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

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

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

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

Topix.com has become the new battleground for internet bloggers in recent Anna Nicole Smith lawsuit discussions. The former sparring site TMZ, is mostly being boycotted by the wise because of the addition of Harvey Levin and TMZ to a defamation lawsuit filed by attorneys for Anna Nicole Smith's mother, Virgie Arthur.

Most of my writings on this site concerning bloggers has focused on my own involvement as a blogger and site owner. However, when I started to see the error of my ways, I began to read about the other players in this story who support Virgie Arthur or Larry Birkhead or Howard K. Stern. There are several groups on all sides.

I used to drop a few links at TMZ but never had much time to read there. When I did however, I discovered a group of Virgie Arthur supporters who found each other on TMZ and that is where they discussed all things Anna Nicole and Daniel Smith which of course included Howard K. Stern and Larry Birkhead and Dannielynn. An Arthur supporter by the nick name of "Sun" eventually opened a chat room which was also accessible through TimesSquareGossip.com. The owner of that site is a professional photographer and friend of Rita Cosby, author of Blonde Ambition who is being sued for defamation by Howard K. Stern.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

New order granted in the Howard K Stern vs John O’Quinn defamation lawsuit today.

The Honorable Judge Vanessa Gilmore presiding in the United States District Court Southern Division of Texas, granted and signed an order for motion to quash the Wilma Vicedomine non party subpoena for deposition request made by attorneys for Howard K Stern. The order is granted until the United States District Court of Florida has an opportunity to rule on a motion for protective order filed in that court concerning the same parties.

It is also noted that if the Florida court fails to address the privilege concerns, Defendant may “re-urge” them in “this proceeding”.

060408_Vice_motion_to_quash_granted.pdf
(Legal document donated by one of our members. Thank you once again!)

Share This

“I just read, on another site, that the deposition that was to be given to Don Clark didn’t take place and that both depositions for he and vilma Vicedone are dismissed without prejudice and, therefore, may be brought up again at another time. Does anyone know why this happened?”

Art Harris takes the time to answer the commenter’s question. At the end of his answer, he states the following.

“I believe the site you are also referring to has or is about to declare itself a propaganda site for Arthur and her quest for custody and control of Dannielynn’s estate.”

Is that so, Art? You know, I have a contact form on my site for questions and we have exchanged a couple of emails in the past. You could have asked me if we are or plan to become a propaganda site for Virgie Arthur. You really should have done that because your “source” is full of sh*t.

So, let me explain that this blog is not pro anyone. However, if a source or two or ten wants to present some facts and truth about the various cases and all the associated happenings, we will be very happy to continue to publish the same. This has been sorely needed for a long time because the only information publicly available comes from your spin site and other ones that sing your praises.

Non-fact #2, from Art Harris.

“If you look at the markings on Vicedomine’s motion they recently posted, you will see they got it directly from the Texas law firm, NOT independently from the court filings as we do.”

Opening “Motion to Quash” on this site, what is at the top of the page? It’s a stamp from the “United States Court, Southern District of Texas, Michael N. Milby Clerk”. The other two PDF’s are exactly like yours. In fact, there are no markings (besides your promotional watermark) any different from the ones on your site. Except, the ones housed here actually have a court stamp where yours do not.

Non-fact #3.

Just a cautionary note to be careful where you get your info, and the agendas attached. Our sources tell us — and documents reveal — all those roads lead to Wilma. — Art

I like to repeat myself, so again I will say that your source is full of ” it” and the documents factually do not reveal their origin, or my “agenda”. In FACT the only thing revealed by your comments is that you did not check your sources.

Share This

It has been learned that the depositions that were due to be taken by Lin Wood have been withdrawn without prejudice. Howard K Stern attorney Lin Wood requested depositions for John O’Quinn investigator Don Clark and assistant Wilma Vicedomine but his request has now been withdrawn. The depositions could be requested at a later time but as of now, nothing is scheduled.

A recent article that has since been edited on the internet has bloggers talking about IP addresses and using aliases on the internet. The name was not mentioned, but TMZ is one such place that heated discussion takes place concerning the whole Anna Nicole Smith debacle.

What bloggers should know is that every site that you visit records your IP address. The IP address tells your general location unless more sophisticated tracking is used. Still your location can NOT be seen without a subpoena to your ISP (internet service provider) and good cause of asking for it. For example, my IP address shows a location that is 20 miles away from where I actually use my computer.

In particular, TMZ allows posters to use any user name that they desire. Even the exact same user name that others are using at the same time. Also, experienced internet users can use a proxy to hide their IP address or even spoof an IP that belongs to another.

Also cited was a supposed carefully planned and organized effort to defame, by internet one of the parties to the various lawsuits. After the new year, the first site created to organize support for that same party will comment on that charge. There are two sides to every story. All should be mentioned.

So in the meantime, we wish everyone a very happy holiday season and best wishes for the coming new year.

Share This

Yesterdays article concerning journalist Art Harris brought a lot of commentary about information that is publicly available concerning the latest legal news in the Anna Nicole saga.

As many know, Lin Wood scheduled a deposition for Attorney John O’Quinn investigator Wilma Vicedomine to be taken on December 5th.. So far, only documents submitted by Howard K Stern attorneys have been available to the internet public to date.

In order for the interested internet communities to see both sides of the story, we have made available for you to see, Ms Vicedomine’s objection to the proposed deposition and all documents pertaining to the same.

Its interesting to read the real inner workings of how our legal system operates and the complexities and involvement of many in the defamation case of ‘Stern vs O’Quinn’.

The defamation trial is not scheduled until December of 2008 and here you can see why this deposition is objected to for reasons including the time factor as well as matters of law and principle.

The two cases in question are Stern vs O’Quinn for defamation and Stern vs Hatchette Books and Rita Cosby for defamation etc…It also appears that there is a conflict between the two cases and alleged improper demands from the Stern team.

All exhibits are included as well as supplements due to a last minute communication by Howard K Stern where Ms Vicedomine states that a “thinly-veiled accusation” is made that Ms. Vicedomine is “personally liable” for the publication of the Rita Cosby book, Blonde Ambition.

Despite what other blogs would like you to believe, the judge did not rule for Stern. The deposition is rescheduled for a later date. The judge will allow about one hour for Lin Wood to ask 4 or 5 questions and those questions will only pertain to jurisdiction. After you read what was requested, its clear that what was asked of Vicedomine is not even close to what was ruled.
2007-11-29-vicedomines-emergency-motion-to-quash-with-exhibits.pdf

2007-11-30-vicedomine-first-supplement-to-motion-to-quash.pdf

2007-11-30-vicedomine-first-supplement-to-motion-to-quash-exh.pdf

Share This