Many of you have requested an explanation of the Notice sent out by the Court on February 4 in regards to Bonnie Stern’s pending chapter 7 bankruptcy and what the Court is requesting, etc.
The notice sent out by the Court is saying basically the parties have several options as follows:
1. Dismiss the Bankrupt party (Bonnie Stern); this could also include just “severing” Miss Stern from the pending suit. (I. E. There would be the suit against all of the co-defendants but Miss Stern would be severed to an additional suit, but same facts). Either way anything concerning Miss Stern, from Admissions, Interrogatories, Production of Documents, Depositions, etc. is “stayed” for now. This should not be a huge road block as Miss Stern filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy and those go through fairly fast and are discharged. Miss Stern’s debtors meeting is set for February 23, and the last day for debtors to dispute the chapter 7 bankruptcy is April 24. The bankruptcy will be discharged fairly fast after that final filing date. The big affect of Miss Stern’s bankruptcy is that if a judgment is awarded against her, it is moot, as it is included in Miss Stern’s bankruptcy as a potential debt owed.
2. Remove to the bankruptcy court. This would mean the parties would agree to have the California Bankruptcy Court hear this pending case, make rulings etc. I don’t see any of the parties filing to do that and I am not sure that Miss Stern could file to do that.
3. File with the 280th District Texas Court in Houston a copy of the bankruptcy court’s Order lifting the stay. In other words one of the parties would have to file with the California bankruptcy court a Motion to lift the automatic stay on ANY proceedings concerning Miss Stern. From the research I have done on line since Miss Stern’s bankruptcy is a chapter 7, total liquidation of her personal assets and not an reorganization bankruptcy, as TrimSpa did in New Jersey, I doubt any of the parties will spend the time and money attempting to get this done.
After talking with the clerk of court today here is my understanding of what is going on and the clerk of the court said this is “normal procedures” for Harris County District Sate Court when one of the parties files bankruptcy. All normal discovery and filing dates go forward unless objected to and asked for a hearing to be held. The court can not hear Motions and Rule on them but that is the only concrete stay in this pending suit.
That means the different parties can serve on any and all other parties, interrogatories, request for production of documents, requests for admissions, and even conduct depositions. Remember that Howard K. Stern’s attorneys have already said their client is willing to sit for a deposition for both jurisdiction and merits of the case together. If one of the other parties files a Motion Objecting to that and a hearing is set, then the deposition would not go forward, otherwise I would think Mr. Stern and Ms. Arthur’s legal teams are negotiating a date for that prior to the March 20 date of hearing the jurisdictional issues. If Miss Stern is not dismissed or severed from the existing case that hearing would be put off until the bankruptcy is discharged in April or May.
In another example I have been served with both a subpoena for documents as well as I have a pending Request for Production of Documents from one of my co-defendants. It is my understanding that unless I file an Objection and ask for a ruling from the court, the Request for Production of documents from me is still due within thirty days of receipt of that request. That Production of documents is due by February 26, to avoid any Motions to Compel; I intend to comply with the request. I have begun to work on this and have sent out an email to all of the other parties asking for any objections, a request for privilege, etc. if any of the other parties request that and asking if the documents can be provided by DVD and not printed out and assigned bates number. My assumption is that if I do not hear from any of the other parties then I will provide copies of those documents to not only the requesting party but to all parties “currently in this suit”. That would NOT include CBS and I am still unclear if the court ruled on December 11 to add Larry Birkhead. I intend to produce this request on DVD unless someone objects to that and wants them printed out with Bates numbers. If a party sends me an objection before asking for a hearing I would make ever endeavor to work out with the all of the parties a solution and if I am not able to then I would provide those documents that were not part of the objection. Which by the way if any of the other parties read this blog please don’t make me print out the hundred of pages, if not thousands included in this request for production of documents.
I believe any objections to the Motion to Designate Responsible 3rd Parties is still due fifteen (15) days from January 30, which would be either by February 14 which is a Saturday so it would be due the following Monday, February 16 if the fifteen (15) days is counted as calendar days and not “business days”. If the Objection to the Motion is due in fifteen (15) business days that would make the Motion due no later than February 20. I have no idea how many days after that Objection is filed that a Motion to Designate Responsible 3rd Parties and “replead”, (add more facts) is granted under the Texas Civil Rules for Procedure in state courts. I will try to look that up for everyone.
It sounds like with an objection to any deposition on Monday, February 9, which the plaintiff in this case has notified all of the other parties of that objection, that deposition will NOT go foward. I would “guess” then Art Harris who has informed the court through Notice of Appearance and other Motions would file his objection and perhaps ask the court for permission to amend those objections once the Court can hear or read and rule on his Motion of Objection to be Designated as a Responsible 3rd Party.
Based on the information from the court’s clerk, the case and schedule goes forward in discovery except for any Objections filed to the production of documents, request for admission, interrogatories, and depositions which would then put those on hold pending the court’s rulings and Orders. I would think with this court and judge the court would expect that this case is anticipated to be ready for the court to issue additional rulings and orders once the Court can set them for hearings. Of course Bonnie Stern could either be dismissed or severed from this existing case and tried separately and in that event I would need to do a lot of research about whether she can be compelled to do anything in regards to any form of discovery by any of the parties that would be directed at Miss Stern.
I would like to note that Art Harris and I remain on good terms, as I said on January 30 the Motion to Designate Responsible 3rd parties was procedural and nothing personal. Mr. Harris was already a co-defendant and in this case for the duration in any event of what the Court might rule at a future date in regards to the Motions. For the most part I remain on good terms with all of the parties except perhaps two and hopefully that will also change as the case moves forward.
That is my understanding from the filings and talking to the clerk for the court this morning. I am glad I did talk to the clerk of court to clarify this since I do have certain requests pending that I do not intend to object to and will provide those documents as requested including the request received on January 26.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
Last night the world watched in awe as Dannielynn Birkhead once again made a television appearance on Larry King Live, once looking at the camera and smiling just like her mom, Anna Nicole Smith.
In other news late this afternoon the court “passed”, cancelled, all Motions pending for February 6 at 9 AM, these included two Motions to compel to image the hard drives of Teresa Stephens and Howard K. Stern.
Bonnie Stern’s Bankruptcy has “stayed”, halted, all proceedings in the Harris County Court on Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern, TMZ.com, Harvey Levin, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Teresa Stephens, Lyndal Harrington and Rose Turner of Rose Speaks.com. This staying of all proceedings also makes moot the Court’s Order for Art Harris, Lyndal Harrington and Bonnie Stern to turn over their computer hard drives to be imaged by this Friday, February 6.
Ms. Stern’s debtor’s conference is to be on February 23 at 3:30 PM in Los Angeles California federal bankruptcy Court. The last date to dispute any claim is April 24, so the “stay” on the state Court Proceedings will probably be only for a few weeks until the plaintiff can file with the bankruptcy court to have the stay lifted on all other defendants.
There were also Motions pending before the court to for an oral hearing on behalf of Art Harris to clarify the January 30 Motion to add designated third parties of CBS, Art Harris and Larry Birkhead, those Motions have also been stayed as it appears has any service to add Larry Birkhead to the case.
Before the state Court had stayed all Proceedings, Teresa Stephens had filed to have heard her previous request to subpoena yahoo.com for her past email records and Lyndal Harrington had filed a theft report showing that her computer had been stolen and could not be imaged.
Once we have copies of any of the Court’s ruling on pending Motions or copies of the pending Motions we will of course have them for you in our download section open to All not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
In the four “accidentally” for nine hours filed excerpts of deposition and documents released to the public by Rita Cosby’s lawyer, Elizabeth McNamara via PACER, two of the people have now reviewed the parts filed in regards to them. That have stated, “We don’t think this was an accident, we think it was a brilliant move by Cosby’s lawyer. We want you to release the excerpts of our deposition and put those up on your blog”.
We have contacted representatives of the other two people whose deposition excerpts and exhibits were filed “accidentally” to let them know that in all fairness we feel we need to put those up as well.
When Rita Cosby’s 14 pages were put up with Court filings in November 2007, we purchased those through PACER as we did these. We also as two other sites put those up and let the lawyers and the judge battled out who was blamed if anyone and what to do about that.
In fairness to Cosby, we have struggled as we have stated since December 15 with the right of the public to know versus the right of privacy. Once we received the permission of two of the four people affected and being always a transparent site, no matter who the paperwork might make look bad, we are going to be putting up all of the paperwork with an editorial opinion about it later today.
Stay tuned, the paperwork is breath taking, stunning and guaranteed to cause thought provoking conversations around the blogosphere.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
In the Howard K. Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books, on December 11, 2008, there was a letter addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Elizabeth A. McNamara requesting the Court for permission to file Motion for Summary Judgment for Rita Cosby and Hachette Books under seal. The Court DENIED the request to file the papers under seal “except that the parties may file a set of papers publicly, with confidential exhibits omitted and references to any confidential matters redacted, with a second complete and unredacted set that will be filed under sealed”.
Looks like the New York Court is going to allow us to see publicly some of the information that Cosby and Hachette is attempting to show in the Motions for Summary Judgment due to the Court by December 15.
What do you think we will be allowed to see and gleam for the filings due on Monday? Debunking chapter 13 will be up this weekend, lot’s to discuss in this case as well as several others we are following.
Remember that ALL documents filed in this case are in our download section, opened to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
This article will be enlarged tonight with more of my thoughts about these Motions coming up and what we will be allowed to see.
We now have the rules for the Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed by Rita Cosby and Hachette Books and the Reply of Howard K. Stern to those Motions. Wonder if this is why we have those seven pages released from the Florida suit on Don Clark.
On December 2, 2008, New York Southern District Federal Court sets page limits on Rita Cosby’s Motion for Summary to 50 from the normal 25 Judgment and then Howard K. Stern’s reply can be 75 pages; Hachette intends to use the 25-page limit per the Civil Rules of Procedures.
So now, our attention shifts in part to the New York as Florida is officially closed even on PACER as of today.
I think now is a time to debunk the rest of chapter 13 of the real blond ambitious, Rita Cosby.
You can find all of the documents in our download section, opened to all not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
G. Ben Thompson missed the filing date the Court set of November 3 for his mandatory filing of the Rule 26 f of initial disclosures, also Howard K. Stern’s attorney pointed out that due to Thompson’s attorney being ill they had not been able to hold the required conference via phone.
The Court approved Susan Brown to represent Ben Thompson. Howard K. Stern has attorneys approved for Pro Hac Vice status, including Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Nicole Jennings Wade of Powell Goldstein as well as his South Carolina attorneys.
The best reading in my opinion is the Rule 26f filings required by the Court of which to date Ben Thompson has not answered. Ford Shelley lists only 3 witnesses, himself, his wife Gina Shelley and Howard K. Stern. However, in Shelley’s rule 26-3-a local rule filings, he lists only himself and his wife Gina Shelly as witnesses or persons that have information relevant to these allegations.
What caught my eye was the list of people who have possessions of some of the items alleged to have been taken out of Horizons the day after Anna Nicole Smith’s death.
1. Defendant Shelley has possession of a copy of a clown video.
2. All documents and tangible items related to litigation in the Bahamas which are in possession of the Bahamian authorities. 3. All documents and tangible items in possession of the California Department of Justice as to any investigation relating to Ms. Smith.
4. All documents and tangible items in possession of co-defendant Ben Thompson and/or his agents.
5. All documents and tangible items in possession of Larry Birkhead and/or his agents.
Which leaves the question of who has the ORIGINAL copy of the infamous Clown Video?
Howard K. Stern’s filing is a tad more revealing about where Stern’s team is going. In his required Rule 26-f list of the following witnesses.
(1) Howard K. Stern
(2) Larry Birkhead
(3) Pol’ Atteau (4) Rita Cosby (5) Don Clark (6) Wilma Vicedomine
(7) Stancil “Ford” Shelley
(8) G. Ben Thompson (9) Tom Pirtle, on of Virgie Arthur’s Texas lawyer at the burial hearing (10) Tracy Ferguson an attorney that is part of Callendar’s in the Bahamas that G. Ben Thompson is suing.
(11) Gaither Thompson
(12) Melanie Thompson
(13) Gina Shelley (14) Representatives of Fox News (15) Representatives of Biscayne Professional Associates (possibly the company that imaged Anna Nicole Smith’s computers and hard drives when the Estate recovered them)
Howard K. Stern lists several Counts that make the basis of the Estate’s case against Ford Shelly and Ben Thompson and a couple caught my attention.
Count Three: Statutory and common law commercial appropriation of right of publicity:
Under California law, the right of publicity survives the death of a celebrity. Thus, any person who uses a deceased person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner . . . without prior consent from the executor of the deceased person’s estate commercially misappropriates the deceased person’s right of publicity. Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1.
There can be no dispute that Ms. Smith held a fully descendible right of publicity
in her Estate property. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1. Further, Shelley has admitted to removing documents and materials from Horizons after Ms. Smith’s death. There is no question that these documents and materials are owned by the Estate. Further, there is no dispute that these items removed by Shelley contained Ms. Smith’s name, voice, signature, and photograph. Shelley used the property by, among other things, distributing it to third parties, including media entities. Shelley had no prior consent from the Executor to use the property he stole from Horizons.
Count Six: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:
Whoever knowingly causes transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct causes damage and Forensic analyses confirm that Shelley copied and deleted files contained on the password protected computers and external hard drives owned by the Estate, which Shelley unlawfully removed from Horizons. Shelley lacked authorization to access the computers and external hard drives. Shelley’s conduct caused damage and losses in excess of $5,000 in a one-year period. causes losses of at least $5,000 in a one-year period, violates federal statute. 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(5).
Forensic analyses confirm that Shelley copied and deleted files contained on the
password protected computers and external hard drives owned by the Estate, which Shelley unlawfully removed from Horizons. Shelley lacked authorization to access the computers and external hard drives. Shelley’s conduct caused damage and losses in excess of $5,000 in a one-year period.
Stern’s Local Rule 26-3-a, lists most of the same witnesses with the exception of Wilma Vicedomine which leads to ask when and why did she become involved with Ben Thompson and Ford Shelley?
Howard K. Stern’s lists the following evidence and documents in the same disclosure that he and/or the Estate (Dannielynn Birkhead as the sole heir) might use to prove the claims.
The following categories of documents in the Executor’s possession, custody, or control may be used to support his claims:
(1) All documents referred to in the Complaint.
(2) Documents relating to the investigation into Defendants’ unlawful conduct in the Bahamas. (3) Media interviews of Defendants.
(4) Communications between Defendants and third parties regarding the factual circumstances that form the basis for the allegations in the Complaint. (5) Deposition transcripts of third parties in other litigation regarding the factual circumstances that form the basis for the allegations in the Complaint. (6) Forensic analyses of Ms. Smith’s computers. (7) Communications from counsel for Defendants which support the factual basis for the allegations in the Complaint.
So folks why did Ben Thompson miss the date of November 3 and has not notified the court or ask for an extension due to one of his lawyers being ill? Who edited the Clown Video and who has the original now? Why is Tom Pirtle listed, but the rest of Virgie Arthur’s legal team in Florida are not? Then we have Don Clark on both disclosures but Wilma Vicedomine as the lone separate person missing in one of the filings.
Could the Clark/Vicedomine investigation lead us from California, to Florida, to New York to South Carolina in the alleged attempts to have Howard K. Stern arrested and tried for something, anything it appears if the filings are to be believed.
Remember you can pick up all of the documents related to the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith suing Ben Thompson and Ford Shelley, opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
In other news on November 4, 2008 Court Order from Florida that Postpones the Requirement of John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm financials until November 10, 2008 the deadline for the two sides to file a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
Howard K. Stern filed the following under Seal on October 27, as requested on October 24, in the Howard K. Stern vs. John O’Quinn and The O’Quinn Law Firm. Therefore, what does this tell us and why?
The following were documents filed yesterday as per the Court Order:
1. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Absence of Actual Malice and any attached exhibits or appendices.
2. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts and Plaintiff’s Statement of Additional Material Facts and any attached exhibits;
3. The confidential deposition transcripts of Rita Cosby, Wilma Vicedomine, and Jack Harding taken in the Stern v. Cosby matter which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York;
4. The confidential deposition transcript and VIDEO of Don Clark which was taken in the present matter and in Stern v. Cosby; and,
5. Documents produced pursuant to Confidentiality Orders entered in the present matter and Stern v. Cosby; and
6. Stern’s Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and attached exhibits.
We have discussed the depositions and confidential documents of Rita Cosby, the depositions “transcripts”, of Wilma Vicedomine and Jack Harding. However, why was Don Clark’s transcript of his deposition with the VIDEO filed? What is on that video that the Stern legal team wants the Court to look at? Why the VIDEO of Don Clark and not just read the transcript of his deposition?
In O’Quinn’s filing for Summary Judgment we got to see a lot of documents including the Affidavit of Don Clark slamming Howard K. Stern and still doing the “mantra” of Howard killed two people and he still thinks that, as well as he thinks the Will was faxed 4 days before Anna Nicole Smith’s death. Clark’s Affidavit also states that Ron Rale and Bonnie Stern had access to the Will thus knowing what it contained prior to Anna Nicole Smith’s death.
Although to go on as defense by the O’Quinn team is allowed to file things publicly in their filings but Stern had to filed under Seal as agreed. What did Stern say in his filings? We will never know unless both or either the Stern vs. Rita Cosby and Hachette Books and/or the Stern vs. O’Quinn suit goes to jury trial. Do you think either of these suits will go to trial so we have access to these filings under seal?
Do any of you have or can find the “show transcripts” that Clark is referring to in regards to Ron Rale and Bonnie Stern? It appears to me in all of the media transcripts filed it seems those are not filed with the Court.
I will have the debunking of the blond ambitious Rita Cosby’s chapter 13 of her book and then I will have some “predictions” of what I think will be happening in both of these cases as they head to trial.
Pick up the papers to these suits that are open to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com. There was also a housekeeping Order issued by the Court yesterday in Florida, granting the Pro Hac Vice requests of John Patton and Amy Stewart. It appears that the same team of lawyers is going to be overlapping these two cases, who would have ever thought they might be connected.
This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.
Entries (RSS)