When I look at this picture of Anna Nicole Smith, her son, Daniel Wayne Smith and her lover lawyer Howard K. Stern entering the U. S. Supreme Court five years ago, February 2006, little did anyone know what would happen during the next five years.
Anna Nicole Smith was pregnant with her daughter Dannielynn and the world looked bright, especially in June 2006 when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Smith had a right to have her appeal sent back to the lower court to decide if she was entitled to any of her deceased husband’s, J. Howard Marshall’s Estate valued over one billion dollars.
Now five years later, once again Howard K. Stern returns to the Supreme Court to hear arguments on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 to address whether Smith’s Estate is entitled to part of the Estate of a deceased husband’s estates which has now been tangled up in court for 15 years. Howard K. Stern returns alone, unless Dannielynn’s father decides to attend with Stern, to see if Smith’s lone heir gets money.
In the last five years, Pierce Marshall has died, Daniel Wayne Smith has died, Anna Nicole Smith has died and John M. O’Quinn died in an accident. Howard K. Stern faced potential career ending charges and a trial to funneling drugs to a “known addict”. Stern was cleared of that on January 6, 2011 by Los Angeles Judge Robert Perry of all charges and his life was given back intact for him to continue to practice law.
On January 10, 2011 Stern filed the Reply to Elaine Marshall’s, Pierce Marshall’s widow, Response dated December 13, 2010, to the Estate of Smith’s Writ of Certiorari filed November 12 2010 with the Supreme Court once again ruling they will hear oral arguments this coming Tuesday and again decide this mega million dollar estate. Any decision by the U. S. Supreme Court will be issued no later than the last Monday of June 2011.
You have to feel a tad sad for Stern to be returning five years later, minus so many important people in his life including the love of his life Smith and her son Daniel.
The attorneys for the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith consists of; Philip W. Boesch Jr. Esq., The Boesch Law Group, Bruce S. Ross, Vivian L. Thoreen, Holland & Knight LLP, Kent L. Richland, Alan Diamond, Edward L. Xanders, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richaland LLP
The attorneys for Elaine Marshall consists of; Roy T. Englert Jr., of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untreiner and Sauber LLP as well as G. Erin Brunstad Jr., Collin O’Connor Undell, and Matthew J. Delude of Deschert LLP
There has been seven Ameicus Briefs filed by interested groups including the U. S. government, some in favor of Smith’s Estate and some in favor of Marshall.
Here is a list of the other papers filed so you can become acquainted with them to discuss prior to the hearing this Tuesday. The U. S. Supreme Court has three cases it is hearing oral arguments on with this one listed as the last of the three to be heard that day.
November 15, 2010 Ameicus Brief by Legal Professors in Support of Howard K. Stern. The legal professors and lawyers listed are Richard AAron, Laura Bartell, Jagdeep S. Bhandari, Susan Block-Lieb, Robert D’Agostino, Jackie Gardina, Ingrid Hillinger, George W. Kuney, Lois Lupica, C. Scott Pryor, Keith Sharfman, Michael D. Sousa, and Robert M. Ziman.
November 19, 2010 Amercus Brief by. the Bankruptcy Trustees in Support of Howard K. Stern.
November 2010 Ameicus Brief by the United States of America in Support of Howard K. Stern..
December 20, 2010 Ameicus Brief by the National Black Chamber of Commerce in Support of Elaine Marshall.
December 20, 2010 Ameicus Brief by by Washington Legal Foundation in Support of Elaine Marshall.
December 2010 Ameicus Brief by the Center Rule of Law in Support of Elaine Marshall.
December 2010 Ameicus Brief by Legal Professors in Support of Elaine Marshall. The law professors are; S. Todd Brown, G. Marcus Cole, Ronald D. Rotunda, and Todd J. Zywicki
The Three Points the U. S. Supreme Court has decided to hear oral arguments and issue an Opinion on three questions asked to be addressed by Smith’s Estate:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit opinion, which renders §157(b)(2)(C) surplusage in
light of §157(b)(2)(B), contravenes Congress’ intent in enacting §157(b)(2)(C).
2. Whether Congress may, under Articles I and III, constitutionally authorize core
jurisdiction over debtors’ compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim.
3. Whether the Ninth Circuit misapplied Marathon and Katchen and contravened this Court’s post-Marathon precedent, creating a circuit split in the process, by holding that Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter final judgment on all compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim.
I wonder if the Marshall money, like the Hope Diamond is going to be surrounded of the mystic of tragedy attached to it, what do you think?
Follow Us On Face Book at http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001254987261 and on Twitter at http://twitter.com/RoseSpeaks
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 be a guest writer, please send up what you propose to write about via the Contact Us link as well.
January 15, 2011
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.