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

Don Clark

COUP DE GRÂCE:

DON CLARK’S AFFIDAVIT SAYS IT ALL

Summary: Former FBI special agent Don Clark has submitted into the record an affidavit in which he reveals his findings at the conclusion of an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel. He concludes that Howard K. Stern was “intimately involved” in their deaths. His affidavit and its contents are now part of the legal record, which has been the objective of many, including this writer, who have believed Mr. Stern may have been responsible for the deaths of 39-year-old Smith and her 20-year-old son.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

John O’Quinn requested a protective order today in defense of Howard K. Stern’s defamation lawsuit against him and The O’Quinn Law Firm in the Southern District of Florida Federal Court.

Counsel for Stern demanded practically everything but the kitchen sink in a financial discovery request. The list is long and includes requests for Federal and State tax returns dating back three years, financial records, property records, appraisals, deeds, mortgages, any personal property including cars, jewelry, boats etc.. whether it is still owned by Mr. O’Quinn or not and if so what it sold for. They also ask for any communications that may have occurred between the “Firm” and the IRS. Read the rest of this entry »

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

Just picked up a copy of US Weekly magazine. This blog does not correctly process question marks in the title. If possible, I would have placed a big question mark ??? behind the “Tombstone for Anna Nicole” part.

US magazine published a story about the arrival of Dannielynn’s 2nd birthday. She sure is a cutie and I hope she had a wonderful time.

As I read the article, I came upon this paragraph quoting Larry Birkhead;

What does this birthday mean to you?

…Today I’m toy shopping; last week I was tombstone shopping for Anna’s grave. [He and Howard K. Stern plan to put it on her Bahamian grave to commemorate what would have been her 41st birthday on November 28]

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Daniel Wayne Smith was born in Mexia, Texas on Jan. 22, 1986 to Billy and Vicki Lynn Smith aka Anna Nicole Smith. He spent the first six years of his life living with his grandmother, Virgie Arthur whom he adored, due to his mother working nights and starting a career that would eventually propel her to stardom.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

A 65 page decision was rendered by Magistrate Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum in the Florida Southern District Court lawsuit that Howard K. Stern filed against Houston Texas attorney John O’Quinn and his law firm on various pending motions. The suit was filed by Stern alleging defamation by O’Quinn concerning statements that he made to media outlets after the death of Anna Nicole Smith while in representation of Anna Nicole’s mother Virgie Arthur.

In his statements, Stern alleges that O’Quinn made statements conveying that Stern murdered Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel Smith for financial gain. Also alleged was Stern kidnapped Anna Nicole’s infant daughter Dannielynn for the purpose of ransoming her to Larry Birkhead. Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Those of us who have been following the investigations and subsequent lawsuits surrounding the deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel Wayne Smith have at one time or another been threatened with exposure to lawsuits, physical violence and other sundry unmentionable acts. At times, I have felt embarrassed, humiliated, angered, outraged, amused and frustrated. But lately the dominant emotion has been disbelief. Disbelief, that human beings can behave in a manner that I never imagined before joining the list of interested citizens reading and voicing my opinion on the subject.

Many have expressed their frustration over the perception that their fundamental right to free speech has been threatened and at times thwarted by persons involved in this whole mess of a media and legal circus. Most of these rants have no basis in fact or law and the problem is easily remedied by simply clicking on the “red x” in the corner and retiring with a good book. But not all the concerns expressed can be so casually dismissed. As tawdry and at times silly as some of this is, there are profound legal and moral issues involved.

( Need not be registered to comment but see rules below. Thank you.) Read the rest of this entry »

Share This