In her surreply to TMZ’s motion for summary judgment that was submitted today without hearing, Mrs Arthur’s attorney outlines how TMZ is engaging in fact twisting and manipulation. They also continue to vilify Mrs. Arthur by persisting that Mrs. Arthur did something wrong by marrying the father of her child many years ago. The marriage did not work out and they separated. Sometime afterward, Mrs. Arthur’s mother and her soon to be ex-husbands father married.

TMZ purposely spun facts and untruths publishing that “Virgie hooked up with a step-bro” and produced a child. A shameless attempt to smear the reputation of a woman who had recently lost her world famous daughter and shortly before that, her grandson whom she raised until he was 6 years old. Anna Nicole and Daniel Wayne Smith both died of drug overdoses under suspicious circumstances.

According to emails in possession of Neil McCabe, attorney for Mrs. Arthur, Howard K. Stern and Larry Birkhead plotted this travesty with Harvey Levin who used his  position at TMZ to print articles that were picked up all over the world subjecting Mrs. Arthur to scorn and ridicule with false information. Add in Journalist Art Harris who also wrote emails upset and throwing a tantrum because “someone” stole “his” scoop with more defamation that he was planning.

It’s no secret that Howard K. Stern and two doctors who prescribed for Anna Nicole outrageous amounts of easily abused and addictive drugs in fake names were brought up on felony drug charges in Los Angeles. Speaking of Stern, attorneys for Arthur scheduled a deposition for him and he has filed to quash. Wonder why? If you have nothing to hide, why not do the deposition? In fact, my opinion is that Stern will eventually be compelled to do this depo. He thinks because he has a writ of mandamus pending that he does not have to submit to discovery. Art Harris found out different if you read the previous article.

A prominent forensic expert examined a computer that Harris turned over and found massive spoliation consisting of switched out hard drives and deleted emails that another defendant had already submitted. Whether that evidence will be allowed at trial is still up in the air as Harris won a writ of mandamus which ruled that the trial court erred ordering overbroad discovery. Arthur is asking for a re-hearing on that issue.

050910_Arthur_vs_Stern_Surreply_to_TMZ_Levin_Motion_SJ.pdf

051010_Arthur_vs_Stern_HKStern_Motion_to_Quash_and_Protective_Order.pdf

Here is the Rule 11 agreement that Stern made with Arthur’s counsel agreeing to the above deposition.

http://qvsplace.com/Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Rule_11_Agreement_Stern.pdf

New Docket Control Order

050710_Arthur_vs_Stern_Docket_Control_Order.PDF

After Journalist Art Harris won a petition for writ of mandamus it appeared that his attorney’s at Jackson Walker were under the impression that he was protected from any discovery requests in this case. Not so. Harris County Judge Larry Weiman signed an order compelling Harris to do the following.

Harris was ordered to produce documentation stating his net worth and that information will be subject to a protection order. He has 30 days to produce this information.

He has to produce his contract with his current attorneys, Jackson Walker. Certain items can be redacted.

Harris has to answer interrogatory number 18 which asks him to describe the circumstances leading up to retaining the law firm of Jackson Walker and to include names of persons with whom he spoke to or corresponded with about retaining legal representation.

Harris has 30 days to answer what his relationship was/is to CBS relating to this lawsuit.

Harris has 30 days to answer regarding funds he may have been paid by CBS, TMZ, Harvey Levin, Howard K. Stern, Lin Wood, Bryan Cave law firm or Jackson Walker or any representative in relation to the alleged defamation of Virgie Arthur.

Harris objection about interrogatories being more than 25 was overruled.

And interesting is that any documents or responses produced re this order shall not be given to any pro se party or given to any pro se party by counsel and produced only to those parties who have counsel.

Questions 5-17 are abated until there is a final decision on the mandamus proceedings in re: Harris. 5-17 have to do with Harris’s computers and any exterior drives he may have placed data on. Harris is also asked what usernames he used on message boards, chat room etc. He is asked about deleting evidence, replacing hard drive and what wiping or data destruction tools he may have used. Also he was asked if he used a proxy to visit sites.

050710_Arthur_vs_Stern_Order_on_Harris_Motion_for_Protective_Order.PDF

Plaintiff is Virgie Arthur, mother of Anna Nicole Smith. 80th District Court in Harris County, Texas and Judge Larry Weiman presiding is the forum for this suit.

Defendants are Howard K Stern, personal attorney of Anna Nicole Smith. Bonnie Stern who is HK Stern’s sister who has already had a default judgment entered against her in this case. Larry Birkhead, father of Anna Nicole’s baby daughter. Art Harris, television journalist who is also embroiled in the Haleigh Cummings case.  Harvey Levin and TMZ. Defendant CBS won summary judgment but must still submit to discovery. Nelda (Rose) Turner, a blog owner. Lyndal Harrington, a blogger and former moderator for Turner. Teresa Stephens, a blogger former moderator for Tuner who`has been non-suited and is now out of the case.

Mrs. Arthur’s Fourth Amended Petition. Click

Art Harris Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Click

Mrs. Arthur’s Response To Emergency Motion For Temporary Relief. Click

Mrs. Arthur’s Reponse To Harris Writ. Click

Link to the First District Court of Appeals decision (Writ). Click

The Appeals Court found the trial court abused its discretion by compelling overly broad discovery and not addressing a motion for protective order and a motion to clarify by Harris. It also ruled that the court should not have ordered Harris to produce his computer drives etc..without a showing by Arthur that the benefit of the discovery she requested outweighed the burden and expense to Harris. The court also ruled that this case was not complicated enough to appoint a “special master” and the court appointed a “forensic examiner” instead.

The appeals court concluded, “We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to withdraw its discovery orders against Art Harris issued on January 27, 2009, May 11, 2009, and August 28, 2009. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot”.

However, as one of my favorite followers of this case says, “you can not un-ring the bell”. What Craig Ball, who was appointed to be “Special Master” in this case found was massive spoliation by Art Harris. He not only destroyed evidence but he attempted to cover it up.

IMO, it was known to Arthur’s counsel to be the case because of submissions by other witnesses and defendants. Hard drives belonging to other defendants have been voluntarily examined and will prove Harris’s actions and refusal to submit collaborating evidence.

Arthur’s counsel has the option to go back to the trial court and start over or they can proceed with what they already have as mentioned above.

Still pending is a Writ of Mandamus filed by Howard K. Stern who has been ordered to turn over his electronic media and documents.

Trial in this case is set for September of this year.

Regarding the lawsuit of Howard K. Stern vs Rita Cosby, there is current debate regarding the truth or falsity of the allegations in Cosby’s book, Blonde Ambition. This happened after New York Southern District Judge Denny Chin denied part of Cosby’s motion for summary judgment. Her publisher, Hatchette Books won their motion for summary judgment and was released from the lawsuit.

Part of the lawsuit will hinge upon statements that may have been made by two Haitian nannies who worked for the late Anna Nicole Smith. I noticed the discussion about Lincoln Bain aka Mr. Controversy who had appointed himself spokesperson for the two nannies on a Topix board.

So on September 1st,  I went into the Internet Archives and copied and screen shot a few things that would show statements actually proving that there were sources who said the late Anna Nicole Smith’s nannies did indeed make claims of Anna Nicole watching a gay sex movie purportedly starring Howard K. Stern and Larry Birkhead. Not only that, but Bain did post what he called censored and uncensored “Nanny videos”. It appears the uncensored versions were on his website for awhile. He then edited them but promised to again publish the uncensored versions at a later time. That never happened. The screen shots and copy and paste items below tell the story.

While I was working on this article I noticed some odd things happening so I went into the log files of this site. I found that someone had hacked in. I found they were on the site the day before. It appears that whoever hacked into this site had an interest in the Art Harris article posted right before this one. The did a search on my site. The search was done on the article, “Mr Art Harris, A Modern Day Lord Haw Haw. The search words were, Art+Harris+compares+himself+to+Don+Clark.

This site has been intruded upon before but it was spammers dropping their links into the site files and when I got to the bottom of what was going on, I did not pursue the hackers. This one is different. The hacker obviously has an interest in Art Harris and my article that was great enough to cause them to hack my website and start trying to tamper with this article while I was working on it. So hacker person, if you are reading this, I am not going to let this go until I find out who you are and you are criminally punished for breaking the law.

Now we have a mystery. Why did a hacker who was interested in an article about Art Harris tamper with an article that had yet to be posted about Lincoln Bain?

On to Lincoln Bain….These are either screen shots from Mr. Controversy’s archives or copy and pastes that I do have screen shots of but were too large to place on this page.  With the Cosby lawsuit previously protected documents/depositions about to come out, I thought it would be fun to go on a stroll down memory lane. Unfortunately, a lot of pages were without dates. My comments are in blue.

This is Bain PO’d because local media got locked out of Anna Nicole Smith’s funeral.

Bain enticing his viewers with tidbits about upcoming UNCENSORED NANNY VIDEOS

Bain now announces CENSORED VERSIONS

Bain sarcastically pounding home the Shane Gibson rumor.

Thanks to Controversy TV exclusive interview with the former nannies of Anna Nicole Smith, Shane Gibson has been cleared of the fictitious accusations of the Affidavit posted on TMZ.com. The nannies, in particular Quethlie Alexis whose name was on the fake affidavit refuted the following thus far:

Lie

The affidavit stated that Shane Gibson came to the house every day.

Truth

Ms Alexis says that she never said that Shane would come everyday. She said he would come often (about every other day).

Conclusion

While we don’t know if Shane and Anna had sex, the above infers that Anna did make him come- long hard and often.

Lie

Anna and Shane were locked up in the room everyday.

Truth

They were locked up in the room often (about every other day). They spent very long periods of time in the room alone.

Conclusion

Shane was just practicing with Anna. Now he needs to get locked up for real!!! And he needs to spend a very long period of time there. In Fox Hill Prison he won’t be Anna’s but he will be someone’s bitch.

Lie

Shane slipped in through Anna’s back entrance.

Truth

Shane went in through the front.

Conclusion

At least we know he’s not gay!!!

Lie

The nannies said Shane came in and explorer

Truth

The nannies said he came in a black car.

Conclusion

We don’t know how much coming he did in his car but we know that he did a lot of coming in Anna’s room.

Lie

Nannies said Shane and Anna had a flagrant sexual relationship.

Truth

Nannies and 80% of Bahamians don’t know the meaning Flagrant.

Flagrant: Scandalous- very obvious and contrary to standards of conduct or morality

Conclusion

Shane and Anna had a flagrant relationship.

So there you have it- The Truth the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth! The Nannies will reveal even more this week!

Whoa! Bains proclamation that Howard and Larry were lovers.

Rubba Dub Dub, Two Sissies in a Tub?!!!

Rita Cosby wrote a book claiming that Howard and Larry are lovers!!! Damn! I coulda told her that. In Fact Anna’s former nannies told that to several media groups months ago. The media was afraid to touch it but I am glad that its out!!!

Pictured  below is cross dresser Howard!

An explosive tell-all book about Anna Nicole Smith’s sad demise alleges the two men who battled for custody of her baby girl and control of her fortune were gay lovers.

The bombshell allegations about the steamy relationship between the former Playboy Playmate’s longtime companion Howard K. Stern and her baby’s biological father, Larry Birkhead, come to light in “Blonde Ambition: The Untold Story Behind Anna Nicole Smith’s Death.”

Sordid passages in the soon-to-be released book by former MSNBC journalist Rita Cosby describe how Anna Nicole and her friend allegedly caught Stern and Birkhead with their shirts off and their pants around their ankles in a Los Angeles home.

Jackie Hatten, described in the book as one of Anna Nicole’s closest friends, said the men were engaged in oral sex.

“Their bodies were intermingled,” Hatten says, according to a copy of the book obtained by the Daily News. “It was obvious what was happening.”

The shocking book accuses Birkhead and Stern of cutting a secret deal after Anna Nicole was buried in March, with Birkhead getting custody of Dannielynn in return for Stern being named executor of the star’s estate.

Dannielynn, who turns 1 on Friday, could inherit hundreds of millions of dollars from the estate of Smith’s late husband, oil tycoon Howard Marshall.

Birkhead and a lawyer for Stern both vehemently denied the accusations in Cosby’s book yesterday – and vowed to drag her into court, setting the stage for an ugly legal battle.

“None of it is true,” Birkhead told The News. “I’m gonna sue Rita Cosby for it.”

Birkhead said he was disgusted by Cosby’s claim that he and Stern were gay lovers.

“If she printed that then she is really getting sued,” Birkhead yelled. “My attorneys are going after her and that is absolutely false. And I am sure Howard and the estate and everyone else involved is going to sue her too. This is just nonsense.”

Stern’s lawyer, Lin Wood, called the book’s content “false and defamatory.” Wood said Cosby “has taken the coverage to a disgusting new low for which she will be held legally accountable.”

OK! magazine already has severed ties with Birkhead over the Cosby allegations, axing coverage of Dannielynn’s first birthday as the final part of a $1.7 million access deal.

The 244-page book reads like a whodunit novel with cliffhanger chapters, plot twists and tales of deception by those closest to Anna Nicole.

The former stripper knew both Birkhead and Stern were gay, the book alleges. But Smith, who was obsessed with Marilyn Monroe, chose Birkhead as her lover because she wanted a blond, blue-eyed baby, according to Cosby.

The tell-all claims Anna Nicole would spread out on her bed and watch a video allegedly showing Birkhead and Stern having oral sex “over and over” while Stern worked on his computer in their Bahamas home. The existence of the video was confirmed by a source yesterday.

Stern is portrayed in Cosby’s book as a jealous, money-grabbing control freak who manipulates the erratic blond beauty’s celebrity status for his own financial gain.

As her life spun out of control after the death of her son, Daniel, last September, Stern kept Anna Nicole hidden from friends and forced the heavily drugged model to sign stacks of paperwork, the book claims.

His alleged “goodie bag” of meds – including Vicodin, Valium, morphine and Demerol – were never far from reach.

“He was the pharmacist and [the bag] was the drugstore,” Anna Nicole’s ex-boyfriend Ben Thompson told Cosby.

In Anna Nicole’s final days, the buxom blond was holed up in Room 607 at the Hard Rock Hotel in Florida, with a raging 105-degree fever, the book says.

She was watched by Stern, her bodyguard, her psychiatrist and a handful of aides as a pus-filled abscess from a needle injection in her left buttock caused an infection in her bloodstream, Cosby writes.

Cosby alleges a right-handed Anna Nicole could never have administered these injections herself.

As Anna Nicole’s life slowly ebbed away, Stern allegedly abandoned her to keep an appointment with a boat broker. The book describes him as cold and nonchalant when told of Anna Nicole’s death – a far cry from the picture of a doting lover he painted in interviews.

As doctors rushed Anna Nicole to a hospital in a futile bid to save her life, Stern allegedly was already on the phone to media contacts lining up lucrative exclusive interviews.

“Howard was ready to make his next deal,” an eyewitness says in the book. “It showed us that to Howard it was all about money.”

Birkhead comes across as no angel either. The book claims Birkhead gave Smith cocktails of drugs and watched as Stern allegedly gave medication to Anna Nicole while she was attached to an IV drip in the hospital during her pregnancy.

His image as the “aw shucks nice guy” was a carefully crafted ploy to manipulate the media, Birkhead’s former lawyer Debra Opri told Cosby. Opri is suing Birkhead for failing to pay her legal fees.

Yesterday, Birkhead dismissed Cosby, whose MSNBC show was canceled last year, as a has-been TV hack.

“She got fired and nobody wanted her,” Birkhead told The News. “The last story she did was on Anna and now she is doing this book because no one will hire her.”

Stern’s lawyer was equally outraged, saying: “It appears that Ms. Cosby has joined the ranks of tabloid journalists who are willing to publish the print equivalent of sewerage to engage in character assassination for profit.”

***

And then it all changed. This October 2007 article appeared on Bain’s web site. Bain set up a sting operation to try to entrap Rita Cosby when she wanted sworn statements from Anna Nicole’s nannies. The rest is history…..

Stern files $60 million suit over Anna Nicole bio

See court files here www.artharris.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/art-harris-hks-lawsuit-xclusive.pdf

Lawyer sues Rita Cosby, publisher over allegations of affair with Birkhead

ATLANTA – Anna Nicole Smith’s lawyer and companion, Howard K. Stern, filed a $60 million libel lawsuit Tuesday against Rita Cosby and her publisher over a book she wrote that claims Stern and Smith’s ex-boyfriend, Larry Birkhead, had a sexual encounter. blah blah blah

Speaking of Art Harris. The previous article highlights how Harris tried to deceive the appointed computer expert in Virgie Arthur’s conspiracy and defamation lawsuit against him (and others including Howard K. Stern). Harris has said that Stern shares his deepest secrets with him. Now since the deception has been discovered, Harris wants to un-appoint the renowned attorney and forensics expert Craig Ball. Harris’s proffered computer hard drive had been switched out and he omitted twelve other items he was ordered to turn in. His attorneys have now filed a “writ of mandamus” and asked for a stay in examining Harris’s media.

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Art_Harris_Writ_of_Mandamus_90409.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Art_Harris_requests_stay_90409.pdf

I get upset when someone lies to me as most people do.  I want the same with my news too. I want news I can trust and depend upon. The trend in today’s so called news is sensationalism because drama or the misfortune of others delivered in a flamboyant manner is what attracts viewers/readers.

I have been loosely following the investigation into the death of Michael Jackson. He and I grew up together (not literally of course) and I care about why he died. Just like I care about why Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel died. In my opinion, all three deaths were due to someone else’s negligence or worse. Those who may have been negligent were in positions of trust. Doctors and a lawyer.

When Daniel Wayne Smith died and then five months later, his mother followed him into the hereafter, I fancied myself knowledgeable about her life and who she surrounded herself with, namely Howard K. Stern. I saw him as a soft spoken devoted manager/errand boy with a law degree who was getting a bad rap and I wanted to talk about it. But oops! My perception was way off. That is evidenced by Stern and two of Anna Nicole’s doctors facing criminal charges in connection with her death.  Lesson learned. Questions and research have shown me that Anna Nicole’s mother should have never been treated like she has been.

What’s that got to do with Art Harris? Harris is not a hobbyist blogger like me. He makes his living reporting on national television and seeking what he calls, “The Bald Truth” on his blog site.  Shouldn’t so called professionals trusted with bringing you the news of what is going on in the world today also be responsible for bringing you an unbiased version? Shouldn’t the public be able to trust their word?

Anna Nicole Smith’s mother Virgie Arthur is suing Howard K. Stern and Art Harris amongst others for conspiracy to libel and defame her.  She through her Houston, Texas attorney Neil McCabe of the O’Quinn law firm take issue with articles Harris has written such as, “Is Virgie Arthur A Grandmother With A Past..” and other assorted bashing and trashing attempting to paint the late model’s mom as an unfit mother during the Anna Nicole baby daddy bonanza. Then there was a television appearance where he interjected personal bias when he and another defendant thought up the idea to travel to Texas and interview for CBS/Entertainment Tonight, an ex stepson of Mrs. Arthur’s . When the ex step-son denied harming Anna Nicole and said that her mother, Mrs. Arthur would have shot him, Harris said, “people will question that answer”.  It’s all in the Fourth Amended Petition.

The outcome of this lawsuit like more and more in this day and age depends heavily upon electronic  evidence gathering, aka computer forensics. So far, of the 10 defendants, not one has not engaged in some type of stalling, diversion or attempt at trickery. That’s where my beef about honesty in journalism comes in.

Harris who conceded jurisdiction and pretended to cooperate, has been caught red handed in deception by omission at a minimum. Harris turned over three computers and/or hard drives but forgot to tell the mutually agreed upon appointed forensic expert and Special Master Craig Ball that his Dell Laptop computer had its hard drive switched out on December 16th, 2008. That was well after Harris was sued and just days after Plaintiff’s successful Motion to Compel hearing on December 11th.

Harris was given a chance to comply with production but was found to be seriously lacking when compared to another defendants three foot tall stack of email with him.

In concert with the other defendants who have;

1. Filed bankruptcy to stay the proceedings.

2. Filed a mandamus action.

3. Attempted to recuse the Judge on the case.

4. Tried to have Mrs. Arthur’s attorney disbarred.

5. Knowingly destroyed evidence.

6. Sat in jail for misleading the court about their evidence.

…Harris filed a motion attempting to remove the forensics expert, who is renowned in his field, from the case. This happened over three months after Harris turned in the three pieces of evidence and almost eight months after Ball’s agreed upon appointment.

To remove Mr. Ball, Harris cited what I think of as the whaaa whaaa defense. He said that Ball was “mean to him”. Harris also said that he did not approve of Mr. Balls appointment in the first place but that came after Ball found evidence of not only spoliation (7000 emails were deleted) and again, one hard drive substituted for the original and 12 other hard drives/flash drives did not get tendered as if they did not exist. But Mr. Ball found evidence of them.

Art Harris has in the past likened himself to the O’Quinn firm’s jury consultant and in house investigator Don Clark. Now, Don Clark is an American Hero. Art Harris is…

A couple of guest writers for this site said it best with their opinion piece, “Art Harris, A Modern Day Lord Haw Haw”. They don’t care for dishonest journalism either.  And I quote from their article;

Mr. Clark served nine and a half years as a commissioned Infantry Officer in the U.S. Army, achieving the rank of Captain. His service included a combat tour of duty in South Vietnam and he was later selected by the Chief of Staff of the Army to command an Airborne/Ranger Company in the First Ranger Battalion. For his service to his country Mr. Clark received the U.S. Army Air Medal for Combat Assaults and two, not one Art but who is counting, Bronze Stars for Bravery while serving in Vietnam.

“At Duke, during ROTC drills, a few anti-Vietnam war classmates hurled tomatoes at me, and a stunning ADPi—my girlfriend!—later spurned me over our different paths, hers briefly to a commune, mine to a job as a public-affairs officer afloat with the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean. There, as a young ensign, I gave Dan Rather his first tour of the flagship, got “early out” orders as the Vietnam War was winding down, and flew home on a KC-135 full of body bags of kids my age.” (Art Harris)

So what happens now when Nancy Grace or Jane Velez-Mitchell say, and now out to special correspondent Art Harris? I either change the channel or throw something at the TV and leave the room.

How to begin to write about something so heinous, devious and disgusting is a dilemma. Where do you start?

It’s a tale of people gone too far in their “support” of someone they will never meet. It’s a tale of dirty back door dealings and not only criminal but immoral behavior. All in the name of helping someone who was present when two young people died.

It all started with the death of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel Smith and has come full circle back to individuals on the internet who gathered to blog and chat in support of Howard K. Stern.

Anna Nicole Smith’s mother Virgie Arthur has sued Howard K. Stern, his sister Bonnie Stern, Journalist Art Harris, Larry Birkhead, TMZ Productions and its managing editor, Harvey Levin. She is also suing bloggers Nelda (Rose) Turner,  owner of Rose Speaks.com and Teresa Stephens and Houston, Texas Real Estate Agent Lyndal Harrington.

In a stunning motion for contempt filed today by Houston Texas O’Quinn Law Firm’s Neil McCabe, in the case, much background and laying the ground for what is charged to be a conspiracy to defame Virgie Arthur has been revealed and it’s not pretty.

The most disturbing facts presented in the public court documents today have been the stalking and harassment of a female investigator on the case, Wilma Vicedomine.

McCabe outlines evidence that Ms. Vicedomine USPS mail was stolen from her home. Her trash was ransacked and stolen. Her mail and trash were photographed by Lyndal Harrington and the photos were sent to Art Harris and Rose Turner.

In the court documents, some of the mail that was stolen from Ms. Vicedomine’s home included her phone bill. Bloggers who had been in contact with Ms. Vicedomine have found they have been the victims of harassing phone calls and wondered how their phone numbers were obtained. Now they possibly have an answer.

As a parent though, I am most distressed by the words of Rose Turner in a plan for Journalist Art Harris regarding the theft of Vicedomine’s trash.

Art Harris has been promised the exclusive on all of this to break slowly and we have always honored that with him. He is a news blog we are just a legalese discussion blog.

Later this week after things have been sorted we should know cigarette brands, food, computer used and printer, and her child’s Xmas wish list as well as who her daughter has a crush on, about everything that several garbage bags can yield.

Once that is sorted and all of it is listed will send that along as well.

Rose      (Exhibit E, page 3.)

I asked Wilma Vicedomine how this turn of events has affected her and the life of her child who Turner mercilessly targets.  She, of course knew about the thefts but not the invasive mission into the privacy of her young daughter until recently.

Back in April of 2008, Ms Vicedomine tearfully told me that things have been rough for her daughter but she did not go into detail until now.

Her daughter is a skate boarder who loves the outdoors but since taking on this case almost two years ago,  Ms. Vicedomine has had to keep her child indoors at all times to insure her safety.

Deviants whose mission is to ruin anyone opposed to Howard K. Stern, who go as far as to pry into the details of a child’s life have caused Ms Vicedomine to seek the help of local police who have had her home under surveillance since these incidents have come to light.

Being in the investigative business has taught Vicedomine not to ever put a phone bill in her trash thus the discovery that her mail has been stolen was reported to her local Post Master as well.

Another revelation from evidence that Rose Turner herself submitted was that L. Lin Wood and Krista Barth who are attorneys for Howard K. Stern knew about the theft of the trash.

Email from Art Harris to Lyndal Harrington that is included in the documents.

U are my sin-sniffing dream girl. Where have you been all my life? You remind me of me in my early reporting days, and what you have instinctively cannot be taught to j school students unless they’ve got a certain gene and heavy metal, or at least the right deodorizer to spray away the stench of evil. Maybe we got a new product: “Evil Does It: The Antidote”. Redacted…
Way to go! Lin and Krista have been told of your exploits, but not your name and promise secrecy. In the event this stuff comes into play in the upcoming depos….redacted……, would u be willing to give an affidavit as to how you came into possession of them? Redacted….

Well sir, we were on a neighborhood watch one night and were struck the the odor of something fishy..and grabbed the bag for further inspection, and indeed there was….etc….

Shower well. You deserve a spa day. TBT

Art Harris
Busy Street Productions.

—————-

More tomorrow!

Arthur_vs_Stern_et_al_Motion_for_contempt_Art_Harris.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_Motion_for_Contempt_Ex_ A-C.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Motion_for_Contempt_Exh_D-E.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Motion_for_Contempt_Exh_F-H.pdf

One of the defendants in Virgie Arthur’s state action for defamation has announced that she will cooperate with Arthur’s attorney Neil McCabe and turn over emails and other materials. This is a case where not only public figures are being sued along with a huge internet celebrity gossip site, but bloggers as well.

Blog owner Rose Turner of rosespeaks.com announced she is cooperating with Neil McCabe and the materials will encompass communications that she had with the other defendants Howard K. Stern,  Bonnie Stern, Art Harris,  Larry Birkhead, Teresa Stephens, Lyndal Harrington, Harvey Levin and TMZ.com from October of 2006 until the present which I am going to assume is the date of the transcripts provided below. She also has said that she will cooperate with McCabes request for communications she has had with a list of 40 other bloggers that Arthurs attorneys have put together during discovery.

Turner revealed in her announcement that material she surrendered to Virgie Arthur’s attorney Neil McCabe was evidence that caused Anna Nicole’s “baby daddy” Larry Birkhead to be added to this defamation suit.

Turner; “In fact, in the court hearing transcript when you get to the document called RT0010 that added Larry Birkhead, that is a document I had already handed over in discovery”.

Since this hearing, attorney William Ogden filed a motion to withdraw from the case leaving the defendants who he represented without counsel. Those were Bonnie Stern, Rose Turner, Lyndal Harrington and Art Harris. Howard K. Stern is represented by L. Lin Wood.

The hearing transcripts:

Arthur_vs_Stern_State_121108_Hearing_Transcript1.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_State_121108_Hearing_Transcript2.pdf

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.

Customarily when there may be punitive damages involved in a civil suit, only current net worth should have to be produced according to a 2005 Florida Federal Court Decision. Another case in this memorandum is cited where O’Quinn believes that any financial disclosure should not have to be produced until 30 days before trial.

Stern’s attorney, Lin Wood disagrees saying there is no 30 day rule. He states there is approximately 90 days until trial and due to “lengths to which we have gone to get responses to substantive discovery”, he feels his requests are appropriate.

O’Quinn also asks that Howard K. Stern not be permitted to view any of the financial disclosure records whatever they may be. He cites two past actions attributed to Stern in other court cases in which he was in breach of confidentiality orders.

The first of those is substantiated by an affidavit from “Estate of J. Howard Marshall” attorney Rusty Hardin.

In 2001, Anna Nicole Smith brought an action in Texas probate court against the Estate of her late husband J. Howard Marshall and his son Pierce Marshall. Stern was not an admitted attorney to the case but sat at the counsel table. He is said to have taken a financial statement that was ruled protected and confidential and faxed it to a California bankruptcy court. Stern admitted taking the financial records but said he did not know it was “confidential”. He was repremanded by the judge in the case and told to sit with the rest of the audience for the remainder of the trial.

Mr Hardin also says that he read Stern’s deposition in Virgie Arthur’s (Anna Nicole Smith’s mother) defamation lawsuit against Stern in Houston Texas. In this deposition, Stern says he did not take the confidential document “off the…that table” even though in the transcript of the Texas Probate Judge reprimanding Stern, Stern says “I think I just got it from the [counsel's] table”. Hardin disagrees with that and attaches court testimony from that trial.

The second issue is of a confidentiality breach in the case of Howard K. Stern vs Rita Cosby in a New York Federal Court. The Judge in the case, Denny Chin had already issued a protective order concerning Ms. Cosby’s deposition. However, parts of the deposition ended up on artharris.com with Journalist Art Harris being a friend and supporter of Stern. Judge Chin then “chided” Sten’s attorney Lin Wood for the breaching of his order.

O’Quinn also asked for extra time to produce the records if ruled they must be released sooner rather than later because his accountants offices have been closed due to hurricane damage. Wood has disagreed with this request as well.

092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192.pdf
092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192-5.pdf
092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192-6.pdf
092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192-7.pdf
092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192-8.pdf
092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192-9.pdf

Judge Chin to Lin Wood

Stern_V_Cosby_protective_order_LinWood_slap.pdf

Stern_V_Cosby_protective_order_LinWood_slap1.pdf

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]

One glaring omission stood out to me. Just a tombstone for Anna Nicole? What about Daniel?

The second thing that stood out is, just last week, Larry was “tombstone shopping”.

On August 15th, I wrote this article. It explained that on June 20th 2007, Art Harris of artharris.com wrote an article announcing the search for a “Flawless, 7 X 8 Foot Slab of Granite; Stern and Birkhead Hunt “Perfect” Memorial; TBD Anna & Daniel Photo To Be Etched in Stone”.

January 5th 2008, a Howard K. Stern propaganda site published the name of the company who was to make the stone. Subsequently, myself and a fellow blogger Kerry, learned that not only was the company who was cited not in the process of making a stone for Anna and Daniel but a stone of the size reported is not even permitted in the cemetery where they are buried.

Now Larry has announced yet another stone for Anna Nicole. Perhaps they will follow through this time after all the false alarms and stories released to the press that have never happened. Hopefully there will also be a stone for Daniel.

Here is another quote that caught my eye;

What’s it like being a first-time father?

It’s tough. And I’m under a microscope. Everything I do is judged. When I first got Dannielynn, she loved to be held facing forward, so I would hold her that way. And I would go on the blogs, which I’ve leaned not to do, and people would say, “Larry doesn’t even know how to hold his baby!”

I have to agree with Larry. Public perception is everything when you make your living in the limelight. That’s why it’s pathetic when a public figure is caught lying. It ruins reputations and can result in loss of income.

Larry had a few things to say about Virgie Arthur. She is Dannielynn’s grandmother who has not been permitted to see the baby since Larry and Howard K. Stern became best buddies. Which is somewhat bizarre after the claims that Larry made against Howard during the burial hearings and to the Bahamian police department. Larry claims there is a custody battle between Virgie and himself in the Bahamas. Is there?

Larry also claims “You have these people fighting for your daughter trying to take money from her“. Very strong and unproven words about a woman who lost her daughter and grandson in the space of five months on your best buddy’s watch. Not nice Larry. Not nice at all.

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.)

As soon as Mr. Lin Wood signed on as Howard K. Stern’s attorney, he issued a statement that many [at that time] believed was meant to intimidate the media and bloggers into silence. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Web sites such as RoseSpeaks and The Bald Truth started researching anyone who publicly uttered damaging information about Howard K. Stern. No one was off limits. Not even Mr. Ford Shelly’s child. These web sites then published that information no matter how irrelevant or immaterial the “uncovered” information was. As long as it was damaging to the person, it was fair game. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Back in September of 2007, about 20 to 30 regular posters on TMZ were banned en mass at the same time for no discernable reason. “Butterfly” posted a comment that she was asked to compile a list of names of those posters who were “anti-stern”. She said that she subsequently did so and, “poof” they were gone. That’s a “chilling effect”.

I know that Kerry and I were warned by Rose Turner after she misidentified us, that we were now “fair game” as limited public officials. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Both Mr. Harris and Ms. Turner published false information that the Magistrate presiding over the Bahamas inquest into the death of Daniel Smith had asked the public to identify themselves and that bloggers who did not do so might be arrested and sent to jail. The only motivation that I can even begin to imagine was that they did not want anyone to attend a public hearing into the death of an American citizen in a foreign country. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Mr. J. Nazarian, the private investigator for Mr. Howard K. Stern began to openly post comments on numerous websites read and visited by bloggers interested in the story. Suffice to say that his posts were not warm, fuzzy vignettes about life as a P.I. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Someone stole the contents of garbage cans from in front of the home of Wilma Vicedomine who is involved in Mrs. Arthur’s legal defense. Mr. Harris bragged that pictures of the garbage might soon be available via his website and Mr. Nazarian wrote about the contents in a post. That’s a “chilling effect”.

Professionals used their state licenses to obtain personal information and then posted that information on public message boards and internet sites. That’s a “chilling effect.”

But the one that bothers me the most is the constant refrain from Rose Turner, Art Harris, J. Nazarian and members of her site that “we have your IP information and we know who you are. That is not just a “chilling effect”. That’s an, I’m going to scared the hell out of you effect.

Kerry and I wanted to write an article titled “Share & Compare” exploring the possibility that information was exchanged between site owners and then turned over to legal representatives of Mr. Stern. We reached out to many of you and asked that you share your personal story with us. The response was overwhelming and frankly a bit frightening.

I was deeply troubled by the universal belief that an orchestrated attempt had been made to stifle free speech and to scare citizens into silence. Because so many of you took the situation so seriously, I decided to do no less. It was obvious that a short article was not going to suffice. So instead Kerry and I began to research, ask questions and prepare a detailed analysis of the issues involved.

I reached out to QV and asked if she would be willing to provide a forum to discuss what did and did not happen. What the legal ramifications are. Why it is important. And whether or not there is any available redress for those who feel victimized by this whole mess.

Hopefully we will all learn what the legal limits are. The moral limits are the responsibility of the individual.

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [1]

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution guarantees four freedoms: freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. With these words The Founding Fathers sought to establish a government under which its citizens could speak and write freely without fear of reprisal. The dictionary defines “speech” as “the faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words”[2]

The French Historian and writer, Voltaire famously articulated the philosophy behind the principle of free speech in the 1700′s with these words, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire understood that if someone can be censored today for expressing an unpopular idea, then tomorrow you or I could suffer the same fate.

As early as 1644, John Milton spoke of the supreme significance of free speech in society when he said, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”[3]

In 1689 the English Parliament secured a Bill of Rights from the Monarchs William and Mary. One of the rights that they fought to obtain was the “freedom of speech in Parliament.” Under our Constitution that freedom was taken further and granted to all citizens.

George Washington himself addressed the issue of Free Speech stating,

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we maybe led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

The fact that “freedom of speech” is contained in the first amendment to the Constitution is no accident. President Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this principle in his inaugural address in 1801 stressing that censorship should never be used as a means to change pubic opinion. Instead he argued that Reason is the only legitimate tool.

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

In “The First Freedom,” Nat Hentoff quotes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson:

“I am really mortified that the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry, too. Are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold and what we may buy? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched?”

In an address to the Congress during World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt reiterated the importance of free speech. He spoke of his desire that the four freedoms articulated in the First Amendment to the Constitution be expanded and embraced throughout the world.

“We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression-everywhere in the world.”

More recently Salman Rushdie fourth novel, “The Satanic Verses, published in 1988 led to violent protest in several Muslim countries and a fatwa issued against him by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then the Supreme Leader of Iran. This religious edict called for Mr. Rushdie’s death and as a consequence he was forced to live in hiding for nearly a decade.[4] In spite of this, Mr. Rushdie is unwavering in his defense of Free Speech saying,

“Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.”

The Foundation of Free Speech in the Fight for American Independence

In order to understand how important the framers of the constitution and the courts viewed the right of anonymous speech one must look to the historical media prevalent at the time. Before the advent of electronic communications ideas and opinions were expressed through speeches, books and pamphleteering. .

Historically, a pamphlet is a small unbound booklet or leaflet comprised of a few pages loosely stitched together. They were brief and written in such a style that they were easily understood by the masses. They were sold very cheaply and used to disseminate information and as a means for the expression of opinions on the important issues of the day. Pamphlets usually had large printings and wide circulation. They could be read aloud, discussed and passed from one person to another. “Pamphlets became a significant means of mass communication and an essential vehicle for carrying on political debates in colonial America.”[5]

George Orwell a prolific pamphleteer wrote,

“The pamphlet is a one-man show. One has complete freedom of expression, including, if one chooses, the freedom to be scurrilous, abusive, and seditious; or, on the other hand, to be more detailed, serious and “high-brow” than is ever possible in a newspaper or in most kinds of periodicals…”[6]

Pamphleteering enjoyed its greatest success and popularity during the 17th and 18th centuries. Pamphlets were widely used as a means of political dissent and debate during the English Civil War and the American and French Revolutions. They were also a common tool employed to spread the ideas of the Enlightenment. During this time period writers such as Joseph Addison, Richard Steele, and Jonathan Swift produced numerous pamphlets. The French Revolution was fiercely debated among intellectuals in England; Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France 1790, a vehement denunciation of the revolt, was answered by Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man 1791-92, addressed to working people, which became the most widely read work of its time.[7]

“From pamphlets may be learned the genius of the age, the debates of the learned, the bevues of government, and mistakes of the courtiers. . . . they carry a reputation of wit and learning to allthat make them their companions.”[8]

It was in this form — as pamphlets — that much of the most important writings and ideas were disseminated during the American Revolution. The use of the pamphlet allowed one to do things that were not possible in any other form. They were used by many to express a heated personification of the larger conflicts and issues of the times. This would then result in a contentious serious of individual exchanges through pamphlets — arguments, replies, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. These characteristically proceeded with increasing shrillness until it ended in bitter personal vituperation. First and foremost, the American pamphleteers, were amateurs and it is this amateurism, this lack of practiced technique that explains much of the crudeness of the Revolutionary pamphlets.[9]

In 1776, American writer and human rights advocate Thomas Paine published a radical pamphlet called, ‘Common Sense’. This pamphlet is the most coherent statement to date of American independence views and historical scholars believe that its writing and dissemination changed the course of history in the United States.[10]

A very important feature of pamphleteering was that the author could remain anonymous if they chose to do so. Even if the writer(s) of the pamphlet claimed authorship of the document they could escape retaliation by the Crown and its representatives because of the ‘on the run’ nature of publishing that the pamphleteer employed. The role of anonymous pamphleteers in the building of our nation has been recognized by the highest court in the land.

“Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.”[11]

Free Speech = Anonymous Speech

While most of us are aware from basic American Civic classes that the Constitution contains an amendment guaranteeing the right to free speech, when talking to many of you it was apparent that the right to “anonymous speech” was not fully understood by everyone. The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. In fact, “…all of the Federalist Papers were signed by Publius, a pseudonym representing the trio of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay .”[12] Anonymity of speech is important because without it a person(s) would hesitate to say certain things or expose unpopular ideas for fear of retribution.

The courts have consistently upheld the concept that free speech and anonymous speech are bound together and protected under the constitution. Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment.

1919

The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” [13]

1974

Don’t underestimate the common man. People are intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous writing. They cansee it is anonymous. They know it is anonymous. They can evaluate its anonymity along with its message, as long as they are permitted, as they must be, to read that message. And then, once they have done so,it is for them to decide what is `responsible’, what is valuable, and what is truth.[14]

1978

“Inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.”[15]

1995

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. [16]

1999

“People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law. This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate.” [17]

Limits on Free Speech

United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary.[18] The courts have ruled that both state and federal governments have the right to enact statues that limit certain narrowly defined types of speech but these limits are very specific and the courts have generally been reluctant to impede the free exercise of speech.

Unlike many other democracies the government in the United States of America is expressly forbidden from restricting speech. Court rulings that involve limitations on the free exchange of ideas and thoughts have broadly followed the philosophy that reason and free speech should prevail over fear and censorship.

“Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”[19]

Our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.[20]

Though government cannot regulate the content of speech it has an obligation to its citizens to provide remedy for parties that sustained injury as a result of such thing as defamation and hate speech. Through time the judicial system has developed a body of law to specifically address these issues. That is why suits such as defamation and libel are civil torts and not criminal. Laws regarding defamation only apply to specific individuals who have been victimized by the acts of others. The Courts have struggled to find a balance between the constitutional right to speak freely and anonymously with the right to secure legal redress through civil litigation.

Simply put if someone says something that isn’t true about another person and as a result of that false statement the person is “injured”, then that person has the right to seek legal redress through the court system. The courts will rule on liability and award money to address the damages incurred. In the context of what has been happening in this saga, it is of utmost importance to remember that a process has been established through the courts to address these issues precisely because of the value that the courts and society place on freedom of speech. Those that seek a way to circumvent the process do a great injustice to the very foundation of our constitution and the courts.

Free Speech on the Internet Where the internet is concerned case law is new, but the courts have held that the right to speak freely includes the liberty of anonymous speech on the Internet. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, was the first major Supreme Court ruling regarding the regulation of materials distributed via Internet. The Court voted to strike down anti-obscenity provisions of the Communications Decency Act (the “CDA”), finding they violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment..[21] In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high court decided,

“Notwithstanding the legitimacy and importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from harmful materials, we agree with the three-judge district court that the statute abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.”

The court further stated that a speaker on the Internet is the modern-day equivalent of a pamphleteer.

Through the use of [online] chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.[22]

Other courts have also recognized and affirmed that the right to speak anonymously without retribution and censor extends to speech on the Internet. In ACLU v. Johnson the court extended the right to anonymous free speech to the Internet.[23] In a 2000 case the court stated that,

“To fail to recognize that the First Amendment right to speak anonymously should be extended to communications on the Internet would require this Court to ignore either United States Supreme Court precedent or the realities of speech in the twenty-first century” [24]

Although the case was later reversed on other grounds the court found in America Online, Inc, v Anonymous Publicly Traded Co. that, “Inherent in First Amendment protections is the right to speak anonymously in diverse contexts,” including on the Internet.” [25] America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 2001 Va. LEXIS 38 (Va. S. Ct., Mar. 2, 2001)

The Constitution Also Protects Our Freedom of Association on the Internet. The ability to bring people together who share a common interest and to provide a means for them to communicate with each other is one of the most valuable tools that the Internet has provided to modern society. Message boards and chat rooms create a community or association of people and forum in which they can come together regardless of geographical locations the exchange and debates ideas in their common area of interest.

The Supreme Court has recognized the synergy of freedom of speech and assembly.

“[T]he practice of persons sharing common views banding together to achieve a common end is deeply embedded in the American political process. The 18th-century Committees of Correspondence and the pamphleteers were early examples of this phenomena and the Federalist Papers were perhaps the most significant and lasting example.[26]

The court ruled that the release of a membership list violated the constitutional right to freedom of association.[27] In Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee the held unconstitutional a subpoena intended for us in discovery of alleged co-conspirators by compelling the release from the NAACP of its member’s identities. [28] The U.S. Supreme Court in Gibson affirmed the importance of protecting citizens from having their private associations disclosed through the use of a subpoena in a civil case.

It is particularly important that the exercise of the power of compulsory process be carefully circumscribed when [it] tends to impinge upon such highly sensitive areas of freedom of speech. . . freedom of . association, and freedom of communication of ideas.How does this apply to the current litigation and threats of litigation

We’ve already shown that the American tradition of protecting and honoring anonymous speech can be traced back to the Founding Fathers of our country through the use of pamphleteering and that the courts have ruled that the internet in analogous to that.

Many people chose to communicate their ideas and opinions on line using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). “[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously,”[29] yet in the internet we rely on Web sites or ISPs to protect our anonymity so when should our ISPs be turned over to a defendant or his attorney during the discovery process in civil litigation? Ann Beeson, Staff Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union has stated that, “unless online anonymity is protected, whistleblowers who want to criticize their employers, parents who want to criticize the principal of their children’s school – and many others – may be afraid to speak out. That would be a loss for our country.”[30]

In terms of civil suits that would involve the “unmasking” of anonymous posters on the internet the courts have determined that strict procedural safeguards must be imposed “as a means of ensuring that plaintiffs do not use discovery procedures to ascertain the identities of unknown defendants in order to harass, intimidate or silence critics in the public forum opportunities presented by the Internet.”[31]

Following this procedure a litigant must first apply to the court for a subpoena seeking the identity of the individual whose statements are the subject of the suit. This safeguard was put in place because the courts found that, “Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns”.[32]

Accordingly, “the constitutional rights of Internet users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded.”[33] Otherwise, “[i]f Internet users could be stripped of that anonymity by a civil subpoena enforced under the liberal rules of civil discovery, this would have a significant chilling effect on Internet communications and thus on basic First Amendment rights.” [34]

By Kerry and Einy

[2] “Speech.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition 2000.

Dictionary.com. 19 April 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=speech

[3] Areopagitica: a Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing to the Parliament of England

[4] Salman Rushdie, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

[5] US History Encyclopedia: Pamphleteering http://www.answers.com/topic/pamphlet

[6] George Orwell, (“Introduction”, in George Orwell and Reginald Reynolds, eds., British Pamphleteers):

[7] [Pamphlet From the Hutchinson Encyclopedia of World History. © Research Machines plc [2006] All

Rights Reserved, Helicon Publishing is a division of Research Machines.]

[8] [Myles Davis, Icon Libellorum (1715), as quoted in H.L. Mencken, A New Dictionary of Quotations

on historical principles from Ancient and Modern Sources 883 (Knopf ed. 1991) (1942).]

[9] Bernard Bailyn’s “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution”. published in 1967,

[10] [Robert C. Berring, Deconstructing the Law Library: The Wisdom of Meredith Willson,

89 Minn. L. Rev. 1381, 1405 (2005)].

[11] And as the Supreme Court stated in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960):

[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonymity

[13] (Abrams v. United States, [250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting)]).

[14] New York v. Duryea, 76 Misc. 2d 948, 966-967, 351 N. Y. S. 2d 978, 996 (1974)

[15] First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)

[16] McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995)

[17] Columbia Insurance Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

[18] Freedom of speech, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

[19] Justice Louis Brandeis opined in Whitney v. California in 1927,

[20] Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630-31 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

[21] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)

[22] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)

[23] ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999)

[24] re Subpoena Duces Tecum to America Online, Inc., 52 Va. Cir. 26, 34 (Va. Cir. 2000)

[25] America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 2001 Va. LEXIS 38 (Va. S. Ct., Mar. 2, 2001)

[26] Citizens Aginst Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290, 294 (1981):

[27] NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 466 (1958)

[28] Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539, 558 (1963)

[29] http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

[30] http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/20020711_eff_pr.html

[31] Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 771 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2001).

[32] Sony Music Entertainment v. Does, 326 F.Supp.2d 556, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

[33] Doe v. 2themart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2001).

[34] 2theMart.com, at 1093 http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Speech:_Anonymity

****Anyone can comment. Need not be registered. But if anyone attacks another poster, the authors or the site owner, your comment will be removed without warning.