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 (196)
March 2 , 2011 Motion by Counsel for Susand M. Brown and The Brown Law Firm to Wtithdraw (305)
March 2, 2100 Counsel for Susan M Brwon Motion to File Under Seal Memorandum Reason Withdraw as Counsel (298)

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

In the South Carolina federal Court the Estate has filed it’s Reply to Susan M. Brown’s Response in which she states L. Lin Wood charges to much!!! I personally think it was reasonable especially if you look at some filings against attorneys in other venues for Sanctions and Contempt. Which then begs to ask, how much is Brown’s time worth and/or billed to clients?

Jury selection is scheduled to began on January 13, 2011 in South Carolina but I just don’t see this going to trial but rather Brown’s insurance paying and getting damage control under way to restore Brown’s reputation.

Bringing up Brown’s reputation, I am sure most of you read in my 2010 deposition in the Texas case where I was told by a representative for Susan M. Brown, that she was going to sue this site and ME for damaging her professional reputation. I have been very hesitant to write anything about Brown following that. Believe me three plus years of being tangled up in lawsuits with people you have never met, is enough for a life time. That said, if Brown is going to put herself out there with having an Order by a Court to Sanction her for Contempt, then do we have an obligation to cover it as we do all things Anna Nicole Smith? I personally don’t believe this site has ever published anything harmful, [unless you consider the truth harmful], to any of the people in this saga of overlapping jurisdictions and lawsuits. We have stated over and over we know NONE of these people, have little to no contact with these people directly and we have learned to ask both sides for comments on the record.

The rule of thumb here is going to be would I cover the lawyers I “like” if they were brought up on Sanctions and for Contempt, the answer is YES, therefore we are going to cover this using the same criteria as we would if it was say, Wood.

Should Susan M. Brown be worried about what a small time blogger has to say about her? Shouldn’t she be more concerned about her career and trying to restore her reputation as an ethical attorney? IF there is a Georgia State Bar Complaint against her we will never know that, but I would bet money with what two federal courts have said about her in Opinions she is being investigated and if not then the State Bar of Georgia has seriously dropped the ball on Brown.

Here are the latest filings in the Anna Nicole Smith Estate through the Executor, Howard K. Stern’s vs. Susan M. Brown, attorney, and others in recovering Estate property.

I think we can see the writing on the wall as soon as L. Lin Wood moved on to other cases and let Luke Lantta and Nicole Jennings Wade finished up this last major lawsuit involving Smith’s Estate .

November 11, 2010 Susan M Brown’s Notice of filing Affidavit as the Court ordered her to do.

November 11, 2010 Susan M. Brown’s Affidavit stating that none of the Estate’s property or any copies are in her procession. It details the actions she took to double check everything.

December 9, 2010 Susan M. Brown’s Response to Howard K . Stern’s bill as the Executor of the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith. Brown complains about how much money the Estate attorneys charged. Brown asks for a 25% reduction on the bill for $14,000+ but then goes on to really ask for a 50% reduction and that is based on what ? That Wood and team are better attorneys then Brown but still does not deserve to be paid for their work on the level of Wood’s abilities for his clients?… Yea that is going to fly, NOT!!!

December 20, 2010, L. Lin Wood’s Reply on behalf of the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith that basically says, oh Really, want to see the emails? Yeppers everyone keeps emails now especially lawyers trying to reach an agreement on anything, even something as simple as filing a joint status report the Court asks for.

With all of this said, I do hope we get to follow some of these attorneys who do defamation suits on high profile cases like L. Lin Wood and Jackson Walker over the years to come, both of them are the tops in the country and usually on opposing sides.

When I mentioned “All things relating to Michael Jackson, to Ken his first statement was “Rose your health can’t handle being pulled into any more legal wrangling”. Yes but we have great guest writers and what is pulling a few legal papers was my response to him. .

We are going to attempt to have someone in the court on January 6, 2011 for the judges ruling on pending motions filed by Steve Sadow and Brad Brunon to reduce the charges or for a new trial and of course for any sentencing the Court imposes on Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and/or Howard K. Stern.

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
January 4, 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.
s

Tags: Affidavit, All things Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole Smith, Beverly Hills, Brad Brunon Esq., Brwon Sanction for Contempt, Bryan Cave LLP, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, defamation suits, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, Executor of the Estate, Executor of the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Georgia State Bar Complaint, High Profile Trials, Hollywood, Hollywood Criminal Justice, Howard K Stern, J. Chris Smith Esq., Jackson Walker, joint status report, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Nicole Jennings Wade Esq., Sanctions and Contempt, South Carolina Federal Court, State Bar of Georgia, Steve Sadow Esq., Susan M. Brown Esq., Susan M. Brown Georgia Attorney

L. Lin Wood wins for the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith in attorneys fees against attorney, Susan M. Brown. Here are some notes from the Order I just read. I will have a more complete article update later tonight! I wonder if this will lead to any State Bar complaints and/or action in Georgia

Notes on Contempt

Executor argues that Brown should be held in contempt for retaining copies of Estate property after the entry of the Consent Order. This court agrees that Executor has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Brown violated the specific and unequivocal commands of the Consent Order.

By demonstrating that Brown retained duplicates of the photographs stored on the hard drives and duplicates of legal documents which were subject to the Consent Order, Executor has met his burden to warrant a finding of contempt against Brown.

It is only reasonable to require this same level of responsibility from parties in complying with orders of the court requiring the production of documents. It is clear from Brown’s testimony that she did not meet the requirements of Rule 34 because a simple search of her computer would have revealed the existence of the images subject to production under the Consent Order. Additionally, civil contempt does not require a showing of willfulness.

Therefore, this court declines to accept Brown’s argument that any violation was unintentional and finds Brown in contempt of the January 16, 2009, Consent Order of this court.

No Contempt of Sanctions on G. Ben Thompson

Without some showing of a violation on Thompson’s part, this court is hesitant to impose sanctions upon him simply on the basis that Brown was his attorney. This is particularly true where Brown now finds herself a named defendant in the underlying action.

Instead, the court defers to its well-established discretionary authority in contempt matters and finds that Executor has not met the burden of showing Thompson’s violation of the Consent Order by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, Executor’s motion for contempt as to Thompson is denied.

Notes on Sanctions against Susan M. Brown

The remedies and sanctions for civil contempt are intended to be remedial and compensatory.

The court is persuaded, however, that some measure of sanctions against Brown is appropriate here. Brown stated in her deposition that she did not produce the duplicate property because she was unaware of its existence on her computer hard drive, although she admitted that her clients had used her computer to show her images that were arguably Estate property. Given Brown’s knowledge of her clients’ use of her computer to display the images, it is hard to accept that Brown fulfilled her obligations under Federal Rule 34. Furthermore, despite Brown’s admission that she understood the Consent Order, she also admitted during her deposition to retaining copies of the property on her computer following her production in response to the subpoena. Even assuming that Brown was unaware of the images on her computer prior to preparing for her deposition, she undoubtedly was aware that she retained copies of that material in her possession after the production in response to the subpoena – a direct violation of the Consent Order’s mandate to give all duplicates to Executor’s counsel. Accordingly, the court will impose sanctions against Brown in the form of an award of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to Executor.

Executor has already sought costs and attorney’s fees in connection with his pursuit of discovery from Brown regarding her actions and conduct in connection with the alleged Estate property through the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. That court denied Executor’s request for costs and fees related to his pursuit of discovery from Brown. This court will not disturb the findings of that court. However, in light of Brown’s violation of the Consent Order, Executor is entitled to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees related to his pursuit of this motion for contempt only.

Conclusion and Order of the Court with Deadlines Signed November 12, 2010

In summary, the court grants Executor’s motion for contempt and for sanctions against Brown and denies Executor’s motion for contempt and for sanctions against Thompson.

As a result, Executor is entitled to recover from Brown his reasonable costs and attorney’s fees for the contempt proceeding before this court only. From the date of this order, Executor has twenty (20) days to submit a summary of his costs and attorney’s fees for this proceeding. Brown will have ten (10) days to respond. The court further orders Brown and Thompson to turn over to Executor all remaining property (originals and duplicates) belonging to the Estate in their possession, custody, or control and to submit to Executor affidavits of compliance with this order within twenty (20) days of the date hereof

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
November 12, 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: affidavits of compliance, Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith Estate, Attorney found in contempt, Brown in contempt, Celebrity Trials, Civil Sanctions, clear and convincing evidenc, complying with Court Orders, complying with orders, Consent Order, contempt for retaining copies, Contempt of Court, Dannielynn, direct violation Consent Order, direct violation of the Consent Order, Estate property, Executor affidavits of compliance, Executor of Estate, Executor of Estate prevails, Federal Rule 34, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Georgia State Bar, grants Executor’s motion for contempt and for sanctions, High Profile Trials, Hollywood, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Law Office of Susan M. Brown, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, remedial and compensatory, Sanctions against Susan M. Brown, State Bar of Georgia, Susan M. Brown Esq., United States District Court for South Carolina, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, violated the specific and unequivocal commands, violated the specific commands