There are a few more tidbits to share about the unethical Judge Robert Perry who presided over the trial of Howard K. Stern, Khristine Eroshevich and Sandeep Kapoor that took place last summer. It was the trial that was supposed to shed some light and hold those responsible who illegally obtained drugs for Anna Nicole Smith. Those same drugs ultimately led to her death.

Judge Perry conducted himself as if there should be celebrity exceptions to the law. In his court room, if you are a celebrity, you can break laws that us common folk would be incarcerated for. This is even if what you do is instrumental in killing someone.

Think of the following scenario as compared to the trial and charges against the defendants;

There are four people in a car. Two people decide to commit an armed robbery. The other two supplied the gun and want to stay in the car and watch. The cops come and arrest the robbers. Not only do they arrest the ones who actually committed the robbery, they also arrest and charge the two who sat in the car and made the gun available to commit the robbery. They are arraigned and go to trial. All four are sent to prison even though no one died because of their actions. That is how the law is supposed to and does work if there is no interference. Those two who sat in the car could have chosen not to supply the gun and they could have gotten out of the car as soon as they saw a robbery was being planned. However they did not so all four serve prison time for robbery and being  accomplices to robbery.

Now take the same scenario and make the two in the back seat into celebrities (or leeches of celebrities or call themselves a celebrity doctor) who stayed in the car. In Judge Robert Perry’s court, those two walk free, just because they are “celebrities.” Instead of  holding an ethical trial as was done in the first scenario, the judge does his very best to befriend the defendants, admonish the prosecution plus go to extreme lengths to throw out all of their evidence and do a 180′ from the preliminary hearing.

As I watch a bit of the Michael Jackson trial, I see a normal trial as it should be in Los Angeles California. When the judge calls for recess, he leaves the courtroom and goes to his chambers like an ethical judge is supposed to. He does not scooche his chair over to schmooze with the defendants at their table.  Mainstream media does not seem to be frightened off by a Lin Wood/Steven Sadow type lawyer as they were in the Anna Nicole Smith criminal trial. It does not appear that Michael Jackson’s mother is barred from going into the court room until the exact time that court is to reconvene. It does not appear that the judge is excessively throwing out the prosecutions evidence.  And I bet we will also see that the jury will be respected and their verdicts will not be overruled by a biased Judge.

“Court Room Observer”, from the previous article about the trial said they had never seen a trial where the jury was told to leave the court room so many times as the Anna Nicole Smith trial jurors were. They even overheard a producer of a very prominent hit television show whose job it is to cover many high profile cases say THE SAME THING! Yet that jury was still able to convict two of the defendants on the tiny bit of evidence that they actually heard! Anyone can imagine what would have happened if the jurors were permitted to stay in the room and hear even half of what Judge Perry barred. They also recount one instance where Judge Perry sent the jury out of the room and they were kept out for the better part of an hour while Perry attacked and scolded the district attorneys. Sadow was also permitted to scream at and scold the prosecution team. It was just too outrageous.

There was someone else who attended the trial who left a comment on the first article recently and has given me permission to publish it on this post.  Unfortunately, I missed this important email sent at the end of August 2010. I want to thank them for coming to the back to the blog and sharing this with us.

I attended the trial for a few days as well. (I emailed QV when it was fresh in my memory but she never replied). Mrs. Arthur was not present (at that time) but I did notice quite a bit of what I felt was bias on the part of the judge. He seemed bedazzled by the defense attorneys, especially Kapoor’s and Sterns. Not only was he downright rude to the prosecutors and all smiles to the defense, but I felt his rulings were all for the defense . He ripped into the male prosecutor (outside of the jury’s presence) and told him he was taking too much time and he wanted to know where his questioning was going. He also told him that he felt he had a weak case. This was in reference to the testimony of Dr Gagne, I felt the questioning was very pertinent.
Dr Erosovich was very chummy with Linda Deutsh, as was Dr. Kapoor’s lawyer. Erosovich was showing her photos on her cell phone of her mother which Linda promptly ooohed and ahhhed over.. I’ve never been to a trial where the media is interacting with the defendant like this, and I’ve been to many. In my opinion, Judge Perry should not be presiding over a courtroom.

If the Anna Nicole Smith trial would have been televised as the Michael Jackson – Dr. Murray trial is, the public would have been outraged. However Perry most certainly knows what he did is unethical and apparently does not care. It was his decision not to allow the public to see what they should have seen. Most likely he would not have conducted himself in the manner that he did and the jury’s verdict would have been different and allowed to stand.

September  20th, 2011. Prosecutors in the Anna Nicole Smith drug trial have filed an appeal on that case saying Judge Robert Perry was biased toward the defendants and their attorneys and against the prosecution. They said that Perry created a celebrity exception to the law.

I’ve had the opportunity to speak to someone who actually attended the Anna Nicole Smith trial concerning the drugs that led to her death. Defendants Howard K. Stern, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Dr. Sandeep Kapoor were charged with excessive prescribing of opiates and sedatives to an addict, and fraudulently obtaining drugs by using false names.

I will call this person, “Courtroom Observer”. Courtroom Observer did not attend the whole trial but gave their take on what really happened in Judge Robert Perry’s courtroom during the time they attended.

The first day of the trial, as soon as Anna’s mother, Virgie Arthur, arrived, Howard K. Stern’s lawyer Steve Sadow asked to approach the judge privately. When Sadow sat back down, Judge Perry made an announcement, before anything happened to warrant such a warning, that anyone caught making comments or bothering the defendants in any way would be removed from the courtroom.

As the trial moved forward, when the court recessed for breaks and lunch, there were times that Mrs. Arthur would return early. She went directly into courtroom and sat until court was called back into session so as to avoid the large crowds in the hallways.

About 4 or 5 days into the trial, there was a break. When Mrs. Arthur returned to the courtroom a little early, she and her family were shocked to find Judge Perry, the defendants and their attorneys having a conversation about boating and vacation spots etc.. Judge Robert Perry had wheeled his chair over to the defendants table in order to have a more intimate conversation. James Arthur, Virgie’s husband commented, “there will be no justice here.” However, Mrs. Arthur remained optimistic.

The next day, after lunch, when Mr. and Mrs. Arthur and those who were with them attempted to enter the courtroom as they had since the beginning of the trial, a deputy stopped them at the door and informed them that they were no longer permitted to enter the courtroom early. The deputy then said Anna’s mother and her husband had to wait until exactly 1:30 pm to enter.

It was then very apparent that Judge Perry, who runs the courtroom, and the defendants and their lawyers didn’t want Anna Nicole’s mother and husband to see Perry socializing with them. The disturbing part was that the media and press that were attending were permitted to enter early. The media was let in but Anna’s mother and family were left sitting in the hallway. It remained that way until Mrs. Arthur had to fly back home for health reasons. The deputy was asked why the media, the defendants and their attorneys were allowed to go in early. His answer was, “well, it’s because they are the media.”

The prosecutors had extensive evidence against these defendants, but time and time again Judge Perry would not allow them to present it. His rational was that the evidence was “too inflammatory to the defendants.” You did not have to be a lawyer to know that the prosecutors were simply doing their jobs and that was to present the evidence, and let the jury hear the full story no matter how inflammatory it was especially when it was facts as presented to law enforcement during the extensive investigation.

There were times when Anna’s mother and family asked the prosecutors why they could not get a new judge to replace Perry who was so obviously biased toward the defendants. Their answer was frightening as they said “Judge Robert Perry is not the worst judge in this courthouse.”

Judge Perry made it clear from the start of the trial that he did not believe the defendants did anything wrong and at times Perry even made objections for the defense. There was so much more that may never be known because most of the prosecutors evidence was thrown out by Perry.

When the prosecutors attempted to refresh a witnesses memory as to what they reported to investigators and testified to previously, the judge would abort their testimony and say, he/she said “they don’t remember, now move on!” Or he would again say “its too inflammatory.”

One day there was a video of Anna Nicole that the prosecutors wanted to use. Perry said he would take it home and watch it and then decide if it could be shown to the jury. When the subject of the video came up while court was in session, Judge Perry said, with Anna Nicole’s mother in the courtroom, that he had watched it and he thought Anna was very entertaining in her “voluptuous” kind of way.  Anna Nicole being “voluptuous” was not the point or reason why the prosecutors wanted to show the video. It was very inappropriate for Judge Perry to speak this way about evidence presented.

Over and over Judge Perry stopped the prosecutors from trying their case. They tried their best to get important evidence and testimony admitted, but Perry was not allowing the majority of it. Perry would say it was either hearsay, inflammatory,or irrelevant.

One of the most disturbing things witnessed was when “Big Moe”, Maurice Brighthaupt was testifying. Moe had been saying “everyone agreed Anna Nicole needed rehab, but no one ever did anything about it.” In other words Moe was saying, they all admitted that Anna Nicole Smith was an addict and needed intervention. Eroshevich and her lawyer Brad Brunon were sitting immediately in front of Mrs. Arthur and family. Brunon looked at Eroshevich and sang,“They wanted her to go to rehab but she said no no no.” Brunon and Eroshevich giggled like schoolchildren. It made one wonder if it was their daughter who was the subject of the trial, if they would find it so funny.

After Judge Perry threw out the jury verdicts, Los Angeles D.A. Steve Cooley had this to say:

“The jury deliberated more than two weeks and reached a fair and thorough verdict in accordance with the law and the evidence we were allowed to present.  Judge Perry’s ruling today is totally inconsistent with his previous rulings at the preliminary hearing, the trial itself and once again when the defense concluded their case. Each time, he refused to dismiss the conspiracy counts. The evidence has not changed from that time to now,” said Cooley.”

“His decision denigrates the substantial investigative efforts conducted by the state Department of Justice and the Medical Board,” said the L.A. District Attorney’s office in a statement. “It diminishes the huge social problem of prescription drug abuse facilitated by irresponsible caretakers and unscrupulous medical professionals …We will immediately pursue all appellate remedies to overturn Judge Perry’s decision.”

* Note. This is the same Judge Perry who appointed himself as a jury of one in the Oscar Grant killing. Basically Perry was saying the jury was stupid like he implied in the Anna Nicole Smith farce of a trial.

June 23rd, 2011

Well now, does this mean that the late Anna Nicole Smith’s daughter will no longer be paraded around on television and in magazines to garner public sympathy for Howard K. Stern and Larry Birkhead’s dream to acquire half of the late J. Howard Marshall’s fortune?

What about the criminal and civil lawyers who Stern pledged part of his future 6% cut to? They gambled and lost.

My personal opinion? I think after J. Howard passed away, his wife Anna Nicole Smith should have gotten something, perhaps a few million, but half the Marshall fortune? No.

It was a close race but as legal pundits have written for years, the case would have had dire consequences on our judicial system confusing the courts and powers of probate vs bankruptcy courts and blurring the  lines of core vs non core proceedings. Our country is in too much trouble to be altering our constitution for the benefit of the few rich who have special interests and want to change the rules and all those who hang on their coat tails.

In the majority, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito affirm the 9th circuit decision. Justice’s Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayer and Kagan dissenting.

Congratulations to the Marshall family. Their struggle is finally over.

Thanks to SheStone for the link to the final decision.  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-179.pdf

Who is “Only swim in the Ocean?”

Bloggers who have followed the Anna Nicole saga since her death in 2007 and discussed the various related lawsuits on websites ranging from Crime Library, Websleuths and  Topix to TMZ.com will probably recognize the moniker as the person who posts glowing accolades about Howard K. Stern and Larry Birkhead while he oozes angry diatribe about those associated with Anna Nicole’s mother.

By all appearances “Swims” only blogs on TMZ.com, the large celebrity gossip website managed by Harvey Levin. “Swims” appears to feel very comfortable on TMZ.

Perhaps that is because many thought Levin was in bed, so to speak with Howard K. Stern and Larry Birkhead as they sought to control Anna Nicole’s body and assets even though it’s been said that Smith fled to the Bahamas to get away from Birkhead. Does anyone remember when Anna Nicole first died that Levin was critical about Stern on television but miraculously became a supporter of Stern, Birkhead and others?

Levin and TMZ, Stern and Birkhead were also sued by Mrs. Arthur for libel, but after the unexpected death of late Houston Texas attorney John O’Quinn, her benefactor, and the winding up of his affairs, the suit had to be concluded. Neil McCabe was the lead attorney for Mrs. Arthur.

The person known to most of us as “Swims” has been very daring and open  in his/her hate filled postings slamming the grieving mother of Anna Nicole Smith. So daring, that this posters hatred had spread to Mrs. Arthur’s legal advisers with this “Swims” character over a long period of time openly accusing Mr. McCabe of theft, editing evidence, suborned perjury and bribery.

Neil C. McCabe   PLAINTIFF

vs

John Doe aka Swims   DEFENDANT

Filed June 3rd, 2011

http://qvsplace.com/Neil_C_McCabe_vs_John_Doe_aka_Swims.pdf

*Mr. McCabe has founded The McCabe Law Firm which can be found at http://ncmlegal.com

Investigation Discovery will air its “True Crime with Aphrodite Jones”, “The Death of Anna Nicole Smith” tonight at 10:00 pm est.

The online promotions list  three “confidants” of Anna Nicole Smith who will appear on the show. One is Ray Martino, a D-list movie producer and the man who Anna Nicole left her son Daniel with when she fled the U.S. to live in the Bahamas. The second is Gerlene Gibson who was Dannielynn Birkhead‘s nanny in the Bahamas for a short time.  And we can’t forget Larry Birkhead, the baby daddy who is shown emoting in preview clips as he reminisces about his turbulent relationship with the late model and actress.

However one guest has not been mentioned online and that will be retired FBI Houston, Texas Bureau Chief, Mr. Don Clark.

Mr. Clark worked for the late billionaire attorney John O’Quinn as an Investigative Strategist and Jury Consultant after his service to the FBI. O’Quinn along with his senior counsel and personal adviser, Texas attorney Neil McCabe, represented Anna Nicole’s mother Virgie Arthur in various legal actions. The first being in February 2007 when Mrs. Arthur attempted to claim her unmarried deceased daughter’s body.

All in all, the show promises to be very interesting as the three mentioned guests are friendly with Anna Nicole’s attorney Howard K. Stern.

Mr. Clark, is in opposition of the three guests and in support of Mrs. Arthur who believes her daughter and grandson were victims of foul play. She also predicted her own daughters death as she tried to warn her after grandson Daniel  Smith, who was not a drug addict, died from pills that he did not enter the Bahamas with in his possession.

Mrs Arthur reaching out via the airwaves to her daughter Anna Nicole Smith, October 12, 2006 on the Nancy Grace Show:

Vickie Lynn, you know I love you, always have. Be very careful about who you hang around with, because you may be next.

And indeed she was…

Dr. Sandeep Kapoor thought he would lend his support during the (non) sentencing of his co-defendants Howard K. Stern and (hand tap) Khristine Eroshevich in the Anna Nicole Smith drug trial. Surprise, he was served with a subpoena for a separate case.

Eroshevich next? I certainly hope so and then the California Bar Association needs to take a look at ethical issues concerning Stern.  Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Perry’s reasoning for dismissing charges against Stern is shocking. Perry dismissed the felony charges against Howard K. Stern saying,

“I don’t think there’s evidence that a layperson knows it’s illegal to write a prescription in another name for a celebrity,” the judge said, noting that Stern is not a doctor..

Puhlease! He is a lawyer. He has a law degree. Add to that, how many criminals say, “I didn’t know that I was doing anything wrong.” As far as I know, ignorance is not an acceptable defense in a REAL courtroom.

Judge Perry was not scheduled to try this case but somehow he ended up with it. Seeing that he expressed his personal opinion and support for the defendants about the case during the preliminary hearing, he should have recused himself before the trial even started. He did not allow important evidence and refused the victim and her family a fair trial. I am told Anna Nicole’s mother was not consulted about the final outcome as she should have been under California’s Marsy’s Law, The Victim’s Bill of Rights Act of 2008.

Perry also said he did not agree that Smith was an addict. Yes, Anna Nicole Smith was a SELF ADMITTED ADDICT.

As far as celebrities being above the law, Judge Perry obviously agrees. What a good judge would do is encourage stiff penalties for any HIPAA medical privacy violations. Judge Perry should encourage that laws be upheld and not the violation of laws as he is condoning in this case.

Judge Perry overstepped. He ignored advice to trust the jury and made a sham of their good work and lengthy deliberations. There is more to come on this. As has been said before, Perry threw out a lot of damning evidence that should have been allowed to be presented to the jury. Details about some of this behavior is in the pipeline to be revealed and hopefully can be published in the not so distant future.

Now, the California Medical Board is coming after Sandeep Kapoor. What a lot of people may not know is that Kapoor, who once placed an advertisement boasting that he practices, “Entertainment Medicine”, was under investigation for prescribing practices with other patients. When the California Department of Justice looked into the Anna Nicole case they found that Kapoor excessively prescribing controlled substances for other than a legitimate medical purpose to nine other patients. The details can be found in this document and starting on page 36. A companion document can be found at this link.

Here is a taste of what Kapoor over prescribed in the opinion of doctors and investigators with some of the amounts being labeled as “massive”. There are least a couple of celebrity names in the document as well.

Patient #1
Patient’s mother, a registered nurse filed a complaint with the CA medical board against Kapoor for what she thought was excessive and dangerous prescribing practices with her daughter.
Phentermine (Schedule IV weight loss)
Clonazepam (Schedule IV sedative)
Oxycodone (Schedule II narcotic)
Methadone (Schedule II narcotic)

Patient #2
Dextrostat (Schedule II amphetamine)
Methadone (Schedule II narcotic)
Morphine Sulfate (Schedule II narcotic)
Endocet (Schedule II  narcotic)

Patient #3
Methadone (Schedule II narcotic)
Hydrocodone (Schedule III narcotic)

Patient #4
Hydrocodone Bitartrate (Schedule III narcotic)

Patient #5
This person has a criminal record as a controlled substance offender.
Hydromorphone (Schedule II narcotic)
Methadone (Schedule II narcotic)
Oxycontin (Schedule II narcotic)

Patient #6
Methadone (Schedule II narcotic)
Adderall (Schedule II stimulant)

Patient #7
Ritalin (Schedule II stimulant)
Adderall (Schedule II stimulant)

Patient #8
Oxycontin (Schedule II narcotic)
Oxycodone (Schedule II narcotic)
Hydrocodone (Schedule II narcotic)

Patient #9
Methadone (Schedule II narcotic)
Oxycontin (Schedule II narcotic)

With the publication of Khristine Eroshevich snorting a white power substance from a straw and the bath tub pictures of the psychiatrist and Anna Nicole, her patient,  I expect the CA Medical Board has a surprise for her too.

I also want to mention as I watched the post “sentencing” interviews, I saw two lawyers either lying or they were misinformed by their clients.

Stern attorney Steve Sadow has said repeatedly that Anna Nicole Smith has suffered from chronic pain her whole life. Not true. A source close to the family denies that claim. Also offered is that Smith did not suffer seizures as a child or young woman. Robert S. Fisher, M.D of epilepsy.com has published a partial list of drugs that will actually cause seizures. Just a glance at his list shows that Smith was on some of the drugs that will cause seizures. Was she ever tested to see why she suffered seizures?

Eroshevich’s attorney Brad Brunon said Eroshevich acknowledges that “she could have done things differently and perhaps better.”

“Dr. Eroshevich accepts this and would rewrite history if she could,” said the motion, calling it her only inappropriate action in a 30-year medical career.

Either she lied to her attorney or he is lying. In 2007 columnist Roger Freidman was the first to expose the fact that Eroshevich had been fired from her job with a medical group because she farmed out the work instead of doing it herself.

Freidman also said,

We told you “Entertainment Tonight” and “The Insider” paid her for interviews as part of a complex deal cooked up by Howard K. Stern. And then, on one of those shows, Eroshevich showed off another drug memo for Anna Nicole and bragged that she had administered all the drugs to the late Playboy Playmate herself.

If that was not an admission of guilt, I don’t know what is…

**A couple of great articles about the horrible behavior of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Perry.

Attorney Janice Brenman says “Celebrity justice dismissal in Anna Nicole Smith case insults America’s jury system.” Click here to read.

Crookston Times Editor Natalie J. Ostgaard says; “Judges shouldn’t be able to toss out verdicts on a whim.” Click here to read.

True to his word, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Perry made sure that Howard K. Stern walked away unscathed in spite of a jury convicting Stern on two felony counts in the conspiracy drug trial of Stern, psychiatrist Eroshevich and Dr. Sandeep Kapoor.

Perry set aside the jury’s verdict today. Before that and during the trial, Perry obliterated all the evidence even going as far as to censor quotes made to investigators with the excuse that the actual words used were too inflammatory.

Judge Perry said that Stern did not intend to break the law. Once again, Stern is an attorney.

Eroshevich is the only one who got her hand lightly smacked for supplying the drugs that eventually killed Anna Nicole Smith. Most of them were in Stern’s name. Eroshevich got her charges reduced to a misdemeanor. She was fined $100 and ordered to serve a “short time” on probation.

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

Up next! The Marshall case!

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

**Update from the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.
Albert Einstein

The late attorney and philanthropist John O’Quinn may have lived by those words until his untimely death. Although some say he was merely lining his own pockets, O’Quinn was a hero to many for his good works and charitable contributions to those who were victimized, hurt and in need.

His unexpected death October 29th, 2009 in a car accident, shocked the Texas legal community and signaled the end of an empire. O’Quinn’s will directed co-trustees of the O’Quinn Law Firm Trust  to “provide for the orderly winding up and dissolution” of the firm.

One by one, lawyers and other employees of the firm quietly found positions at other companies and in spite of statements professing a five year dissolution plan, the firm’s website went offline in late 2010.

Those who follow the Anna Nicole Smith story can only imagine how much of a hero Mr. O’Quinn was to her mother Virgie Arthur. O’Quinn undertook representation of Mrs. Arthur when Smith died and stood behind her until his own death.

Smith’s lawyer Howard K. Stern, sued O’Quinn for libel and the representation of Mrs. Arthur was eventually passed to law scholar and author*, attorney Neil McCabe.

McCabe, a full time law professor for twenty years taught criminal and constitutional law.  Mr. McCabe joined The O’Quinn Law Firm in 2003 and served as lead appellate lawyer, as well as a trial lawyer and senior counsel for Mr. O’Quinn.

McCabe was most recently involved in the successful representation of the Jerry Carswell case, along with Houston Texas attorneys Carl D. Shaw and Michael O’Brien. Defendant, Christus St. Catherine Hospital in Harris County Texas must pay $2 million dollars to the Carswell family for fraud.

Mr. McCabe expected to have “post-verdict matters” of the Carswell case wrapped up by 2010 years end, and is joining “The Leigh Law Firm” of Woodlands, Texas. McCabe actually taught both Leigh and his father at South Texas College of Law. Teaching two generations of law students from the same family is something he has done more than once. He also taught a mother and her daughter, at the same time.

In addition to the types of plaintiff cases that the Leigh Law Firm website talks about, McCabe expects to be handling other matters like wills, trusts, and estate issues. He also anticipates being involved again in the defense of persons who have been accused of crimes, something he had done for 20 years before joining the O’Quinn firm. He is also considering opening an additional office. The new firm would be his company separate from the Leigh firm and located on the 25th floor of the Lyric Center near his old office. However he would remain “of counsel” to the Leigh firm.

They say change is good but all good things must come to an end… Wishing the very best for success to Neil McCabe in his new ventures. His name and many others will be forever ingrained in the minds of those of us who followed the tragic deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel, and all that the story has produced…

*Books published by Neil McCabe; State Constitutional Criminal Procedure: Cases and Materials (with Catherine Greene Burnett), 1994; and Comparative Federalism in the Devolution Era, 2002.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Contacts:

Kay Debow (202) 553-7344

Former White House Officials File Bipartisan Amicus Brief in

Anna Nicole Smith Estate Case

Pending Supreme Court Case May Threaten Constitutional and Civil Rights

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Late yesterday, Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and David Rivkin, attorney who served in the administrations of both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, filed a bipartisan amicus brief on behalf of the National Black Chamber of Commerce with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Stern v. Marshall estate case to defend the constitutional rights of civil rights litigants in state courts.

“Drastically expanding the authority of specialty courts, which lack legal expertise or appropriate evidentiary procedure, infringes on the rights of individuals to a fair and fully heard case,” said Lanny Davis. “Shifting legitimate claims in matters of privacy, gender bias, gay rights and civil rights to bankruptcy courts – or any other specialty court – could allow for the usurpation of Article I courts’ authority and potentially violate minority litigants’ rights to due process.

“This is a truly unique case that appeals to even the extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum. The Justices have a rare opportunity to set binding legal precedent on the authority of state and federal courts versus specialty courts appeasing those on both the Right and the Left.”

Harry Alford, President at NBCC, added, “Here at the National Black Chamber we are dedicated to economically empowering and sustaining African American communities, something that may be jeopardized if this case sets precedence for uncertainty.  Therefore, Stern v. Marshall highlights the importance of maintaining the long-held tradition of allowing state and federal courts – who are constitutionally empowered to rule broadly on a variety of issues – to hear cases involving potential violation of civil rights.”

###

To speak with Mr. Alford or Mr. Davis please contact Kay Debow at (202) 553-7344.

The National Black Chamber of Commerce is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, nonsectarian organization dedicated to the economic empowerment of African American communities.  The goal of the NBCC is to sustain African American communities through entrepreneurship and capitalistic activity within the U.S. and via interaction with the Black Diaspora. The NBCC was incorporated in Washington, D.C. in March 1993, represents 95,000 Black-owned businesses, and provides an advocacy that reaches all 1 million Black owned businesses in the U.S.