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 (75)

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

What started out as the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith vs. Ford Shelley, Gina Shelley, G. Ben Thompson, Gaither Thompson and Melanie Thompson, or known as the Shelley and Thompson Clan of South Carolina. The people who broke into Horizons in the Bahamas and then allegedly sold a lot of tapes and pictures to TMZ (remember the Methadone refrigerator picture), Splash (including the tasteless picture of Daniel Smith in his casket), tons of videos to Fox News including On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Geraldo Rivera Live, and the list goes on and on. Ford was one of the first to holler, Howard K. Stern did something to Daniel and Anna Nicole Smith, and the first at the trial to say Howard never hurt Anna……… so much for credibility. The question is though where is the money that all of that sold for????

Then enters what has become the big fish, Susan M. Brown Esq., Georgia Attorney and the Susan M. Brown Law Office, did this poor woman get left holding the bag and with the O’Quinn law firm dissolved there is no one to hand it off too. Kind of like playing musical chairs and the one left standing alone when the music stops, that would be Susan M. Brown.

Brown has tap danced for two years with the same song just different steps until she finally had a Northern District of Georgia Federal Court say she had waived the attorney client privilege under the crime fraud act…… NOT good for a lawyer’s resume, not to mention the State Bar of Georgia.

Any Objections to Susan M. Brown’s current lawyers, Joseph C. Wilson IV. and Carl E. Pierce II of Pierce, Herns, Sloan & McLeod LLC, has filed to withdraw as counsel for “the Brown Defendants”, stating it would not cause any prejudice because “the discovery concerning the Brown Defendants has not begun”. Do what??? The court ruled a long time ago that because Brown has been present for all of those depositions there would not be that much extra to tidy up the suit and have it ready for trial.

However the big WHAM in the March 2, 2011 filings is asking and filing the Motion to Withdraw with the grounds set out to substantiate the withdrawing should be in a Memorandum in Support filed UNDER SEAL “Counsel is not aware of any other means to communicate the grounds for withdrawal that would protect the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship and avoid undue prejudice to the Brown Defendants.”

However the case they quote as outweighing the right of the public right to know (I. E. the News media) on its own raises red flags of the potential seriousness of these actions. In the Knight case it states; “we explained that, while a district court has a supervisory power over its own records and may, in its discretion, seal documents if the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing interests, the presumption in such cases favors public access. The public’s right of access to judicial records and documents may be abrogated ONLY IN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Accordingly before a district court may seal any court documents, we held that it must 1) provide public notice of the request to seal and allow interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object. (That date was March 21, 2011 per the South Carolina Federal Court’s Docket). 2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, and 3) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.”

The Motion ends that “Counsel will submit the Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Withdraw to the Court for the Court’s in camera review and shall not file same until further notice from the Court.

Well folks I don’t think there will be any jury selection starting tomorrow, and as of midnight there has been no objections or request for a hearing on the filing being done under seal…

So what do you think Susan M. Brown needs to be protective from “avoid undue prejudice”?

As soon as we have the Court’s decision, and new dates for jury selection will post it, it is noticeable that no lawyer has filed to just transfer the case to them, as new attorney of record, things that make you go Mmmmmmmmmmmm.

HERE ARE THE THREE LATEST FILINGS:

March 2, 2011 Susan M Brown\'s Answer First Amended Complaint (195)
March 2 , 2011 Motion by Counsel for Susand M. Brown and The Brown Law Firm to Wtithdraw (303)
March 2, 2100 Counsel for Susan M Brwon Motion to File Under Seal Memorandum Reason Withdraw as Counsel (296)

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.

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. 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
March 22, 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: allegedly sold a lot of tapes and pictures, allow interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object, Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith Estate, attorney-client privilege, avoid undue prejudice, avoid undue prejudice to the Brown Defendants, before a district court may seal any court documents, Beverly Hills, Carl E. Pierce II, Carl E. Pierce II Esq., Celebrity Trials, confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship, consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, Court's in camera review, crime fraud act, Daniel Smith, Daniel Smith in his casket, Dannielynn, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, favors public access, filed under seal, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Gaither Thompson and Melanie Thompson, Georgia Attorney, Geralda Rivera Live, Geraldo - Live, Geraldo At Large, Geraldo FOX News, Geraldo Rivera Live, Gina Shelley, Greta Van Sustern Fox News, High Profile Trials, Hollywood, Horizons in the Bahamas, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Joseph C Wilson IV Esq., Joseph C. Wilson IV, L. Lin Wood, Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, March 2 2011 filings, March 21 2011, may be abrogated, Memorandum in Support, Memorandum in Support filed under seal, Methadone refrigerator picture, Methodone refrigerator picture, Motion to Withdraw, Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, Neil McCabe, Northern District of Georgia Federal Court, On The Record with Greta Van Susteren, O’Quinn law firm dissolved, Pierce Herns Sloan & McLeod LLC, playing musical chairs, potential seriousness of these actions, presumption in such cases favors public access, protect the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship, provide factual findings, provide public notice of the request to seal, provide specific reasons, provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives, public's right of access, public's right of access is outweighed by competing interests, public's right of access may be abrogated only in unusual circumstances, public's right of access to judicial documents, public's right of access to judicial records, public's right of access to judicial records and documents, raises red flag, Shelley and Thompson Clan of South Carolina, South Carolina Federal Court's Docket, Splash, State Bar of Georgia, supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives, Susan M. Brown, Susan M. Brown Esq., The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, undue prefudice, Virgie Arthur, waived the attorney client privilege, waived the attorney client privilege under the crime fraud act, withdraw as counsel for "the Brown Defendants

I have met Mr. L. Lin Wood Jr. briefly in 2009 and I have listened via phone as both Mr. Wood and Mr. Neal McCabe argued Motions in the Harris County Court. However I have never had the privilege of seeing any of these attorneys, L. Lin Wood, Charles “Chip” Babcock, Harry Susman, etc. argue a Motion in person.

For anyone who would like to see L. Lin Wood in a court room this Bryant v. Cox Enterprises video is a must see.

On February 9, 2011 Mr. Wood argued the case of Bryant v. Cox Enterprises in front of the Georgia Appeals Court. The state Court of Appeals’ justices hearing this case is presiding Judge J.D. Smith, who is hearing the case along with Judge Charles B. Mikell and Judge Stephen L. A. Dillard

This case is now the estate of Richard Jewell vs The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Following the death of Mr. Jewell the case became titled Bryant v Cox Enterprises. The official plaintiff in this case is now G. Watson Bryant Jr., Jewell’s former attorney, who was designated executor of Jewell’s estate in his will. Cox Enterprises is the owner of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

“I have sought justice for Richard Jewell for 14 years,” Wood told the judges.

Jewell was cleared of the Olympic Park bombing that killed one person and injured more than 100. In 2005, Eric Robert Rudolph confessed to the bombing and was sent to prison for life. Richard Jewell has since died of heart problems from a complication of his diabetes.

The estate of Richard Jewell is continuing to press the late security guard’s libel claims against the newspaper. At issue are stories published in July and August 1996 in which the newspaper reported that authorities suspected Jewell of planting the Olympic park bomb and believed he made an anonymous 911 call warning of an impending bombing. Jewell’s estate also is pressing a libel claim over a column by a Journal-Constitution sports writer that drew parallels between the investigations of Jewell and Wayne Williams, a convicted killer long considered the perpetrator of the Atlanta child murders.

Bryan Cave partner L. Lin Wood Jr., who has pursued the lawsuit against the Journal-Constitution since 1997, told the panel of Court of Appeals judges that statements in the newspaper’s articles were simply false. “We now know that Richard Jewell did not plant the bomb,” he said, saying the same was true for allegations about the 911 call. For those of us who did not follow the case of Richard Jewell and the allegations against him, Wood drew a mental picture during his argument of the horrors of that day before the appeals court including playing the audio of the anonymous 911 call and placing the words of the call on a screen. “You have just heard … the voice of someone you know is a cold-blooded killer,” Wood told the judges.

The newspaper filed a motion for summary judgment in December 1998—a motion on which Fulton County State Court Judge John R. Mather did not rule until late 2006. The appellate court had previously ruled that Jewell was a limited public figure, meaning Jewell had to prove that the newspaper acted with actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth.

Squarely at issue in the appeal heard Wednesday was Mather’s grant of summary judgment to the Journal-Constitution on all but one of Jewell’s libel claims in October 2006. Mather, ruled that the Aug. 4, 1996 story could be libelous because by then the Journal-Constitution had learned Jewell could not have made the 911 call and discovered the bomb moments later because of the distance between the two points.

Jewell’s legal team took the unusual step of all but acquiescing to the grant of summary judgment on that claim on the notion that to have the appellate courts consider Mather’s summary judgment rulings now would make multiple trials less likely. Wood’s decision to go all in with the appellate courts, rather than go to trial on Jewell’s claim over the Aug. 4 story, may mean a trial in the case never happens.

On the Aug. 4 Journal-Constitution story, Justice Smith wanted to know more about the column referencing Williams. Peter C. Canfield of Dow Lohnes, the newspaper’s longtime lead attorney on the case told the judges that the column didn’t say Jewell was guilty and the column suggested that investigators searching his mother’s apartment weren’t finding any evidence. Justice Smith asked, “you’re saying Journal-Constitution copy editors—who testified in depositions that they had expressed concern about the column before it ran—had no reason for concern?” Canfield responded that “Their concern was fairness, not falsity.”

On rebuttal, Wood said the copy editors said the column was libelous because of the comparison with Williams. And Wood took umbrage at Canfield’s previous suggestions that Jewell’s side has litigated the case with an eye more to the media and movie deals than having the case resolved on the merits.

If you have not seen the brief video of the Anna Nicole Smith Opera that has sold out all six performances in London at the Royal London Opera and is receiving good reviews I suggest viewing that short video.

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.

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.

I have also updated the Michael Jackson’s downloads so be sure and browse through those papers.

On February 16, 2011 the South Carolina Court issued an Order and Opinion denying Susan M. Brown’s request to dismiss the suit in regards to her personally and her law firm. The court docket shows jury selection is to begin on February 22, 2011 for that case.

©Rose Turner
February 19, 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: a trial in the case may never happen, Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith Opera, anonymous 911 call warning of an impending bombing, Beverly Hills, Bryan Cave partner, Bryant v. Cox Enterprises, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, cold-blooded killer, concern was fairness, Constitution copy editors, copy editors said the column was libelous, Dannielynn, Dow Lohnes, Eric Robert Rudolph, estate of Richard Jewell, Fulton County State Court Judge John R. Mather, G. Watson Bryant Jr., G. Watson Bryant Jr. Esq., Georgia Appeals Court, Harry Susman, High Profile Trials, Hollywood, Howard K Stern, Jewell has since died of heart problems, Journal-Constitution, Judge Charles B. Mikell, Judge J.D. Smith, Judge John R. Mather, Judge Stephen L. A. Dillard, justice for Richard Jewel, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Lin Wood gambles all of nothing, London UK, Neil McCabe, newspaper reported that authorities suspected Jewell, Nicole Jennings Wade, Nicole Jennings Wade Esq., Olympic park bomb, Olympic Park bombing, Peter C. Canfield, Peter C. Canfield Esq., Royal London Opera, stories published in July and August 1996, Susan M. Brown, Susan M. Brown Esq., the Atlanta child murders, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Richard Jewell Case, Wayne Williams

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

So many of us have lost very close family and friends over the past year. That always makes these first holidays horrid. As Heath said to me when Ken and I lost someone that was the foundation of our family: “If you can’t cry for someone you love, then who can you cry for?” Those are very wise words for all of our members as well as Ken and me as we get through this first holiday without our love ones.

I told Ken I wanted to get up early this morning and watch the Macy New York Thanksgiving Parade. That is how the holiday of my youth were all about. My dad and I got up and watch the parade as my mom cooked. Such wonderful smells filled the house every Thanksgiving. I have to say I was disappointed in the Parade, it is not what I remember from my youth. Way back then there were high school bands and college bands that had auditioned, picked to appear and then worked hard to get the money to go to New York. It was wonderful to see those kids so excited and it put excitement in our home as well as we discussed who was the best. Gone are those and the floats for the most part all replaced by very commercial, planned acts and those horrid big balloons. I told Ken today the only thing that remained as I remember it was the last float as Santa arrived. I wish we had those old fashion parades again. Needless to say I will sleep in next year… LOL

The parade was followed by a lot of good eats and then the Dallas Cowboys who still plays every Thanksgiving Day. I have always said that becoming a football fan was not optional in my home, if you did not watch football then there was nothing to do after the feast but be bored the rest of the day. My dad and my brother would sit there and watch and cheer, discussing every play. I learned all I know about football being with my dad and brother. In fact I got pretty good, when my son became a teenager he turned to my husband and said; “Dad what is a shot gun and wishbone formations”? His dad had to tell him; “Ask mom she will know.” Yes I did know, what wonderful memories of people who are now gone.

Ken and I wish for each of you a safe and wonderful holiday, and like us remember those who are no longer with us and shed a tear at the loss in your life, Ken and I will today. However, also remember the memories you have, not everyone has those great memories, so in that we are lucky as many of you are lucky.

Remember our service men and women so far from home and pray by next year they will be safe with their families for Thanksgiving dinner.

We also wish an exciting new adventure for Jay Patton of Bryan Cave and Neil McCabe of the O’Quinn Law Firm as they leave those firms begin new journeys and new endeavors. We hope both of them find something they love and thrive at in the year to come.

Surround yourself today with family and good friends and have a great day, lots of goodies to eat. Ken has been cooking for two days and the smells from the kitchen reminds me of long ago days and my family and those memories I made. The most important thing is remember those we have loss in the last year and with the tears, remember the good times, as Ken and I will do. In closing, how about those Cowboys?

© Ken and Rose and all of us here at Rose Speaks.com
November 25, 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: Bryan Cave LLP, Celebrity Trials, High Profile Trials, John "Jay" Patton, John Patton Esq., Ken and Rose Turner, Neil McCabe, Rose Speaks, Rose Turner, rosespeaks.com, The O'Quinn Law Firm