I am not putting up Art Harris Filing the First Court of Appeals Decision to the Supreme Court of Texas as it is the same as what was sent to Judge Weiman of the 80th Harris County District Court.

TERESA STEPHENS FILING IN TARRANT COUNTY FEDERAL COURT

March 1, 2010 Stephens Motion for Relief from Judgment and reopen case or file an Appeal.

March 1, 2010 Stephens Brief in Support of Relief from Judgment and reopen case or file an Appeal.

March 22, 2010 CNN and Time Warner Response to Stephens Motion from Relief from Judgment and reopen case or file an Appeal.

April 8, 2010 Order Denying Motion for Relief and Appointment of counsel for Stephens.

TERESA STEPHENS FILING IN TARRANT COUNTY DISTRICT COURT

April 13, 2010 Stephens Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal.

April 16, 2010 O’Dell’s Response to Stephens Motion for Continuance.

April 16, 2010 O’Dell’s Motion Compel and Sanctions for Stephens and Glenn.

April 19, 2010 Vice Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 1 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 2 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 3 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 4 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 5 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

April 19, 2010 Vice Exhibit 6 Response to Stephens Motion to Vacate Dismissal.

NEWEST FILINGS HARRIS COUNTY VIRGIE ARTHUR VS. HOWARD K. STERN

April 28, 2010 Art Harris Response to Virgie Arthur Motion to Compel Discovery.

April 28, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit C Response to Virgie Arthur Motion to Compel Discovery.

April 28, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit D Response to Virgie Arthur Motion to Compel Discovery.

April 28, 2010 Virgie Arthur Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Declaration Neil McCabe Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Virgie Arthur Affidavit Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit B Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit C Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit D Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit E Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit F Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit G Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit H Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit I Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit J Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit K Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit L Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit M Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit N Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit O Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit P Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit Q Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit R Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit S Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit T Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit U Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

April 28, 2010 Arthur Exhibit V Response to TMZ – Harvey Levin Summary Judgment.

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Carolyn O'Dell, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Don Clark, Don Clark ex-FBI, Emmet Glenn, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

It has been brought to my attention that a blogger on another site that I have great respect for is under a misconception of the Texas State Statutes. Yes I know most of you think we should leave the U. S. and it would be good riddance, However do not judge all of us on sound bites made to make us look like ignorant yokels. My deposition is not over until every party’s counsel gets to ask me every question they want to. Lawyers have jobs, it is not normally personal with them it is what they do for a living. Their ethics require them to be the fiercest advocate for their respective clients, and that is why the lawyers in this case are some of the best in the nation and make those mega bucks.

Texas Statute governing Depositions versus Federal Statues. As we always encourage each of you that read at Rose Speaks.com, let Google be your friend.

A Sworn statement cannot be used at trial in Texas a deposition can be used in Texas in trial.

For use at trial, all parties need a deposition, not a sworn statement. Sworn statements and affidavits are useful for some purposes, such as to support or defeat a special appearance or a motion for summary judgment, but they are not admissible at trial. A deposition is admissible at trial in a civil case.

Here are the statutes governing deposition versus a witness or a party that is not available for trial.

TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE

As amended through January 1, 2007

Rule 801. Definitions

The following definitions apply under this article:

(a) Statement. A “statement” is (1) an oral or written verbal expression or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as a substitute for verbal expression.

(b) Declarant. A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement.

(c) Matter Asserted. “Matter asserted” includes any matter explicitly asserted, and any matter implied by a statement, if the probative value of the statement as offered flows from declarant’s belief as to the matter.

…(3) Depositions. In a civil case, it is a deposition taken in the same proceeding, as same proceeding is defined in Rule of Civil Procedure 207. Unavailability of deponent is not a requirement for admissibility.

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

As amended through December 1, 2009

Rule 804.

(a) Definition of unavailability. “Unavailability as a witness” includes situations in which the declarant- ….

…(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; ….

…(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

With that said, I will share only a tad of my answers today during the fist session of my deposition.

1. It was videotape for the Court and/or jury trial in fact the lawyers continued to say “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury”, I asked why since there was no jury there today and learned something new about why attorneys say that in Texas if not in every state.

2. I have consistently maintained that I believe that Howard K. Stern got a raw deal in Florida, and I continue to repeat that as I did several times today.

3. I had no reason to believe that Stern has not been honest, forthcoming and sincere in all of the discovery in this or any other case I know about.

4. As I said today and made it clear I would continue to say even on my death bed, there is no defamation and no conspiracy to defame.

With that said, some of the defendants do not have clean hands, and some of them have made this very difficult in both money and time because they have not been forthcoming in my opinion.

AGAIN LET ME SAY I AM NO ONE’S STAR WITNESS, I AM NOT ON ANYONE’S SIDE IN THIS. As a matter of law the court did find I had colluded with Virgie Arthur’s counsel which is not illegal in Texas and so stated during it’s July or August Written Order, HOWEVER THAT SAID there is also no doubt in my mind that CBS’ attorneys did collude with Art Harris in order to piggy back off of him to come into the case early. AGAIN IN MY OPINION THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. The Court of Appeals in Texas in the Flack decision also stated that a defendant can be settling with nothing nefarious going on between the parties.

I did lean today from one of my co-defendants attorney that any of the defendants can file to keep me in this case, although the attorney who shared that with me indicated they would not be going in that direction, I did need to be aware of that.

I have NOW posted my Settlement Agreement with Ms. Arthur in the members only forum section. I have done this because although I have the right to keep that private from the public and the members of this site, I have insisted that it be made public for all to see, because I have always said I will be transparent. I will also ask when it is appropriate based on some of the information deemed confidential and/or covered by the Agreed Protective Order that a transcript of my deposition also be released to the public for all to read.

PLEASE ALSO CHECK THE NOTICE OF THE SERVER WE ARE WITH WILL BE DOING MAINTENANCE OVER TWO NIGHTS THIS WEEKEND.

Ken and I wish all of you a blessed Easter and hope each of you are with those you love.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
April 2, 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.

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Don Clark, Entertainment Tonight, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Speaks, Rose Turner, rosespeaks.com, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

After being unable to reach an agreed settlement between Virgie Arthur and Teresa Stephens that was agreeable to both parties in the Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern, Larry Birkhead, TMZ et. al. defamation case and conspiracy to defame.

Today, March 31, 2010 Arthur has filed a Notice of Nonsuit in regards to dismissing Teresa Stephens from the Harris County Case

I do not expect any of the conditions of why a settlement was unable to be reached. However if either side does release a statement in regards to Stephens being released from the lawsuit pending in the Harris County 80th District Court by the Honorable Larry Weiman, Rose Speaks.com will attempt to get an on the record comment from both sides.

We here at Rose Speaks.com are glad to see Ms. Stephens, a blogger who lives in Texas, dismissed after almost two years and wish her all of the best.

In other filings with he court filed with the Court after 5 P. M on March 30, 2010, Art Harris has filed a “Conditional Motion to Quash” the deposition of Turner based on three reasons. The deposition is scheduled for Friday April 2, 2010.

Well let the games begin… In a filing full of false information (And God I hate to side against a good law firm), Amanda Bush on behalf of her client filed a Motion to Quash Deposition of Turner based on “At the time of filing this Motion, counsel for Harris has not received a response. On information and belief, counsel for Harris believes that Turner intends to quash the videotaping of her deposition late Thursday, April 1, 2010, and the Court is closed on Friday, April 2, 2010 for the holiday.” I hope this is one damn good witness Ms. Bush has and one with a LOT of money that can fight off perjury charges and a Civil Suit, because that statement is an out and out lie to the Court by an officer of the Court, which last I checked was pretty serious. Shooting back Virgie Arthur filed Turner had NEVER said and DID not intend to file any Motion to Quash. For those lawyers needing a refresher course I had until 5 PM today to file a Motion to Quash and Harris’ counsel knows that. The holiday, Mmmmm every lawyer that intended to be here had confirmed including Ms. Bush’s boss that he would even stay to Saturday to finish all of this up. So to say I did not want to be cross examined by him is bull shit, I asked if there was any way because of my illness if they could trade out time and try for both sides to wrap this up in six hours if not I would continue to do the best I could through Saturday. Folks this is why I am so angry at Harris for deleting those emails and documents, it seems the only person everyone agrees has not is me… I am hoping we can get an emergency hearing tomorrow and proceed. However it might be Harris’ attorneys strategy to stall until I am on pain management medication and can’t give a deposition before the hearing to bust Art Harris on April 30. What does a well respected Law Firm do when a client screws them over and leaves them to clean up the mess. I guess some consolation is that Harris is now in trouble in Florida in the Haleigh Cummings case for the very same situation he finds himself in the soup kettle in Texas. I will have a lot more to say about Harris’ credibility among his peers of independent investigative reporters and where he actually is when “out of town researching a big murder or case”.

LATEST PAPERS FILED IN HARRIS COUNTY COURT

April 1, 2010 Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

April 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit A filed with Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

April 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit B filed with Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

April 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit C filed with Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

April 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit D filed with Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

April 1, 2010 Art Harris Exhibit E filed with Art Harris’ Reply to Virgie Arthur’s Response to Harris’ Motion to Quash.

March 31, 2010 Rose Turner’s complete email exchange with Amanda Bush which was not filed by Art Harris.

I have not been sent a copy for some reason, but I have now received some confirmation of available for counsel to attend a video taped deposition of me in HOUSTON TEXAS by Art Harris’ counsel in their offices in Houston as early as April 5, 2010 or April 12, 2010.

April 1, 2010 Virgie Arthur’s Supplemental Response to Harris’ Reply on Motion to Quash deposition of Turner.

April 1, 2101 Virgie Arthur Exhibit A filed with Virgie Arthur’s Supplemental Response to Harris’ Reply on Motion to Quash deposition of Turner.

April 1, 2101 Virgie Arthur Exhibit B filed with Virgie Arthur’s Supplemental Response to Harris’ Reply on Motion to Quash deposition of Turner.

April 1, 2101 Virgie Arthur Exhibit C filed with Virgie Arthur’s Supplemental Response to Harris’ Reply on Motion to Quash deposition of Turner.

Folks I have never made it any secret from any of you are the attorneys that I was working diligently with the counsel for Virgie Arthur since last summer to reach a settlement to protect the rights of bloggers on this site to remain anonymous.

There are some papers concerning the Harris County Case up on the private forums for members only and will be put here on the blog as soon as they show up on the Harris County District Court website.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
March 30, 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.

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

Tags: 80th District Court Harris County, Amanda Bush Esq., Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Bryan Cave LLP, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Diana Marshall Esq., Entertainment Tonight, Exclusive Rose Speaks.com, Harris County District Court, Harry Susman Esq., Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Howard K Stern, Judge Larry Weiman, Ken and Rose Turner, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Richard Hess Esq., Rose Speaks, Rose Speaks Exclusive, Rose Turner, Settlement in Harris County Defamation Case, Susman Godfrey LLP, Teresa Stephens, The Bald Truth, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

“IF” Art Harris Destroyed Thousands of Pages of Electronic Discovery what will that do to the Texas State Case? After reading the latest Ruling and Memorandum of Law by Judge Rosenthal in the Federal Southern District Court for Texas in Houston, very little at the end of the day except to extend the tedious discovery of documents from people and/or servers.

It does appear that Virgie Arthur might be able to be compensated by Art Harris in her expense to get those documents Harris deleted from other sources. It also appears to me the other negative thing is that discovery in going to be longer with perhaps more depositions then anyone thought or hoped might occur.

For this first part separate “the merits of the case if it goes to trial” from “the discovery of evidence” before deciding if there is ENOUGH to go to trial.

Let’s look at the discovery phase we are in at this point of the case now to see if Texas has jurisdiction over Howard K. Stern and Larry Birkhead since Special Appearances should be heard by statute before the case progresses. Remember Harris has waived jurisdiction and agreed to Texas having jurisdiction of him in the discovery phase. In this part because Stern has nothing to hide and his counsel L. Lin Wood jumped at getting the Yahoo server emails for his client from September 1, 2006 through March 14, 2008, remember I said the court ruled from the bench that Stern’s counsel could do two logs, one as “privileged” and the other as “relevance”. Looking at Judge Rosenthal’s latest Memorandum of Law in another case this now makes much more sense to me about why I did not see the “relevance” log in statute but Judge Larry Wieman ruled that it was necessary in the production from Yahoo.

The benefit to Arthur in this is that if, as I was able to do, Stern presents emails between Art Harris and himself that Harris no longer has, then Arthur could ask for part of the cost to obtain those documents to be awarded against Art Harris. Same with Motions and depositions, so in my opinion Harris could be found liable for more costs in getting to the “truth” because if others come up with emails that they have and Harris does not have then that goes to more evidence that Harris destroyed electronic discovery, [documents]. Which is why I am saying this could push discovery a lot longer than any of us I think had hoped. Depositions costs could be awarded for Arthur and against Harris if Arthur does get information from others or Harris as to why those doucments were destroyed, and I think that could be is expensive.

Now think “merits of the case. All of the defendants have from day one maintained and still maintains that there was no conspiracy to defame or any defamation of Arthur. However we now have to get from point “A” what Harris deleted to point “C” dismissing the case because it has no merits. Point “B” here could be a lot of added expense to “see if any evidence does exist” that would support Arthur’s allegations. I have never had contact with Stern however I seriously doubt any documents and emails Stern produces in connection with Harris is going to show any conspiracy there.

Harris might have had some professionally or personally embarrassing emails and documents on his computers but certainly nothing that would warrant deleting anything.

Then we have once Stern has produced documents of which he perhaps have emails to his sister or his attorney, Ms. Barth that I received eventually, will that open up the door for Arthur to now ask to subpoena the Yahoo server for Bonnie Stern’s emails? I have no idea since there is a default judgment for damages only in Texas. It appears from comments made by Arthur’s attorney, Neil McCabe, on March 12 to the Court that Ms. Stern is taking the position that the judgment removes her from Texas jurisdiction and so any fights for discovery involving her would have to be fought in California courts at this juncture.

How simple all of this would have been if Judge Lindsay had ordered emails from the Yahoo servers way back on December 11, 2008 and not began the wholesale order of computers to be imaged by Special Master Ball. I will always maintain that Ball is a very credible forensic expert. You need to think of him as a “computer” that plugged into other “computers”, [I know that is not very flattering to Mr. Ball], and then reported what he saw, NOT why he saw that, but just that he did see that. If you think of it that way you will see I hope that Ball has no idea what documents are important or not important to the merits of this case, only what he saw. Scott Bly filed two affidavits, the first one dealt in part of how impotent the Lulu folder was to get to Mr. Ball, and one of which Mr. Bly stated that someone accessed Ms. Stern’s computer network when she nor he was there and after the imaging as well. I have always thought the folders that Ball said were missing from Ms. Stern’s hard drives would have helped her defense not hurt it, [thus my analogy of Mr. Ball plugging in like a computer to her hard drives]. If we accept that hypothesis then the next question is who would have wanted those off of her computer enough to hacked in and remove them from her server.

So did Harris deletion of documents and emails ultimately hurt the case, I don’t think so, but I would bet I am not the only defendant a tad miffed with him right now. Perhaps Harris could have, with his electronic documents, shortened all of this discovery considerably, just as I did by turning over hundreds if not thousands of megs of documents, which then allowed Wood and McCabe to reach an agreement with the Court to shorten the list of 40+ people because, as we all have consistently said, they were not needed.

Here are the list of filings that Arthur filed yesterday, March 19, 2010, in the 80th District Court of Harris County to be heard in oral arguments on April 30, 2010.

Virgie Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit A filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit B filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit C filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit D filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit E filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit F filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit G filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit H filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit I filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit J filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit K filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Exhibit L filed with Arthur’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Art Harris.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
March 20, 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.

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

Per news and USA Today today the lead in story line is “Poor little Dannielynn Birkhead, 3. And we mean that literally.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled today that Anna Nicole Smith’s estate (i.e., Dannielynn, Anna’s daughter) is not entitled to a single penny from Smith’s husband, oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall.

Anna Nicole Smith’s case will not go back to lower court which awarded Anna Nicole Smith $88 million. So another trip to the U. S. Supreme Court? Will the insanity of the lawsuits end now that there is no money to fight over? There is no need for Larry Birkhead and Virgie Arthur to continue to fight over the guardianship of the money everyone hoped would be needed to take care it. Arthur said the money was tainted, now that there is nothing to fight over, will Birkhead allow Arthur to now visit a broke Dannielynn? It is possible for Smith’s Estate can ask for a rehearing, especially since this was a 2-1 vote. They could also take it back to the U. S. Supreme Court. I did contact some of the lawyers for a quote on the record, Virgie Arthur’s lead attorney, Neal McCabe said; “…except to say that we have not been involved in a fight over the so-called “Marshall money,” about which Virgie has not made a claim.”

Howard K. Stern can now be released as the Executor of Smith’s Estate, Larry Birkhead will keep Dannielynn and poor Dannielynn owes a LOT of legal fees the Estate has accumulated. Dannielynn at age 3 has to hope the Estate Property stolen with the money made on those sales will put some money in her bank account.

LATEST FILINGS IN HARRIS COUNTY BY VIRGIE ARTHUR A MOTION TO COMPEL ART HARRIS TO COMPEL WITH DISCOVERY. I HAVE ALSO INCLUDED THE CASE QUOTED SINCE IT IS FROM JUDGE ROSENTHAL THE FEDERAL JUDGE THAT ALL OF THE PARTIES RESPECTED.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
March 19, 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.

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

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Howard K Stern, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

Judge Wieman of the 80th District Court of Harris County in Houston has put the trial date for Virgie Arthur vs. Howard K. Stern, TMZ, Harvey Levin, Art Harris et. al. off until September 27, 2010b due to a conflict by the Court for September 21, 2010.

This will move the last conference set by the trial coordinator also back from September 11 to September 13, 2010.

CBS FILES MOTION TO SEVER THEM FROM HARRIS COUNTY SUIT AND MAKE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINAL APPEALABLE

After weeks of negotiating with Virgie Arthur’s attorney, Neil McCabe, CBS has filed a Motion to Sever and make the summary judgment final and thus able for Virgie Arthur to Appeal. However, since CBS wants to Sever from ALL of the other defendants where will this leave Art Harris’ need for a lawyer especially with his hard drives in question by the Court. Could Jackson Walker state, there is a conflict of interest now that they have seen part of Special Master Craig Ball’s questions, and if so can they now dump Art Harris as a client and leave him hanging by himself? If Neil McCabe agrees and Babcock leaves Harris, will the fact that Harris did really appear to have destroy evidence on his computers and external hard drives, will that help Arthur win? The Motion has been set via Notice of Submission for March March 29, 2010 at 8:00 AM plenty of time for Arthur to agree and join CBS or for Arthur to Oppose. This is going to get interesting. What if Babcock feels there is an ethical reason to remove CBS from Harris?

In other news Virgie Arthur filed her Reply to Howard K. Stern’s Response to Virgie Arthur Motions for Sanctions today, March 17, 2010. For those that state that Arthur’s counsel never quotes case law or decisions in Arthur’s filing this one is packed full of those references.

LATE NEWS ARTHUR JOINS CBS’ MOTION TO SEVER

FILINGS ON MARCH 18, 2010 IN HARRIS COUNTY STATE DISTRICT COURT. THIS INCLUDE THE PROPOSED CBS-ARTHUR ORDER TO SEVER CBS, AND THAT ART HARRIS HAS RESET HIS HEARING WITH AN AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING UNTIL APRIL 30, 2010 ON HIS MOTION FOR PROTECTION.

I have not had time to go through all of the cases quoted but will do so and list those that I feel have a direct correlation to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions on Stern and his lead counsel L. Lin Wood.

I don’t think there is “gamesmanship” between Wood and Neil McCabe as there is in most cases lawyers argue over, this is getting personal and I would not expect either one of them to invite the other to dinner EVER. Nor do I think at the end of these litigations that either will ever have a good word or thought for the other. That said Wood did send sincere condolences upon John M. O’Quinn’s tragic death so this to might just be “gamesmanship”. I still remember what Joe Jamail said upon O’Quinn’s death that they were never enemies that for a time O’Quinn had a picture of the two of them in O’Quinn’s office. However what stuck out to me is Jamail saying the ONLY enemy he ever had was the lawyer on the other side of any case. Thus when you get to attorneys at the level most of these operate in, the upper echelon then there are few lawyers you have very much in common with; thus the saying that lawyers only friends or other lawyers.

Be sure to participate in our MEMBERS ONLY FORUMS, get the most out of the site by learning your way around in the forums where you can safely discuss things you do not want to see copied and pasted on another site.

©Rose Turner
March 17, 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.

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

Tags: 80th Disctrict Court Harris County, Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Dannielynn, Entertainment Tonight, First Court of Appeals Houston Texas, First Court of Appeals Texas, Ford Shelley, G Ben Thompson, Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Howard K Stern, Judge Larry Weiman, Judge Larry Weiman - 80th District Court, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, Rose Turner, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur

Howard K. Stern mailed his Response to the First Court of Appeals on Friday, March 12 to be entered by the Appellate Court on March 15. Stern’s Response is to Virgie Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions against Stern and attorney L. Lin Wood.

March 12, 2010 Response by Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit A filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit B filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit C filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit D filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit E filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

March 12, 2010 Exhibit F filed with Howard K. Stern to Arthur’s Motion for Sanctions.

Status Conference held with the Honorable Larry Weiman of the 80th District Court of Harris County on March 12, 2010 at 3:30 PM.

Those in attendance in person:

Diana Marshall for Larry Birkhead
Neil McCabe for Virgie Arthur with a young associate that I did not get the name when Mr. McCabe introduced him.
One or two lawyers for TMZ not sure if it was Richard Hess and/or Harry Susman, whoever was there for TMZ did not talk at all during the conference.
A male attorney from Jackson Walker that I had never heard the name before and he did not speak during the conference either.

Those in attendance by phone conference:

L. Lin Wood for Howard K. Stern who was on vacation in Utah and on a day trip up a mountain but wanted to be present.
Luke Lantta for Howard K. Stern who was in the office in Atlanta Georgia
Rose Turner who was in my home in Gladewater Texas.
Charles “Chip” Babcock entered the telephone conference partial through the conference but did not speak during the conference hearing.

The conference stated at 3:30 PM and lasted until almost 5 PM, other than introducing myself and asking one question about the Special Master Craig Ball although I was part of the conference by phone I took notes.

The main parties talking with Judge Weiman were Mr. Wood and Mr. McCabe.

Diana Marshall coming in for two rambling comments, that I thought could have been better stated in one or two sentences. However, Ken thought when I told him that perhaps it was one of those misdirections to get off of her client, Larry Birkhead doing a deposition before any hearing for a Special Appearance on Jurisdiction that he filed or providing the server he uses for emails. If that was the purpose she succeeded in running out the clock and not having any deposition or production of doucments or naming an email server of her client brought up by the Court or the parties.

Ms. Marshall was a good friend of John O’Quinn’s had ran in his social circle, belong to the same country club and knew him very well, HOWEVER that said, she has stated before that she never forgets who butters her bread, the client, in this case Birkhead. Ms. Marshall seemed to side more with Mr. McCabe then she did with Mr. Wood, although I frankly got lost in part of the two long ramblings I felt she did toward the Court and of course the clock.

The judge impressed me he knew the statutes and he controls his courtroom, he is cordial to all but he is a very smart guy and had a beautiful voice.

At one time they were referring to a Rule 11 agreement between Stern and Arthur that had been put in the record in 2008, Wood did not have a copy with him and Mr. McCabe did have it but was going to go through the file to pull it out, and INSTANTLY the judge had his copy from the jacket of documents he had related to the case and read it into the record himself. Now that was impressive to me and showed he had read all of the filings and anything else that might come up on Friday.

Mr. Wood pushed for a hearing on the long pending Special Appearance of his client, Judge Weiman asked if there had been a hearing at all on the Special Appearances and Wood and McCabe said something like briefly in December 2008. The Court spent time on Howard K. Stern’s deposition on both jurisdiction and merits asking at one time in order to move the case along would Mr. Wood be willing to have two depositions, one for jurisdiction and then if needed one for the merits of the case later.

The Court then asked why something in regards to Howard K. Stern’s deposition had not been decided before this time, and that brought up could Steve Sadow, Stern’s criminal attorney be there, which McCabe had previously not wanted and Wood had insisted on it. Mr. McCabe very quickly said he would be willing for Mr. Sadow to be present as long as he abides by Texas state statute, which allowed him to be there but not to talk, make co

Tags: 80th District Court of Harris County, Amamda Bush Esq., Anna Nicole Smith, Art Harris, Bonnie Stern, Bryan Cave LLP, CBS - Entertainment Tonight, CBS-ET, Celebrity Trials, Charles "Chip" Babcock, Chrystal Baker, Daniel Smith, Dannielynn, Diana Marshall Esq., Entertainment Tonight, First Court of Appeals Texas, Harry Susman Esq., Harvey Levin, High Profile Trials, Honorable Larry Weiman, Houston Texas, Howard K Stern, Jackson Walker LLP, Judge Larry Weiman, Judge Larry Weiman - 80th District Court, Ken and Rose Turner, L. Lin Wood, Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Lyndal Harrington, Neil McCabe, QV - Queen of Vondonia, Richard Hess Esq., Rose Turner, Steve Sadow Esq., Supreme Court of Texas, Sweet Havana, Teresa Stephens, The O'Quinn Law Firm, TMZ.com, Virgie Arthur, Yvonne Barnhart Waddle, Yvonne Waddle