howard’s name, and that’s all the evidence shows. There is no evidence that Howard knew of any other name, not Ben Stern, not Charlene Underwood, not any other name. He didn’t pick them up, he didn’t have anything to do with obtaining them. There was never a witness who connected any of those names to him or brought to South — to the Keys. That’s what we have.”

Steve Sadow went on to say; “We all had either the fortune or misfortune to sit through two and a half months of facts. The Court instructed the jury, and did so because all of the parties agreed, that if a defendant had a good faith belief that his or her actions were legal, he or she is not guilty of conspiracy. And I really think that’s the crux of where we are because if you look at the evidence in any light, the evidence does not show that Howard K. Stern specifically intended to break the law insofar as these two target offenses, and that he, in fact, had a good faith belief that his actions were legal.”

One of the strongest arguments I think Sadow brought to the Court’s attention is that Howard K. Stern was honest about using his name to Danny Santiago stating: “And based on the evidence here, there is not a single indication that Mr. Stern believed it was illegal to do so and didn’t have a good faith belief that it was okay. They’ve been doing it for Anna since 2000 in Michelle Chase, in Jane brown. They went on and continued to do it in the Bahamas the same way. Howard knew it was going to Anna. Dr. Eroshevich knew it was going to Anna. There was never any question about that. When agent Santiago goes to see Mr. Stern on October the 12th, in a non-custodial setting, Mr. Stern says, Absolutely, it was in my name. It was written for privacy. There wasn’t any question about it. Now, that’s not evidence of a guilty intent. That’s evidence of someone who believes that what he did was legal.”

Judge Perry brought up the question about that pesky black bag stating; “Well, the argument was made that because Mr. Stern had a bag of prescription medication that ended up in the hotel room, that that was some indication of knowledge.” To which Mr. Sadow countered with; “All his name. All Howard K. Stern’s name. Not one other name was in that bag, and that was the beginning of the trial. So we — you know, we have always acknowledged, always admitted, Howard has always done so, he knew they were being written in his name. The question is, did he specifically intend to break the law? Did he know it was illegal to do so? And I’m suggesting that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to have convicted on that.”

Judge Perry then turned to Dr. Eroshevich’s attorney Bradley Brunon and asked: “If the evidence fails to support Stern’s involvement in a conspiracy, is it your view that the conspiracy charge against Dr. Eroshevich would fall?” To which Brunon responded in part that; “Yes, your Honor. There would have to be mutuality of intent in the conspiracy and it takes at least two people. And if one of them isn’t criminally culpable, then the other one, I would say, couldn’t be just as a matter of law.”

At this point Mr. Brunon brought up “the elephant in the room” throughout the trial saying: “There’s the additional problem that the Court very clearly, very forcefully and very early in the trial said, we’re not going to litigate Ms. Smith’s Death. And yet, it became kind of a subtle thing, a light motif. We started off very early on with the toxicologist talking about the drugs found in her body at autopsy, obviously a postmortem event. That was followed by Birkhead and others concerning about the ultimate outcome to her health in taking these medications. So it became kind of the elephant in the room.” He further brought up the millions of dollars at stake stating: “[T]hat Mr. stern was trying to drug her into a tractable state where he could make way with Marshal millions, that turned out not to be the case.”

The fact of being a celebrity was addressed by Brunon in stating; “the Journal carried a rather extensive article about the medical data leaks from institutions and doctors that go beyond celebrities to expose thousands, and I think I can cite this simply for the fact that it’s common knowledge — we talked about it during the course of the trial — that celebrities seem to be fair game to anyone that thinks they can make some money off of exposing some secret in their life.” Following this was this exchange with Judge Perry and Brunon:

“THE COURT: I remember the issue involving Farrah Fawcett and her admission at UCLA. and how people were all over themselves trying to find out what she was there for and getting copies of her records.

Mr. BRUNON: And the woman was in terminal condition, and yet someone profited by it.”

It appears that Bunon hints that a medical malpractice suit would have been more appropriate then a criminal trial when he said; “I alluded in my pleadings to the issue that kind of malpractice crept into this, Dr. Eroshevich didn’t practice psychiatry correctly; therefore, she’s guilty of writing bad prescriptions. It had some relevance, but not the relevancy that it was given. I mean, Dr. Botello physically shuddered when he had to consider the photo of Dr. Eroshevich and Ms. Smith in the bathtub … It really wasn’t an issue in the case. In the case — the forgery case”

After the Deputy District Attorney Sean Carney responded the Court said in part: “I did a little review of the schedule of prescriptions. And I looked at it with the idea of finding what the evidence was as to prescriptions that Howard Stern had allegedly picked up that were prescribed by Eroshevich. And I found in my review, and I think that’s what the evidence supports, that stern picked up prescriptions that Eroshevich had issued for Vickie Marshal. There were a number, maybe eight or nine. I can give you the dates if it’s necessary. That he picked up one prescription for Ambien for Anna smith, and then he picked up on four occasions prescriptions in the name Howard Stern.” Then Judge Perry went on to comment on what good pleadings Carney had written saying: “I thought you were correct in your pleading — of course, I think you do excellent pleading work — in that you thought it was a slightly higher standard for the court on its own motion to dismiss.”

Of course the retrying of the hung charges and that either side could appeal came up.

Judge Perry issued his verbal ruling in a thoughtful and precise way that I believe will hold up under any appeal with a multi-page decision. At the end to this detail explanation Judge Perry stated; “Let me make clear that I am dismissing on my own motion in furtherance of justice counts 1 and 2 (corrected to 3) in this case as to all target crimes finding the evidence insufficient. I think that that needed to be said. All right.”

The only thing left was if the D. A. was going to retry Khristine Eroshevich on the counts that there was a hung jury with the D. A. is to let Judge Perry know in writing and that they had sixty days to file a notice and appeal on Judge Perry’s decision.

I am sure one of you has the charging document, [juries written decisions on all charges], or if not perhaps we can find one. I remember reading it right after the trial in October 2010.

I have been reading and talking to some of you about feeling sorry for Howard K. Stern losing four years of his life here. True, but that said, Stern made a conscious decision to enter into the chaos that appears Anna Nicole Smith’s life which entangled all who came to care for her.

I could whine about the three plus years of my life gone and the fact that 90% of the internet including members of Rose Speaks.com turned against me for not being willing to go to jail. I chose not to because simply there was nothing to hide, and unlike other co-defendants I did not have a robbery or had my hard drive in a bank box. They did not lie about what happened to them, but I did have my emails and hard drives. I simply knew that the truth would prevail that many had great lawyers in this and that I just had to batten down the hatches for however long this storm lasted. I chose to enter the chaos of having a blog that covered “All Things Anna Nicole Smith” so I did throw myself into the peripheral chaos by not closing this site and/or not stopping coverage of this horrible ongoing saga.

Who does my heart ache for and will for a very long time? First two moderators of Rose Speaks.com who did nothing and yet ended up in jail on ridiculous contempt charges. Recordings came out during the discovery that had one “witness” taped by a lawyer in two phone calls about putting Lyndal Harrington in jail, anything to get to me for this person’s own personal vendetta. She was willing to take down Bonnie Stern, Lyndal Harrington and Teresa Stephens if the lawyers promised that I would be brought down. What kind of sick person does that? As I told the lawyer I could only listen to one of the two tape phone calls but that my phone records as well as the time line would prove I never was the “brains” behind robberies, hiding of hard drives and filing a bankruptcy even suggesting that I had that kind of power over others is ludicrous. My prayer is that Karma is a bitch and you know who you are. Hint, it happened in the spring of 2009. So it was NOT QV or Havana or any of the people you might think it was. The complete ability to hate so much that you are willing to sacrifice three people you knew were innocent, to get to someone you just wanted to destroy is unconscionadle. Someone you never met and did nothing to you but try to be a support system during what you said, and now I believe was no more than a made up crises. I don’t think I even want to get in the head of someone like that to see the darkness there.

Besides those two moderators my heart bleeds for Howard K. Stern’s parents, Leon and Bea Stern. They sent their son, the baby of the family, to obtain a top notch education and secured his earning ability only to have him end up with one client. They had nothing to say about the chaos surrounding Anna Nicole Smith flooding into their lives and upon her death to cause what must have been a living hell for them for the next four years. These were just parents, who loved their son and stood by him. Any of us as parents would do the same thing. They had no control over what their lives became and due to their age, I am sure the price emotionally and physically is one none of us can even begin to imagine.

So my tears will be for the two moderators that went to jail and for Howard’s parents, those four people did not deserve to find themselves in the midst of this as none of us should have been entangled. This should have been a simple three hour hearing and court decision where Anna Nicole Smith wanted and intended to be buried not four years of hell.

I will not be saying anything else about anything connected to Anna Nicole Smith except for the Supreme Court hearing and the South Carolina trial; and of course if California is willing to throw more money with what seems to me to be idiocy any Appeal in criminal court they file. I will be updating the download page with all of the paperwork pending before the Supreme Court in the next few days for reference reading for all of you.

Be sure to participate in our COMMUNITY , get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the community where you can discuss things about the cases in a debate area of the site.

©Rose Turner
January 11, 2011
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, 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. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.

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

Tags: Adam Braun Esq., Anna Nicole Show, Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Anna Nicole Smith's Will and Estate, AP interview, Bahamas, bestseller., Beverly Hills, Brad Brunon, Brad Brunon Esq., Bradley Brunon, Bradley Brunon Esq., Britney Spears, Bruce Ross Esq., California Medical Board, Cedars Sinai, Celebrity Trials, Dale Tate, Dannielynn, David Barkhurst, Defense attorney Chris Smith, Deputy District Attorney David Barkhurst, Deputy District Attorney David Walgren, Deputy District Attorney Rene Rose, Deputy District Attorney Renee Rose, Desperateexes.com, Dr. Conrad Murray, Dr. Khris, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, E Online!, Edward M. Chernoff Esq., Ellyn Garofalo Esq., Ellyn Gerafalo Esq., Estate of Anna Nicole smith, flamboyant fruit cake, Harland Braun criminal lawyer, Harland Braun Esq., High Profile Trials, Hollyweird, Hollyweird Criminal Justice, Hollyweird Justice, Hollywood, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Howard K Stern, investigative agencies, J. Chris Smith Esq., J. Christopher Smith Esq., J. Christopher “Chris” Smith Esq., John J. Nazarian, John J. Nazarian P. I., Judge Perry, Judge Perry California Superior Court, Judge Robert L. Perry, Judge Robert Perry, Judge Robert Perry OJ Simpson, Linda Deutsch, Los Angeles District Attorney, Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson, misdemeanor with probation, Neil McCabe, Nicole White, O. J. Simpson, OJ Simpson’s Trial, Prosecutor Rene Rose, pseudonym is a felony, pseudonym names, Radar Online, Rene Rose Esq., Renee Rose, Ron Rale Esq., Sean Carney, State Bar of California, Steve Cooley, Steve Cooley Esq., Steve Sadow Esq., Superior Court Judge Robert J. Perry, Superior Court Judge Robert Perry, the Sadow Factor, the “real” Anna Nicole Smith, UCLA Medical Center, Virgie Arthur

In an AP interview lead criminal attorney for Howard K. Stern, Steve Sadow says his client’s law license is in real jeopardy. Sadow said in the interview; “Even if Stern receives misdemeanor probation, his prospects as a lawyer are bleak, because the State Bar of California will likely still treat him as a convicted felon.” Sadow is still hopeful that the verdicts will be overturned, dismissed or reduced to misdemeanors by Superior Court Judge Robert Perry. “The judge has the authority to consider the well-known and commonly accepted practice of doctors and hospitals using aliases and so-called false names.” If he cannot get Judge Perry to dismiss the charges he will urge Judge Perry in the reduction to a misdemeanor with probation. It appears from the interview that even if Sadow can get the charges reduced to misdemeanors that will not help keep Stern’s law license. Sadow did not indicate that he would ask for a new trial as Eroshevich’s attorney is saying he will. We have asked Mr. Sadow if he could clarify for us the future intensions on behalf of Stern but have not received any further comment back from him. My thoughts is that this weekend will be spent on strategy meetings by Stern’s attorneys.

Other attorneys we have talked to and those that understand that strange land of Hollywood justice said that both the medical board and the State Bar would most likely start proceedings for hearings to take away both license this coming week. You know an election and all!!!

Bruce Ross the lead attorney in the appeal of Anna Nicole Smith’s case going back to the Supreme Court in an interview with E Online was more optimistic saying; “it is very premature to speculate about Howard’s executorship in that motions for a new trial will no doubt will be filed, and because the trial judge has the discretion to reduce the two relatively minor felony convictions to misdemeanors.”

I know many of us are not lawyers but have served as Executors of family members will so being disbarred should not affect that unless it is for “appearance sake”, and if that occurs the Estate has a good back up plan that Anna Nicole Smith included in her Will with Ron Rale to step in if needed.

Brad Brunon is a tad more optimistic for his client Dr. Khristine Eroshevich saying he will urge the judge to reduce the charges or order a new trial. He indicates he will cite Eroshevich’s good faith. “No one said she was doing this out of ill will, she certainly didn’t do it for money.” Brunon told the AP in an interview; “That in lieu of suspension, the medical board could allow Eroshevich to practice with a monitor overseeing all of her prescriptions, and she could also be ordered to go through a reeducation program on prescriptions” Brunon stated that in his opinion he did not think most physicians knew that writing a prescription under a pseudonym is a felony, Brunon added in the interview that doctors treating stars have a dual obligation to provide good medical care but also to protect their privacy. .

Attorney Ellyn Garofalo, whose client Dr. Sandeep Kapoor was acquitted of all charges said “these statutes involving use of fake names have never been enforced in this context. It was so unusual that she was unable to find case law on the subject when doing research for the trial. “There are doctors in Beverly Hills today saying, ‘Oh, my God, this is illegal?’… It just goes on all the time, what physician in his right mind wants to take on a celebrity when they will get charged criminally.” .

Another top defense lawyer in Los Angeles, Harland Braun, the father of Adam Braun said of the convictions; “This is a shocker, the convictions of Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Howard K. Stern for obtaining drug prescriptions for Smith under false names contradicts common practice. It’s absolutely necessary for survival in Hollywood, If it stands that keeping these people anonymous is a criminal act, a lot of doctors will have to refuse to take celebrity patients because they can’t protect them.”

Linda Deutsch of the AP said; “…in the wake of the convictions of her, [Anna Nicole Smith], psychiatrist and lawyer-boyfriend for using false names on her drug prescriptions, the Hollywood medical community awoke to the realization Friday that the practice might be off limits and some doctors could avoid treating celebrity clients rather than risk criminal charges.”

Anna Nicole Smith was known as Jane Brown, Susie Wong and other pseudonyms. Smith is not the exception in Hollywood of being treated under a pseudonym other known celebrities like Michael Jackson had several, performers such as Britney Spears and Mariah Carey to name just two more were known to use aliases when seeking medical care. Jackson’s doctor, Conrad Murray charged with involuntary manslaughter was not charged under this code of prescribing under the fake names he used for Jackson. Which makes me wonder why aren’t all of them being charged, from the doctors, to the hospitals to the pharmacists? Is if fair to send a message that we will not enforce this unless elections are close or we just don’t like you?

Nicole White. a spokeswoman for Cedars Sinai, and Dale Tate, a spokeswoman for UCLA Medical Center, said they were seeking comment from officials about the issue and had no immediate response. Both hospitals routinely admit celebrities under alias names and send prescriptions home with them under the same alias. When I talked to one of the hospitals a year ago they told me that if this happened it would cost hospitals in Los Angeles millions of dollars in revenue.

If the jury verdict documents provided by Radar Online are to be believed, the jury said they were deadlock on 3 felony counts for Eroshevich and six for Stern, which makes no sense to me at all.

Judge Perry has scheduled a hearing for Jan. 6 for further action in the case and possible sentencing.

Be sure to participate in our COMMUNITY , get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the community where you can discuss things about the cases in a debate area of the site.

Visit our Download Section for all documents on the cases we are following.

We will be listening to all of our readers about new cases. Do you have a tip for us on a case to follow? If so Contact Us, a link appears at the top of all pages; ALL TIPS ARE OF COURSE CONFIDENTIAL

©Rose Turner
October 30, 2010
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, 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. If comments to this or any other articles are not related to the article or does not meet the terms of use for Rose Speaks, they will be removed by the moderators.

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

Tags: Adam Braun Esq., Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Anna Nicole Smith's Will and Estate, AP interview, Beverly Hills, Brad Brunon Esq., Britney Spears, Bruce Ross Esq., California Medical Board, Cedars Sinai, Celebrity Trials, Dale Tate, Dannielynn, Defense attorney Chris Smith, Dr. Conrad Murray, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, E Online!, Edward M. Chernoff Esq., Ellyn Garofalo Esq., Ellyn Gerafalo Esq., Estate of Anna Nicole smith, Harland Braun criminal lawyer, Harland Braun Esq., High Profile Trials, Hollywood, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Howard K Stern, J. Chris Smith Esq., Judge Robert Perry, Linda Deutsch, Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson, misdemeanor with probation, Nicole White, pseudonym is a felony, pseudonym names, Radar Online, Ron Rale Esq., State Bar of California, Steve Sadow Esq., Superior Court Judge Robert Perry, UCLA Medical Center, Virgie Arthur

As the California Criminal Trial of Howard K. Stern, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and Khristine Eroshevich looms for August 4, 2010, the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith tightens the noose on four major witnesses.

You have to wonder if this will affect the credibility of Ford Shelley, G. Ben Thompson, Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson as well as attorney Susan Brown. It also appears that Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III for the South Carolina Federal Court decided to issue this Order without need of a Hearing.

On July 1, 2010 the Court in South Carolina issued an Court Order allowing the addition of Gaither Thompson II, Gina Shelley, Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia. The new defendants have twenty one (21) days to answer the Amended First Complaint so don’t look for this to go to trial before the criminal charges in California is tried to conclusion.

HERE ARE THE HIGH POINTS I FOUND IN THE COURT’S SEVEN (7) PAGE ORDER

“Plaintiff asserts causes of action for conversion, wrongful taking of estate property in violation of California Probate Code § 850, et seq., statutory and common law commercial appropriation of right of publicity in violation of California Civil Code § 3344.1, unjust enrichment/restitution, unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professional Code § 17200, et seq., violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) and civil conspiracy.

That the Estate’s property has been distributed to other entities including Geraldo Rivera with Fox News, the O’Quinn Law Firm, former television journalist Rita Cosby, and the California Department of Justice.

Counsel for Ford has consented to the filing of the proposed Amended Complaint. See Email from MacDonald to Lantta dated October 28, 2009. Thompson has not filed a Response in opposition the motion. The only opposition comes from proposed new Defendants Brown and the Law Firm. 1 Brown argues that allowing the amendments would be prejudicial to her and would be futile as to the claims against her. Brown does not appear to oppose the addition of Gaither, Melanie and Gina as Defendants in this action or to the addition of factual allegations regarding Ford’s distribution of Estate property to other third-parties.

[Brown] argues that she would be prejudiced due to the fact that she has not had the opportunity to participate in discovery as a party. However, in his Response, Plaintiff asserts that he is not opposed to amending the deadlines in this case to allow Brown to conduct discovery.

Brown argues that, as former counsel in this case, she is immune from the claims Plaintiff seeks to allege. Generally, an attorney is immune from liability to third persons arising from the performance of his or her professional activities as an attorney on behalf of and with the knowledge of his or her client. See Hunt v. Mortgage Electronic Registration, 522 F. Supp.2d 749, 758 (D.S.C. 2007). However, both Thompson and Ford testify that they did not authorize her to distribute Estate property to the O’Quinn Law. Firm.

The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Amended Complaint, which is attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff must serve the Amended Complaint within 15 days of the date of this Order. Defendants must respond in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ok after reading the First Amended Complaint I see this is the same exhibit filed with the Court in September 2009, so nothing new here; just has not read it in almost a year.

FILINGS ON JULY 1, 2010 WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURT.

July 1, 2010 Court Order allowing the First Amended Complaint to include Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1, 2010 First Amended Complaint filed by the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit A filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit B filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit C filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit D filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit E filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit F filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit G filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit H filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

July 1 2010 Exhibit I filed with First Amended Complaint by he Estate of Anna Nicole Smith adding Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson and the attorney Susan Brown and her Law Firm in Atlanta Georgia

Summons to Serve on Gina Thompson Shelley, Gaither Ben Thompson II and Melodie Thompson

Summons to Serve on Susan M. Brown and the Law Offices of Susan M. Brown

LATEST FILING IN THE TEXAS CASE I have not had time to read any of these papers.

July 7, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Response to Art Harris Motion to Compel Production.

July 7, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit A filed with Response to Art Harris Motion to Compel Production.

July 7, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit B filed with Response to Art Harris Motion to Compel Production.

July 7, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit C filed with Response to Art Harris Motion to Compel Production.

July 7, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Exhibit D filed with Response to Art Harris Motion to Compel Production.

NEWEST FILINGS IN THE VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. HOWARD K. STERN BREACH OF CONTRACT.

July 1, 2010, Howard K. Stern’s Special Appearance to Object to personal jurisdiction.

July 1, 2010 Stern’s Exhibit A filed with Stern’s Special Appearance to Object to personal jurisdiction.

For now we are NOT going to buy these papers due to cost, if it gets traction after the beginning of the Criminal trial or the August 6, 2010 hearing on Stern’s Special Appearance, then we will begin to purchase these papers as well.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
July 6, 2010
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, 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.

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith's Estate, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Art Harris, Attorney General Jerry Brown, attorney-client privilege, Bahamian lawyer Tracy Ferguson, Beverly Hills, Birkhead, BKD LLP, BKD LLP Computer forensics, Bonnie Stern, Bryan Cave LLP, California AG Jerry Brown, California Business & Professional Code § 17200, California Civil Code § 3344.1, California Department of Justice, California Probate Code § 850, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, civil conspiracy, commercial appropriation, commercial appropriation of right of publicity, Computer forensic expert, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), conversion of Estate Property, crime-fraud exception, crime-fraud exception attorney-client privilege, Dannielynn, Danny Santiago, Debra Opri Esq., Don Clark, Dr. Kapoor, Dr. Khris, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Elisa Miller Esq., Elizabeth McNamara Esq., Florence South Carolina, Folkens Law Firm, Ford Shelley, FOX News, G Ben Thompson, Gaither Ben Thompson II, Geraldo - Live, Geraldo At Large, Geraldo FOX News, Geraldo Rivera, Gina Shelley, Gina Thompson Shelley, Greta -On The Record, Greta Van Susteren, Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown, Hachette Book Group USA, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Hollyweird Criminal Justice, Hollywood, Hollywood California, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Horizons in the Bahamas, Horizons law suit, Horry County, Horry County Sheriff, Horry County Sheriff's Department, Horry County South Carolina, Howard K Stern, Joseph C Wilson IV Esq., Karl Alan Folkens Esq., L. Lin Wood, Law Offices of Susan Brown Esq., Lin Wood, Liz McNamara Esq., Louis David Nettles Esq., Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III, Melodie Thompson, Myrtle Beach, Myrtle Beach south Carolina, Neil McCabe, Nicole Jennings Wade Esq., Pierce Herns Sloan and McLeod, right of publicity, right of publicity in violation of California Civil Code, Robert Klein Esq., Rose Turner, Seminole Tribe Authorities, Shane Gibson, Shane Gibson former Bahamian Minister of Immigration, South Carolina Federal Court, statutory and common law, Steve Sadow Esq., Susan M. Brown Esq., Susan P MacDonald Esq., The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Tom Pirtle Esq., Tracy Ferguson Esq., Tracy Ferguson of Callendar's Bahamas, unfair competition, unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professional, unjust enrichment/restitution, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Virgie Arthur, wrongful taking of estate property

In filings today with the Ninth Court of Federal Appeals the Estate for Anna Nicole Smith = Dannielynn, filed for a Rehearing and/or a Rehearing En Banc [full court]. The filing points out that the same three judge panel is what propel this case to the U. S. Supreme Court of which Anna Nicole Smith won in a 9-1 decision in May 2006. Anna Nicole Smith’s Estate asked for an Extension to file this Request for Rehearing on March 26.

I predicted after the attorney, Kent L. Richland, for the Estate said they were looking at a return to the U. S. Supreme Court that we would be going for round two and here we are. This will take some time because Elaine Marshall on behalf of the Estate for Pierce Marshall, Smith’s long time adversary – enemy will file to a Response to deny any rehearing, the ninth circuit court will make it’s decision but look for it to end up back in the U. S. Supreme Court for round two. There is just way too much money at stake for either side to walk away from.

NEW PAPERS IN SOUTH CAROLINA FEDERAL COURT IN THE ESTATE OF ANNA NICOLE SMITH VS. G. BEN THOMPSON AND FORD SHELLEY.

April 5, 2010 Court Order appointing G. Ben Thompson as a Pro Se Defendant in the South Carolina Federal Court.

NEW PAPERS IN HARRIS COUNTY 80TH DISTRICT COURT IN VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. HOWARD K. STERN, TMZ.COM, HARVEY LEVIN, LARRY BIRKHEAD ET AL. IN HOUSTON TEXAS.

April 6, 2010 Parties Partially Agreed Motion to Continuance of the Deadlines in the 80th District Court Harris County.

April 6, 2010 Notice of Docket Submission for April 19, 2010 for the Partially Agreed Motion for Continuance.

April 7, 2010 Notice of Associated Counsel by TMZ.com and Harvey Levin.

April 7, 2010 Proposed Docket Control Order.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
April 8, 2010
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, 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.

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith Heir, Anna Nicole Smith's daughter, Anna Nicole Smith's Estate, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Bruce S. Ross Esq., CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Elaine Marshall, Entertainment Tonight, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, Kent L. Richiand Esq., Kent L. Richland, Kent Richiand, Kent Richland Esq., L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Philip W. Boesch Jr. Esq., Pierce Marshall, Pierce Marshall Estate, Rehearing En Banc, Rose Turner, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, U. S. Ninth Court of Appeals, U. S. Supreme Court, Virgie Arthur

As we wait for the papers, or at least the Order unsealing the papers in New York, a solid source contacted me about all of this, a source who had contacted one of the people facing a Preliminary hearing legal team and whom they felt was very rude to this person.

This sounds like the old song for some reason “Leroy Brown”, dunno why it just does.

As we await all of the papers today, why would Tom Bednarek not want anyone to know he had the “ear” of AG Jerry Brown? It could not possibly have to do with Rita Cosby?

Why did Bednarek tell this source from 2005 to the spring of 2009, I can help and did in fact help? Why would Rita Cosby need Bednarek to call in a “favor” from his old at least has the ear of “AG soon to be gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown? Why would helping this source/friend with Brown hurt the Howard K. Stern prosecution?

Why tell someone you had been working with that as this source said to Bednarek in an email, “I told him that you know Attorney General Jerry Brown so you may get a phone call.” In another email just two months before the indictments this source wrote to Bednarek, “I want to thank you for helping, [name omitted], by contacting Attorney General Jerry Brown.” Why in an email did he request this source to always refer to Rita Cosby as “R” saying, “Would appreciate it if from now on… in all of our correspondence…? THAT we only refer to one another ONLY as K and T… AND my gal as R… Okay?! This IS very important…” In another email Tom Bednarek said in part, “Again, should you ever want to discuss this with me, we can certainly do so, so long as it is CAREFUL HANDLED over the TELEPHONE.” In yet another email about offering help he stated; “Additionally, other than “Tom” … there will be no need to include my name within any letter you enclose. He will be aware of the package…”

In another email about the pillow talk while Rita Cosby was fast hammering out her future best selling book and shopping it around why did Tom Bednarek wanted to brag about his closeness to Cosby and exactly how close that pillow talk is as he states; “Although she is heavily committed on a number of major initiatives at this time, she is always very interested to learn more about a story such as this… I know… we’ve been together for well over seven years now, and I know her heart. She would be a phenominal ally to have, BUT I can tell you first hand… that she is extremely engaged right now… and has a number of prior works she is deeply involved with. On the other hand … she is an amazing “multi-tasker!!! HA! But seriously, as mentioned, I will see what either she can do to help AND get this into the right hands for you.”

Finally just less than two WEEKS after the indictment of Stern Bednarek called this source and said “I can’t help you with AG Jerry Brown, and please don’t contact me again”. Following that was the last email exchange of four years of working together on ONE project with Bednarek and Cosby:

“Hello Tomaczek, It’s sad you decided not to keep in touch with me after you told me you would send the documents I sent you … to Jerry Brown. It’s been 8 months since …I’m asking you again to send the information I sent you and Rita …to Jerry Brown. I remember you telling me that you had a direct phone number for him. I can’t understand how you think sending this information could hurt the Stern case. You reasoning just doesn’t make sense to me. Thank you,”

Yea Tom why would helping with the ear of “feel good AG Jerry Brown” hurt the pending Stern case? Did you use up all of your “favors” keeping “R” or Rita Cosby as most of us know and call her by out of the deep fat frying pan? Why did you and Cosby want to make sure the indictment was announced before the Summary Judgment was ruled on in New York? How long had you been sharing pillow talk with “R”, [Rita Cosby], with AG Jerry Brown?

All good questions I think, what about ya’ll? My source has snail mailed me a ton of information on this project that we will begin to explore in the new year in greater detail right before the gubernatorial candidates, including Brown, began their major fund raising? By the way the “project” that is discussed with promises to help by Tom Bednarek is about a non-profit foundation of which there are allegation of “money for favors”, isn’t Brown in charge of those? Could AG Jerry Brown’s friend Bednarek with over four years of documentation sink feel good Brown’s bid for that brass ring called the governorship? A brass ring that Brown wants so badly in what some say is a hope for the blissfulness and power he once held as the prince and the rising star in the Democratic Party way, way back in the 70’s as a young “cool feel good” Brown.

I have told my source to print out the hard copies of all of the documentation and send them to me, put them in a bank vault and at least in two other people’s hands so Bednarek cannot undo the damage to his beloved “R”, known to us as Rita Cosby.

Tom, Tom, Tom, you tried so hard to not leave much of a paper trail in all of this, but in trying it rings of nanny gate in my ears.

We will be bringing you more of what this source has to say, including the way they were treated by one of the legal teams of one of the people facing the preliminary hearings in October of this year.

Now for today, we await the Court’s Order releasing the papers, could “exhibit J” be Bednarek deposition about nanny gate? Who knows only the unsealing of all of these promising delicious documents will tell us.

To keep up with the papers to be unsealed keep this list handy, and remember ALL of Howard K. Stern’s deposition and all of Rita Cosby’s deposition is included in the documents. I don’t know about all of you but I await the release with excitement that a lot of the pieces will begin to make more sense and like a haze in the morning light will become the bright sun of daylight and the telling of all of those secrets, including pillow talk of nanny gate.

We will be linking the below list with documents as those doucuments are released by Court Order.

The list filed under seal by Elizabeth A. McNamara, the second filing on Dec. 19, 2009 by Elizabeth A McNamara is identical to this one for Rita Cosby Dec. 15, 2008:
Her declaration starts right off with “redacted”.

Partial depositions:
Exhibit A Larry Birkhead (we have)
Exhibit B Patrik Simpson (we have)
Exhibit C Pol’ Atteu (we have)
Exhibit D Wilma Vicedomine (we don’t have)
Exhibit E Mark Speer (we don’t have yet)
Exhibit F Howard K. Stern (we have)
Exhibit G Jack Harding (we don’t have)
Exhibit H. Bruce Littlefield (we don’t have yet)
Exhibit I Rusty Hardin’s filing in the Florida case (we have)
Exhibit J even the name is redacted.
Exhibit K Larry Birkhead’s declarations in family court in California. (we don’t have)
Exhibit L Lori Payne (we have and she flaunted it on Geraldo)
Exhibit M and N affidavits by Ben Thompson (we have but will not put up for Dannielynn’s right to privacy)
Exhibit O Ford Shelly statement to Royal Bahamas Police (we have)
Exhibit P Howard K. Stern’s statement to Royal Bahamas Police (we have the first page)
Exhibit Q all of the transcript of the Florida proceedings (most of us probably have)
Exhibit R PEJ Report on Stern’s Affidavit in the Inquest (redacted and we don’t have)
Exhibit S Debra Opri’s original filing in California against Birkhead (we have)
Exhibit T Howard K. Stern’s petition from Florida suing O’Quinn (we have)
Exhibits U and V media contracts for Anna Nicole Smith and Howard K. Stern (redacted)
Exhibit X (one page from the great big beautiful doll (filed under seal for copyright reasons, however we have a copy)
Exhibit Y and Z media coverage on Anna Nicole Smith marrying J. Howard Marshall (we have)
Exhibits AA and BB is media coverage of Larry Birkhead (we have)
Exhibit CC tabloid media coverage pointing to Stern being involved in Daniel Smith death (we have)
Exhibits DD, EE and FF Jack Harding’s coverage in media (we have)
Exhibits DD the whole thing is redacted (we don’t’ have)
Exhibit HH media coverage of the Britney Spears defamation claim (we have)

The list filed under seal by Debra Neumann Hachette Books Dec. 15, 2008

Exhibit A excerpts deposition Evan Boorstyn (we don’t have)
Exhibit B excerpts deposition Leslie Pockell (we don’t have)
Exhibit C excerpts deposition Jamie Raab
Exhibit D excerpts deposition Howard K. Stern

The list filed under seal with Amy Einhorn’s declaration dated Dec. 15, 2008

Exhibit B of Amy Einhorn is a copy of the book proposal
Exhibit C copy of contract with Rita Cosby

The list filed under seal by L. Lin Wood for Howard K. Stern February 12, 2009

Exhibit 1 deposition Howard K. Stern dated Sept. 15 and 16 2008 (full deposition, 3 days worth)
Exhibit 2 deposition Rita Cosby Nov. 15, 2007 (full deposition 3 days worth)
Exhibit 3 deposition Rita Cosby Sep. 22-23 and 26 2008 with exhibits 4, 5, 8, 9, 29
Exhibit 4 excerpts of Larry Birkhead July 22, 2008
Exhibit 5 excerpts of Bruce Littlefield, dated July 29, 2009 with exhibit 13
Exhibit 6 excerpts of Raymond Martino dated Sept. 2, 2009
Exhibit 7 excerpts Pol’ Atteu dated May 28, 2009
Exhibit 8 excerpts Patrik Simpson dated May 27, 2008
Exhibit 9 excerpts Don Clark dated Oct. 14, 2008
Exhibit 10 pages of Don Clark deposition from Florida (we have)
Exhibit 11 excerpts of Wilma Vicedomine dated Oct. 13, 2008 exhibits 6 and 7
Exhibit 12 excerpts of Amy Einhorn dated Sept. 9, 2008 Exhibits 1, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 12
Exhibit 13 excerpts of Mitchell Hoffman dated Sept. 10, 2008 exhibits 22, 27 and 27
Exhibit 14 excerpts Les Pockell dated Oct. 7, 2008
Exhibit 15 excerpts Evan Boorstyn dated Oct. 7, 2008
Exhibit 16 excerpts Jamie Raab dated Oct. 7, 2008
Exhibit 17 excerpts Dan Wakeford dated Dec. 15, 2007
Exhibit 18 excerpts Mark Speer dated Oct. 23, 2008
Exhibit 19 excerpts Jack Harding dated Feb. 21, 2008
Exhibit 20 excerpts Broncha Stern dated Sept 3, 2008
Exhibit 21 excerpts Virgie Arthur from Houston case dated Oct. 28, 2008
Exhibit 22 Declaration Howard K. Stern Feb. 5, 2009 partially filed under seal
Exhibit 29 notes by Rita Cosby
Exhibits 31, 32, 33, and 34 all filed under seal

The list filed under seal by Debra Neumann for Hachette Books March 13, 2009

Exhibit A excerpts Amy Einhorn dated Sept. 9, 2008
Exhibit B excerpts Mitchell D. Hoffman dated Sept. 10, 2008

The list filed under seal by Elizabeth McNamara for Rita Cosby March 13, 2009

Exhibit 1 excerpts Raymond Martino
Exhibit 2 excerpts Don Clark
Exhibit 3 complete deposition Wilma Vicedomine
Exhibit 4 excerpts Mark Speer
Exhibit 5 excerpts Jack Harding
Exhibit 6 excerpts Larry Birkhead
Exhibit 7 excerpts Pol’ Atteu
Exhibit 8 excerpts Patrik Simpson
Exhibit 10 email between Birkhead and ANS dated Sept. 22, 2006
Exhibit 11 email between Stella Lockhard to Stern attorney Krista Barth dated April 13, 2007
Exhibit 12 updated document by Rita Cosby
Exhibit 14 excerpts book by Cyril H. Wecht published Jan. 6, 2009 (should have been filed under seal we have removed them from the web site.)
Exhibit 15 Big Beautiful Doll filed under seal

LATEST FILINGS BY RITA COSBY IN THE NEW YORK CASE ON SEX TAPE AND ORAL SEX AT A PARTY WITH JACKIE HATTEN STILL NO WHERE TO BE FOUND

August 18, 2009 Rita Cosby’s Notice to the Southern District Federal Court before Judge Chin that she is filing a Memorandum of Law of reconsideration of the sex tape and the “party” where missing Jackie Hatten “says” she saw Birkhead and Stern having oral sex.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2353.

August 18, 2009 Rita Cosby Memorandum of Law Support Reconsideration to the Southern District Federal Court before Judge Chin that she is filing a Memorandum of Law of reconsideration of the sex tape and the “party” where missing Jackie Hatten “says” she saw Birkhead and Stern having oral sex.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2354.

Latest paperwork in Texas State Case

August 11, 2009 Court Order passing on the County attorney’s office filing a “boilerplate” Motion without the facts the court needs on one of the parties filing of an indigence Affidavit.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2352.

©Rose Turner, an Editorial Opinion
August 2o, 2009
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, 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.

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

Tags: AG Jerry Brown, Amy Einhorn, Amy Stewart, Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith's Estate, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Attorney General Jerry Brown, Britney Spears, Broncha Stern, Bruce Littlefield, Bryan Cave LLP, Celebrity Trials, Dan Wakeford, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Debra Neumann, Debra Opri Esq., Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Douglas Maynard, Dr. Khris, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Elizabeth McNamara, Elizabeth Thompson, Evan Boorstyn, Exclusive Rose Speaks, Feel Good Jerry Brown, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Sustern, Hachette Books, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, J. Christopher Smith Esq., J. Howard Marshall, Jack Harding, Jackie Hatten, Jamie Raab, John "Jay" Patton, L. Lin Wood, Leslie Pockell, Lin Wood, Lori Payne, Luke Lantta, Mark Speer, Micahel Trope, Mitchell Hoffman, Nanny Gate, Neil McCabe, Nicole Jennings Wade, Pol' Atteu and Patrik Simpson, Raymond Martino, Rita Cosby, Stella Lockhard, Steve Sadow Esq., The O'Quinn Law Firm, Tom Bednarek, Tomaczek, Tomaczek Bednarek, Virgie Arthur

During G. Ben Thompson’s deposition on June 5, 2009, he said he did remember giving Susan M. Brown his attorney permission to enter into a “Common Interest and Confidentiality Agreement” with Virgie Arthur via her counsel, Neil McCabe verbally on March 3, 2007 and signed on May 15, 2008. However, coming back from a break during the deposition G. Ben Thompson changed his recollection following a conference with his attorneys stating; “…I was wrong on that. I discussed some stuff about that, but I don’t — I was wrong about that. I’m sorry..” There was no “Common Interest and Confidentiality Agreement” that Ben Thompson told Susan M. Brown to enter into with Virgie Arthur’s lawyers. After lunch, per the deposition transcript of Ben Thompson from sometime after 12 noon to a little after 1 PM. when Ben Thompson and his lawyers came back attorney, Susan M. Brown made the following statement on the record. “I make a motion that we adjourn today’s depositions until a date in the future due to a potential conflict that has arisen to allow me time to determine whether or not I need to withdraw from the case and allow the parties to obtain alternative counsel.”

That is where we are today with the Estate for Anna Nicole Smith has filed in the Federal Court for the Northern District of Georgia, with a Motion to Compel Susan M. Brown to give a deposition in anticipation that she might be added to the South Carolina suit in place of one of the “Jane Does”. The Estate’s counsel led by L. Lin Wood has asked for an oral hearing on the matter and Susan Brown was to reply to that request by July 31, as of August 6, 2009 she has neither withdrawn from the South Carolina case nor filed an answer or objection to an oral hearing in the Northern District Court of Georgia. There was a Status hearing by telephone as scheduled in South Carolina on August 6; at that hearing the Court granted the Request to Extend deadlines and asked that the counsel for Ford Shelley and Howard K. Stern work together and present a new Order setting the new deadlines. On Friday, August 7, the Georgia Federal Court for the northern district referred the Motion for Submission for an or Oral Argument, by Howard K. Stern, the MOTION to Quash Subpoena by Susan M. Brown, and the MOTION to Compel compliance w/Subpoena filed by Stern, all three were submitted to Magistrate Judge Russell G. Vineyard to set a hearing date. I think we will have some answers as to whether Ford Shelley and Ben Thompson are going to throw Susan Brown under the bus, or better stated to the wolves of questions of conflict of interests, ethical behavior etc., once that hearing occurs.

In Gaither Thompson II deposition on June 4 he also stated he knew nothing about giving Arthur’s counsel copies of the hard drives or authorized attorney Brown to enter into the “Common Interest and Confidentiality Agreement” on his behalf.

So wanting the truth or the other side to be fair I called WV who read the excerpts of the deposition and had a totally different take, saying the meeting was on October 12, 2007, not in the summer of 2008 or late 2007. WV stated those present were Tom Pirtle, Don Clark, Susan Brown, Ford Shelley, Ben Thompson and WV and they met in Myrtle Beach at a South Carolina law office. WV stated per her notes the meeting lasted approximately 6 to 7 hours.

I personally remember Ford Shelley introducing the infamous “Clown Video” during the burial proceeding and he appeared as a witness for Arthur. So the new memories of June 4 and 5, 2009 seem a tad off and the agreement signed previously appears to reflect the time frame this all occurred in. So could Ford Shelley and Ben Thompson really NOT remember, or are they throwing their lawyer to the wolves of opposing counsel and potential ethics questions? Remember Susan M. Brown has NEVER denied executing the “Common Interest and Confidentiality Agreement” with the counsel for Virgie Arthur.

There will be a new article up in just a bit about the Art Harris/CBS Response filed yesterday with questions about a conflict of interest and some open ended questions for ya’ll to ponder. With that will my special comments on Melinda Burleson, the allegations of what she testified about on May 21, 2009 in a hearing to send Lyndal Harrington to jail and if she did testify to that how easily she can be proven a liar. I will have in that article an open letter to the lawyers in the multiple cases, since one never knows whose doorstep Burleson might end up on next and what they should demand her to turnover since she has jumped at giving Texas jurisdiction over her person. Ahhhh yea now that will be the fun for this weekend and God knows we all need a tad of reality check for Burleson and the consequences of lying in court. “My Precious, said Gollum” comes to mind when I think of all of those nights and days I listened to Burleson flip through her valuable papers.

In other filings yesterday in the State Texas District Court we have:

August 7, 2009 Revised Order for Teresa Stephens to be arrested and her body attached to the Writ, it does allow her to pay bond in Tarrant County to not be taken back to Harris County if she agrees in the Bond to show up on Aug. 21, 2009 at 9 AM with her computer.

August 7, 2009 Teresa Stephens Second Motion to Extend the Time for her filings in the Texas District State Court based on the Notice of Appeal she filed on July 15, 2009.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2342.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2331.

August 7, 2009 Art Harris Response to Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Leave to Join CBS and asking for an Oral Hearing if not an out right denial of the Motion. Harris’ lawyers allege that Arthur and Turner have entered into collusion on the Court AGAIN!!! All of the documents referred to in this Response can be found in our download section either under the state suit or the federal case of Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern et. al.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2333.

New filings in the State of Texas first Appellate Court in Houston Texas we have the following filings by Teresa Stephens.

August 7, 2009 Teresa Stephens’ Affidavit filed with the First Court of Appeal, Houston Texas for Emergency Relief from Capias Order by the 280th Harris County District Court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2334.

August 7, 2009 Teresa Stephens’ Appeal Notice of Related cases in the 280th District Court of Harris County Texas.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2335.

August 7, 2009 Teresa Stephens’ Motion to the Appellate Court asking for Temporary Emergency Relief for the Motion to Compel issued by the 280th District Court in Harris County.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2337.

August 7, 2009 Teresa Stephens Motion to Appellate Court for an Emergency Temporary Relief from Contempt of Court in the 280th District Court of Harris County Texas.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2338.

August 7, 2009 Teresa Stephens Motion for a Writ of Mandamus from the Appellate Court in Houston filed out of the 280th Harris County District Court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2339.

August 7, 2009 Teresa Stephens Table of Contents Filed with her Emergency Request on Contempt and compelling her to turn over her computer filed from the 280th District Court in Harris County Texas, with the Writ of Mandamus filed with the Appellate Court.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=2340.

©Rose Turner
August 8, 2009
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this blog article are based on the opinions of Rose Turner or our featured authors, 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.

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

Tags: Amanda Bush Esq., Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith's Estate, Anna Nicole Smith's Will, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Diana Marshall Esq., Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, G Ben Thompson, Gaither Thompson II, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Stancil "Ford" Shelley, Susan M. Brown Esq., Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, Virgie Arthur