Final Opinion on 2nd Appellate Court of California vs. Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Howard K. Stern. I have not read it yet so will give my opinion after I read it and after I ask for on record statements.

March 28, 2018 Final Opinion from 2nd Appellate Court on California vs Stern (112)

For reference sake this article we had in October 2012 states most of the same things. That article was titled; Howard K Stern and Dr. Khristine Erosovich has Major loss as California Appeals Court Reverses and Remands back to Judge Robert Perry”. This latest opinion has added two more pages but so far as I read it is just the same as last year.

After I read through this I will be back with more to say! So stay tuned to Rose Speaks.com tonight as we unravel what this opinion actually means and share what you think it means after you read it!!!!!

Am I the only one who thinks California should just let this go and not keep spending tax payers money of a selected case to prosecute?

Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following.

©Rose Turner
March 28, 2013
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.

Tags: Adam Braun Esq., Anna Nicole Smith, Beverly Hills, Brad Brunon, Brad Brunon Esq., Bradley Brunon, Bradley Brunon Esq., Bruce Ross Esq., California Medical Board, Cedars Sinai, Celebrity Trials, Daniel Smith, 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. Khris, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Ellyn Garofalo Esq., Ellyn Gerafalo Esq., Estate of Anna Nicole smith, Harland Braun criminal lawyer, Harland Braun Esq., High Profile Trials, Hollyweird, Hollyweird Criminal Justice, Hollyweird Justice, Hollywood, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Howard K Stern, J. Chris Smith Esq., J. Christopher "Chris" Smith Esq., J. Christopher Smith Esq., John J. Nazarian, John J. Nazarian P. I., Judge Perry, Judge Perry California Superior Court, Judge Robert L. Perry, Judge Robert Perry, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Los Angeles, Los Angeles District Attorney, misdemeanor with probation, Neil McCabe, Nicole White, Prosecutor Rene Rose, pseudonym is a felony, pseudonym names, Rene Rose Esq., Renee Rose, Ron Rale Esq., Rose Speaks Face Book, Rose Speaks Twitter, 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 “real” Anna Nicole Smith, UCLA Medical Center, Virgie Arthur

California Appeals Court today, October 18, 2012, Reveresed Judge Perry’s decision to dismiss charges against Howard K. Stern and ruled that the felony conviction MUST be reinstated on Dr. Khristine Erosovich.

Here is the main description and the download has now been FIXED!

Oct 18 2012 California Appeals Court Reverses Remands with Direction the Trial court Dismissing and/or lowering the Charges on Howard K. Stern and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich

10-18-2012-Appeals Court Reverses Decision and Remands back to Judge Perry (223)

The clear thing that sticks out if the first paragraph:

The People of the State of California appeal after a series of rulings which resulted in the dismissal of charges against two defendants, Dr. Khristine Elaine Eroshevich and Howard Kevin Stern. Mr. Stern?s new trial motion was granted. Two conspiracy counts were then dismissed pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1385, subdivision (a) (section 1385). We will reverse the new trial and dismissal orders.

Next the Court gives some directions to Judge Perry Court of alternative positions to take to still dismiss the charges on Howard K. Stern:

We agree with the prosecution that Mr. Stern?s new trial motion could not be granted nor the charges dismissed on the ground the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. But, as we will explain, what can occur to Mr. Stern once the remittitur issues is limited by the double jeopardy provisions of our Constitutions.

Here, we conclude the trial court incorrectly granted Mr. Stern?s new trial motion; the evidence was not insufficient as a matter of law. As will become clear, the former jeopardy effect of the erroneous order granting Mr. Stern?s new trial motion is the same as an acquittal. Similarly, we conclude the trial court dismissed the charges against both defendants based on an erroneous finding the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. Thus, we reverse the orders granting Mr. Stern?s new trial motion and dismissing the case pursuant to section 1385 as to both defendants. Once the remittitur issues, the trial court may take up the remaining new trial motion issues, dismiss on other grounds pursuant to section 1385, or even impose sentence. But, there is one thing the trial court may not do and that is to order Mr. Stern to be retried.

Some background on the proceedings are given by the Court of Appeals:

Dr. Kapoor was acquitted of all charges. As to count 3, the jury found defendants conspired between June 5, 2004, and September 10, 2006. As to count 1, the jurors found defendants conspired between September 11, 2006, and February 8, 2007. The jury found defendants conspired to commit two crimes. The first target offense was to obtain controlled substances by fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11173, subd. (a)2.) The second target offense was to unlawfully give false names or addresses in prescriptions for controlled substances in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11174.3

Dr. Eroshevich was also convicted of two other charges. She was convicted in count 7 of obtaining controlled substances by fraud or misrepresentation in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11173, subdivision (a). Further, she was convicted as charged in count 9 of giving a false name or address in a controlled substance prescription in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11174.

Next we have a summary of the Trial Court’s Ruling of Judge Robert L. Perry:

Howard K. Stern

Preliminarily, the trial court found Ms. Marshall suffered from chronic pain syndrome; further, her “drug-seeking behavior” was primarily due to inadequate control of pain rather than addiction. The trial court was further persuaded the overriding purpose in procuring controlled substances in names other than Ms. Marshall?s true name was to protect her privacy. With respect to prescribing medications in a false name, the trial court concluded the law was vague as to what constitutes a false name. The trial court found no basis for charging a conspiracy ending on September 10 and a new one beginning the very next day on September 11, 2006. More significantly, the trial court found, “[T]here is [no] evidence in the record at all that Howard Stern lacked a good faith belief that the practice of obtaining prescription medicines for [Ms. Marshall] in names other than [her true name] could be against the law.” The trial court found Mr. Stern acted to protect Ms. Marshall?s privacy, as had most of the doctors and hospitals that had dealt with her. The trial court concluded: “When I consider all the evidence, and even viewing it in a light most favorable to upholding the verdict, I find it is clearly insufficient. Under these circumstances, I find no reasonable trier of fact could find that Howard Stern had a specific intent to violate either of these target crimes . . . and I do grant a motion for new trial to Mr. Stern on these [conspiracy] counts . . . .” Immediately after granting Mr. Stern?s new trial motion, the trial court stated: “[B]ut I?m going further. [¶] I find the evidence at trial was so lacking and insufficient to show a specific intent to join a conspiracy on the part of Howard Stern to commit these target crimes, that I do believe the interest of justice supports the dismissal of these counts as to Mr. Stern, and I so order. And this, of course, is under Penal Code section 1385 . . . .”

The minute order prepared for Mr. Stern sets forth the trial court?s reasons for dismissing counts 1 and 3 as required by section 1385: “On the court?s motion, counts 1 and 3 are dismissed due to insufficiency of the evidence. [¶] The court further clarifies that it is dismissing counts 1 and 3 in their entirety, which includes all hung target offenses, due to insufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.”

Dr. Khristine Eroshevich

Having dismissed the conspiracy counts as to Mr. Stern, the trial court turned to Dr. Eroshevich?s motion. The trial court concluded: “I don?t think there was an agreement between the two of them to violate the law, and . . . I don?t think the conspiracy counts can stand [as to Dr. Eroshevich], and so I dismiss those as well . . . .” The clerk?s minutes for Dr. Eroshevich contain no statement of reasons for the dismissal. The minutes state concerning Dr. Eroshevich: “The cause is argued and the court grants defense motion to dismiss counts 1 and 3 pursuant to . . . section 1385 due to insufficiency of the evidence.” No other language pertinent to the dismissal of counts 1 and 3 as to Dr. Eroshevich is contained in the clerk?s minutes. We will later discuss the effect of the absence of any language in the trial court?s oral order or the clerk?s minutes concerning: the substantial evidence standard of review; having viewed the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdicts; and that no reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Hatch, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 273; People v. Salgado, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 10.)

However, the trial court denied Dr. Eroshevich?s motion for a new trial or to dismiss as to counts 7 and 9: “I choose not to disturb the jury?s verdict regarding [Dr.] Eroshevich on counts 7 and 9. There is no doubt in the court?s mind that based on the evidence [Dr.] Eroshevich acted out of a heart-felt desire to help her friend. Obtaining a prescription in the name of another person, Charlene Underwood, without [Ms.] Underwood?s knowledge or consent was clearly wrong and constituted a violation of the law. As a doctor[,] [Dr.] Eroshevich well knew she should not have done this and it is clear to the court that she acted with the required intent to defraud.” However, the trial court “vacated” the count 9 conviction on grounds it was not appropriate to punish Dr. Eroshevich twice for the same act. The trial court then reduced count 7 to a misdemeanor. The prosecution has not appealed the trial court?s orders with respect to counts 7 or 9.

However, DON’T get to excited here, the Appeals Court gave Judge Perry several options to dismiss the charges or other options but not that of a NEW TRIAL. This is becoming the cases that never ends!

After I read through this I will be back with more to say! So stay tuned to Rose Speaks.com tonight as we unravel what this opinion actually means and share what you think it means after you read it!!!!!

Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter and see who Rose Speaks is following. Be sure and “Like” The Parenting Channel Face Book page for the latest in parenting and grand parenting.

©Rose Turner
October 18, 2012
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, Beverly Hills, Brad Brunon, Brad Brunon Esq., Bradley Brunon, Bradley Brunon Esq., Bruce Ross Esq., California Medical Board, Cedars Sinai, Celebrity Trials, Daniel Smith, 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. Khris, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Ellyn Garofalo Esq., Ellyn Gerafalo Esq., Estate of Anna Nicole smith, Harland Braun criminal lawyer, Harland Braun Esq., High Profile Trials, Hollyweird, Hollyweird Criminal Justice, Hollyweird Justice, Hollywood, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Howard K Stern, J. Chris Smith Esq., J. Christopher "Chris" Smith Esq., J. Christopher Smith Esq., John J. Nazarian, John J. Nazarian P. I., Judge Perry, Judge Perry California Superior Court, Judge Robert L. Perry, Judge Robert Perry, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Los Angeles, Los Angeles District Attorney, misdemeanor with probation, Neil McCabe, Nicole White, Prosecutor Rene Rose, pseudonym is a felony, pseudonym names, Rene Rose Esq., Renee Rose, Ron Rale Esq., Rose Speaks Face Book, Rose Speaks Twitter, 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 “real” Anna Nicole Smith, UCLA Medical Center, Virgie Arthur

In the last two weeks Lin Wood has been busy; “writing the book on starting a law firm in two weeks.” With two attorneys he has mentored over the years, Katherine V. Hernacki and Stacey G. Evans Wood has created the “boutique lawfirm” of Wood, Hernacki & Evans on May 9, 2011.

A major break-up you ask? No Wood moved his firm across the street and will continue to share previous cases with Bryan Cave attorneys. (I. E. the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith, the Estate of Richard Jewels and the defamation case of Jeff Greene). Both firms hope to share future cases as well.

So why did Lin Wood leave? “I spent most of my life as a plaintiffs’ lawyer. I don’t know that I ever got that out of my heart and soul, I’m not sure I’m the kind of trial lawyer that is comfortable in a 1,000-person law firm. I spent 28 years making compensation decisions in five seconds or less. It was a big learning curve to join Powell Goldstein and more so when the firm combined with Bryan Cave.” Wood went on to tell the Fulton Daily Report in an interview “Is Bryan Cave losing the person I believe is the best trial lawyer they have? Of course, but there are some great trial lawyers there who are aggressive and I want to continue working with them. I will call them when I have a significant matter and need a significant support team—and I hope they will call me.”

So what propel this to happen in just two weeks? A big whistleblower case that posed conflicts at at Bryan Cave which presented “actual and strategic conflicts”.

Wood is joining qui tam lawyers Marlan B. Wilbanks and Ty M. Bridges on a suit alleging fraud against DaVita Inc., the largest kidney dialysis chain in the U.S., which Wilbanks said could potentially be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Wood said Wilbanks and Bridges needed “a first-class trial lawyer” to help them with the case. “It was the case that broke the camel’s back,” he said. “I had to leave the law firm to do it.”

When asked if Bryan Cave would recruit another high-profile trial lawyer to replace Wood? “Lin is one of a kind,” said Thomas R. McNeill, the firm’s Atlanta managing partner.

When Wood, 58, gave up his own firm to join Powell Goldstein in 2006, he told the Daily Report that he expected to end his law career as a partner there. “I wanted to. But life is an adventure,” he said. How very true isn’t it?

We agree with L. Lin Wood and are glad it was an amicable parting because there really is just one L. Lin Wood, and it is good to see him return to his roots as a plaintiff’s attorney. We will continue to highlight cases that Wood is part of, he is simply the best at what he does.

Follow Us On Face Book and on Twitter 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 26, 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: alleging fraud against DaVita Inc., Anna Nicole Smith, big whistleblower case, billionaire Jeff Greene, Bryan Cave LLC, Bryan Cave losing the best trial lawyer, case that broke the camel's back, Celebrity Trials, DaVita Inc., defamation case of Jeff Greene, Estate of Anna Nicole smith, Estate of Richard Jewels, Evans, Fulton Daily Report, Fulton Daily Report interview, Hernacki, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, Jeff Greene, Katherine V. Hernacki, Katherine V. Hernacki Esq., L. Lin Wood, life is an adventure, Lin Wood, Lin Wood plaintiffs' lawyer, Marlan B. Wilbanks, Marlan B. Wilbanks Esq., Marlan Wilbanks, my life as a plaintiffs' lawyer, Powell Goldstein, qui tam lawyers, return to his roots as a plaintiff's attorney, Richard Jewels, Rose Speaks Face Book, Rose Speaks Twitter, Stacey G. Evans, Stacey G. Evans LLC, the firm's Atlanta managing partner., there really is just one L. Lin Wood, Thomas R. McNeill, Thomas R. McNeill Esq., Thomas R. McNeill the firm's Atlanta managing partner., Ty Bridges, Ty M. Bridges, Ty M. Bridges Esq., Wood, Wood Hernacki & Evans, worth hundreds of millions of dollars

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. (275)
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 (320)

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. (105)

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

In a telephone hearing today in the South Carolina Federal Court Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III made the following rulings after TELEPHONE CONFERENCE with the parties and counsel.

1. Howard K. Stern on behalf of the Estate for Anna Nicole Smith had agreed to the Attorney of Record to Withdraw and the Memorandum for reasons to withdraw be sealed The Court Agreed and Ordered that the reason be sealed and Susan M. Brown’s current attorney can and as of today has withdrawn from the case.

2. Stern offered to give The Brown Law Offices and Susan M. Brown thirty days to seek new counsel. Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III ruled Brown had only ten (10) days to find new counsel or would represent herself Pro Se.

3. Smith’s Estate had offered a “reasonable period of time for the Brown defendants to have discovery”. Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III ruled that; “Court will stay scheduling deadlines for a period of 10 days

4. The Estate says the only Motion currently pending before the court is the amount of attorneys fees that Brown and her firm owes for the Contempt proceedings, no ruling on that was made today. L. Lin Wood, Luke Lantta and Nicole Jennings Wade, lead attorneys are optimistic that a mediated settlement is possible but has not happened to date, therefore if necessary the Estate is ready for final Pretrial Motions to be filed and then a jury trial.

April 21, 2011 Anna Nicole Smith's Estate Joint Status Report on Case Against Susan M. Brown Et. Al. (245)
April 14, 2011 Anna Nicole Smith's Local Counsel Request to be Excused from hearing as Lead attorney Luke Lantta will be present for Executor Howard K. Stern (282)

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
April 21, 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, Beverly Hills, Celebrity Trials, Dannielynn, Estate of Anna Nicole smith, Federal Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers III, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Gaither B. Thompson II, Gina Ford, High Profile Trials, Hollywood, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Law Offices of Susan M. Brwon P. C., Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III, Melanie Thompson, Nicole Jennings Wade, Nicole Jennings Wade Esq., South Carolina Federal Court, Susan M. Brown, Susan M. Brown Esq.

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

Once in a great while the veil of attorney’s fees are exposed so everyone can see what the best of the best charges.

We saw that when Jackson and Walker filed for Sanctions against Virgie Arthur in the Texas state Court. We heard it in the transcript of a hearing in that case when L. Lin Wood said his client, Howard K. Stern had a bill of $1,000,000.00, [yes one MILLION dollars], for attorneys fees to fight the two large suits in Houston, Texas Stern became entangled in with Arthur.

In the bill submitted per Court Order in the South Carolina Federal Court of the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith vs. G. Ben Thompson, Ford Shelley and Susan M. Brown Esq., we again have the opportunity to have a look behind the veil of billing by attorneys in high profile cases.

Frankly I am surprise that L. Lin Wood only charges $400.00 an hour, after all he is the best at what he does. NOTE AND CORRECTION: L. Lin Wood’s fee is closer to $815.00 per hour in most cases unless as with this case in which Bryan Cave has a “Hybrid fee basis” contract the fee is almost $1,000 per hour. I stand corrected and that is more in sync with what I thought “he should be paid”. I remember saying during my deposition that I was surrounded by thousand dollar an hour lawyers. I was wrong with that many attorneys and paralegals present I should have said about three thousand dollar an hour lawyers.

This also gives us a clear insight into what one of Wood’s client’s, Richard Jewell, said that he did not get that much money from the settled lawsuits but it was not about money to him it was about clearing his name.

Then there is ALL of the expenses of lawyers like Wood and his entourage of Nicole Jennings Wade and Luke Lantta for traveling, preparing filings, preparing for a hearing or deposition, the time spent at a hearing or deposition and even the transcripts. That plus the percentage, which is usually at least 1/3 of the settlement of a suit but can go as high as 50% of a settlement and then the “expenses incurred” and you see why lawyers walk away with most of the money.

That said, if you were Richard Jewell, John and the late Patsy Ramsey, or Howard K. Stern how much would it be worth to you for L. Lin Wood to restore your good name?

Some of these lawyers have what I call a God complex because of the mega bucks they make, however I never saw that in the depositions and hearings I was part of where Wood also participated. He is a southern gentleman but he also drives a $220k+ car and can be a mean fighting machine on behalf of his clients.

I will be writing a biography on Wood and what his previous clients got in some settlements, was it worth it to them and who is L. Lin Wood. I have done a lot of research and hope you will come back and read that later this week. Yes I will be asking Mr. Wood for a on the record statement about this unauthorized biography and his previous clients feelings about this mega lawyer.

Here are the papers filed by Bryan Cave last week.

November 29, 2010 Anna Nicole Smith Estate Filing for Legal Fees

November 29, 2010 Anna Nicole Smith EstateAffidavit of Louis Nettles in support of legal fees.

November 29, 2010 Anna Nicole Smith Estatebilling statement by Louis Nettles.

November 29, 2010 Anna Nicole Smith EstateAffidavit of L. Lin Wood in support of legal fees.

November 29, 2010 Anna Nicole Smith Estatebilling statement by L. Lin Wood.

What do you think, is L. Lin Wood worth this much?

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
December 7, 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: $220k+ car, Anna Nicole Smith, attorneys and paralegals, attorneys fees, biography of Lin Wood, Bryan Cave LLP, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Estate of Anna Nicole smith, Ford Shelley, four hundred dollars, four hundred dollars an hour lawyers, G Ben Thompson, God complex, High Profile Trials, houly fee, Howard K Stern, Jackson and Walker, John and Patsy Ramsey, John Ramsey, L. Lin Wood, laywers billing statements, Lin Wood, Louis Nettles Esq., Luke Lantta, mega bucks, Neil McCabe, Nicole Jennings Wade Esq., Olympia Park bombing, one MILLION dollars, Patsy Ramsey, Richard Jewell, Sanctions, South Carolina Federal Court, Susan M. Brown Esq., the late Patsy Ramsey, the veil of billing, thousand dollar an hour lawyers, three thousand dollar an hour lawyers, unauthorized biography, Virgie Arthur