And who was that blogger? It was me. (Click on the pictures to enlarge them)

(There is a more updated version of this article HERE)

I was running around my house getting ready for company who are arriving by weeks end and the phone rang at around 4:15 pm. I didn’t recognize the name “Eugene Winbun” or the number on my caller ID, so I didn’t answer it. Later I Googled the area code and it was Louisville Kentucky.

Then at about 6:12 pm, the phone rings again. This time it was a local number. I was afraid it was my nephew needing a ride or something so I answered it.

The person addressed me by my first name but I couldn’t hear what he said so I said, “just a minute please”, while I turned down the music that was on.

The man said “this is Larry Birkhead.” I said “what?” He repeated his name and I recognized the voice.

Now I can’t remember the conversation word for word but I’ll try to relay the parts I’m sure of. It’s possible that  Birkhead was recording the conversation. There are ways to call someone and have anything you want show up on their caller ID. Spoof Card comes to mind and it allows you to not only spoof your victim’s caller ID but it allows you to change your voice and record the conversation.

Birkhead said that I am to take down all pictures of him on my website. He then specified especially the picture in the collage on the latest article where he is sucking on a pacifier. He said he called the owner of the pacifier picture and she said she did not give anyone permission to use it. He also was upset about the picture I have up that he took of Anna Nicole Smith at the Freaky Tiki Bar laying face down in the pitcher of water that went down with her and my comments about how he must like to humiliate her.

I told him that I am not making any money from my website and I believe that its legal to use pictures on the web under “fair use”. He said that he owns all the pictures and I am to take them down. So eventually I said, I’ll tell you what, you send me a list of photo’s that you own and proof of ownership and Ill take those down. He did not like that at all and said no. He said he is going to get a $1000 per hour lawyer to come to Crestline and sue me. I said “go ahead, I don’t have anything to sue for.” He kept on about the suing so I said “what are you going to get Larry because I don’t have any money.”  He said, “you will have to work for me for the rest of your life.”

I asked him what does he care about some little blog from Crestline, Ohio and he said that someone called it to his attention. He also said I am a nobody blogger with nothing else to do besides get into his and his daughter and his daughter’s mothers business and that I kiss “Texas ass”. and some other things I didn’t quite catch because he talks a million miles a minute and his voice was getting high pitched and kind of screechy.

He also told me to take down the document that contains his sworn declaration in his paternity action way back when. I said, “those documents were unsealed in the Cosby case.” He said “no it is not.” And I’m thinking, well, geeze, how else would I have it? It was for sale on Pacer.

Well at around that part, I started laughing. I think it upset him that I was laughing and so he mocked me in a cartoon-like voice and someone that was with him said something….I don’t know what…

I told him “see what happens when you consort with criminals?” He said, “Who are the criminals?” I didn’t say anything. He asked again. I didn’t say anything. He said, “name them.” I said, “You know who they are”. And I think after that is when the call ended.

It’s also notable that I am a witness for the plaintiff in Virgie Arthur’s defamation and libel lawsuit against Howard K. Stern and Birkhead is also a defendant.

So as I am writing this he shows up in the shout box.

Larry B : The scoop is that I called and told this lady off …big deal.
QV : Hahaa. Its funny!
Larry B : thats what you say today… check the mail in crestline ohio there pretty soon
QV : Okee dokee. You dont scare me. I have a friend in Texas who would love to speak to you. Name is Wilma. You have her number right?
Larry B : do you think any one in their right mind is scared of her? ahhhhhhhaahahaha hahah
QV : I only said she would like to speak to you. Not that she would scare you. But you are trying to scare me. Its not working.
Larry B : i made a simple request I am here taking screen shots i will have my attorney handle the rest. yvonne
Larry B : wilma knows better than try and contact me…
QV : The name is Von. Get it right.
QV : And you must be too chicken to call her then?
Larry B : its yvonne von-waddle barnhart the self-proclaimed “queen of Von Donia”
Larry B : <screenshot^&*>
QV : No its really not von-waddle-barnh art and Iam not self proclaimed. An admirer came up with that moniker. You can be a queen too. No need to be jealous.
Larry B : you can be in a trailer in ohio to goodnight $$$$$$$$$$
QV : Nite nite.

Below is the article that upset Larry Birkhead so much.

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

I expect Larry Birkhead should be stepping up to the plate soon to testify in the criminal drug conspiracy trial of his buddy Howard K. Stern and the doctors Khristine Eroshevich and Sandeep Kapoor.

For Birkhead as with Maurice Brighthaupt, expect the problem of inconsistency, not only from past media interviews but from sworn testimony and affidavits since the time of Anna Nicole’s death in 2007 until now.

Friday in court however, Brighthaupt made a startling confession. Shortly after Anna Nicole died and with the memory of the woman he called his “little sister” fresh in his mind, Brighthaupt said that he flat out lied in those early interviews. “I knew there would come a time when I had to be truthful,” he said. “I came clean.” Even in death he wanted to protect her memory. “I thought as someone who had protected her in life, I should try to save what reputation she had left,” he said. Brighthaupt said his lying is over now.  His testimony is expected to continue on Monday, August 9th.

For Larry Birkhead, things will not be so cut and dried. When Birkhead was fighting for his unborn child, Anna Nicole was still alive to refute any claims he made so at the time, he had to be very careful. There was a lot at $$$take. He had to be right. He had to be truthful.

For those who remember the burial hearing trial, Larry Birkhead initially appeared as an ally to Smith’s mother Virgie Arthur who wanted to take her unmarried daughter’s body back to where she was born in Texas. The next step would have been to exhume grandson Daniel’s body in the Bahamas and bring him home as well. Instead the judge in the case manufactured a way to bypass the next of kin law that should have awarded Anna Nicole’s body to her mother Mrs. Arthur.

One day during the hearings after a clandestine meeting between Stern and Birkhead, everything changed. Stern and Birkhead teamed up against the woman whose daughter and grandson had died under suspicious circumstances and on their watch. That is why I attach more weight to what Birkhead said as he fought for his daughter as opposed to after he got into bed (so to speak) with Stern.

I thought it would be interesting to go back and detail what came out of Birkhead’s mouth when so much was on the line.

Birkhead during a recent marketing rampage to publicize a Las Vegas auction unloading some of Anna Nicole’s belongings went on the record once again to say he does not believe the allegations relating to the current criminal trial about Stern.

“Howard is the executor of Anna’s estate, so we spend a lot of time talking about estate business … Howard truly does want what’s best for Dannielynn, and there’s not too many of those people floating around. I don’t think he had anything to do with Anna Nicole’s death.” ... ‘If anyone wondered if he would harm Anna or Dannie, I would say you’re crazy. She basically was his life and still is to this day.”

Not too many of those people floating around eh?

Everyone wants the best for Dannielynn and people do not forget. Here is Dannielynn sleeping during the Today Show and grabbing a nap at the Kentucky Derby. Birkhead could have been talking about himself  in this 2006 Declaration.

Birkhead: I have been provided no information as to the health status of our daughter other than through public photographs sold by Anna Nicole to the press for money IN EXPLOITATION OF OUR CHILD which appear to depict an underweight baby.

(Followers of this story know that the Haitian Nannies were also concerned about Dannielynn’s weight)

Birkhead’s hero is accused of supplying drugs to Anna Nicole while pregnant and Birkhead knew it and is now defending him in spite of evidence from his own mouth that says Stern was helping to poison his daughter before she was born.

Larry Birkhead: In April of 2006 Anna Nicole Smith was hospitalized at Cedar Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles…a result of what she told me was a reaction to her detoxing from prior drug usage. At the time I began to have strong suspicions that she was still on drugs. I began to voice my concerns for the baby. I have personal knowledge that Anna Nicole was taking Methadone and became addicted to it at this time. Howard K. Stern was fully aware and jealous of my relationship with Respondent. Mr. Stern was a “tag along”...When Anna Nicole was in the hospital in April, Mr. Stern would oddly curl up and sleep on a cot at the foot of our bed. Mr. Stern often picked up Anna Nicole’s various prescription drugs as well as dispense them to her. I fear that Mr. Stern’s motives in interfering with my parental rights are solely based upon self interest and attempt at financial gain.

I personally observed the Respondent (Anna Nicole) ingest several 750mg Vicodin pills at one time when the prescription called for 1 pill every 4-6 hours.

Respondent also during this time was taking Carisoprodol, a sedative and muscle relaxant.
I have been informed by medical experts that it is risky to take this drug while pregnant…

(Birkhead submitted bottles of each drug.)

This is in addition to her taking methadone which I personally observed her taking in large quantities while pregnant. I also observed Respondent taking Ambien, topomax, klonopin and phenegran by injection in large amounts, all while pregnant.

Anna Nicole also consumed alcohol while ingesting drugs drinking Perrier Joet and Chrystal champagne throughout the day like water as well as washing down prescription drugs with vodka and cranberry mixed cocktails.

Howard K. Stern often picked up the drugs for Anna Nicole at various pharmacies as well as dispense the drugs to her.

Her attorney Howard K. Stern threw all my belongings out of the home I shared with Anna Nicole.
When I informed Anna Nicole that it may be necessary to test our child for drugs due to her drug history…she fled to the Bahamas where she gave birth on September 7, 2006.

*Source: Declaration of Larry Birkhead

More  comments from Birkhead regarding Howard K. Stern, on the Larry King Live Show. January 26th, 2007.

KING: Why did you break up?
BIRKHEAD: There was — there’s not really one reason, but there were a few reasons and mostly because tension between Anna’s attorney and her friend, Howard K. Stern, just really interfering with our relationship. And there was — there were some issues. I had some concerns over health and some concerns for my unborn daughter with some things that she was doing in her lifestyle.
KING: That Anna was doing?
BIRKHEAD: Yes, sir.
KING: That might have affected the baby?
BIRKHEAD: Yes, sir.
KING: Like drugs?
BIRKHEAD: Yes, sir.
KING: All right, did — did Howard try to enter — did he try to get you out of the relationship?
BIRKHEAD: He did. He did, several…
KING: Out of jealousy?
BIRKHEAD: Well, yes, sir, definitely, overt. I dated — we dated for over two and-a-half years and during that time it was an uphill battle with Mr. Stern. And he’s always — was always interfering with her everyday life.

*
*
*

KING: His relationship has not been a sexual one with her?
BIRKHEAD: No. In fact, you know, he — I’m not saying that he wouldn’t like it to be. And then this whole thing where he got to announce this on your show, it actually made him live out his fantasy that he’s had for years of being a friend with Anna Nicole.
KING: She is not physically interested in him?
BIRKHEAD: Absolutely not. In fact, most of the time that — that I was in the home with her, when we lived together, we would have to basically lock doors to the bedroom. He would try to come in and she’d have to tell him at certain points to call before he came back. And…

*
*
*

KING: Why did you put up with Howard K. hanging around, banging on the door? Oh, here’s a — you’re dating her, you’re fathering her child. Why do you need that? Why didn’t you say good-bye to him?
BIRKHEAD: Well, actually, I did a couple of times and actually I made Anna say, you know, nicely, you know — and I’m trying to be considerate of people’s feelings, even though we did not get along. I didn’t want to rub my relationship with her in his face. But I told her several times that it was, you know, basically her home, she needed to tell him that, you know, what his place was as her attorney, friend, whatever, but not to overstep those bounds and to kind of give us our space.
And several times she did. And one time in particular, while she was pregnant, I had to basically rescue her at a hotel because Howard gave her so much grief about me being the father and saying that he was never going to accept me. And he told her to make a choice — her — him or me. And she called me crying hysterical and she drove herself barefoot to a hotel down the street and I had to basically help her.
KING: Why is she copping out on you?
BIRKHEAD: Because, you know, she’s under the influence in many ways. And one of the reasons is Howard Stern is basically telling her that she needs to get away from me. He’s telling her…
KING: He’s a Svengali? You know, he controls her?
BIRKHEAD: You know he — exactly. I mean it’s almost, to be honest with you, you would almost think she has like Stockholm Syndrome or something. She’s in another place, under his influence and she just doesn’t…
KING: Is he a control freak?
BIRKHEAD: Definitely. Most definitely.
OPRI: I want to jump in here and say something about the inquest that’s coming up. While Larry was in the Bahamas, he was asked to and was interviewed by the police. We won’t go into the details of the information he provided. But there are serious issues as to the control and the extent to which Howard K. Stern has controlled Anna Nicole Smith.
*
KING: Well, he seemed to say, also, was there a confidentiality agreement?
BIRKHEAD: You know what? That’s something that he says. You know, I — I dispute that and I don’t really want to discuss it.
KING: You didn’t sign anything?
BIRKHEAD: Not that I’m aware of.
OPRI: We should talk about the millions of dollars Anna, with Howard’s prompting, has earned from “E.T.” and other sources for photographs, a video of the birth of the baby. It was disgusting. It was terrible, nauseating, that Larry had to see the birth of his own child on “E.T.”
BIRKHEAD: The tape was sold to “Entertainment Tonight” for, you know, over $4 million. She’s sold baby pictures every time they turn around, of my child. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/26/lkl.01.html

NO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT? THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT IS MISSING BUT THE CONTENTS ARE RIGHT HERE

Anna Nicole: The Legal Battle
February 06, 2007

Larry Birkhead and Anna Nicole Smith engage in a war of words over who fathered
Dannielynn Hope.
------------------------------
As the Anna Nicole Smith and Larry Birkhead paternity battle rages on, ET
has the confidentiality agreement that she claims he signed!
------------------------------
*CLICK HERE <http://www.etonline.com/gfx/lbirkhead_et.pdf> to see the
confidentiality agreement obtained by ET.*
On Monday, *ANNA NICOLE SMITH* spoke exclusively with ET regarding brand-new
developments in her paternity battle with photographer *LARRY BIRKHEAD*, who
claims to be the father of her five-month-old daughter, *DANNIELYNN*.
Larry filed a paternity and custody suit in the Los Angeles Superior Court
soon after the birth of Dannielynn last September.

Anna Nicole adamantly denies planning a romantic future with Larry, telling
ET, "We had no relationship," and refutes his claims that he was there for
the first ultra-sound, that he bought her maternity clothes and baby
furniture, and that they previously had a baby that miscarried.
Tonight, Larry comes directly to ET to go on the record about the status of
their personal and legal battles.

"You're gonna have to drag Anna Nicole into a courtroom kicking, screaming,
fighting," Larry tells ET's *JANN CARL*. "She's not going to abide by any
laws unless she's forced to."

Amid the legal wranglings of both parties, the spotlight turns to a
confidentiality agreement that Anna Nicole claims Larry signed, instructing
anyone who provides their signature to steer clear of communicating with the
media about Anna Nicole, including film, television, print and digital,
without her consent.

Anna Nicole tells ET, "Everyone in my life signs one. And yet he claims he
doesn't remember signing anything like it. Actually, he signed three of
them."

Birkhead claims not to be aware of ever signing one.

"This is my child; it doesn't matter what the penalty is," says Birkhead
about speaking out, despite the alleged agreement. "They started this. They
started bashing me. I'm just defending myself."

The "AGREEMENT NOT TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE MEDIA" consent form obtained by
ET contains what appears to be a signature and the initials of one Larry
Birkhead, and includes a handwritten addendum that states, "If I breach this
agreement then I will pay a liquidated damages sum of ten million dollars,
and any money received would revert back to Anna Nicole Smith as damages
from any breach."

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

October 2nd 2006 Declaration Of Larry Birkhead

As the court may be aware, the Respondent’s (Anna Nicole Smith) son, Daniel sadly died shortly after he joined the Respondent and her entourage in the Bahamas. News reports I have seen state that he died as a result of a lethal combination of prescription medications and methadone, which Respondent has been addicted to.

LARRY BIRKHEAD BURIAL HEARING TESTIMONY. STERN INTERFERED WITH OUR RELATIONSHIP. THE DUFFEL BAG

( Transcripts)

Q.  (Judge Seidlin) And what was Stern’s reaction with regard to your relationship with her?
A.  (Larry Birkhead) He interfered with out relationship.
Q.  Describe?
A.  There were times when Anna Nicole wanted to do public events and there were couple of instances where he canceled tickets that we had to basketball games.  There was a time, because he was fearing that I would be seen in public, which is what I was told by Anna Nicole.  And also –
*
*
*
Q.  In April of 2006, she told you to come to the hospital?
A.  Because she was having pains and she told me that she got rushed to the hospital and I was worried that something was wrong with her and the baby and she said don’t worry, I am okay, the baby is okay and Anna said, you want to know what the baby is, I said, you went to the doctors without me because we were planning to go together.  She said, don’t get mad, I had to.  I said, what is wrong, she said I am okay but I saw the baby, do you want to know.  I said, no, I will wait until I get there and I came to the hospital and she was in the hospital for two weeks, because she was trying to get off medications or she was having an adverse reaction to the medication form the hospital, or previous medications she had taken before she went into the hospital.  And at that time, I stayed with her for two weeks and slept in the hospital bed next to her while Mr. Stern slept on a cot.
*
*
*
Q.  (Judge Seidlin) For two weeks, in April 2006?
A.  (Larry Birkhead) Yes, sir.
Q.  Then what happened, if anything?
A.  At one point, she was – they had her on a drip trying to wean her off – am I allowed to say the drug name?
A.  That’s all right.
MR. MILSTEIN:  Standing objection.
MS. BARTH:  Same objection.
A.  On multiple medications.  And what happened was, Mr. Stern and she had packed a duffel bag.

Q  She is pregnant and taking medication?
A.  She was taking medications before and during the pregnancy.
Q.  Were you concerned about that?
A.  I was very concerned about that.
Q. Why?
A.  Because we had already had one miscarriage and every time she put something in her mouth, I thought that that’s it.
Q.  It would affect –
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  — the welfare of the child.
A.  And her as well. And so we had a couple clashes in the hospital room because she and Mr. Stern brought a duffel bag and when they were not administering through the drips.  They were taken out of the bag and taken on top of drugs and thwarted the efforts of the hospital to get her off the medication.
*
*
*
A.  Mr. Stern, she told me Mr. Stern took her to the Bahamas.  First to South Carolina to the man she was with in November or December, that it was his child and then later I found out she was in the Bahamas and made contact with her even though we had an argument.
*
*
*
Remember in the Inquest into Daniel’s death,  Birkhead claimed that he saw Daniel steal Methadone from a refrigerator. If I recall correctly, there was a video camera but it was placed in such a way that did not pick up what was in or taken out of the fridge. Yet Birkhead admits they hid his mother’s drug use from him. Why would Birkhead do that if Daniel was using drugs? Because Daniel did not abuse drugs and someone was lying…

Q. (Judge Seidlin) What was Anna’s feeling toward Danny?
A.  (Birkhead) She loved her son.
Q.  Did they have a healthy relationship?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  Did Danny have an impression about her prescription drug use?
A.  That from what I witnessed, was when Anna was ever on any prescription, it was at a level where she was not herself.  I would still need to shut the door and not let him – not ever lock him out, but not welcoming him into the bathroom because either an assistant told me, or Mr. Stern suggested that Daniel should not see her like this or he would he upset if he saw her like this.  So this would be the only conversation that I would have about any prescription drugs.

ABOUT DANIEL BEING BURIED IN THE BAHAMAS:

A. (Birkhead)  I never had a conversation about where she personally wanted to be buried after May of 2006, but I had conversations with her about the fact that I disagreed with Daniel being buried in the Bahamas since his death.  And she told me that, she said well, of course, reiterated the reason she was there was to avoid the paternity case and if I would put down my fight against her and did not want her to pay my legal fees, that she may let me see the baby.  I said, why don’t you bring Daniel home, that was not his home.
*
*
*
Q. (Judge Seidlin) Objection sustained. If you were the natural father of Dannielynn, according to some of the arguments here, you would stand in a stronger position than my Guardian Ad Litem being a stranger to this child. Do you have a recommendation where I should put Anna Nicole Smith’s body?
A. (Birkhead) Yes.
Q.  Are speaking on behalf of the little girl or are you speaking on her behalf as the father of Dannielynn, not your opinion, what you thing your little girl would want. This is assuming you are the father.
A. I would say, I do have an opinion, but it’s not just a cut and dry opinion.
Q. I am going to allow you to expand. This is not a yes or no. It’s why we are here.
A. I would say that since she always had a desire to be in California and that was her home outside of just the paternity battle, that that’s where I would prefer her to be.
Q. In California?
A. That is where I prefer her, since her son has passed away, I know he did not want to go to the Bahamas and he called California his home. I hate that he is there, so I am having a tough time with the decision.
*
*
*
A. (Birkhead)  But you know, since Daniel is there, I mean, I guess the problem that I am having with it is, is that I am a California resident and if and when I get the daughter, that I know I believe is mine, she will not live in the Bahamas.  So is that a place she is going to travel to see her brother and mother’s grave?
Q.  (Judge Seidlin) It’s a long car ride.
A.  Or do you, you know, consider upon agreement, bring Daniel back here and I hate to do that.
Q.  But that is serious matter, exhuming a body because it’s a serious matter.  It is something that we will talk about.
A.  You know, I don’t want to separate the mother from the child.  However –
Q.  Danny from Anna Nicole Smith?
A.  But I don’t want them in the Bahamas, so I am having trouble with that.

THE COURT:  So tell me you don’t need to give anymore of an infinite answer than that.
MR. BIRKHEAD:  I am just trying to be honest.  It’s not easy.

TEXAS ATTORNEY TOM PRITLE QUESTIONS BIRKHEAD ABOUT ANNA’S MOTHER

February 2007

Q.  (Tom Pritle) I want to ask you straight up.  You’re here and you claim to be – and I’m not disputing, we’re not disputing it – to be Dannielynn’s father.  You know Virgie is Dannielynn’s grandmother?
A. (Larry Birkhead) Yes, sir.
Q.  I saw you reach out to her; true?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  Was there a reason why you reached out to Virgie?
A.  I feel sorry for her and I think – for her loss, double loss and triple loss for not being able to see her granddaughter.
Q.  And at some point in time, she’s going to be the grandmother of your daughter?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  And do you plan on including Virgie in raising the granddaughter as a grandmother?
A.  Yes, sir.  I’ll need all the help.
Q.  As well as your parents in Kentucky?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  And a whole lot of people down in Texas?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  Some of them from the Arthur side and some of them, evidently, from your side?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  And do you believe that would be in the best interest of Dannielynn?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  That she could have her whole family around?
A.  yes, sir.
Q.  Now, I want to ask you.  Virgie is in here and asking and petitioning this Court for the body of her daughter, you know that?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  As the biological father, if that be true of Dannielynn, do you have a problem with this Court releasing Anna Nicole Smith’s body to Virgie and then I want to ask you some more stuff?
A.  Can you ask me one more time?
Q.  Yes.  What I’m saying is –
THE COURT:  Repeat the exact question.
Q.  Sir, do you have a problem with this judge releasing Anna Nicole Smith’s body to her mother?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  So you don’t?
A.  No, sir.
*
*
*
Q.  Let’s take, for example, the Bahamas, the only reason why you give the Bahamas any deference is you know she loved her son, Daniel?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  You don’t want her buried in the Bahamas in truth?
A.  No, sir.
(Objection by Mr. Rale)
Q.  You don’t believe the Bahamas was her home?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  You don’t believe that she was going to stay in the Bahamas?
A.  No.  She told me otherwise.
Q.  You actually thought she was coming back to her home in California and hoped that you all would get married?
A.  Or at least work out our differences for our daughter.
Q.  And raise your daughter?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  And that was her home, California?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  And you didn’t for one minute believe that she was going to stay and be a resident of the Bahamas and exclude you from your daughter’s life?
(Objection from Mr. Rale)
A.  Could you repeat the question?
Q.  Sure.  I said you didn’t for one minute believe that she was going to permanently stay in the Bahamas and exclude you from your daughter’s life?
A.  No, because she told me otherwise.

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

MILSTEIN QUESTIONS BIRKHEAD ABOUT ANNA NICOLE’S PRESCRIPTION DRUG USE. BIRKHEAD UPSET BY A CONFRONTATION WITH STERN

Q. (Milstein)  I will pick up where you left off with the questions of Mr. Birkhead, which was not the area of necessary inquiry.  I object myself in the sense that Dannielynn will not really know about in any great magnitude as she grows up.  But in the time, Mr. Birkhead, in the time that you spend with Anna Nicole, what efforts did you make personally to assist her in minimizing or rehabilitating herself from any use of substances?
A. (Birkhead)  For one, I hid some of the medicines that I didn’t feel was necessary for her, some things that she was getting prescribed by doctors:  Dr. A, Dr. B and Dr. C all together.  And I felt like the cumulative effects would have a bad reaction.  I’m not a doctor but I know – I mean, your brain is a computer and all these different medicine are telling you to do and all these doctors aren’t on the same page so they would have a bad effect.
Like I said, at times I took her medicine and I was told by Mr. Stern to give it back to her because she needed it to live.  And in addition to that, I just  told her over and over, I said don’t – something is going to happen to you.  Something is going to happen.  And I –
Q.  Take a breath.  It’s okay.

JUDGE SEIDLIN QUESTIONS LARRY BIRKHEAD, MORE COMMENTS ABOUT DRUGGING THE UNBORN CHILD AND STERN’S INTERFERENCE

Q.  Did this dominate the conversations you had with her?
A.  No, sir, it didn’t dominate but it resonated and I said over and over and over.  You don’t know how many times I had to help her and to carry her back and forth to make sure she’s okay.  Sometimes I didn’t even know if she was going to live and they dept bringing more and more drugs in the house and the pharmacist.  And at one point, the time I knew it was really bad is when one of the individuals in that house came home and they said, they had my picture up in the pharmacy as a VIP customer and they thought it was a funny thing to say.  Another said –
Q.  Who said that?
A.  An assistant.  And her picture was on the wall at the pharmacy and I said, this has got to stop.  And I told Anna, I told everybody in the home and it didn’t stop.  I did everything that I could and while she was pregnant, like I said yesterday, I tried to massage her pains away.  I tried to say, why don’t you take something that’s over the counter.  Please don’t take what’s not recommended.  Don’t take double doses if it’s a single dose.
You might have a high tolerance but the baby is not high tolerance and, you know, it just went on and on and on.  I think I did all I could.  And when I was pushed away –
Q.  Who pushed you away?
A.  I got into an argument with Anna Nicole that was something that could have been brushed over.  It was something that could have been brushed over.  It was something, on a scale from one to ten, the argument was like a six and it could have been brushed back over like many in the past that everybody or every couple goes through.  And Mr. Stern got in the middle of it with us and he said, like I said yesterday, he told me to come get my stuff, he threw the plasma television out on the front porch and clothes and he won’t give be back some of my belongings in the house.  And the next thing, like I said yesterday, he told me he was going to take off –
Q.  Let me ask you a question:  What did you feel – what is your impression of Mr. Stern’s feelings towards Ms. Anna Nicole Smith?  Make it short and descriptive.
A.  I thing that he –
Q.  Did he love her?
A.  I think he did and does but I think as a result of that, I think he didn’t do the things he could have done to help her.
Q.  But she took flight when you were saying to her not to do drugs anymore, right?
A.  Right.  But Anna Nicole didn’t have a driver’s license.  She didn’t drive herself to the pharmacy and pick things up.  She didn’t call the doctors.  Mr. Stern called the doctors and asked for the prescription.
Q.  But she could have replaced Mr. Stern with another individual; am I right?
A.  If he would have told her no on the drugs, she probably would.  And I said no and that’s why I’m here today.  I don’t have my daughter.  I don’t have anything.
Q.  Let me ask you a question:  Is there a time in your heart that you feel you can develope relationship, if it comes out down the road, who the father is?  Let’s say you’re the father.  You think you can develop a relationship with Mr. Stern to work something where everybody gets to enjoy and improve the life of Dannielynn?
A.  I’m not selfish but there is a lot of hurt and heartache.  I missed the delivery of my child.
Q.  I’m sorry.
A.  I missed the delivery of my child.  I’ve had to pay $4.99 for magazines to see what my child looks like.  I’ve had to call and send gifts, Fed Ex Christmas gifts for my child and I’ve missed everything that you can’t get back so maybe some day, maybe.  I’m not going to say yes today but the more he fights me and the more it takes, the less likely he’s to get anything.

MILSTEIN TO  BIRKHEAD – MORE FINGER POINTING AT STERN:

A.  Those came from my personal – it’s my personal collection.
Q.  How many photos did you sell?
A.  I couldn’t give you an exact number.  I can tell you in the context they were used and why they were sent.
Q.  Would you do that please?
A.  Sure, like I stated yesterday, back in May of – when it was announced that Anna Nicole was pregnant, there was a behind the scenes war with me and Mr. Stern where he had called me and told me to deny that I was the father of the child on press time with a specific magazine and he called me like 200 times.  I was working at an event and he was telling me the importance of me getting my name out of it because my name was being attached to the pregnancy.  And he said that if this goes down and my name is out there, that this is going to be bad and just to deny, deny, deny.

I said – I did say no comment.  He said, no, I want you to go back and say if she’s pregnant, you have nothing to do with it.  And he called me so many times at a job that I was at that I finally just agreed to get him off my back.  And ever since then, the magazines that printed it previously that I was the father, they’re saying, okay, now you’re saying no comment.  Now you’re saying you have nothing to do with it.  And then he was releasing information that Anna Nicole wanted me out of her life and that I wanted fifteen minutes of fame.  And he posted something on her website that said something to the same effect.

And what happened was later after – during that time, before Daniel’s death, I released photos because I told Howard and I told Anna Nicole that it wasn’t fair for him to be saying that stuff about me and she said, you’re not the star.  I’m the star.  And you shouldn’t be telling people this.  And they wanted me to remain quiet and behind the scenes.  So I said, I’m tired of it.  I’m tired of him telling me what I’m going to do and so I released photos to establish the relationship.  And as a result of me releasing those photos, I have been compensated and would be compensated down the road for it.
*
*
*
Q.  You live in California now?  Are you planning on staying in California?
A.  I would like to.  It depends on the outcome, when I can get my daughter.
Q.  And if you had a job, the type of job that you have as being a photographer, journalist, would you move to New Your, for example, would you move to New York?
A.  Well, the good thing about my job is I can do a lot of it from – the flip side of it, I can do a lot from home.  I can do it from anywhere.  If it were in my daughter’s best interest to go to New York with me, then I would consider that but if it weren’t, then I’d stay and take less money to stay wherever was a better environment for her.
Q.  If you wanted to move home to Kentucky where you grew up, would that be a consideration for you?
A.  It would because I would have the support system and I’d have family and friends that would help me with my child.
THE COURT:  You’re in the big town now.  You would leave the big town?
MR. BIRKHEAD?  I’d have to do what’s better for my daughter, so I would do whatever it took.
Q.  At this juncture you can’t say that you would be stationary in one specific location.  That you would seek the opportunities that would be best for yourself and your daughter?
A.  I would seek the opportunities that are best for my daughter and I would consider myself next.

STERN’S LAWYER KRISTA BARTH QUESTIONS LARRY BIRKHEAD ABOUT GETTING A “SUBSTANCE ABUSER” PREGNANT

THE COURT: Were you concerned having a baby with a woman that you thought was over medicated, meaning that the child could have had problems during the birth?
A. Yes, sir, I was.
MS. BARTH: Your Honor was following my point here. My question is, someone who is a substance abuser, whether prescription drugs or otherwise, why is it that you would enter into such a dangerous situation for this baby when you knew that she had not cleaned herself up in rehab at that point? Why would you take that chance? Why would you put this risk on this baby?
THE COURT: Terrific point.
MR. BIRKHEAD: You’re saying that I knew that she was on drugs?
THE COURT: Wait. Wait. Easy. Easy. Answer the question.
MR. BIRKHEAD: Rephrase your question.
THE COURT: No, she’s not going to rephrase it. Answer the question.
MR. BIRKHEAD: Repeat your question.
Q. Did you understand my question?
A. I don’t understand your question.
Q. Miss Smith had not been through rehab and you were aware that she had substance abuse issues; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Why is it then that you, as an adult, as you just stated, took the chance on getting her pregnant and putting this baby in danger before it was even conceived?
A. When she came back from South Carolina in November and December –
THE COURT: No long story. Answer the question.
MR. BIRKHEAD: Because when –
THE COURT: Why did you make her pregnant when you knew she was overmedicated?
MR. BIRKHEAD: Well, the answer to the question is when she came back from South Carolina she was not medicated as much and she cleaned herself up.

BARTH CONTINUES CROSS EXAMINATION:
Q. As much?
A. I can understand why she was saying that. I can understand she was in a better state of mind. Her skin was clear. It was totally different.
Q. Do you think she wasn’t an addict at that point, sir?
A. I don’t know the actual term of that. I know that she used medication.
*
*
*
MS. BARTH: I believe he testified the fourth month of pregnancy. I think that is consistent with what he is saying. At that time you said she was at the hospital and she was detoxing while pregnant; is that correct?
A. I don’t know if that was the purpose for her visit. She said she was rushed there in pain and then they detoxed her.
Q. But when you went to visit her the reason that she was there was because they were detoxing her; is that correct?
A. I didn’t say the reason. I said she was there for pain.
Q. Were they detoxing her?
A. It was my understanding from the doctors that they were.
Q. And you also testified yesterday – you didn’t take her to the hospital, did you?
A. I didn’t take her.
Q. Who took her to the hospital?
A. Mr. Stern took her and then she called me to come.
Q. Mr. Stern took her to the hospital and then you arrived. Now, when you got there, you said you stayed with her for several weeks; is that correct?
A. Approximately two weeks.
Q. Serious stuff, right?
A. It became serious.
Q. It was already serious. She’s pregnant and she’s in a hospital detoxing, correct?
A. Her condition became serious as a result of the detox more so from when she was back at home because I think her body was rejecting some of the things that was –
Q. Sir, what I’m asking you is, a pregnant woman in the hospital, four months pregnant –
THE COURT: And how old? How about her age?
MS. BARTH: Exactly.
THE COURT: What age: She was in her late –
MS. BARTH: Yes. She was also at risk just due to her age; is that correct?
MR. BIRKHEAD: I’m not a doctor.
THE COURT: But we know that.
MR. BIRKHEAD: I don’t know.
THE COURT: We all know that the later, the more difficult the pregnancy is. I want you to be.
MR. BIRKHEAD: I’m not a doctor but I would agree that’s a late stage and she was high risk in the past, according to her, and maybe she would be considered –
THE COURT: At what age was she when she became pregnant?
MR. BIRKHEAD: Thirty-eight.
THE COURT: That’s what I wanted out of your mouth. 38 is a risky time.
MR. BIRKHEAD: She was closer to forty

ABOUT ANNA NICOLE AND STERN SNEAKING ADDITIONAL DRUGS INTO THE HOSPITAL DURING PREGNANCY

MR. BIRKHEAD:  She previously told me she was high risk.
MS. BARTH  So you understand she was high risk.  This was a serious situation.  Now, you came in that hospital, you testified yesterday, and my client was sitting there, and you said at some point during this two-week period, and I’m not sure when, you saw a duffel bag full of drugs; is that correct?
A.  I never said full of drugs.
Q.  There were drugs in a duffle bag?
A.  There were drugs in a duffle bag.
Q.  What did you do?
A.  I didn’t know they were there because what also was in there was her personal belongings.
Q.  You just said you knew the drugs were there?
A.  Could you let me finish?
MR. BIRKHEAD:  Sure.  At one point during the stay in the hospital, she asked me to go get some personal belongings out of the closet in the hospital.  And when I went into the closet, she asked me to bring the bag out and she kept pushing the button for the drugs to come out and she was getting frustrated and she kept telling me to press the nurse to tell her to get more.  They said, they said you can’t have any more.  She said, I need more.  When she told me to get her bag for something, totally related to the drugs, like a toothbrush or something like that, when I brought the bag back to her, she pulled the bottle out.  Mr. Stern was in the room and they were waiting to see who came in and they opened the bottle.
MS. BARTH:  They opened the bottle.  Did Anna open the bottle or did Mr. Stern open the bottle?  They didn’t open the bottle.
A.  It happened multiple times, so I guess he did and she did both, and I witnessed both.
Q.  What did you do?  Did you buzz -
Q.  What did you do next, if anything?
A.  I told them not to and I repeatedly told her not to and I watched and I stayed up for almost 24 hours a day to make sure that she didn’t.  And then when I made at another point to say something when she ripped her I.V. cord out of her arm, they told me to leave and then later on, I came out and they told me she was on suicide watch, that’s what I did.
Q.  Then what did you do?
A.  I was asked to leave.  She asked me to leave the hospital and she was going to call the nurse button because I was trying to make her stop.
Q.  Why did you leave?
A.  Because she told me if I didn’t, they were going to call security on me, the hospital.  And I told Howard what was going on and he said, it’s best if you go, she’s not in her right mind.  And they had a nurse sitting there 24 hours a day.  The room was crowded up and they asked me to leave.  They told me to leave.
*
*
*
BARTH CONTINUES CROSS EXAMINATION:
Q. Other than the times – that time that we talked about, that specific time in the hospital, you’ve stated on numerous occasions that there were times when you actually saw Miss Smith have seizures; is that correct?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. And at the times when she would have seizures, were you alone with her?
A. Sometimes.
Q. When she had these seizures, did you call 911? Did you call the hospital?
A. They told me not to.
Q. You just said sometimes you were alone, so who is “they”?
A. Can I say the people’s names?

BIRKHEAD SAYS THE HOSPITAL DOCTORS HAD A PLAN FOR “RECOVERY” AND PRIMARY DOCTORS WERE TOLD TO “STOP PRESCRIBING”

Q. When Miss Smith was still in the hospital going through this detox with the baby, pregnant, you left to go out of town; is that correct?
A. I left. I was scheduled to go out of town for a work event but I was going to stay. But since she told me to leave and she was going to call security on me and Howard, or they told me or I was told not to come back. I wasn’t – and also, information was starting to be shielded from me at the hospital, so it was kind of like I didn’t know what to do. And I was also told that the doctor in the hospital, they had her on a plan that they felt it was a plan for recovery. And they also told her primary doctors to stop prescribing her and they were taking over the plan from there.

DANIEL DID NOT LIKE THE BAHAMAS

MS. BARTH: You knew that Anna wanted to bury Daniel in the Bahamas; is that correct?
A. Incorrect.
Q. Did you ever send her an e-mail telling her not to bury Daniel in the Bahamas?
A. I spoke to her.
Q. You didn’t send her an e-mail saying that.
A. I could have, but I’ve spoken to her. I probably said it over and over and over.
Q. Is it fair to say that after Anna left for the Bahamas, your relationship had fairly broken down?
A. For the most part, the communication.
Q. You had some angry communication, didn’t you?
A. We had angry and we had good.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this. Take a second. I ask you this, where would you place Anna Nicole’s body?
MR. BIRKHEAD: I’m still having a hard time with that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Tell me. It’s a new day today. Tell me today.
MR. BIRKHEAD: I know her son didn’t want to go to the Bahamas. He didn’t like the Bahamas. Let me rephrase. He considered California home and so did Anna. And I know the reason that she went to the Bahamas was to avoid the paternity action. So for them to be laid to rest in a place that was unnecessary for them to be in is hard for me. And like I said yesterday, that once I’m proven to be the father of Dannielynn, then the distance for her to see her, to pay respect to her mother and brother will be difficult. But on the same token, splitting them up is hard for me. I probably didn’t answer that.
THE COURT: You answered it. So you’re telling me that Danny was essential, integral part of her life.
MR. BIRKHEAD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Where is he resting now?
MR. BIRKHEAD: In the Bahamas.

BIRKHEAD SENDS NASTY EMAIL TO ANNA NICOLE IN THE BAHAMAS SHORTLY AFTER DANIEL DIED

Ms. Barth Questioning Mr. Birkhead Concerning An Email He Sent Anna Nicole
THE COURT: What is that document?
MS. BARTH: It’ an e-mail from Mr. Birkhead to Anna where he say – stipulate that that’s his e-mail address.
MR. BIRKHEAD: That’s not the e-mail address you’re asking me about.
THE COURT: What is she saying?
MS. BARTH: He is saying to her that all the times we were together cheating on me with that bar whore Tracy, Kameron –
THE COURT: Who is bar whore Tracy?
MS. BARTH: Kameron in Australia, you ex Ruggie Boy Charlie and Kim and all of the lousy, excuse my language, shit you have done to me. Think about it, Anna.
*
*
*
MS. BARTH: The date on that is Friday, September 22nd.
THE COURT: When she’s in the Bahamas?
MS. BARTH: Right after her son died, Your Honor, he’s sending her this e-mail. I think this is important.
MS. OPRI: This is inappropriate.
MR. BIRKHEAD: You don’t know what she said to me.
Q. I would ask you to look at this e-mail dated September 22nd. I believe that was twelve days after the death of Daniel. Can you read it for me, sir, from the start?
MS. OPRI: Go ahead, please.
THE COURT: You’re going to read it to yourself?
Q. Please read it out loud.

A. (BIRKHEAD EMAIL TO ANNA NICOLE) Then your sick psycho ass puts my cross necklace on Daniel for the baby photos? How could you? Didn’t you see what that did to me to see those photos? I am not giving up. I am going to see in writing that I am not the father because I have to think that no real woman, no real mother, no one with a head could tell a man with no kids, especially after a heartbreaking and devastating miscarriage, that he was a daddy again and it not be true. No one could or should do that to anyone, not even you, the devil.

Q. The devil?
*
*
*
Q. Mr. Birkhead, can you please read that e-mail that you sent to Anna, again, twelve days after her son died? Please read that to me.
A. To make me look bad, Anna, come on, what have I told what I know about everyone. You need to go to the nearest church and pray that you won’t be in the fire pits of hell if something happens to you because you’re already headed there anyway. Now, I don’t remember writing that.
*
*
*
MS. BARTH: That she should burn in the fire pits of hell.
MS. OPRI: And she’s headed for death just like Daniel, we’ll stipulate to that, because she is dead today. We’ll stipulate to that.
MS. BARTH CONTINUES CROSS EXAMINATION:
Q. You wrote that e-mail; is that correct?
A. Is this the same one?
Q. That’s the same one you just read before.
A. I didn’t read it.
Q. Could you read it to us now?

A. (BIRKHEAD EMAIL TO ANNA NICOLE) I don’t have any rights now but I will have plenty in a few months. You are acting worse than your mother. You look desperate begging people to be your friends and asking people  to see my baby, how desperate, haven’t you stole enough.

ANOTHER BIRKHEAD EMAIL TO ANNA NICOLE SMITH

From: GettinRet2Go
To: HotSmoochieLips
Subject (no subject)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 7:13 pm

AND YOUR ONLY RESPONSE IS TO GO GET FAMOUS LIKE IT SOME BIG DEAL TO SAY YOU ARE MOTHER OF MY KID…..IT IS NOT THE MORE AND MORE THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR MOUTH AND YOUR FRIENDS IT IS ACTUALLY EMBARASSING THAT I GOT MIXED UP WITH YOU GYPSY CON ARTIST MONEY GRUBBERS INCLUDING HOWARD AND ALL YOUR DRUGGIE FRIENDS

BIRKHEAD AND AGREEMENT NOT TO TALK TO THE MEDIA

A. It does say 01/03/06.
Q. Is that your handwriting on there, Mr. Birkhead?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. What is that document?
A. It says it’s an agreement not to communicate with the media.
THE COURT: I missed that.
MS. BARTH: An agreement not to communicate with the media.
THE COURT: But wasn’t that prior to her pregnancy, the second pregnancy?
A. When this contract – when I was asked to sign this contract, it was right at the time of conception and she also told me that she was also pregnant and if I didn’t get over there and sign this, that she wouldn’t ever let me see my child.
Q. So you signed that document under duress; is that your statement?
A. Yes, ma’am.

*
*
*
Q.  Despite the fact that you signed this document, you have, in fact, done such things as communicate with media?
A.  Yes, but let me tell you this –
Q.  Sir, just answer my question, please.  Have you communicated with the media; yes or no?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Have you sold pictures, including television, print, film and digital?
(Objection by Ms. Opri)
Q.  Did you, in fact, despite signing this agreement with Miss Marshall, did you then go and sell television, film, print and digital images of Anna Nicole Smith?
A.  Yes, I did.  And the reason –
Q.  Yes or no, sir, did  you do that?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And did you understand that the reason that you were entering into this document was specifically because Vickie Lynn Marshell, Anna Nicole Smith, didn’t want anyone selling pictures of her without her receiving the monies; is that correct?
A.  No.
Q.  Isn’t that what the document says?
A.  But that wasn’t why I signed it.
Q.  Does the document say if you do this, that those monies belong to Anna Nicole Smith, now they belong to Dannielynn; is that correct?
A.  Which still belongs to me.
Q.  Did you give any of these monies or are they being held in trust for Dannielynn Marshall Stern?
MS. OPRI:  Your Honor, this is beyond the scope.
THE COURT:  I’m allowing it.  Overruled.
A.  Repeat.
Q.  Any of the money that you have received from selling all of these things that you said you weren’t going to sell in this contract, are they being held in trust, are these monies being held in trust for the minor child, Dannielynn Hope Stern?
A.  No, and there’s reason because I’ve been selling photographs –
Q.  Yes or no, sir?
THE COURT:  Yes or no, and then your lawyer will explain.
A.  No.  The answer is no.

BIRKHEAD WANTS NO PART OF THE MARSHALL ESTATE

August 26th, 2007

KING: Now, if she was that case in Texas, which the Supreme Court ruled that she’s entitled to…

OPRI: If, if, if..

KING: Well, 9-0 they said she’s entitled to that case.

BIRKHEAD: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KING: There’s a strong chance she’s…

OPRI: Well, there…

KING: All right, let’s put it this way.

OPRI: Well, we believe there’s an interpretation.

KING: Your daughter could be very wealthy.

BIRKHEAD: Well, you know, to be honest with you, Larry, and I’ve never said this on television before, I kind of hope she does not get the money, not because I don’t feel that she deserves it or — that’s a whole show for a different day. But if money makes people do the things that she’s (Anna Nicole) doing now, by taking my daughter. She’s also in a home that doesn’t own in the Bahamas. You know, if she wants — if that’s what money makes you do, then I don’t want any part of it.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/26/lkl.01.html

But by January 27th 2009, Larry Birkhead was well entrenched in his new partnership with Stern and sits for a declaration in Howard K. Stern’s lawsuit against Rita Cosby for her book, Blonde Ambition.

Page 14 Item 37. (same document)… John O’Quinn and Virgie Arthur have made good their threats and continue in the Bahamas to challenge my custody of Dannielynn to this day, even though the court made it clear that she was wasting her time. I have been forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars because of their irrational efforts to control the Marshall litigation, and the money that my daughter might one day obtain. (By the way, I don’t think anyone has seen proof of Mrs Arthur wanting a single thing to do with the Marshall Estate.)

Birkhead About Virgie Arthur

1st Day of testimony burial hearing February 2007.

Q  How about her mother?
A  I didn’t meet Ms. Arthur.  At that time, I did not [sic] her.
Q  But she embraced you one time in my courtroom.
A  I met her since the passing of her grandson and her daughter.
Q  Did you form any impression about her from your conversations with Nicole?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  Was it that impression on the video?
A  No.  Let me try to backtrack, I tried not to form an impression.  I listened to what Anna said about her mother, but I
am the type of person that likes to observe personally because I – before I make a decision on the type of character a
person is.
Q  And Anna Nicole’s impression was similar to what the video showed?
A  No, sir.
Q  No?
A  I will say this and let me clarify.  Her mother,  Anna Nicole always told me that she and her mother did not get along
and they had their differences.  But one of the first people when she got pregnant, she cried out for her mother, because
she sent me a text message and said, I want my mommy.
Q  She told you that?
A  Yes.
Q  Did her mommy call her on the phone?
A  No, sir because at that point, she was getting ready for her appearance for the Supreme Court.  I don’t know if it
transpired, I was not privileged to that.  On other occasions she mentioned her mother and I mentioned the possibility of a
reconciliation.  And sometimes she would say absolutely not and sometimes she would be more able to listen. *Source: Page 8 of this document

IF YOU ARE THE FATHER, CAN DANNIELYNN SEE HER GRANDMA?

THE COURT:  Would you, if you were the father of little Dannielynn, would you let mom, grandma, visit that little girl?
MR. BIRKHEAD:  Yes, I’d let anybody that had Anna’s best interest and loved Anna and love the child see the child.
THE COURT:  So you would give her visitation rights?
MR. BIRKHEAD:  Yes, sir.  I think it’s only fair for family and I thing that that’s just the appropriate thing to do.  And friends of Anna’s that had good intentions that I felt were there for her and that were there for the baby.  I would consider the same.

NOW A DIFFERENT STORY AGAIN

At the house in Florida in February of 2007, Rita Cosby and I discussed Virgie Arthur. I told Rita Cosby that Anna Nicole
was estranged from Virgie Arthur and she told me some very nasty horrible things Virgie Arthur had done to her. I told
Rita Cosby that I was unimpressed by Virgie Arthur and I did not think she was sincere because she had not been around
since I knew Anna Nicole. I told her that I thought all Virgie Arthur wanted was money.  Page 12. Item 31.

BIRKHEAD ABOUT ANNA NICOLE ON ET

Q. (Judge Seidlin)  Under a normal set of circumstances, someone can object.  He is not a expert on whether she was under
the influence of drugs or alcohol, so I did not ask it that way.  But I want o know what condition was she in when you saw
her on that video.  You knew her.  Objection, so noted.  I am allowing it.
A. (Larry Birkhead) Her voice seemed slurred to me and not, you know, at times she seemed shaken, but I will say that she
is saying things about her son and what she perceived as statements from her mother about her son –
*
*
*
BARTH CONTINUES CROSS EXAMINATION:

Q  You knew that Anna was estranged from her mother; is that correct?

MS. OPRI:  Asked and answered.
THE COURT:  No.  No.  No.  You have a continuing objection.
MS. OPRI:  Thank you.
THE COURT:  You can answer that.

A  Yes, I did know that they had not the best relationship.
Q  How would she describe her mother to you?
A  Sometimes she would curse and say things and then sometimes she would say she wanted her mom, she wanted her mom, so it was all over the spectrum.

BARTH CONTINUES WITH  BIRKHEAD:

Q  She was all over the spectrum?
A  About the way she felt about her mother.  I think it depended on what she was doing in her life at the time.
Q  Or was it also how much medication she had or both?
A  Sometimes.
Q  It was her life, it was the medication she was on, wasn’t that having an input on her description of her mother?
A  I’m sorry, One more time, Your Honor.
Q  You’re listening.  Give me an answer.
A  Sorry, I didn’t hear you.  I apologize.
Q  That’s all right.  Was it her health and the pressures of the day that affected her description of her mother?
A  Yes, sir.
Q  When would she say she loved her mother, what type of day was that?
A  When something really, really bad was going on in her life or if there was something that should be a joyous occasion,
like I said, she had a pregnancy, or just when she’d see people with other families, she’d say, I wish I had my mommy.
Q  So nature came into play, when there’s crisis’ in her life, she said mama?
A  Yes, and she did tell me – she told me bad things about her mother and she told me about things the way her mother would act and I would tell her sometimes when she would act that way, I would say, you know, you’re acting the same way you said your mother did.

BIRKHEAD CHANGES HIS STORY

Page 11. Item 28. in the following document.
Larry Birkhead said, “Anna Nicole always wanted a mother in her life, but she wanted absolutely nothing to do with Virgie
Arthur.”

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

MRS ARTHUR IN HER OWN WORDS ABOUT CUSTODY OF DANNIELYNN AND THE MARSHALL INHERITANCE CASE

VAN SUSTEREN: So now that Howard is out of the picture in terms of father and Larry is the father, why do you still have a custody action going on?

ARTHUR: I don’t. I don’t have a problem with Larry having the baby. I don’t.

VAN SUSTEREN: So the June — there is a June 8th custody hearing?

ARTHUR: It is just a formality.

VAN SUSTEREN: So you are happy to have — Larry to have complete total custody?

ARTHUR: Yes. And that is not — you know, that is not what — I don’t know where people get all of these notions from. I never wanted to raise my granddaughter. I would have if I had to. But that is not something I wanted to do. But I do want to have visitation with her. I do want her to know Vickie’s family.

You know, she has two families. And it’s going to take both families for her to grow up and understand her life. I mean, she is here without a mother. And, you know, let’s talk about money. Let’s just get that plumb off the page, OK? I do not care about the money. I don’t want the money. You know, she has fought for 12 years for Howard Marshall’s money. Four people are dead. That money is tainted. I have no — I do not — I am not in this for the money, I am not.

VAN SUSTEREN: Which of the four dead? Your daughter.

ARTHUR: Howard Marshall is dead. His son is dead, Pierce Marshall. My grandson is dead, Daniel Smith. And Vickie is dead. Four people are dead.

VAN SUSTEREN: That money is tainted?

ARTHUR: That money is tainted. I have no desire for that money. However, Larry is still young. And all I asked Larry to do was to have someone on his side of the family, like his father or his mother and myself, be overseers of her money. Not where we could write checks or we could do anything with the money, no. But before she could do anything with the money or he could do anything with the money, that, you know, something big like, you know, she wants a Porsche at 14, you know, it would have to go through his dad and me and we would say, no, at 14 you are not getting a Porsche, so no. But it wasn’t…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269821,00.html

All of the above and Birkhead did not argue over Stern being executor of Anna Nicole’s estate, he endorses Stern whenever he is asked and even when he is not asked.

As Virgie once inquired, “What is it that they have on you boy???”

The Hollywood Gossip started their latest Anna Nicole saga article with the words, “This is how a real pimp rolls.”

Apparently, paps caught the daddy of Anna Nicole’s baby daughter out wearing a t-shirt with Anna Nicole’s face on it. Read what they had to say here.

And that’s not the only smack down for Birkhead recently. Attorneys for Anna’s mother, Virgie Arthur are forging ahead with her libel and conspiracy to libel suit against Birkhead, Howard K. Stern, Bonnie Stern, TMZ and Harvey Levin, CBS/Entertainment Tonight, Art Harris (a journalist) and some bloggers.

Published in recent court documents is an email from Howard K. Stern’s sister Bonnie. In part Bonnie Stern says her brother Howard told her that Birkhead INTENTIONALLY leaked information to TMZ’s Harvey Levin. In other words, the group being sued are accused of libeling Mrs. Arthur and their own words may be what ends up in a finding against all of them.

An example is an email in part from Bonnie Stern to Nelda Turner (a blogger defendant in the suit)

…Howard told me this morning that Larry was actually the one who intentionally leaked to TMZ the thing about Virgie and then Harvey Levin looked up and found the family tree…

…He (Howard) said that Larry leaked that because of the amount of viewership TMZ gets and it turned in their favor against Virgie that it happened so it was actually a good thing…..

He (Howard) didn’t understand why everyone was so mad so I told him that Art (Harris) wanted to break that story…He said he would have Art break the one above yet he doesn’t get a lot of viewership…They need the high viewership of TMZ at times…

I hope this helps explain some things.

XO Bonnie

And to think all this time, various entities have been blaming little old me (QV) for the above including the actual guilty ones. I can’t wait until the rest of it comes out in court.

See what Birkhead is being sued for……..

Mrs. Arthur’s Fourth Amended Petition. http://qvsplace.com/Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Fourth_Amended_Petition.pdf

After a flurry of motions, sworn statements and joinders,  Administrative Judge Olen Underwood denied Howard K. Sterns motion to recuse Judge Tony Lindsay who was presiding over the case of Virgie Arthur vs Howard K. Stern, and others.

Mrs. Arthur filed a conspiracy and defamation case that was originally assigned to the 190th District Court in Harris County Texas. The case saw no action so it was moved to the 280th District and the Honorable Judge Tony Lindsay in September of 2008.

In December of 2008, four of the defendants lost their attorney due to various reasons. Some gave the reason of lack of funds, other reasons given were conflict of interest. Either before or shortly after, one defendant, Nelda Turner decided she wanted out of the lawsuit and contacted Mrs. Arthurs attorney Neil McCabe and began to turn over evidence.

Turner has stated on her website she turned over five to six DVD’s full of emails to McCabe concerning the bloggers, defendants and witnesses in this case and publicly wrote a statement of cooperation. Suddenly Turner came up with an attorney, reneiged on whatever agreements she had with counsel for Arthur, gave a sworn statement that was in direct opposition to emails revealed between herself and McCabe and statements she made on her website.

Howard K. Stern’s counsel Lin Wood filed a motion to recuse the judge on the case apparently based upon statements made by Turner and a rumor of ex-parte communications between McCabe, Judge Lindsay and Judge Wise who was the one who moved the case.

Sources who attended the hearing today say that when Judge Underwood asked for evidence of Judge Lindsay’s misconduct from Attorney Luke Lantta who was filling in for Lin Wood, he did not have any actual evidence other than Turners statement. Underwood ruled “motion denied”.

The case was previously stayed by defendant Bonnie Stern filing bankruptcy but McCabe for Arthur filed a motion with the bankruptcy court in California and got the stay lifted.

Now the case can continue and it promises to be quite interesting as it involves not only Mrs. Arthur, the mother of the late Anna Nicole Smith but Smith’s companion and attorney Howard K. Stern, journalist and CNN coorespondant Art Harris, TMZ and its managing editor Harvey Levin, the father of Anna Nicole’s infant daughter, Larry Birkhead, Sterns sister Bonnie and two bloggers Lyndal Harrington, Teresa Stephens and a blog owner Nelda Turner.

Yours truly is a witness in the case as well as another blogger Chrystal Baker who goes by the moniker Havana. If I am able to provide anymore details, Ill update this page.

Signed order denying recusal of Judge

**Updates**

Lack of evidence was indeed the reason for the ruling today and Judge Lindsay will be presiding again, because Judge Underwood signed the order denying recusal.

Before Mrs. Arthur can proceed against Bonnie Stern, the bankruptcy judge in California must sign the order reflecting his ruling from the bench. Ms. Stern can appeal that ruling if she so desires.

The issue of sanctions was postponed due to Stern’s attorney Lin Wood’s absence and will be addressed at a later time.

To explain the issue about Judge Wise and the transfer of the case; An affidavit was admitted into evidence from Judge Wise, saying that, after Mr. McCabe filed his motion to reconsider the transfer of the case from Judge Kerrigan (190th) to Judge Lindsay (280th) (in other words, McCabe’s motion asked Judge Wise to send the case back to Judge Kerrigan), Judge Wise asked both other judges what they thought of the motion to reconsider transfer. Judge Lindsay responded by email, and Judge Wise had already decided not to grant the motion to reconsider.  Apparently before Judge Wise could deny the motion, McCabe withdrew it. Everything was done  properly. Judge Wise was not present at the hearing.

Wood let Luke Lantta, a four-year lawyer, take the bullet for him.  Also present was Herring, managing partner of the Dallas Bryan Cave office, who let Mr. Lantta take the loss.

Howard K. Stern was not present. Lyndal Harrington was. Attorney Mike Meyer handled the hearing. McCabe was of course present and testified. Attorney John O’Quinn was present, and so was Don Clark. Mr. McCabe’s paralegal Patti Lampton was there, and Jonathan Stoger, another O’Quinn lawyer who has helped with Mrs. Arthur’s case was there too. So was WV.

Defendant Art Harris had Chip Babcock to carry and fumble the ball; also Amanda Bush, and Nancy Hamilton.

Nelda’s Turner’s lawyer was there as well. As far as what happens next, Judge Lindsay takes over so we wait and see.

Latest documents filed in the 280th Harris County District Court of Houston Texas, defamation complaint of  Virgie Arthur vs Howard K. Stern and  Journalist Art Harris, Bonnie Stern,  TMZ.com, Harvey Levin, Larry Birkhead and bloggers Lyndal Harrington, Teresa Stephens and Nelda Rose Turner.

Also Neil McCabe, Arthur’s attorney filed a response with the Florida court in Howard K. Stern vs John O’Quinn stating they are not opposed to releasing the full confidential depositon of Don Clark to the California Department of Justice who arrested  Howard K. Stern on felony drug charges.

1) Plaintiffs motion to cancel deposition of Neil McCabe

040109_Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Motion_cancel_McCabe_depo.pdf

2) Plaintiffs motion to cancel deposition of Nelda Turner

040109_Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Motion_cancel_Turner_depo.pdf

3) Plaintiff’s supplemental statement opposing defendant Howard K. Stern’s verified motion to recuse the Honorable Tony Lindsay

040109_Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Plaintiffs_supplement_opposition_to_recusal.pdf

4) Plaintiff’s response to defendant Nelda Turner’s motion to quash deposition notice and motion for protective order.

040109_Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Plantiffs_response_Turners_quash_motion.pdf

5) Defendant Teresa Stephens letter in support of recusal of Judge Lindsay

040109_Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Stephens_letter_recusal.pdf

6) O’Quinns response to Howard K. Stern’s motion for the California Department of Justice to be designated as a qualified recipient of the confidential portions of the deposition of Don Clark. O’Quinn says he has no problem with Stern’s request.

Stern_vs_OQuinn_040209_267.pdf

Exhibits For Plaintiff’s Supplemental Statement Opposing Defendant Howard K. Stern’s Verified Motion to Recuse the Honorable Tony Lindsay

Exhibit A

Exhibit B 156 pages of emails

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit G

Exhibit H

*******

And to put the documents in perspective, here are the original filings to which the above Harris County documents are in answer to.

A) Howard K. Stern’s motion to recuse Judge Lindsay

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Houston_Motion_to_recuse.pdf

B) Virgie Arthur’s statement opposing Stern’s motion to recuse and attachments.

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Plantiff_Statement_Opposing_Recuse_Motion.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Exhibits_G-N_Opposition_to_Recusal.pdf

C) Defendant Nelda Turner’s motion to quash deposition notice and motion for protective order can be found here labeled as “Nelda’s Motion to Quash Subpoena”

UPDATE 04/04/09

Virgie Arthur’s response to defendant Nelda Turner’s motion to quash deposition notice and motion for protective order.

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Arthur_Sup_Response_Turner_Motion_to_Quash.pdf

Lin Wood resquests emails between Judge Lindsay and Judge Wise and Judge Lindsay and any court employee concerning Arthur vs Stern et al.    http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/eDoc

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.

I havent had a chance to read all the latest lawsuit documents today but I did read the “Second Amended Original Petition” where Virgie Arthur is adding Larry Birkhead to her defamation lawsuit. She is also suing Howard K. Stern, Bonnie Stern, Art Harris, TMZ Productions, Harvey Levin, Rose Turner, Lyndal Harrington and Teresa Stevens. The later three are bloggers and Turner is the owner of a pro Howard K. Stern website Rosespeaks.com

Attorney Neil McCabe is asking the court for sanctions against Bonnie Stern due to her being unresponsive in his requests for discovery.

I had a chance to touch base with Attorney Neil McCabe and he said today’s the hearing went well. His motion to compel Bonnie Stern to produce was granted  with some minor exceptions.

The Discovery is to be done through an independent forensic computer expert with the judge saying she will grant the same with Art Harris, Lyndal Harrington and Rose Turner if they also do not cooperate as requested.

Attorney Ogden who represents Bonnie Stern, Art Harris, Rose Turner and Lyndal Harrington asked Judge Tony Lindsey if the judge should make Mr. McCabe show that he really has a case.

To that she replied, “Oh, I think he’s done that”.

Arthur_vs_Stern_Motion_to_Compel_BStern_Harrington_Harris_Turner.pdf <<<added later

Arthur_vs_Stern_Second_Amended_Petition_Adding_Birkhead.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_Motion_to_Compel_Bonnie_Stern.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Stern_Response_to_Compel.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Arthur_Response.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Stern_Affidavit.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_Exhibit_A.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Exhibit_B.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_Exhibit_C.pdf

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Exhibit_D.pdf

Anna Nicole Smith’s mother Virgie Arthur’s conspiracy and defamation case against Howard K. Stern, his sister, Bonnie Stern, Journalist Art Harris, TMZ, Managing Editor of TMZ – Harvey Levin and bloggers Nelda (Rose) Turner, Lyndal (Lynderella) Harrington and Teresa (Butterfly) Stevens is underway.

Arthur’s attorney Neil McCabe has filed a motion to compel Howard K. Stern to produce information requested with exhibits. McCabe has also filed a “Designation of Expert”. Stern has previously filed his objections to requests for documents and information concerning emails and web postings and they are included with the exhibits. A hearing is scheduled for December 10th to discuss the email issues outlined in the documents.

A Mr John Mallery of Kansas City Missouri has been designated as an expert witness who may testify concerning forensic examination of various computer hard drives. His resume of credentials and publications are attached to the document.

With the circumstances being that I am a witness and a “former co-conspirator” who has agreed to cooperate in this case, my personal comments will be limited to preserve the integrity of my probable testimony.

This case will be interesting in many ways as the internet is still young as far as lawsuit precedents and law governing the internet that may be needed in the future.

That being said, you can read the motion to compel and the exhibits in support thereof as well as information concerning the expert witness.

Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Expert_Designation

Arthur_vs_Stern_State_Motion_To_Compel_Stern

Arthur_vs_Stern_Motion_to Compel_Stern_Exhibits

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.

In the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas today, the honorable Judge Lee H. Rosenthal filed a thirty-one page order dispensing with several motions before her, in the civil suit of Anna Nicole Smith’s mother, Virgie Arthur vs Howard K. Stern and CBS Studios and KPRC Houston.

The attorneys for Mrs. Arthur had sought to add additional defendants to the lawsuit after her attorneys had discovered that there was defamation ongoing not only on television but also on the internet.

Attorney Neil McCabe of the O’Quinn Law Firm in Houston TX filed a motion to add Art Harris, a journalist and blog owner of artharris.com, Bonnie Stern, sister of Howard K. Stern, Harvey Levin, managing editor of TMZ.com and also TMZ the internet site and company. Also requested to be added were bloggers Nelda Rose Turner, owner of rosepeaks.com, Lyndal Harrington, a moderator of rosespeaks.com and Teresa Stephens a former moderator of rosespeaks.com.

The motion to add the additional defendants was denied. However, anticipating a denial, McCabe and colleague Attorney Michael Meyer filed a lawsuit in the 190th District Court of Harris County Texas against the additional defendants. There are presently jurisdiction objections from the non Texas residents. Also there are motions pending in that court and requests for documents and examination of computers used to allegedly defame Mrs. Arthur.

Judge Rosenthal lists the various reasons for denial however, she recognized the validity of the claim of defamation and conspiracy and went as far as to write in her opinion that the added claim appears cognizable to pursue in state court. Cognizable The power, authority, and ability of a judge to determine a particular legal matter. (click on the highlighted words for more in depth definitions). The state court claim was also filed in a timely manner and can now commence.

KPRC was dismissed from the suit. Cited was the studio had a contractual obligation to broadcast the Entertainment Tonight interview and had no way of knowing in advance the subject matter of the interview.

Howard K. Stern’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied. For specific personal jurisdiction, Judge Rosenthal differentiates and writes that “the court must assess Stern’s forum contacts independently from the contacts of the other alleged conspirators. The question is whether Stern himself, not the alleged co-conspirators had the requisite minimum contacts.”

The Judge states the claim against Stern is not that he himself made the defamatory remarks about Virgie Arthur by arranging the ET interview but that he urged Anna Nicole to make the statements about Mrs. Arthur. The Judge writes the alleged defamatory remarks concerned Arthur’s treatment of Anna Nicole when she was a child in Texas and about her experiences in Texas.

Stern knew that Arthur lives in Texas and has lived in Texas her whole life even though he has denied that fact in a sworn statement. He knew that Entertainment Tonight is broadcast in Texas and the events discussed were purported to occur in Texas. Arthur lives in Texas and that is where the harm has occurred and had “foreseeable effects” there. Stern worked to arrange to broadcast statements to the nation including Texas about the Texas activities of a Texas resident.

Judge Rosenthal’s decision rendered means that Arthur will be able to pursue her claim against Howard K. Stern and CBS in her Texas Federal Court.

The Judge also says that Mrs. Arthur will be able to move forward with her defamation and conspiracy claim against Howard K. Stern, Bonnie Stern, Art Harris, Harvey Levin, TMZ, Nelda Rose Turner, Lyndal Harrington and Teresa Stephens in Texas State Court.

You can read the full text of the Memorandum and Order here.
190th State District Court of Houston Texas, Arthur vs Stern et al Docket here

*Edited to strike reference that there is a motion in the 190th Houston TX court for production of documents and examination of computers. That was in the Federal case and declared moot.

Thanks to Trixie for the watermark!

Lies Fabrications And An Overthrow.

Here are the latest documents from Pacer. I think you all will find it an interesting read. Then please come back and see my comments.

http://annanicoleandhowardkstern.com/050808_Supplement_plaintiffs_memo.pdf

http://annanicoleandhowardkstern.com/050808_Chrystal_Baker_Affidavit.pdf

http://annanicoleandhowardkstern.com/050808_Exhibit_Crystal_Baker.pd

As time goes by, more is revealed concerning not only the BEHIND THE SCENES conspiracy to defame anyone seen as harmful to Howard K Sterns interests, but the concentrated effort to overthrow my former website.

I see lies and fabrications from a very sick person. I see an internet complaint lodged with no evidence to back it up. Especially when Nelda got upset with me putting her in her place a couple of times last April 19th and asked me not to contact her again. No problem. I only contacted her a couple of times anyway. I fully complied except for a mass emailing that was sent to her accidentally. However, she is the one who was and has continued to write vicious articles and comments pertaining to me or my website out of the blue with no provocation.

Bonnie Stern, Nelda’s best buddy. You believed everything she said and threw away not only a brilliant writer but a man who made contributions to you that no one else could do. And then there was me. The one who started this whole movement for your brother and family. It was only by my efforts that you had a group of people supporting and helping you. Yes, it all came from my efforts. And for you people to send us to carry on “on our own” for no good reason other than the ravings of a lunatic kind of puts you in the same class. When I saw what you were capable of, I knew that you had no heart and you people were up to no good.

I was so right about you Bonnie and Howard K. Stern and Nelda Turner. One by one people are slandered with false accusations and labeled as untrustworthy and out they go.. Seems like someone wants the spotlight for herself and wants no one standing in HER way.

That pretty much became apparent when the Houston Chronicle mentioned your names and site name. Oh the bragging that went on was hilarious lol! And the attention seeking with lies about threats, high speed car chases and harassing phone calls THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

Quite amusing. 

And now another valuable person has also been thrown into your trash can. I commend you Havana for coming forward and doing the right thing. Thank you for letting me and everyone that cares know about the corruption, scheming, lies and backstabbing that this group is capable of.

But I have to thank you too Nelda and Bonnie and Howard. So many things were bothering me anyway, but that is for another time. Another article. I saw the light. My site and what I did is an open book unlike you and yours. And the way you treated people because some senior citizen BDSM hag tells you to.. is despicable and just plain wrong. That was my first real clue as to the type of character that you Sterns have. And that would be NONE.

More to come when more truth comes out.

Oh and Nelda’s hags. HERE IS YOUR AUTHENTICATION in the latest filings! I wouldn’t be surprised if there yet may be another contributor after this.