Per CNN: Florida Senate candidate Jeff Greene is a billionaire real estate investor who has spent millions to fund his primary campaign against fellow Democrat, Rep. Kendrick Meek. Now, one week before Florida’s primary elections, Greene is preparing to spend his money on a lawsuit against two Florida newspapers if they don’t publish lengthy retractions to damning articles they recently published about him.
Famed Bryan Cave LLP defamation attorney L. Lin Wood is the attorney Greene has chosen to represent him in what is shaping up as a very expensive battle with the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald. The papers have a working partnership and often share resources to cover state news.
Times editor Neil Brown said last week after receiving a letter dated August 11, that no retraction is forthcoming, and Greene is expected to follow through, potentially as early as Friday, August 20, 2010
Both papers have endorsed Greene’s opponent, Meek in the Democratic primary for Senate Florida’s primary elections will be held Tuesday, August 24.
The allegations leading up to the threat of a defamation case is based on that one of the stories, first published on August 8, the Times reported that in 2006, Greene had sold California property to Delbert McConville, who is now in jail facing conspiracy and money laundering charges. Greene admits to selling McConville 300 condos, but insists that his connection to McConville ends there and that he was not a party to the dealings McConville engaged in that led him to jail.
Then we have the article stating links between Mike Tyson and Greene even going as far as to tying in a Sport’s Illustrated Article interview of July 28 where Tyson allegedly describes Greene’s 145-foot yacht, the activity on the yacht; including it was lavish, and teeming with naked, drunken parties. Greene denies those claims. Tyson–who is a close friend to Greene and was best man at his 2007 wedding–spent a month aboard Greene’s yacht, Summerwind, during the summer of 2005, however the Sport’s Illustrated Article does not name Greene. Sport’s Illustrated would not comment to CNN.
In the August 16 letter to the Miami Herald executive editor Anders Gyllenhaal, attorney L. Lin Wood, said the stories are “replete with false, misleading and defamatory statements of fact concerning Mr. Greene.”
Greene is threatening to open his wallet wide to wage this legal fight. “It will be a substantial lawsuit, because I am a high net-worth individual who does earn a lot of money,” Greene said at a press conference last week that was recorded by the Miami Herald, “and if my reputation is damaged, the St. Petersburg Times will be held accountable.”
Neil Brown has stated; “The Times’ coverage of Mr. Greene and his business transactions has been thorough and fair, and the reporting is well-documented in public records,” Brown said in a statement published on The Times’ political blog. “Our story is accurate, balanced and we stand by it.”Mr. Greene is welcome to submit a letter to the editor if he wishes to take further exception.”
An aide to Greene told CNN that this is no political bluff and that “recklessly disregarding the truth is actionable and Jeff plans to take action.”
The South Florida Law Blog says in their article today; “to paraphrase Steely Dan, Lin Wood is a major dude. He previously represented accused Centennial Olympic Park bomber Richard Jewell, the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey, Howard K. Stern, and has been involved in many other high-profile defamation cases. The article goes on to muse that; “if the Herald will retain our own silver fox, Sandy Bohrer, …if so we are looking at a powerhouse match up.”
Rose Speaks.com will follow this suit for sure if it is filed in Federal Court which it might not be as all of the parties are located as entities or citizens of Florida. If it is file in state Court if the Sunshine state shares the filings as they have on other high profile cases then we will followed the case as well.
This is going to prove up to be an interesting fall season if Wood slaps both papers with defamation suits in the next few days.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Howard K. Stern cites fear of being “served” with a new lawsuit as reason to stay clear of Texas. One gets the feeling he actually might hate Texas the home of the “love of his life”, Anna Nicole Smith.
May 7, 2010 Court Order governing Art Harris Protection from Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel and what Harris must turn over not to be shared with any Pro Se litigants in this case.
May 13, 2010 Art Harris Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.
May 13, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit A field with Harris’ Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.
May 13, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit B field with Harris’ Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.
May 13, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit C field with Harris’ Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.
May 13, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit D field with Harris’ Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.
May 13, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit E field with Harris’ Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties.
May 13, 2010 Harris’ Notice Notice of Submission on Response, Objection and Motion to Strike Turner’s Motion for Leave to Designate Responsible Third Parties.
May 13, 2010 First Court of Appeals Request for Response from Art Harris due by May 21, 2010 if he disputes any of the factual information in Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Rehearing.
May 14, 2101 Stern Exhibit A filed with Stern’s Supplement to Motion to Quash Deposition and for Protective 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.
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.
Bryan Cave lawyers in Atlanta (not the ones doing the Howard K. Stern Cases) helped overturn a jury verdict of over sixty million because firm did not turn over 4 email “trees”.
This is a strange case in which Lockheed Martin Corporation and L-3 Communications Integrated Systems LP have dueling lawsuits in two federal courts. Lockheed brought an action against L-3 for trade secrets violations, while L-3 had a suit of anti-trust against Lockheed. The Lockheed lawsuit was filed in the Northern District Federal Court in Atlanta Georgia, while L-3 filed their suit in the Northern District Federal Court in Dallas Texas.
Here is where it gets complicated, Lockheed won a $59 million jury judgment from L-3 in Georgia, but in Texas Lockheed turned over 4 emails that helped L-3 and would moot the jury award in Georgia.
Here are lists of recently E-Discovery Rulings in Federal Courts that appears to be shaping up electronic discovery in an age where more companies are using emails as opposed to the traditional letters. All of these rulings are in regards to allegation of discovery electronic documents.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, April 2, 2010 Southern District Federal Court for California regarding sanctions requested on attorneys.
Atlanta Georgia Lockheed Decision overturned on March 31, 2010.
In Regards to Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. February 19, 2010 by Judge Lee Rosenthal in the Federal Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Rosenthal is considered one of the most knowledgeable federal judges on electronic discovery.
Pension Committee January 15, 2010 Opinion and Order by the Southern District of New York, parties must preserve electronic documents.
ROBERT G. SWOFFORD JR. and SHARON R. SWOFFORD September 28, 2009 on Sanctions for Spoliation regarding government computers in the Middle District Federal Court of Florida.
In Re. Weekley Homes L. P. August 28, 2009 Supreme Court of Texas the new standard for Texas electronic discovery rules.
Bray & Gillespie Management LLC. August 3, 2009 in the Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida for sanctions in destroying electronic documents.
There is also a case pending before the U. S. Supreme Court on electronic privacy in lawsuits pending in the case of Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co. So where do you think electronic discovery is going? Will we become more uniform throughout the federal courts and if so what about state courts?
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.
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.
After being unable to reach an agreed settlement between Virgie Arthur and Teresa Stephens that was agreeable to both parties in the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern, Larry Birkhead, TMZ et. al. defamation case and conspiracy to defame.
Today, March 31, 2010 Arthur has filed a Notice of Nonsuit in regards to dismissing Teresa Stephens from the Harris County Case
I do not expect any of the conditions of why a settlement was unable to be reached. However if either side does release a statement in regards to Stephens being released from the lawsuit pending in the Harris County 80th District Court by the Honorable Larry Weiman, Rose Speaks.com will attempt to get an on the record comment from both sides.
We here at Rose Speaks.com are glad to see Ms. Stephens, a blogger who lives in Texas, dismissed after almost two years and wish her all of the best.
In other filings with he court filed with the Court after 5 P. M on March 30, 2010, Art Harris has filed a “Conditional Motion to Quash” the deposition of Turner based on three reasons. The deposition is scheduled for Friday April 2, 2010.
Well let the games begin… In a filing full of false information (And God I hate to side against a good law firm), Amanda Bush on behalf of her client filed a Motion to Quash Deposition of Turner based on “At the time of filing this Motion, counsel for Harris has not received a response. On information and belief, counsel for Harris believes that Turner intends to quash the videotaping of her deposition late Thursday, April 1, 2010, and the Court is closed on Friday, April 2, 2010 for the holiday.” I hope this is one damn good witness Ms. Bush has and one with a LOT of money that can fight off perjury charges and a Civil Suit, because that statement is an out and out lie to the Court by an officer of the Court, which last I checked was pretty serious. Shooting back Virgie Arthur filed Turner had NEVER said and DID not intend to file any Motion to Quash. For those lawyers needing a refresher course I had until 5 PM today to file a Motion to Quash and Harris’ counsel knows that. The holiday, Mmmmm every lawyer that intended to be here had confirmed including Ms. Bush’s boss that he would even stay to Saturday to finish all of this up. So to say I did not want to be cross examined by him is bull shit, I asked if there was any way because of my illness if they could trade out time and try for both sides to wrap this up in six hours if not I would continue to do the best I could through Saturday. Folks this is why I am so angry at Harris for deleting those emails and documents, it seems the only person everyone agrees has not is me… I am hoping we can get an emergency hearing tomorrow and proceed. However it might be Harris’ attorneys strategy to stall until I am on pain management medication and can’t give a deposition before the hearing to bust Art Harris on April 30. What does a well respected Law Firm do when a client screws them over and leaves them to clean up the mess. I guess some consolation is that Harris is now in trouble in Florida in the Haleigh Cummings case for the very same situation he finds himself in the soup kettle in Texas. I will have a lot more to say about Harris’ credibility among his peers of independent investigative reporters and where he actually is when “out of town researching a big murder or case”.
I have not been sent a copy for some reason, but I have now received some confirmation of available for counsel to attend a video taped deposition of me in HOUSTON TEXAS by Art Harris’ counsel in their offices in Houston as early as April 5, 2010 or April 12, 2010.
Folks I have never made it any secret from any of you are the attorneys that I was working diligently with the counsel for Virgie Arthur since last summer to reach a settlement to protect the rights of bloggers on this site to remain anonymous.
There are some papers concerning the Harris County Case up on the private forums for members only and will be put here on the blog as soon as they show up on the Harris County District Court website.
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.
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.
Howard K. Stern mailed his Response to the First Court of Appeals on Friday, March 12 to be entered by the Appellate Court on March 15. Stern’s Response is to Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions against Stern and attorney L. Lin Wood.
Status Conference held with the Honorable Larry Weiman of the 80th District Court of Harris County on March 12, 2010 at 3:30 PM.
Those in attendance in person:
Diana Marshall for Larry Birkhead
Neil McCabe for Virgie Arthur with a young associate that I did not get the name when Mr. McCabe introduced him.
One or two lawyers for TMZ not sure if it was Richard Hess and/or Harry Susman, whoever was there for TMZ did not talk at all during the conference.
A male attorney from Jackson Walker that I had never heard the name before and he did not speak during the conference either.
Those in attendance by phone conference:
L. Lin Wood for Howard K. Stern who was on vacation in Utah and on a day trip up a mountain but wanted to be present.
Luke Lantta for Howard K. Stern who was in the office in Atlanta Georgia
Rose Turner who was in my home in Gladewater Texas.
Charles “Chip” Babcock entered the telephone conference partial through the conference but did not speak during the conference hearing.
The conference stated at 3:30 PM and lasted until almost 5 PM, other than introducing myself and asking one question about the Special Master Craig Ball although I was part of the conference by phone I took notes.
The main parties talking with Judge Weiman were Mr. Wood and Mr. McCabe.
Diana Marshall coming in for two rambling comments, that I thought could have been better stated in one or two sentences. However, Ken thought when I told him that perhaps it was one of those misdirections to get off of her client, Larry Birkhead doing a deposition before any hearing for a Special Appearance on Jurisdiction that he filed or providing the server he uses for emails. If that was the purpose she succeeded in running out the clock and not having any deposition or production of doucments or naming an email server of her client brought up by the Court or the parties.
Ms. Marshall was a good friend of John O’Quinn’s had ran in his social circle, belong to the same country club and knew him very well, HOWEVER that said, she has stated before that she never forgets who butters her bread, the client, in this case Birkhead. Ms. Marshall seemed to side more with Mr. McCabe then she did with Mr. Wood, although I frankly got lost in part of the two long ramblings I felt she did toward the Court and of course the clock.
The judge impressed me he knew the statutes and he controls his courtroom, he is cordial to all but he is a very smart guy and had a beautiful voice.
At one time they were referring to a Rule 11 agreement between Stern and Arthur that had been put in the record in 2008, Wood did not have a copy with him and Mr. McCabe did have it but was going to go through the file to pull it out, and INSTANTLY the judge had his copy from the jacket of documents he had related to the case and read it into the record himself. Now that was impressive to me and showed he had read all of the filings and anything else that might come up on Friday.
Mr. Wood pushed for a hearing on the long pending Special Appearance of his client, Judge Weiman asked if there had been a hearing at all on the Special Appearances and Wood and McCabe said something like briefly in December 2008. The Court spent time on Howard K. Stern’s deposition on both jurisdiction and merits asking at one time in order to move the case along would Mr. Wood be willing to have two depositions, one for jurisdiction and then if needed one for the merits of the case later.
The Court then asked why something in regards to Howard K. Stern’s deposition had not been decided before this time, and that brought up could Steve Sadow, Stern’s criminal attorney be there, which McCabe had previously not wanted and Wood had insisted on it. Mr. McCabe very quickly said he would be willing for Mr. Sadow to be present as long as he abides by Texas state statute, which allowed him to be there but not to talk, make co
Late last night, at midnight I received the filings by Richard W. Hess of Susman – Godfrey Law Firm; the Motion for Summary Judgment by TMZ Productions Inc. and Harvey Levin in the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern defamation suit pending in the 80th District Court, Harris County.
The hearing for the Motion has been set before the Court for Friday, May 5, 2010 at 8:30 A. M. before the Honorable Larry Weiman in Houston Texas.
In the filing for Summary Judgment TMZ and Levin state that the April 19, 2007 article that Arthur and her stepbrother had a child together is literally true, substantially true as a matter of law and that the unpublished details of Virgie Arthur’s stepbrother relationship are far more damaging than what TMZ published. They also state that the Cause of Action of Conspiracy to Defame is not true and as such should be dismissed.
TMZ.com and Levin state that the stepbrother story was a NON-TMZ publication that the Summary Judgment should be granted on a non-evidential Motion as Texas Statute allows.
Attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment is a sworn declaration by attorney Richard Hess with the following:
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.
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.
Entries (RSS)