Now that Howard K Sterns defamation lawsuit against Houston attorney John O’Quinn is tentatively settled, it appears the wheels will start turning in Virgie Arthur’s defamation lawsuit against Howard K. Stern and CBS Studios in the Southern District Court in Houston Texas.

There has been a protective order issued by Judge Lee H Rosenthal in the case, just as there has been in all the other cases that have arisen out of the tragic death of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel.

One of the sections of the order says “confidential information shall not be used for purposes other than in connection with this case”. However, we saw Rita Cosby in New York who is also being sued by Howard K. Stern, freely hand over her deposition as well as those of investigators Don Clark and Wilma Vice to the Florida case.

Howard K. Stern was the only person who objected to having his deposition used from the Cosby case and he is the Plaintiff in both cases. Not too long after, the Florida case is tentatively settled. Could the same happen here?

Protective order: 110408_Arthur_vs_Stern_CBS_100.pdf

In the same case, Federal Correctional Institution inmate Jonathan Riches was denied a request to join in Mrs. Arthurs suit: 110508_Arthur_vs_Stern_CBS_98.pdf

And here is a copy of the docket for this case: Arthur_vs_Stern_et_al_Federal_Docket.html

Share This

The numerous lawsuits arising from the death of Anna Nicole Smith are all moving forward. Notable is that most of these suits have protection orders in place for at least a year and a half so the public will have to wait to see some of the more supposedly sensational material.

In Howard K. Stern vs Rita Cosby and Hatchette books, investigators Don Clark and Wilma Vicedomine gave depositions. Counsel for Stern in the Florida case of Stern vs O’Quinn requested to use not only those depositions but that of California Private Investigator Jack Harding who says he spoke to Anna Nicole’s son Daniel before his death. Harding says Daniel expressed fear and mistrust of Howard K. Stern’s involvement with his mother. When Daniel died unexpected and tragically in the Bahamas visiting his mother and meeting his newborn sister, Harding’s business card was found in Daniel’s pocket.

O’Quinn offered no objection to the use of those depositions which are protected from public view but Georgia defamation attorney Lin Wood for Stern would not allow Stern’s deposition to be used. Counsel for Rita Cosby also allowed her deposition to be used in Stern vs O’Quinn. Don Clark gave a deposition in Stern vs O’Quinn as well for a total of two that will be looked at in the Florida case.

A customary mediation hearing in Stern vs O’Quinn scheduled for today had to be postponed due to Florida attorney Robert Klein suffering from the flu. A call was made to Sterns counsel Lin Wood that went unanswered so Klein asked co-counsel Krista Barth to reschedule the hearing. She refused to reschedule but an emergency motion to Judge Rosenbaum resulted in the hearing being postponed.

103008_Stern_vs_OQuinn_241.pdf

103008_Stern_vs_OQuinn_240.pdf

November 4th at 4:00pm there will be a status conference in the US District Court case in Houston, Texas of Virgie Arthur vs Howard K. Stern and CBS Studios

And last but not least, a little comic relief in Arthur vs Stern and CBS Studios.

Share This

Virgie Arthur vs Howard K. Stern, Bonnie Stern, TMZ, Harvey Levin, Nelda Turner, Lyndal Harrington, Teresa Stephens.

Virgie Arthur’s suit charging defamation against Howard K. Stern, Bonnie Stern and Art Harris and the bloggers has had some filings. The lawsuit was transferred from the 190th District in Houston Texas to the 280th District. There was a proposed order April 30th for transfer but it did not appear to be requested by any of the parties to the suit. The document also has “No Transfer” hand marked on it. Now there has been a transfer made and signed by Judge Tony Lindsay.

091908_Arthur_vs_Stern_transfer_to_280th.pdf

043008_Transfer_Marked_No_Transfer.pdf

There is a Docket Control Order singed by the same judge with trial being set in this action for June 1st, 2009.

092408_Arthur_vs_Stern_Docket_Control_Order.pdf

There is also a hearing set for November 21st 2008, 1:30pm for Art Harris and Bonnie Stern. They are appearing to object to jurisdiction.

101508_Arthur_vs_Stern_Hearing_Set_Harris_BStern.pdf

**********************************

Stern vs O’Quinn

In Stern vs O’Quinn, four attorneys have requested to withdraw. They are Benjamin T. Erwin, William V. Custer, Eric P. Schroeder, Nicole J. Wade. No reasons are given.

This is Erwin’s. They are identical motions with the relevant names submitted.

102208_Stern_vs_OQuinn_225.pdf

Unopposed motion granted to Stern to file extra pages in his response to Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment.

102108_Stern_vs_OQuinn_220.pdf

Stern was granted an opposed motion and shall have an additional five pages for an additional total of fifteen pages for his response to O’Quinns Statement of Material Facts. He may set forth additional facts which he contends are material.

102208_Stern_vs_OQuinn_221.pdf

Share This

Howard K. Stern attorney Lin Wood requested email communications between freelance reporter Dawna Kaufman and O’Quinn investigators Don Clark and Wilma Vicedomine in the Southern District of Florida defamation case of Stern vs O’Quinn. That motion was denied by Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum.

Stern had argued since some investigative work produced by Clark and Vice was not deemed to be work product because it was shared with third parties, a series of emails between Ms. Kaufman and the investigators should also not be covered under the work product doctrine. After an in camera review of the emails, the Magistrate said those materials are protected and will not be made available to Stern.   Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Judge Dimitrouleas ruled today Howard K. Stern’s request for default in his defamation lawsuit against John O’Quinn is denied. The Judge citing case law said default is reserved for only the most “severe sanction” and “appropriate only as a last resort”.

In response to Stern’s accusations of “bad faith” on the part of council for O’Quinn, the Judge mentions that Stern “did not act upon the lack of responsive pleading until the Court prompted him with an Order to Show Cause”.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default (179): Denied
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (183): Denied
Defendant’s Motion for time extension (188) Granted
Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Default (187):Granted

http://annanicoleandhowardkstern.com/092308_Stern_vs_OQuinn_191.pdf

Share This

Howard K. Stern’s reply “in support of motion for entry of default judgment after assessment of damages by a jury and motion to set aside clerk’s default” was filed today in Stern’s defamation lawsuit against Virgie Arthur attorney John O’Quinn.

I must say in reading so many documents in the lawsuits that have been filed since the death of Anna Nicole Smith, this one is the most passionate to date. By passionate, I mean angry. It’s signed by Lin Wood.

Be sure to read 091908_Stern_vs_OQuinn_189.pdf after reading this reply. You will see that there were major disagreements as to what information was discoverable for Stern and what was privileged. O’Quinn says in 189 that the parties had an informal agreement to defer several depositions until after privilege issues were resolved. Meaning, arguments need to be cleared up concerning Stern asking for information covered by attorney work product doctrine. Those arguments eventually were settled by “in camera” inspections by  Judge Rosenbaum in the case of evidence gathered by investigators Don Clark and Wilma Vicedomine.

Now, Stern says that O’Quinn has fought all depo’s except a couple jurisdictional depos. As an observer, I remember depo’s being scheduled several times and then hearing or seeing nothing, wondered why they were not taken.

Anyway, read this rant about the tardiness of the answer to the lawsuit and see what you think. If the default is granted, Stern wants a jury to determine damages to his reputation 

Share This

I just read a great article that highlights why bloggers among others are being sued by Anna Nicole Smith's mother, Virgie Arthur.

The main hench woman is Nelda Rose Turner aka rosespeaks.com, appointed by Howard K. Stern's sister Bonnie Stern and family as legal liaison for Howard K. Stern and his attorney's. She has led the internet blog world attack against anyone perceived to be a threat to Howard K. Stern. Its all there, quoted and dated word for word.

Check out the article  http://the-red-couch.blogspot.com/2008/08/sound-and-fury-of-rose-amounts-to.html

*comments are closed for this entry

Share This

In the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas today, the honorable Judge Lee H. Rosenthal filed a thirty-one page order dispensing with several motions before her, in the civil suit of Anna Nicole Smith’s mother, Virgie Arthur vs Howard K. Stern and CBS Studios and KPRC Houston.

The attorneys for Mrs. Arthur had sought to add additional defendants to the lawsuit after her attorneys had discovered that there was defamation ongoing not only on television but also on the internet.

Attorney Neil McCabe of the O’Quinn Law Firm in Houston TX filed a motion to add Art Harris, a journalist and blog owner of artharris.com, Bonnie Stern, sister of Howard K. Stern, Harvey Levin, managing editor of TMZ.com and also TMZ the internet site and company. Also requested to be added were bloggers Nelda Rose Turner, owner of rosepeaks.com, Lyndal Harrington, a moderator of rosespeaks.com and Teresa Stephens a former moderator of rosespeaks.com.

The motion to add the additional defendants was denied. However, anticipating a denial, McCabe and colleague Attorney Michael Meyer filed a lawsuit in the 190th District Court of Harris County Texas against the additional defendants. There are presently jurisdiction objections from the non Texas residents. Also there are motions pending in that court and requests for documents and examination of computers used to allegedly defame Mrs. Arthur.

Judge Rosenthal lists the various reasons for denial however, she recognized the validity of the claim of defamation and conspiracy and went as far as to write in her opinion that the added claim appears cognizable to pursue in state court. Cognizable The power, authority, and ability of a judge to determine a particular legal matter. (click on the highlighted words for more in depth definitions). The state court claim was also filed in a timely manner and can now commence.
Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Today, a compelling argument was presented by Virgie Arthur attorney Neil McCabe of the O’Quinn Law Firm. This concerns the late Anna Nicole Smith mother’s lawsuit against bloggers Rose and Ken Turner in conjunction with her defamation action against Howard K Stern and CBS Studios. Other defendants requested to be added to the suit include journalist Art Harris, Harvey Levin and TMZ.com, Bonnie Stern, Howard’s sister and two moderators from the Turners website, Lyndal Harrington and Teresa Stephens.

The Turners, seeking to transfer venue in a manuver to sidestep a subpoena requesting their computer records, cite First Amendment objections. At the same time, McCabe outlines how Mrs Turner on her website “objects to the subpoena in religious terms relating to her domestic practices”. For those not aware, Mr and Mrs Turner practice the BDSM lifestyle and apparently have attempted to claim the lifestyle as a religion in statements made on their internet site.

An interesting notation is how Turner’s commentary sparked internet discussion prompting the creation of an article published on The Red Couch by bloggers known as Kerry and Einy. The article title pretty much says it all.

Read; Why Being Made To Sit In The Corner Is Not Foreplay Or Worship,The Anna Nicole Smith Saga Through Rose-Colored Glasses.

The Sur-Reply filed in the United States District Court of Eastern Texas. 060408_Arthur_Sur-Reply_Turner was provided by one of our members. Thank you.

Share This

Nelda and Kenneth Turner who are being sued for defamation by Anna Nicole Smith’s mother, Virgie Arthur, have filed a motion with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to move their case to the Southern District Texas court. The documents state so they can be consolidated with the other lawsuits related to this case.

Attorney Michael Meyer for the O’Quinn Law Firm, rebuts this motion saying that the Eastern District is indeed the proper place and states that subpoenas were issued in the Eastern District and should be enforced in the same place as so far the Turners have not produced potential evidence as asked for. You can read the lawsuit documents below.

*Edited to add latest filings

051908_Turner_motion_to_transfer.pdf

052008_Arthur_opposition_motion_to_transfer.pdf

052008_Arthur_Exhibit_A.pdf

052108_Arthur_reply_Sterns_motion_dismiss_jurisdiction.pdf

Exhibit A is; 051308_Von_Waddle_full_interview.pdf

052108_Exhibit_B_RoseSpeaks.pdf

052108_Exhibit_C_Waddle_email_excerpts.pdf

Share This