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 (77)

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 (208)

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

“You can ride high atop your pony
I know you won’t fall…
’cause the whole thing’s phoney”

This is a verse from the song “Bella Donna” from Stevie Nicks that comes to mind after the sentencing of Howard K Stern and Khristine Eroshevich Just stating my opinion, folks!

Judge Robert Perry, I am sorry, but this has been such a waste of time. You could have spared us all of this trial if you stated this earlier.

As I reported on some of the trials’ witnesses’ testimonies from past court dates, Judge Perry seemed to be holding a pretty good court with reprimands and valid points to be discussed and interrogated. But to throw all credibility, I feel, out the window is a shame. For Judge Perry to state that;”[Howard K.] Stern never intended to defraud when he used his name and others to protect Anna Nicole Smith’s privacy when he obtained prescriptions for her” is completely ludicrous and that Dr Khris was “acting out of concern” for Anna is also total garbage.

Not to bring up OJ Simpson’s Trial, but a lot of people feel that OJ got away with murder, and many have said another “crooked” legal system; If you got the bucks, or the connections, you can get off “scott free”! For Judge Perry to “overturn the conspiracy charges, saying that there was no evidence to support them” is outrageous to me. I sat in the courtroom and heard some of the testimonies myself!

In my opinion, something fishy has gone on, and someone’s hands smell like fish! I guess the next thing that will happen is that Anna will reappear, and she was never dead! I am still waiting to see if there will ever be a photo of Anna from her morgue days, ala Marilyn Monroe. I am sorry, and I don’t mean to disrespect Anna, it is just a point. This silly roller coaster of a trial leaves me felling used and abused, what a waste of time. I am not wanting a public lynching of these two people, but I feel this was less than a slap on the wrist for something that they, as professionals in their fields, should have known.

For the judge to say that Howard never intended to defraud by using his name for the prescriptions…come on! Howard knew damn well he was “enabling” and covering for Anna, being the “kiss ass” buddy for her. He knows that was wrong, he is a lawyer, remember, he knows the law.

I have backed up Howard in the past saying he did not kill her, but I mean please, don’t insult our intelligence about him not knowing the name game.

Yes, I have said it before “Anything for a Celebrity”, and now I feel the Judge has done the same.

I am sure if Judge Judy was the Judge on this case, there would have been a sentencing, no BS. Judy wouldn’t have put up with Howard”s or Dr Khris’ shenanigans.

Well, now that that is all over, and such a waste of our money, and my time, I guess Howard will do the interview circuit, and be the celebrity he wants to be. I mean, Howard likes to play the “Anna” game he used to play when he was shoved up her a**, “Keep everyone away and be mean to people so he can get what he wants while creating chaos, but his life never really changes and goes on”.

I do feel that Dr. Khris being spared jail time is good, I mean, she may have done something wrong, but she DID get a slight slap on the wrist, or on the butt, depends on how Judge Perry meant it! LOL! And I hate to say at her age, jail wouldn’t be such a nice “venture” for her to be in.

I guess now Larry Birkhead and Howard will become friends, again, or have their own commitment ceremony (joking of course), and he will have Howard and Dannielynn do a photo shoot or interview all together and make amends! Oy!

I am wondering what Virgie Arthur is saying about the sentencing, I am sure she is “fit to be tied”!

All I know is that somewhere right now, or some place, there may be someone who enabled someone with prescription drugs and the person may have overdosed etc by the enabling, and I feel that the laws need to be more astringent about this. I am sure if Joe Average in the mid west did the same that these two people were accused of, the Judge would have thrown the book at them.

May Anna rest in peace, but I am sure she is not resting after this sentencing. Now you know why Anna was “friends” with Howard, see what he did for himself! LOL! That’s what she liked about him. He was like the magic man, he could make things appear or disappear for her, get my drift? But then again people, this is Hollyweird! Que sera!

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.

©Daniel DiCriscio
January 8, 2011
Daniel is a feature writer for Rose Speaks.com.
Used with permission of Daniel DiCriscio Visit Daniel’s My Space Page to see more videos and learn more about Daniel.
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

The expressions in this article are based on the opinions of our feature writer, Daniel DiCriscio, This article is the sole property of Daniel DiCriscio and Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Anything for a Celebrity, Bella Donna, Beverly Hills, Brad Brunon Esq., Celebrity Trials, creating chaos, Daniel DiCriscio, Daniel DiCriscio Exclusive, Daniel DiCriscio Messiah of Makeover, Dannielynn, defamation suits, discussed and interrogated, Dr. Khris, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Exclusive by Daniel DiCriscio, Executor of the Estate, Executor of the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith, He was like the magic man, High Profile Trials, Hollyweird, Hollyweird Criminal Justice, Hollyweird Justice, Hollywood, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Howard K Stern, intended to defraud, J. Chris Smith Esq., J. Christopher "Chris" Smith Esq., J. Christopher Smith Esq., Judge Judy, Judge Perry, Judge Perry California Superior Court, Judge Robert Perry, Marilyn Monroe, OJ Simpson, OJ Simpson’s Trial, photo of Anna morgue, public lynching, reprimands and valid points, Stern never intended to defraud, Steve Sadow Esq., Stevie Nicks, Virgie Arthur

Once again it’s “Super Lawyers” time…folks, this is so embarrassing! Embarrassing from the point that this is PAID PUBLICITY, paid for by the “Super Lawyers” themselves. Sure I have heard all about the “point system” and “input from peers,” I am just having problems telling Bullshit from Roses.

…Input from peers, and 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement-things like experience, verdicts, and settlements, transactions, clients, honors and awards — this was taken from “Super Lawyers” on how the “Supers” are selected…I am not buying it.

…And it gets even better, there is Top 10 Law Schools, The Top 100, The Top 50, The Rising Stars. Well how about this, The Biggest Wallet, The Newest Rolls Royce, The Biggest Gut, The Smallest Feet, our favorites The Best Dressed, The Worst Dressed, The Worst Breath, The Biggest Ego, The Coolest Offices, and as you see this could go on and on.

…I know some of these lawyers, and to call them “Super” would be a little like watching a train wreck and applauding. There are some very good lawyers on the list… …Oh that is one of the other fun things you can do if you buy one of these silly advertising gimmicks and that is having it framed and hanging in your office…problem, they are also hanging in all of the other “Super Lawyers” offices…..why? They too paid for it!

Hmm, I just had a thought, they should reach out to all of those unhappy clients who may have hired a “Super Lawyer” from this list and got hammered. We could then have the “Asswipe Awards,”… …could be a money maker too, and at least it would be honest and heart-felt.

Note: “Super Lawyers” does print this: “You may wonder whether lawyers pay to be included. The simple and unequivocal answer is no. …who writes this stuff? guys in long coats, tall hats and carpet bags?

DesperateExes.com will be posting our own list of lawyers who we think are the best here in the Southern California area, based on our experience and observation, not payola. But if anyone wants to send us $25,000, we’ll be happy to post your picture, suitable for framing!

To get the most from this article and Ken could hear me laughing across our house, and you can’t even hear the dogs barked from that distance; this full article is a must read, laughter is good for the soul. WARNING: Do not have any type of drink in hand or take a sip you too could have a screen full of cola as I did while reading this.

http://desperateexes.com/2010/02/04/super-lawyers-meet-asswipes/.

Be sure you visit the rest of Desperate Exes.com while there some great, funny and some serious articles. My vote is John J. Nazarian should write a book, call it Desperate Exes!.

©John J. Nazarian
February 5, 2010
Used with the permission of John Nazarian P. I. – writer

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 our featured author, John Nazarian, 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: Adam Braun Esq., Bert Fields Esq., Beverly Hills, Celebrity Trials, Debra Opri Esq., Desperateexes.com, Divorce Hollyweird Style, Divorce Hollywold Style, Gary Fishbein, Gary Shandling, Gloria Allred Esq., Harland Braun Esq., High Profile Trials, Hollyweird, Hollyweird Criminal Justice, Hollywood, Hollywood Criminal Justice, J. Christopher "Chris" Smith Esq., John J. Nazarian, John J. Nazarian P. I., Mark Geragos Esq., Marty Singer Esq., Michael Trope Esq., Patti Glaser Esq., Ron Rale Esq., Terree Bowers Esq., Trope and Trope

Last week the hearing quietly was changed on the case California vs. Howard K. Stern, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, and Dr. Sandeep Kapoor from tomorrow August 12 to this morning August 11, 2009 at 8:30 AM.. The press is all over the Michael Jackson case so took little notice in the change of hearings on several Motions pending before the Criminal Court in California. The important conflict of timing for one of the attorneys was enough for the Judge to change the date to October 5, 2009 at 8:30 AM at which time the Court will first hear several Motions expected to be filed before the hearing date. Don’t be surprise with the resources being spent on the Michael Jackson case by California if this does not push this case to the side and back burner which could not be better for these three defendants.

In other news CBS Productions Inc., the parent company for Entertainment Tonight, was added to the State case, of Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern, TMZ Productions Inc. el. al. so expect that Order as well as Virgie Arthur’s Fourth Amended Original Petition to be automatically signed and released later this week.

It would appear that the 280th Court is ignoring or is unaware of Teresa Stephens pending Appeal or the Appellate Court might have bounced it back to the 280th. For whatever reason Judge Lindsay felt comfortable setting a bond of $3,000.00 for Stephens to pay, (that would be 10% or a $300.00 out of pocket with a bail bond company), and signed a Writ of Attachment for Stephens’ body to be delivered to Judge Lindsay’s Court forcefully.

In the old days when I worked more with family law (child custody) experts in redoing the Family Code for Texas in 1994, that went into effect in the legislative session of 1995, a Writ of Attachment was used normally only by child protective services or a party that had real fear for the imminent danger of a minor child.

It appears that although Stephens is out of the Court’s 150 miles range as set by Statute the Court has or feels the Court can convince both the Harris County and Tarrant County constables and sheriff’s department that Stephens’ body should forcefully be brought before the Court in Harris County. I would have thought other options would have been seriously considered by the Court like that of striking Stephens’ Motion and entering a Default Judgment or Summary Judgment. That would be sufficient enough to keep the case in State District Court while giving Arthur a remedy against Stephens other than incarceration.

You have to wonder if this has anything to do with the Court’s thoughts about what will have to become an issue at some point which is the change of hard drives by Art Harris in December 2008 after he had reasonable notice to expect to lose his computer and external hard drives one day. However we have no way of knowing if that has now been cleared up with the Special Master Craig Ball and thus will never be known to the Court. I have always said I did not think Harris’ lawyers did a service to their client, Harris, when they did not file an appeal under both the Georgia existing and now the new Texas Journalist shields.

Yea I know WV is saying she “believes” Melinda Burleson is a Liar testimony and that I am off my “rocks”, and that means what? The proof will be in the pudding. Will they use Burleson again though, or say to themselves, “Hey we got blindsided by this woman and had no idea she would lie to get in this lawsuit by hook or crook”. What else is a law firm going to say about a witness they based a large part of a quasi-criminal hearing on her testimony? I still hope and pray she has asked for subpoena, something she seems to love to do with all of these intertwined cases and thereby she gives Texas greater jurisdiction over her body once they get “My Preciousssssssss” transcripts and all computer hard drives. My Plea remains the same GET everything the woman has.

As we find out more folks, y’all will be the first to know.

©Rose Turner
August 11, 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: Adam Braun Esq., Amanda Bush Esq., Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Bryan Cave LLP, California Criminal charges - Stern - Kapoor - Eroshevich, CBS - Entertainment Tonight, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Desperateexes.com, Diana Marshall Esq., Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Entertainment Tonight, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, J. Christopher "Chris" Smith Esq., John J. Nazarian, John J. Nazarian P. I., Judge Tony Lindsay, King of Pop, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Michael Jackson, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Special Master Craig Ball, Steve Sadow Esq., Teresa Stephens, Virgie Arthur