Family. You can’t buy real flesh and blood family. The story of why we came to be always sounds sweeter from a grandmothers point of view.

Dannielynn Birkhead has two grandmothers. Virgie Arthur represents the closest Dannielynn will  ever come to her deceased mother, Anna Nicole Smith and brother, Daniel Smith. And up until this day, they still have never known each others warm embrace.

Today, John Nazarian, a former Private Investigator for Howard K. Stern  surprised the internet community with an article entitled;

It was Mother’s Day for Virgie Arthur, too.

Been there, done that, read the book and saw the movie.  I really know where he is coming from. And I totally agree with what he has to say.

Welcome to the light Mr. Nazarian…

And so begins the official finger pointing and blame game regarding California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s decision to pursue felony drug charges against Howard K. Stern, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich.

Brown made the announcement on October 13th, 2007 that he would be investigating prescribing practices associated with the death of Anna Nicole Smith when he raided the doctors offices and then again raided Dr. Kapoors office in search of a Howard K. Stern connection on February 5th, 2009. Warrants for the arrest of Stern, Kapoor and Eroshevich were issued March 13th, 2009.  

Now that charges have been brought, attorneys for Stern are citing political aspirations. Brown said the accusations are “silly” and “completely out of line.”

“The fact is that the Bureau of Narcotics, the DEA, the state Board of Medical Examiners and the Los Angeles district attorney have all validated this prosecution,” Brown said in a telephone interview. “These are serious violations of the law, this is an extensive professional investigation.”

I suspect and hope this investigation will also eventually include the death of Anna Nicole’s son Daniel Smith who died in the Bahamas mere hours after he arrived there to meet his new baby sister.

Cause of death has been stated in the press as an accidental overdose of a mixture of drugs.  But according to witnesses at the coroners inquest there was compelling testimony and evidence that Daniel died from a massive methadone overdose.

Dr. W. Lee Hearn, Miami Florida Toxicology expert who examined Daniels remains said  that Daniel was not a drug user and the overdose was not an accident but intentional. However Daniel certainly did not commit suicide.

Dr Hearn said, “if not for the methadone, Daniel Smith would not have died.” The Magistrate told the jury to come back with a verdict of suicide or non-dependent drug use. Suicide was ruled out.

The death of Daniel Wayne Smith deserves a second look.

Howard K. Stern and Khristine Eroshevich appeared in a Los Angeles criminal court on Tuesday April 7th, to request their arraignment to be re-scheduled for May 13th the original date so as to have time to conduct discovery.

Anna Nicole Smith’s mother, Virgie Arthur’s attorney Neil McCabe was scheduled to appear down the street at 10:30am to argue why Bonnie Stern’s bankruptcy stay should be lifted. A maneuver that McCabe has said in court documents was orchestrated so Ms. Stern did not have to turn over her computer in Arthur’s defamation and conspiracy suit against her and other individuals including her brother Howard.

Representing his client, McCabe was able to attend what was scheduled to be the arraignment of Stern and Eroshevich. I asked Mr. McCabe what he thought about the short hearing. He said it was uneventful and pretty much what the public saw on television. He said Howard K. Sterns attorney Krista Barth and also his former PI John Nazarian were cordial and greeted him. However, McCabe took a seat behind Stern and his attorney’s before the hearing started and Stern’s criminal attorney asked McCabe to move so he would not overhear anything.

After the arraignment hearing was over, McCabe headed down the street and argued that the stay imposed on his client Virgie Arthur’s lawsuit by Bonnie Stern’s bankruptcy be lifted. The judge told Mr. McCabe that it was a close call, but ordered from the bench to lift the stay.

When asked about the possibility of an appeal McCabe said, “When we submit an order to lift the stay, Ms. Stern has 7 days to object to the form. When it is signed, she has 10 days to file a notice of appeal.”

Now that the stay has been lifted, a hearing on Howard K. Sterns motion to recuse the judge in Arthur’s defamation case can go forward.
Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Recusal_Hearing_Notice.pdf

Defendant Art Harris has joined with Howard K. Stern to recuse the judge in Arthur vs Stern et al.

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.

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

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

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

On Topix recently, there were threats made to Arthur supporters that their day is coming this Friday in court filings. The tone seemed to imply that chat room or instant messenger conversations may be revealed in some legal filings by Howard K. Stern attorneys. For a particular group of Virgie Arthur supporters, that could possibly mean a certain chat that took place one night where someone was threatened. One of the Topix bloggers had her fill of threats and published this particular chat transcript to get things out into the open.

Disclaimer: I have no way to know who was who in this chat room, but I can see the intent of whomever was behind the monikers.. A person portraying them self to be Howard K. Sterns Private Investigator, John Nazarian, came to the room wanting to speak to someone. He/she and another person were looking for consultant/investigator, Wilma Vicedomine who assists the O'Quinn Law Firm with the Anna Nicole cases.

This came on the heels of someone ransacking Ms Vicedomine's trash and the publication and actual bragging about it by professional journalist, Art Harris. I almost forgot to mention that Mr. Harris promised pictures of the contents of Ms Vicedomine's trash as well. A promise he has yet to fulfill.

There are questions begging to be answered. Threats were levied toward Wilma Vicedomine. So how would the publication of the chat be a threat to someone who supported Virgie Arthur? The bad guys are the ones came to the room to make the threats.

Who were they? Who was the one using the moniker "Naz"? Who was "AFTD" who inquired, "So Naz got your bags pack (sic) for Texas?". No one knew who "JJ" was either.

The blogger who posted this chat concluded her story….

That's the entire chat of the ONLY time I remember even being in Suns's room. At some point someone I think JJ said hey Naz "my main man" inside the chat room. Well JJ did not show up on the chat log – so whoever that was, was either a moderator or someone else connected with that chat.
This took place when people were going through other's garbage and a lot of threats were being made against a lot of people.
Many in that room believed that those two jackasses were really in there threatening people and it really scared quite a few people.

NO ONE EVER SAID THAT IT WAS A JOKE.
To this day I believe that it was Nazarian in that room because after that, I received an email from Nazarian associated from the email address of willspy4money.

The email said something to the effect
"You better tell me everything you know"

I send him back my grandmother's recipe for popcorn balls because it was around Halloween.

The Chat;

think we handled it like responsible adults?
Art_Harris: hey where did trope go i had some questions
wilma: Kerry, confused is a 40 year old frustrated virgin
Kerry: yes we did the new respoect thing
Aunt_B: no that name is in here a few time a day
Wilma_Who: the kid scared him off
wilma: Wilma who Lol
Art_Harris: sternie?
Kerry: wha tis up with troupe now?
wilma: more threats
Aunt_B: anonymous
Kerry: wow, why?
wilma: that is getting old
Redbud: yeah where is wilma
Redbud: guess all of yu are
Kerry: where is waldo?
Vergie_Arthur: lots of people can use the name anonymous
Redbud: i found waldo once
Wilma_Who: wilma who
Aunt_B: i know
Kerry: wilma flinstone
Larryb has left.
Aunt_B: lol
Vergie_Arthur: lol
wilma: maybe I am waldo
Kerry: I could never find waldo
Redbud: wilma von bon bon
wilma: that's me
Wilma_Who: emerson
Kerry: international woman of mystery
Redbud: yeah i know

PART TWO OF THAT EVENINGS CHAT:( PS that is not Wilma that in a bunch of us posting as Wilma because they were in there demanding to know where Wilma was and threatening people)

Redbud: yeah i know
wilma: wilma mankiller
Wilma_Who: dragon slayer
wilma: real tribal indian chief by that name
wilma: not a seminole thank the good lord
Kerry: I am going to the boards and piss them off
AFTD has joined.
Wilma_Who: aw Kerry have fun
Redbud: threaten me again
Kerry: I always do!
Wilma_Who: hi Aftd
AFTD: anyone here from houston texas
larryis: hi aftd
Redbud: i love it atfd
wilma: Oh look the coward is back
Kerry: me
wilma: I am
Art_Harris: did aftd spell else wrong?
Redbud: yeah i am
larryis: say hi aftd first
Redbud: why where are you from
Wilma_Who: all of us from Houston why?
Art_Harris: hi buttfly why don't you hang around
wilma: Love houston
Craig_Rivera has left.
sugarpie: i am
Kerry: theresa hello
maxine: I am
Redbud: i live pretty close to deer park
Wilma_Who: I am in Pasadina
Kerry: I live in a trailer got something to say aboutit?
wilma: Grapevine
Wilma_Who: Bay city
Redbud: i live just off sam houston parkway
Aunt_B: Sc
maxine: we all live in texas in our hearts
NAZ has joined.
Art_Harris: i live in never never land
Kerry: my man is back

wilma: Grow yellow roses in pots
Aunt_B: hi
JJ: my main man
NAZ: Where's Wilma?
Art_Harris: it's an insect invasion
wilma: Hey Naz, Howie done whining for the evening
Wilma_Who: Bayown chemical plants may I help you
Kerry: she is here
sugarpie: hi naz
Redbud: wilma is here
wilma: Right here dimwit
maxine: not my day to watch her
NAZ: i aint playin
Wilma_Who: can't you see me?
wilma: You suck as a pi
sugarpie: naz need your leg humped? no thanks ick
Oh_Really: oh Naz hi
Oh_Really: sorry was on phone
wilma: I ain't playing either shit face
Vergie_Arthur: lmaooooooooooo
sugarpie: i aint playin mon
Redbud: oh sucks nax al real men like a litle foreplay
Wilma_Who: Naz sucks period
Kerry: let himi talk
NAZ: Suck me
sugarpie: ewwwwwwwww
Kerry: I want to
sugarpie: no
wilma: Sorry Naz. not a man

sugarpie: you cant make me do that
Oh_Really: your dick is too small naz
Wilma_Who: can not find it hon
Redbud: do i pull on that little thread first, it that where it is hidden
sugarpie: naz we like men not wildebeasts
Kerry: hey back off he is talking to me
NAZ: http://nazarianandassociates.com/44701.html
HSTSL: oh schmegma naz is here
Oh_Really: oh braggard
maxine: naz All that you are you owe to your parents. Why don't you send them a penny and square the account?
Oh_Really: we're real scard
Oh_Really: scared
Vergie_Arthur: we don't click on your festered links
wilma: Oh Naz. What ever shall I do
Art_Harris: do yu think we are that stupid
Oh_Really: oh AFTD is here too
Oh_Really: hi weirdo
AFTD: So Naz got your bags pack for Texas
abw: schmegma
abw: hahahahah
Redbud: kerry grab that thread hangin out his zipper and pull
<sugarpie> sent sound: bear
Kerry: wow you are threanting someone
wilma: Naz doesn't need bags
Oh_Really: great garbage cans in texas
<abw> sent sound: yell1
Art_Harris: texas is a right to carry state
<sugarpie> sent sound: bite
abw: so is Georgia
NAZ: yup
Oh_Really: concealed
HSTSL: he can find a new outfit in the trash wilr he is digging
Wilma_Who: chit
wilma: Who you threatening Naz

Redbud: naz i live off sam houton parkway if you are going to texas come visit
maxine: what Pi threatens people and thinks they can get away with it
Kerry: Are you going to ill someone Naz
Trisha: that scream scared the you know what out of me
AFTD: i will be in Houston Naz around 10am
<abw> sent sound: yell2
wilma: Don't step on my rose bush when you are peeking in the window
NAZ: nobody is threatening you
Oh_Really: you can clean out my garbage
Kerry: are you planning a murder you two?
<sugarpie> sent sound: gun-fight
NAZ: you are the ones making threats
Wilma_Who: we like you naz
maxine: but you have threatend those involved
Oh_Really: not us
sugarpie: what threats
Kerry: we talked about sex how is that a threat
Vergie_Arthur: oh sure
sugarpie: i just said you have mo balls mon no threat there
Redbud: show me a threat
maxine: I have never threatened anyone
Redbud: i never seen one of those
Wilma_Who: cuz he does not know
Redbud: are they gift wrapped
NAZ: sex with you is a threat
Kerry: why the roadtrip to houston Naz?
Oh_Really: oh LOL
AFTD: all of you have made threats and we have taken notes
maxine: and exchange recipes
Oh_Really: oh sure aftd
HSTSL: No need to rhreaten naz, your looks scare people enough
sugarpie: looking at your ugly mug is the threat here naz now #### off
NAZ: not in Houston

Redbud: no i am clean just got my health certificate
sugarpie: note this….fuck you
Wilma_Who: notes help with short memories
Art_Harris: what threats?
Kerry: wher eis the road trip going?
larryis has left.
Oh_Really: he only drives as far as the nearest gay club
maxine: good aftd you can write
AFTD: should have shot that damn dog years ago
sugarpie: lol
sugarpie: hehe
sugarpie: as i said..no balls
NAZ: damn dog
maxine: you're not the only one who can write you know
Redbud: pee on those shoes sugar
sugarpie: c'mere and let me pee on your shoe
HSTSL: how are those used condoms you found in the garbage working for ya naz
Wilma_Who: I hope he got it word for word
Oh_Really: he has frontal lobe problems
wilma: Naz why don't you come on over and my little girl will beat your ass
NAZ: she prolly looks like a dog in real life
sugarpie: sugarpie is a he dumbass
AFTD: you know she does Naz
Redbud: he probably wants marilyn sugar
HSTSL: you should never talk about looks naz, have you seen yourself?
sugarpie: aftd i'll get howie to hump you tonight ok
NAZ: Wheres Vice
LAW: hi
sugarpie: im vice
NAZ: stfu cujo
wilma: Though you were vice personified
sugarpie: dont vice me bro
Wilma_Who: your trouble dog
Redbud: i like miami vice
wilma: Naz, you losing control here boy
Oh_Really: I am Law's manager – you want to talk to her?
HSTSL: oooohhh! I'm sceeeeeeeerd Naz
maxine: no you're not im vice
wilma: Naz you getting paid for this recipe collection
NAZ: guess I'm outta here

Oh_Really: talk keep talking
Kerry: naz you big hot sexy bastard what are you gonna do in texas
wilma: The baby paying you
HSTSL: good bye
NAZ: tell Wilma I stopped by to talk
LAW: whats up yall?
wilma: See ya in Houston coward
Oh_Really: she's here
Redbud: see me in texas
NAZ has left.
Wilma_Who: I hope he is , have to buy the book I don't take notes
AFTD: see you in texas wilma
maxine: hi law
AFTD has left.
Kerry: naz tell us about your trip
dolittle has joined.
wilma: You too ass wipe
Oh_Really: hi do
LAW: see ya aftd
dolittle: i am back
Oh_Really: offed aftd
wilma: They left
Wilma_Who: hey Do
Kerry: wtf that was a threat
Aunt_B: hi do
Art_Harris: did you see that Jj type again
Vergie_Arthur: wb dolittle
Oh_Really: no art
wilma: that was a threat
Kerry: sun we need this transcript
Art_Harris: i did
maxine: so i gues everybody noticed that aftd went and got back up before she would stay