September 7th 2009. Anna Nicole Smiths’ two Haitian nannies, Quethlie Alexis and Nadine Alexie who had explosive things to say about Howard K. Stern and how he treated Anna Nicole Smith back in 2007 are supposed to be in California today to testify in the Anna Nicole Smith drug trial.

Below are videos of a series of interviews by a Bahamian man who called himself Mr. Controversy. And indeed he was. After more attention was given to what the two nannies saw in Anna Nicole’s household, Lincoln Bain and a Bahamian attorney Elizabeth Thompson took the two ladies under their wing. And as has been happening with almost every prosecution witness… well, lets just see what they have to say.

Last week Ford Shelley who was supposed to be a friend of Anna Nicole Smiths did yet another flip flop and cried like a baby about how Howard K. Stern should  not be a defendant.  I guess it doesn’t matter that Stern took a $900,000 house from him. Shelley gave interviews before arriving in California saying that he was worried about testifying because he did not want to be sued by Stern. The fact of the matter is that Shelley and his whole family are already being sued by Howard K. Stern as executor of Anna Nicole’s estate.

If that does not take the cake I don’t know what does. Stern maneuvers and gets possession of an almost million dollar mansion FOR FREE from the Shelley-Thompson family but Stern is suing the family for what they say was “taking Anna Nicole’s possessions for safe keeping”. Shelly claims that Anna Nicole asked them to do this in the event of her death.

I hope the jury is told those facts because it definitely should be shown as an influence in Shelley’s testimony. On the other hand, Shelley’s sister in law Melanie Thompson was said to give some damaging testimony against the defendants although the defendants reporter Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press didn’t give too many details.

By the time I found these videos in 2007, they had been edited by Bain. However they still contain some unfavorable accusations against Howard K. Stern.
Here are the links for three more videos of what the nannies had to say.

*Update*. According to Deutsch and the AP, Quethlie Alexie is telling the truth. Doosh is making a big deal that family members were brought along and one nanny asked to be relocated after her testimony. If you will see in the videos above, the women were afraid for their lives and probably still are.

I also have to wonder why that reporter keeps publishing things that are said out of the presence of the jury. The likelihood that the jury will hear things said out of their ear shot increases greatly when an Associated Press reporter publishes it all over the world.

Witnesses have reneged previous testimony due to threats or lawsuits. DDA Renee Rose said in a police report filed by Mark Hatten who used to date Anna Nicole Smith, that he was threatened by Howard K. Stern through MySpace. DA Renee Rose said anyone writing a book or is a potential witness has been getting something from Stern. Click here to see that.

From TheSunNews.com

Ford Shelley and Gaither Ben Thompson Sr., local developers who are being sued by Stern, appeared Monday without attorneys representing them.

Thompson previously had a relationship with Smith and was involved in a dispute with the celebrity over the ownership of a $900,000 home in the Bahamas that she claimed he had given her as a present. He has denied that claim.

Ford Shelley told Hyman that if he is forced to testify in the criminal trial he is concerned it may lead to another lawsuit.

“We feel like this is something we’ll get sued for again,” Shelley said. “It’s a little different in Hollywood, Calif., than it is in Conway, S.C.”

Anna Nicole Smith at the 2004 American Music Awards

Remembering that we must depend upon unreliable main stream media to provide news of the trial, here is what we have seen so far.

Whats in…

• Howard K. Stern’s sister Bonnie Stern and Anna Nicole Smith herself will be considered uncharged co-conspirators.

• The little girl, now 13 years old who is in the infamous “Clown Video” will testify that she saw Stern give Anna Nicole something from an unidentified bottle.

• Photos of Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Anna Nicole Smith naked in a bath tub may be allowed in, however Judge Perry requested more documentation. Three photos on the hard drive of Smith’s laptop show her and Eroshevich naked with arms around each other in a bathtub, according to an affidavit. One of the reported photos has Anna Nicole sitting spread eagle in the tub with Eroshevich sitting between her legs.  Boobs to back, crotch to butt and Anna Nicole’s hand reportedly on or very near Eroshevich’s crotch. I hope those are not the photographs which  Judge Perry called “playful”. Where I come from, its called “foreplay”. The photos are dated two months before Smith’s death*.

• The judge said he might allow brief snippets of a video showing Dr. Kapoor making out with Anna Nicole Smith during a party.

• Smith’s slurring slush mouth appearance at the 2004 American Music Awards, is allowed.

Whats out…

• The Clown Video.

• Judge Perry said any evidence from Florida connecting the three defendants to the death of Anna Nicole Smith would not be permitted because Florida did not prosecute anyone. Officials in Florida dropped the ball and did not file any criminal charges against anyone in her death. Perry wanted to know why Florida was not handling this case.
  

• Also excluded was a 1996 television interview showing Smith leaving the Betty Ford Center after being treated for alcohol and drug addiction. Judge Perry said he will allow the jurors to know that Smith was in rehab but not watch the interview.

* Source Radar Online

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

The first criminal complaint. It was later amended to add more counts to Howard K. Stern.

94 page document with evidence used to press charges against Stern, Eroshevich and Kapoor.

111 more pages of same document.

*Many thanks to blogger DDs and others on Topix for this list of witness and their involvement in the trial.

• Carman AgUilera: -Marquez Medical Board Investigator

• Nadine Alexie: Nanny of Dannielynn

• Quelhlie Alexis: Nanny of Dannielynn

• Lisa Arredondo: Hard Rock Hotel Employee Liason

• Shirley BalIlard: RN? may be a friend of Shane Gibson?

• Marites Batac:

• Anthony Baumgart: San Gabriel Police/ NARC

• Larry Birkhead: Dannielynn’s father and Howard K. Stern friend.

• Dr. Ellie Bloomfield: Internist – Glendale CA

• Dr. Clifforcl Bochner: Fetal OB – LA, CA

• Dr. Timothy Botello: Addiction Psychiatrist expert

• Todd Brehart: DOJ DEA Special Agent

• Maurice Brighthaupt: Anna Nicole Smith’s bodyguard

• Tasma Brighthaupt: Moe/Maurice wife

• Ron Brovetto: DOJ BNE Special Agent

• Marian Bryant: Seminole Detective

• Rhonda Carter: RN – LA, CA

• Don Clark: Oquinn Firm Investigator Former FBI

• Melinda Clark: L.A Co Deputy Sheriff/ computer expert.

• Dr. Pablo DeSouza: Bahamas Anesthesiology Pain

• Jennifer Doss: California Department of Justice Special Agent.

• Racine Edward-Silva UCLA OBGYN Asst Professor

• Kathy Ellis: CURES/DOJ/BNE

• Dr. Rina Falk: Cedar Sinai Cytogenetics

• Tracy Ferguson: Bahama – Shelly/Thompson lawyer.

• Dr. Perry Fine: Utah Pain

• Alan Finn: Assistant Cameraman Anna’s Show IMDB

• Kathy Frank:

• Ira Freeman: Key Pharmacy Pharmacist.

• Dr. James Gagne: Internist Addiction Pro.

• Jon Genens: Medical Board Senior Investigator.

• Eric Gibson: Bahamas – Friend of ANS and Stern aka “King Eric”

• Gerlene Gibson: Shane Gibson’s mother and babysitter for Dannielynn Birkhead.

• Shane Gibson: Bahamas scandal that he fast tracked ANS citizenship.

• Monique Glinton: Wedding Planner???

• Alex Goen: Trimspa owner

• Dr. Ken Grabow: Anesthesiology / Pain Mgmt

• Tara Grinna: Swimsuit designer???

• Troy Hollier: Ex Houston LE Anna / Howard friend

• Wesley Irwin: Eroshevich’s ex-husband

• Umbarto Jaime:

• John James: Illegal Aliens Producer

• Victor A. Johnson: LAPD officer

• Valerie Juge RN – LA, CA

• Gertrude Juste: Broward County Florida Medical Examiner.

• Dr. Ronald Katz: Pain doc Neilson Way.

• Dr. David Kline: OB, LA, CA

• Kathleen Kling:

• Alvin Knowles: Bahamas – Home Improvement company

• Olga Kopetman: pharmacist (Ralph’s)

• Dr. Victor Kovner: Founder of clinic which Kapoor took over

• Kenneth Krause: Homeland Security

• Theresa Laramore: Bahamas, ANS friend worked for Executive Flight Services.

• Dr. Maurice Levy: GP sanctioned in 2001

• Dr. Steve Lochan: Bahamas, NeoNatal

• Diana Marshall: RN – LA, CA

• Ray Martino: Friend of Anna Nicole and where Daniel was living while his mother was in the Bahamas.

• Dr. Natalie Maullin: Cedar Sinai Psychiatrist

• Steve Mazlin: AMC Pharmacy – Burbank

• Joseph Merydlth: Government document forensics expert

• Dr. Hubert Minnis: Bahamas OB

• Imelda Molina RN – LA, CA

• Julie Monson:

• Wayne Munroe: Howard K. Stern’s Bahamas Lawyer.

• Brigitte Neven: Eric Gibsons girlfriend. She was present in Florida when Anna Nicole found dead.

• Claudette Pantig:

• Romeo Par:

• Dr. Joshua Perper: Performed Anna Nicole’s autopsy.  Broward ME

• Dr. David Perry: CA out of state license

• Ron Rale: California attorney and Howard K. Stern friend.

• Marcella Selkert:

• Danny Santiago: California Department of Justice Special Agent.

• Yolanda Santos: Unipharma Pharmacy Los Alamitos — Not retail.

• Dr. Harold Schuler Brown: ME toxicologist

• Ford Shelley: South Carolina business man. Father of Riley Shelley.

• Gina Shelley: Ford Shelley’s wife whose family purchased Horizons and also hosted Anna Nicole and Stern as house guests.

• Riley Shelley: Ford and Gina Shelley’s daughter who was 10 years old at the time of Stern taping her in the “Clown Video.

• Daisy Soria RN – LA, CA.

• Dr. Scott Stoney: Anna’s doctor who Dr. Kapoor bought clinic from.

• Mercedes Taha: Midwife Nurse LA, CA.

• Diane Takeda:  RN – LA, CA.

• Allison Tan:

• Gaither Thompson: Son of Ben Thompson

• G. Ben Thompson: From South Carolina. Owner of Horizons house that was in dispute.

• Greg Thompson:

• Alma Tongson: Investigator

• Usa Troncosco: Investigator

• Charlene Underwood: Lawyer whose name Dr Eroshovich stole to use for fraudulent prescriptions.

• Ron Valdivia: Investigator DA’s office.

• Wilma Vicedomine:  Assisted investigation via Don Clark.

• Kim Walther: Anna’s assistant at one time .

• Dr. Cyril Wecht: Performed private autopsy on Daniel Wayne Smith.

• Lisa Young: RN

Link to jury questionnaire and witness list.

Who is missing from the witness list?

Pol’ Atteu and Patrik Simpson: Gay couple who have made multiple allegations.

Alan Nazario: Same link, Trimspa Bus Driver. Said he saw Stern take ANS behind closed doors and when she came out she was impaired.

Sandy Seranno: Anna Nicole hairdresser. These screen shots speak for themselves.

http://i40.tinypic.com/28u1mdt.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/2vi3tag.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/lwmtg.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/24yxmh0.jpg
March 2009 screen shot, (Birkhead swapping spit with Seranno)

Blast from the past. Lisa Bloom handing Howard K. Stern attorney Krista Barth an excellent smack down!

Last night Geraldo aired a block buster special on the arrests of the late Anna Nicole Smith’s attorney Howard K. Stern and her doctors Sandeep Kapoor and Kristine Erosovitch who are all facing felony and conspiracy drug charges in connection with an arrest warrant issued by California Attorney General Jerry Brown.  

Geraldo started his show with no holds barred labeling Howard K. Stern a two bit hustler who sucked Anna Nicole dry, a sleazy manipulator and puppet master.

Some clips from shortly after Anna Nicole’s death in 2007 were shown which take on new or more of a meaning with the passage of time..

Dr. Eroshevich; “We were looking for ways to calm her down”. “She needed her medication”. “She would take more than the average person”.

Seidlin from Anna Nicole’s burial hearing about Howard K. Stern; “He would be called maybe an enabler”.

Dr Kapoor, when asked why Anna Nicole Smith slurred her words when she spoke;
“I wondered about that too. It was schtick or bad acting”.

Stern at the burial hearing; “She took methadone but over the last month, not in my presence”. (See page four at the SmokingGun.com with the 40 page report of Anna Nicole’s death that does indeed show Methadone in her bile).

The show guests last night were Judge Larry Seidlin, Celebrity Coroner Dr. Michael Baden, Dr Joshua Perper, Former FBI Special Agent Don Clark, Virgie Arthur’s attorney Neil McCabe and of course the feisty and in your face former San Francisco Assistant District Attorney Kimberly Guilfoyle. Doctor Cyril Wecht who preformed an autopsy on Daniel Smith was there and Craig Rivera also gives a special report.

Geraldo gets right down to business with Judge Larry Seidlin asking him not once, not twice but three times if he thought the cases against the three charged with felonies are particularly strong. Seidlin did not want to give a straight answer but finally admitted the defense is going to have a “tough row to hoe”.  Seidlin also said he was sick to hear about the charges if they are true because the three people being two doctors and an attorney had a higher responsibility for the care of Anna Nicole Smith than the average layman. Seidlin also said “his friend Perper” let him know that drugs are what brought Anna Nicole down.

And then it was time for Broward County Coroner Dr Joshua Perper who Geraldo said made a “controversial finding of accidental death” for Anna Nicole. Perper was quick to defend himself saying that if a person is willing to take drugs, it’s an accidental death. Geraldo countered by saying, “we don’t even know if she was cognizant or not”.

And how true that is. Reports from witnesses said that Anna Nicole had to be helped to the bathroom on the day before and of her death. They found dried vomit in the bathroom which also points to incapacitation and she was bruised from falling down. So how did she overdose herself on drugs without Howard Stern knowing, when the drugs were not even in the room where she could get to them alone?

Geraldo asked Perper if it was true that Kristine Erosovitch actually assisted with Anna Nicole Smith’s autopsy. Perper said that they do not adopt the findings of the witness they inquire about but that Erosovitch was a great help because she reported the pain in Anna Nicole’s buttock region and that she had been prescribed Chloral Hydrate by Erosovitch.

Being a prescribing doctor but not even Anna Nicole’s doctor of record, I would think that Erosovitch had a duty to report what she did and it was a stretch to say she was being helpful.

Geraldo asked if Anna Nicole Smith’s hair was tested. Dr. Perper vacillated between trying to remain calm and becoming hysterical at that questioning. Perper said the hair was irrelevant to the cause of the investigation of death.

I have to ask though isn’t the coroner’s investigation typically what precludes and prompts law enforcement investigations? Perper defensively said, to date, he still has not received a request from the “police” or Attorney General Jerry Brown to test the hair. Even though he said he did not need one. When asked, Perper said his office still has her hair but that again, it’s irrelevant.

Neither Dr Baden nor Gulfoyle agreed with Perpers statement that testing hair is irrelevant. Baden said he would take exception because it is important to know Anna Nicole’s history. Baden said, “I would have done the hair, every cop in New York does the hair”.

Guilfoyle then jumped all over Perper concerning relying on Erosovitch for help with the autopsy.  She thought it outrageous that Perper made decisions based on a woman who would be the target of a criminal investigation.  She expressed to Perper the stupidity of relying on Erosovitch.

“You are making your decisions on facts that she has given you when obviously she has a vested interest in clearing her name and the outcome of the investigation. She also told him, “you should have done the hair to see the systematic amount of drugs she was taking over a period of time that these three people conspired to give her”.

In some other clips shown, Geraldo says of Howard K. Stern’s Florida attorney, “if you can believe it, Krista Barth compares charges against Stern to the Duke Lacross players.

He also reads part of Larry Birkhead’s testimony from the Florida burial hearing about methadone being brought into the hospital by Howard K. Stern when Anna Nicole was pregnant with Dannielynn and supposed to be detoxing from that very substance.
Dr. Baden said that was totally “unmedical and unprofessional”.

It was mentioned that Stern’s own statements given in open court at the burial hearing will be very damaging to him in the California drug charges. They talked about Stern admitting that drugs were prescribed to Anna Nicole Smith under several aliases. One of them being Wilma Flintstone amongst others. Geraldo said there are reckless categories of homicide that are relevant to the current charges.

Geraldo makes the point for motive that millions of dollars are still in play from the estate of Anna Nicole’s late husband, J. Howard Marshall that could potentially belong to Anna Nicole’s baby daughter Dannielynn and would be under the control of Stern as executor of Anna Nicole’s estate. They didn’t mention it but there is quite a growing list of media ops that Stern and Birkhead have partaken in and earned millions of dollars from.

We see a clip of Virgie Arthur, Anna Nicole’s mother in court at the burial hearing. Watching her again and some of the burial hearing video, it appears that Mrs. Arthur is the only one showing genuine grief and distress.

Virgie wept as she said;

My grandson did not overdose. Howard was there when he died. Howard was there when my daughter died and he has my granddaughter. Now it’s not even his child and I’m afraid for her life as well. Please help us……

Geraldo asked Judge Seidlin about the disparaging of Virgie Arthur at the burial hearing. He wanted to know if the public misjudged Mrs. Arthur. Seidlin admitted Mrs. Arthur was misjudged. He said, “That is why we can’t rush to judgment…. We have to let these things play out and Virgie was criticized and unfairly because I was with her…. I was with her at many un-televised court hearings…. She loved her daughter. It was apparent to me that she loved her daughter and the criticism was unfair and O’Quinn is a great lawyer and he brought it out during the trial”.

In a 2007 clip of Howard K. Stern’s brother, Gary Stern, a school principal, he says his brother is a caring man and a compassionate man who is a victim of a vicious conspiracy. Gary blames media outlets and in his words Anna Nicole’s estranged family for what the public thinks of his brother. “They want to paint my brother in a bad light that is absolutely false”.

Rivera points out that Stern was educated at Berkley University and UCLA law school, yet claims he split with a former law partner in 2002 to devote himself exclusively to Anna Nicole Smith as she fought for her late husbands millions. He goes on to say that Anna Nicole paid for an apartment that Stern kept in Santa Monica that reportedly housed a talent company from that address called “Hot Smoochie Lips” with its only client being, Anna Nicole Smith.

Geraldo talks to Don Clark, former FBI special agent and hired by Anna Nicole’s mom to investigate the death of her daughter. He reads from an affidavit prepared by Clark for the Florida burial hearing where Clark writes that he came to believe that Howard K. Stern was intimately involved in the deaths of Anna Nicole and her son Daniel. Clark believed that Stern could not avoid direct criminal implication in the deaths of the two.

Geraldo asked Mr. Clark if he still stood by the affidavit tendered in Judge Seidlin’s court.

“I sure as heck do stand by the statement…..there’s no accident here. You’ve got a kid that comes in one day and the next day he’s dead? And he doesn’t take drugs. There is no one at all that will testify the kid took drugs! Then we find his mother a few months later in the Hard Rock and in this particular situation you get an investigation that is questionable at best and the evidence that’s out there that should have been found and that can be found was not found. It’s no accident!”

To Mrs. Arthur’s attorney Neil McCabe, Geraldo asks, “What will Virgie do now in light of the charges against HKS and the doctors”?
McCabe; “Well, we are going to proceed with the lawsuit that we have against HKS and others for defamation and conspiracy to defame.. Jerry Brown has brought a conspiracy case but that’s not the only conspiracy”.

Geraldo asked Kimberly if she thought AG Jerry Brown is done with charges. She said not at all as she knows Jerry Brown from being a former prosecutor in CA and Brown said in his statement the charges levied were what they had “at this time”. She said she thinks there will be more charges and that there should be.

Another question to Dr Baden was, “If you were Jerry Brown, what would you do concerning Anna Nicole’s hair?  Baden replied, “I think it would be important to get the hair and lots of labs will do segmental toxilogic examination. Baden explained that hair grows a half inch each month. In six inches of hair, there are 12 months and a lab can do an examination of each segment of hair and determine what drugs Anna Nicole was using in each month. They can go back a year and it will be important to the criminal prosecution.

Baden also said that from the hair, a lab will be able to tell what drugs she was taking when Daniel died. If she was taking Methadone that was never prescribed to her, and that’s what killed Daniel, you have the illegal source that was providing the methadone for her.

Another clip was shown of Ford Shelley, the owner of the house in the Bahamas who said he saw HKS take two white pills out of Daniels pocket and he heard the toilet flush. I recall Shelley has also stated that after the flushing, Stern said that he “got rid of the problem”.

Since I have been following all of the cases from the beginning, I was quite amused by this segment of the show. Geraldo was reading a statement from Lin Wood, another one of Howard K. Stern’s attorneys. Since we know that On the Record’s Greta Van Susteren has accused Wood of being a drunk dialer, I have to wonder if this was a mistake of Geraldo’s production staff or if Wood really did make this statement?

Geraldo; Don Clark, I must say, Lin Wood, the fiery attorney for Howard Stern, claims that they sued you and you made a cash settlement because you were afraid that they had you, that you were defaming Howard Stern, is that true?

Clark; that is absolutely ridiculously false. And if Lin Wood said that, I would say to his face and anybody else that is absolutely and ridiculously false. No doubt in Lin Woods mind, he would like to sue me but I am going to stick with the facts as they are and I don’t have to come up with these fabricated stories as they have throughout… (crosstalk)

Geraldo; when they say the case was settled amicably, what does that mean?

Clark; I’ve never been sued so you’re asking the wrong guy Geraldo. Not me.

Geraldo; So alright, you’re sticking by your guns, you believe that Howard Stern is responsible for the death of Anna Nicole and her son Daniel.

Clark; I’ve said that from the beginning. I’ve said it needs to be good investigations on all parts in the Bahamas as well as in Florida and we have not seen that and now Jerry Brown has started something up and I hope it will progress from there.

For the last segment of the show, Craig Rivera interviews two domestic staff members who work for Ford Shelley who show and possess proof of Anna Nicole’s excessive drug usage. Craig asks Beverly and Johnny what they observed when Anna Nicole was a guest in Shelley’s vacation home.

Beverly said that Anna Nicole was incoherent. Not right.
Craig asked Beverly if it was true that Anna was injecting drugs into her thigh. Beverly said it was and agreed that Anna Nicole was in the third trimester of her pregnancy with Dannielynn.

According to Ford Shelley Jr. Anna Nicole was taking Methadone and other drugs at times administered by and provided by Howard K. Stern

Craig shows photos of a huge bottle of methadone on Anna Nicole’s bedside table with the alias Michelle Chase on it and also vials of Methadone and other drugs in a refrigerator where she lived in the Bahamas.

Johnny said when they would come in at night that Anna could barely speak and her eyes were rolling up in the back of her head. Beverly found the black duffle bag filled with prescription pills. She said there were up to 100 bottles of pills in that bag.

Craig asks, what about Daniel? Where did he get the Methadone that killed him? Craig says that in court documents Larry Birkhead the father of Dannielynn states that he saw Daniel take a bottle of Anna’s methadone on a home security camera. However according to two of Anna Nicole’s friends, Patrik Simpson and Pol Atteu, in a confrontation with Stern at Daniels funeral, Anna screams, “You did this”! “It’s your fault”! “You did this”! “You caused this’!

Geraldo asks Craig what would be the motive for Howard K. Stern in the two deaths and would it be money? Craig agrees the motive could be money and remembers the statements of G. Ben Thompson who said that Stern took (imo morbid) pictures of Daniel after his death. Thompson inquired as to why Stern would take pictures like that. Stern said that someday the pictures would be worth a lot of money.

Pittsburg PA pathologist Cyril Wecht who did an autopsy on Daniel Smith was asked if Daniel killed himself on purpose. Wecht previously said the cause of Daniels death was a “combination of drugs” in his system. Now he admits it was the Methadone that killed Daniel. Wecht says he has no information to say that Howard Stern was responsible for Daniels death directly in a deliberate premeditated sense. Wecht said he must point out an inconsistency that if Anna Nicole was Sterns cash cow, you don’t kill your cash cow. He said there can be no question about enabling, stupidity, insensitivity or illegality. There is no question about all of these things, but talking about premeditation, is making a quantum leap.

Geraldo says, well, what about reckless homicide or involuntary manslaughter? Wecht agreed that was a possibility. Geraldo says when a person is so irresponsible in their efforts to control someone that you give her whatever it takes to keep her quiet or keep her performing however you want her to, that would be involuntary manslaughter.

Geraldo will continue the same subject matter on his show tonight at 10:00 pm EST.

Lin Wood has filed notice to serve a subpoena on behalf of his client Howard K. Stern on a forensics expert for Virgie Arthur. He filed the notice in the South Carolina case of Stern vs Shelley.

Attorney Neil McCabe, in Houston District Federal Court for his client Virgie Arthur filed to quash the subpoena which requests documents McCabe says is protected under work product protection.

030209_Arthur_Motion_Quash_Stern_Subpeona_SC.pdf
030209_Arthur_Motion_Quash_Stern_Subpeona_SC_1-2.pdf
030209_Arthur_Motion_Quash_Stern_Subpeona_SC_1-3.pdf
030209_Arthur_Motion_Quash_Stern_Subpeona_SC_1-4.pdf

The second anniversary of the death of Anna Nicole Smith is upon us. She died two years ago today on February 8^th, 2007. I was a fan of her reality show and watched her personal appearances. I saw radio shock jock Howard Stern berate her for weight gain and I celebrated with her when she debuted slim and triumphant as the spokeswoman for Trimspa. She then ended up having the second child she always wanted only to have her beloved son Daniel die three short days after the birth of baby girl Dannielynn Hope. Five months later Anna Nicole Smith was also gone.

That’s why I started this website. It was called “A Mothers Last Wishes”. I already told the story of this blog and the blog war that ensued in this series of articles. A year has passed but what I said then is what I would say now if I were to write that part all over again.

The deaths of Anna Nicole and her son Daniel have spawned not one but several civil legal actions. First there was an inquest into Daniels death. Many were thinking that criminal charges could have been pressed in the Bahamas against Anna’s attorney and friend Howard K. Stern for Daniels death. The jury, who were instructed to come back with a specific verdict in that country known for corruption found Daniels cause of death to be non-dependent drug use.

Stern has been a busy man though. He has sued TV journalist and book author Rita Cosby for her book, Blonde Ambition. Ms. Cosby’s book outlined the suspicious circumstances of Anna Nicole and Daniels deaths. That suit is still ongoing in the United States Southern District Court of New York .

Stern sued Houston Texas billionaire attorney John O’Quinn. O’Quinn represented Anna’s mother Virgie Arthur in Florida Broward County Court as she fought for the right to take her daughters remains back home to Texas. But Daniel was buried in the Bahamas. Early reports from the funeral home handling arrangements indicated that Daniel’s body was being prepared for shipment back to the United States. It’s rumored that Anna Nicole was told she could not afford to do this. This was even after photos were sold for several hundred thousand dollars of Daniels last hours with his mother and sister. Anna’s remains went back to the Bahamas with Daniels and there they rest alone. Stern’s defamation lawsuit against O’Quinn he says, arose from statements that O’Quinn made to the press during and after those hearings.

Stern vs O’Quinn has settled. There was no statement from either party but speculation continues because there was a continuance granted to the defense on the date set for settlement talks. To the surprise of followers of the case, settlement talks proceeded anyway.

Stern as executor of Anna Nicole’s estate sued G. Ben Thompson and Ford Shelley who were former friends of Anna Nicole. They sold her a house in the Bahamas which they were never paid for. When Anna Nicole died, Ford Shelley entered the home and took things belonging to Anna Nicole. Shelley said she told him to do that in case anything ever happened to her. Which it did. What has been revealed has sparked worldwide controversy as to how much responsibility Stern should share regarding the deaths of Anna Nicole and Daniel.

Via Ford Shelley and Geraldo, Americans were treated to the infamous “Clown Video” where Anna Nicole is eight months pregnant and apparently under the influence… Just about every instance of that video has been removed from the internet even though Stern says the video was supposedly a joke that Anna Nicole planned to publish on her website. From a still publicly unknown source, pictures circulated the internet of Anna Nicole purple, hysterical, weeping and devastated while she held her dead 20 year old son Daniel in her arms in the Bahamian hospital where she just gave birth to her beautiful daughter.

In the meantime, Anna Nicole’s mother, Virgie Arthur, sued Howard K. Stern, CBS Studios and KRPC Houston for the Entertainment Tonight segment that will forever be called “The Mommy Dearest” video. It’s actually what brought me to this story. The sight of Anna Nicole weeping and seething in anger at her mother, whom I had never read or seen anything about was heartbreaking. It was that show which prompted me to start this blog. Only to later find out that Anna Nicole was deeply impaired during the taping of the show. According to those close to her (including baby daddy Larry Birkhead),  she was being kept drugged and out of it and told things that were just not true. Although Birkhead has changed his tune these days and is said to be a very close friend to Stern.

Mrs. Arthur’s lawsuit started in Texas State Court and was then removed to Federal District Court . Neil McCabe, Arthur’s lead attorney petitioned the court to add other parties to the case. The court denied the request but declared any case against the proposed added defendants “cognizant”.

That brings us to Virgie Arthur’s Houston Texas case for defamation. Mrs. Arthur through the O’Quinn Law Firm is suing Howard K. Stern and his sister Bonnie Stern. TMZ.com, Harvey Levin, its managing editor, Art Harris who is a special correspondent for CNN and other programs and networks, one blog owner, Nelda (Rose) Turner and two of her moderators who are Teresa Stephens and Lyndal Harrington.

Defendant Rose Turner of rosespeaks.com has an “entertainment blog”. She says she likes to cover various high profile legal cases. Rose wrote almost exclusively about the Anna Nicole Smith debacle until she was served with the current defamation suit. Now she covers other issues as well.

After attorney William Ogden who was representing four of the defendants in that case decided that he could not afford to continue defending at least two pro bono defendants, Rose and Lyndal Harrington, (per Turner) he resigned from the case also leaving those two and  two other clients, Bonnie Stern and Art Harris without representation.

Rose, finding herself without an attorney was faced with having to either cooperate with Neil McCabe’s requests for discovery or the judge in the case, The Honorable Tony Lindsay was going to issue an order compelling Turner to surrender her computer to forensic expert Craig Ball who has been appointed for this case. Turner decided to cooperate with McCabe rather than turn over her computer. The other defendants have been ordered to turn their computers and emails over to the forensic expert due to possible spoliation meaning possible destruction of evidence.

Turner had in her possession an email from Bonnie Stern that was enough for attorney Neil McCabe to bring one more party into this lawsuit which not only charges defamation but conspiracy to defame Mrs. Virgie Arthur. That party is the father of Anna Nicole’s baby daughter Dannielynn. In the court documents, McCabe charges it was Larry Birkhead who gave a mean spirited story TMZ published that implied that Mrs. Arthur married her step-brother with Howard K. Stern “sourcing” that story. In reality, Mrs. Arthur did not marry nor have a child with her step-brother. Their respective parents married later on. Millions of readers saw that story and voted on a poll all designed to humiliate Mrs Arthur.

And then another twist to the story. Defendant Nelda Turner last week, filed a motion to bring CBS into the State case. The Federal case against Stern and CBS had been dropped with costs being attributed to each party. Onlookers suspected a defamation case against CBS was not over but no one ever thought it would be Turner who brought them back in by way of the existing state case. Turner then announced that one of the defendants, Bonnie Stern has filed for bankruptcy. Research shows that this action will stay the Texas State case however there are legal remedies that I am assuming will be discussed in future hearings that may allow the case to continue while Bonnie Stern follows through with her bankruptcy petition.

The suit against Cosby continues. On the eve before former Los Angeles police officer and former body guard of Larry Birkhead, Mark Spear was to give a deposition in the Cosby case, Howard K. Stern filed a lawsuit against Spear and Jackie Hatten who was a personal friend of Anna Nicole’s. Stern claims both parties libeled him and caused false information to be published in Crosby ’s Blonde Ambition.

Sterns suit against Thompson and Shelley continues as does Anna Nicole’s lawsuit against the estate of J. Howard Marshall which she took all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and prevailed in allowing it to be heard. Anna Nicole’s surviving child Dannielynn would be the beneficiary of anything won in that action but also big legal fees would go to Howard K. Stern.

Larry Birkhead with daughter Dannielynn appeared as a surprise guest on Larry King Live the other night which was featuring “the crying judge” from the Anna Nicole burial hearing, Larry Seidlin. Birkhead and Stern are spotlighted in a television special that is airing  on “E!” television called, “Anna Nicole, Tragedy in Paradise”.

Birkhead said he and Dannielynn are set to star in their own television reality show on the same network which just happend to be the network which created Anna Nicoles reality show back in 2002. It appears on all fronts that Birkhead is the new Anna Nicole Smith. He does not say who his manager is but for all intensive purposes, he has her possessions, her child and now he wants her stardom.

An investigation into the prescribing practices of one Los Angeles doctor and the psychiatrist who prescribed eleven medications of which eight were prescribed in Howard K. Sterns name was announced by California Attorney General Jerry Brown in October of 2007. Dr Kristine Erosovitch and Dr. Sandeep Kapoor had their offices and storage units raided by the California AG.

The much anticipated investigation continues and another bomb shell was dropped just days ago.The offices of Dr. Sandeep Kapoor were raided again and this time TMZ is reporting that United States Drug Enforcement Administration  assisted in serving a search warrant along with the California Medical Board. They are looking for a connection between the doctor and Howard K. Stern.

As for me, I have been named as a cooperating witness but former co-conspirator in Virgie Arthur’s defamation lawsuit in Houston Texas. It is said that evidence I and one of my former moderators, “Havana“, submitted to the O’Quinn firm has made this state case possible. We being tiny links to a larger chain of conspiracy.

My opinion of the sad deaths of Anna Nicole and Daniel has changed drastically. However as a witness, I find it best to keep my thoughts to myself. I have been maligned and attacked by Turner and the members of her website on the internet. I refuse to engage. The truth and substance of this case will be sorted out in a court of law. I stand by all I have said and will quietly remain until the final gavel falls.

There are many who desire to know the whole true story behind the lives and suspicious deaths of Anna Nicole and her son Daniel. Her adorable daughter Dannielynn deserves to know.

Hopefully with the latest raid in California and the ongoing investigation, the world will get some answers as to why two people had to die too young and too soon.

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.

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

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

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

*comments are closed for this entry

080408_Stern_vs_Shelley_Thompson_et_al_1.pdf
080408_Stern_vs_Shelley_1-2.pdf
080408_Stern_vs_Shelley_1-3.pdf
080408_Stern_vs_Shelley_1-4.pdf
080408_Stern_vs_Shelley_1-5.pdf
080408_Stern_vs_Shelley_1-6.pdf
080408_Stern_vs_Shelley_3.pdf
080408_Stern_vs_Shelley_5.pdf
080408_Stern_vs_Shelley_6.pdf
080408_Stern_vs_Shelley_7.pdf

Annanicoleandhowardkstern.com would like to say a big thank you to “Einy” for her contribution to the site. She has transcribed for us, the whole Anna Nicole Smith burial hearing from February of 2007.

Each .PDF is in the order of testimony heard. Please everyone, join me in thanking Einy for her hard work and contribution.

Anna_Nicole_Smith_Burial_Hearing_Participants.pdf

Direct_Examination_of_Howard_K_Stern.pdf

Cross_Examination_of_Howard_K_Stern.pdf

Direct_Examination_of_Virgie_Arthur.pdf

Direct_Examination_of_Virgie_Arthur_Part2.pdf

Re-examination_of_Virgie_Arthur.pdf

Re-examination_of_HKStern_Feb_21.pdf

Larry_Birkhead_1st_Day_of_Testimony.pdf

Larry_Birkhead_Re-examination.pdf

Larry_Birkhead_Cross_by_Pirtle.pdf

Larry_Birkhead_Testimony_by_Opri.pdf

Troy_Hollier_Testimony.pdf

Denise_James_Testimony.pdf

Ford_Shelley_Testimony.pdf

Billy_Smith_Testimony.pdf

Doctors_Testimony.pdf

Dr_Perper.pdf

Interesting_Exchanges_Between_Cast_and_Crew.pdf

Part II

After the site opened, I started writing about what was being reported on television and on the net. I also started some promotion with social bookmarking sites like Technorati and Furl. We started getting visitors but not many. I searched for sites that were reporting on this story, but there were very few and the reporting was minimal. Then I found TMZ and posted a link to this site on their blog.

Around February 23rd, we started getting comments, and from there things pretty much exploded.

People in favor of Howard and against him commented. I was right in there with the pro-Howard crowd, arguing for him without really having any facts. None of us did. It was our opinions that we were arguing for in those early days because facts were yet to be discovered or hard to come by.

On February 22nd, Judge Seidlin appointed Attorney Richard Milstein as guardian ad litem for Dannielynn’s interest in where her mothers body would be buried, and the decision was made to bury Anna in the Bahamas. So basically, Howard won. After a last ditch appeal by Virgie Arthur, Anna Nicole’s mother, the appeals court affirmed Seidlin decision and Anna Nicole’s body was released to be laid to rest with her son Daniel.

Anna Nicole was buried on March 2nd. Virgie Arthur again tried to stop the burial in the Bahamas, but only caused its delay. The site was in full swing by then, but I had only planned to keep it open until Anna was buried. A lot of the members, however, requested the site stay open as the legal wrangling had just begun and everyone wanted to continue to support Howard, so I agreed.

It was really busy and I needed help. There was a contributor that I felt would be an asset to the site. She has a gift with the written word and I agreed with most of her opinions. Even though she had her own blog and was busy, I asked a person I’ll call “J” her to help moderate and she agreed.

Just to show what we were dealing with, I would like to give you some of the site statistics. I will not explain them as that would take up too much room, so if any of this confuses you, please look up the meanings of “Awstats” site statistics.

Remembering that the first article was written February, 12th 2007, we ended the month with 970 “unique” visitors who made 1774 “visits” and generated 18,254 hits on files that are called up when someone visits a page.

In March, 2007 the site had 16,419 “unique” visitors, 35,663 visits and 1,302,538 hits. Have you ever noticed how some sites advertise their “hits” or “visits”? It can be very deceptive because just one person can generate 100′s of visits in a day for a site by simply reloading the page. However, over 16,000 unique visitors is a lot for a brand new site. Almost unheard of, in fact, for a site that did little promotion. But the volume of comment contributions were staggering for a small site. Sometimes, one article would generate 600 comments.

As time went on, our purpose changed . We went from being a cheer leading squad to a working machine. A research machine. With some of our members having a gift for digging, and all of us hungry for “factual” information, the members of the site worked hard to back up their comments with links to the information that they shared.

I recently read statements that Virgie Arthur had developed an organized smear campaign against Howard K.Stern. I don’t know if that’s true, but when it came to digging up the dirt, no one had anything on us. The Court TV forums also had great information, and I am sure that some of what was presented at our site was culled from research taken from there, but Court TV was a forum for discussion. We were on a mission.

With my lack of experience in blogging and the sheer volume of technical aspects that had to be dealt with, along with tons of emails, I again could not keep up with the 24/7 job that it had become, especially after I put up a chat room for the members. I also did my own research and poured over whatever the members presented. They knew that it was very busy and we needed another moderator that had more time to help out. “J” had full time job-plus, as well as her own blog. The members nominated a lady that I will call “H”. She was well-liked, and her being an early bird complimented my propensity to be somewhat of a night owl.

Members were posting interesting links like crazy. Our goal was to discover information about anyone that was opposed to Howard K. Stern or his interests. Whoever was in the news at the time became someone we wanted to know more about. Ford Shelley. G. Ben Thompson. Virgie Arthur. Larry Birkhead. Of course, it was even better when they had skeletons in their closets.

A recent comment on this blog asks for the name of some of the old articles. Here is a list of article titles that I wrote in February and early March.

• Ford Shelley, Howard K Stern and Larry Birkhead Try To Resolve Differences
• Big Moe Rats Out Jackie Hatten And Bobby Trendy
• Anna Nicole’s Kimmie Speaks And So Does The Bulldog (*Bulldog being Debra Opri)
• Is There Romance Between Larry Birkhead and Debra Opri?
• Howard and Larry Friends?
• ANNA WILL BE BURIED IN THE BAHAMAS WITH DANIEL!!!
• Pictures of Anna Nicole Final Resting Place Hearing
• Wow! Ford and Gina Shelley on Greta, Fox News
• Shelley Gets Away With Robbing Anna Nicole!
• Virgie Arthur Just Needs to Go Away

“J” had pretty much ceased moderating the blog when “H” took over as moderator, but would occasionally contribute an article. So, at the controls were “H” and myself. I thought things were going well. Our membership was large and growing, our contributors enjoyed conversing,and our researchers felt they were doing something good for a man they viewed as a triple-victim, having suffered through two deaths and then a television smear campaign.

If only I knew then what I do now.

To be continued…..