Birkhead Free to Leave with Baby

91. GO, LARRY GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TMZ ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH! SORRY VIRGIE!

Posted at 4:32PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Susanne

92. 49. Good for Larry. I am afraid that "ole" Virgie's lawyer has been promised a fair cut of all that Virgie can get from DL - he seems to have as questionable background as does Virgie. I am sure he isn't working this case out of the goodness of his heart. I think the judge will be able to figure all this out, and Larry will be a wonderful fulltime father with a good support system including his family. I hope he keeps DL as far away from Ca. & TX as he can.

Posted at 4:26PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Aunt JJ

You are Right Aunt JJ!!! Now I hope O'Quinn and Vergie get sued!!!!!

Posted at 4:33PM on Apr 25th 2007 by jo ann

93.
Leave before the 27th Larry.

Posted at 4:33PM on Apr 25th 2007 by THE WATCHER

94. Hollywood — Larry Birkhead and Howard K. Stern have agreed to end their feud over who will care for the late Anna Nicole Smiths’ daughter. The two will move in together to star in a reality TV remake of the ’80s sitcom “My Two Dads.”

The show, which will air on NBC this fall, will feature Birkhead and Stern attempting to raise a daughter in the modern world while they work through their own differences and numerous pending lawsuits while living together.

Though Birkhead is Danielynn Smith’s biological father, he has agreed to share his parental rights for the purpose of the new series, which will get a plum time spot Mondays at 10 PM.

The original “My Two Dads” starred Paul Reiser and Greg Evigan as two men awarded joint custody after her mother, whom both had dated before she got pregnant, dies.

Judge Larry Seidlin will co-star as himself. The 1980’s “My Two Dads” featured a female judge who assigned the girl’s custody and checked in on her new family regularly.

“If you combine Gen X nostalgia for one of the most beloved sitcoms of their childhood along with Gen Y’s salivation for anything and everything Anna Nicole, you have the ingredients for a surefire hit,” NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly told Dateline Hollywood. “We finally have the perfect companion show for ‘Heroes’ on Monday nights.”

The reality show has already hired several “story consultants” to help facilitate compelling plotlines in Birkhead, Stern, and Danielynn’s lives.

Stories being considered for season one include Anna Nicole’s mother Virgie Arthur moving in next door in order to be closer to her granddaughter, much to the dads’ chagrin; Seidlin helping Birkhead to get his GED without the other Dad finding out; and Stern considering whether to abandon his daughter after Courtney Love offers to make him her personal attorney.

Reilly said that if “My Two Dads” comes back for season two, the network may “age up” Danielynn to five years old in order to skip age two through four, as toddlers test poorly with focus groups.

“We are currently exploring scientific developments so that we may not need to re-cast Danielynn,” he said.

Birkhead and Stern agreed to star in the show after turning down an offer to do a theatrical re-make of “3 Men and a Baby” along with Prince Frederick von Anhalt.

Posted at 4:33PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Matt

95. HEY HOPE------------------------DEVIL DID NOT WIN---------------------DL IS WHERE SHE BELONGS WITH HER FATHER. LARRY DON NOT LOOK BACK. GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE. HOPE YOUR FATHER IS DOING WELL. ENJOY YOUR TIME WITH YOUR DAD. IT WILL BE THE BEST MEDICINE FOR HIM TO BE ABLE SPEND TIME WITH DL AND YOU. VIRGIE I HOPE YOU READ THIS BLOG. YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO BE CALLED A GRANDMOTHER. IT IS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO GIVE GRANDMOTHERS A BAD NAME. YOU NEED TO GET YOURSELF BACK TO TEXAS AND STAY THERE. IF I WAS LARRY YOU WOULD GET NOTHING BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU DESERVE AND YOU SURE AS HELL DO NOT DESERVE TO BE CALLED A GRANDMOTHER. YOU SHOULD BE CALLED A MONEY HUNGRY BITCH. AND A POOR EXCUSE FOR A MOTHER. YOU COULD NOT RAISE ANNA WITH MORALS AND RESPECT FOR ANYONE OR ANYTHING. SO LONG TO THE MONEY. WHERE WAS YOUR FAMILY THROUGH ALL OF THIS? NOT ONE OF YOUR CHILDREN MADE AN APPEARANCE. THE ONLY FAMILY MEMBER I SAW WAS DONNA. FROM WHAT SHE SAID YOU WERE ALWAYS BELITTLEING ANNA AND HITTING HER. DONNA IS NOT MUCH BETTER. WHAT SISTER WOULD WRITE HORRIBLE THINGS. ABOUT HER SISTER. HER BOOK WAS COMPLETED BEFORE ANNA'S DEATH AND HAD TO SCRAMBLE TO CHANGE IT WHEN ANNA DIED. DONNA KEEP REPEATING THE FAMILY IS DYSFUNCTIONAL. YEA I GUESS SO WITH A MOTHER LIKE VIRGIE..

Posted at 5:41PM on Apr 25th 2007 by justiceforall

96. OK Like enough Vergie her and her DAMN appeals Larry has been through enough the poor guy is even getting physically ill just let him be!!! WTF is she doing why is she being like this she is showing people her true colours of being a money hungry evil woman. HE lawyer is a sleeze as well

CONGRATS LARRY!!!

Posted at 4:34PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Len

97. Run Larry RUN! Run like the wind!

That Bitch Vergie needs to go home and stop her harassment.
What's up w/her comment about not wanting Larry to buy HIS DAUGHTER a Ferrari when she is 16???? That is so stupid of her to say.

RUN LARRY RUN...

Posted at 4:34PM on Apr 25th 2007 by stay at home mom

98. ..............SPUNKY.................... You made me laugh LOL - don't you think we should all file for partial custody as well???

good chuckle - ty

Posted at 4:37PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Who ME??

99. Am so glad that this has finally happened, that you are able to take DL with you, please Larry keep a big distance between yourself and HKS. Right now be very cautious, don't make any deals with him or let down your guard, please be accompanied by those you absolutely trust only when picking up and traveling with your child, go to your family and have a wonderful time with your dear little girl. This has been so long in coming. Perhaps so much of this unsavory saga will now be over with.

Posted at 4:35PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Cat

100. Anna Nicole's Daughter is No Million-Dollar Baby

After the courts rule, Anna Nicole Smith's daughter probably won't get the big estate

By Horace Cooper
Legal Times
April 9, 2007


As many in the media await the results of a DNA test to determine the real father of Anna Nicole Smith’s infant daughter, Dannielynn, some reports have perpetuated a legal myth. Consider the Associated Press story that pronounced that “Anna Nicole Smith’s 6-month-old daughter . . . could inherit millions after the former reality TV star’s death last month” after the DNA test.

This is only partially right. Dannielynn has indeed had a DNA test. But there is little chance that this child will inherit millions.

Why? Because Anna Nicole Smith’s legal claims on J. Howard Marshall’s estate were always tenuous. And once the courts act, they will likely extinguish the claim altogether. That means Dannielynn is more likely to be saddled with legal bills and other debt from litigation associated with her mother’s estate than she’s likely to inherit any portion of Marshall’s estate.

NO MILLIONS HERE

A quick review of the case Marshall v. Marshall (Anna Nicole Smith’s married name was Vickie Lynn Marshall) illustrates why Dannielynn may not be a million-dollar baby.

Although it has been overshadowed by the media hype surrounding the former Playboy model’s visit to the Supreme Court last year, the trial of record in this case took place in Texas probate court in 2001. The trial — complete with jury — lasted nearly six months. It found that Marshall’s son, Pierce, was the legal heir, and it explicitly found no evidence whatsoever that the elder Marshall’s will was interfered with or that there was any intention to make Smith his heir. It specifically upheld Marshall’s will and his estate plan.

Despite the Texas probate ruling, Smith and her legal team went forum-shopping for a favorable judgment. After she filed for bankruptcy in California, Smith convinced a federal bankruptcy judge to award her nearly $450 million she claimed was promised from Marshall. This judge accepted her claim of tortious interference with a gift, finding that Marshall’s son thwarted his father’s intent.

This decision of the bankruptcy court was appealed to a federal district court in California. The district court vacated the bankruptcy ruling, reviewed the matter de novo, and reduced the award to Smith to $88.5 million.

Subsequently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overruled these awards — not on the merits — but instead by invoking what it called a federal “probate exception” that denied federal jurisdiction over probate matters. The 9th Circuit held that neither the bankruptcy court nor the federal district court had any ability to rule on Marshall’s estate.

ALREADY DECIDED

Perhaps the most important principle involved in this case is a common legal concept known as “res judicata” — a Latin phrase that literally means a matter already judged. This broadly accepted legal principle dictates that once a court or jury has issued a final judgment, subsequent courts will uphold and enforce it.

This was a sensitive issue to the Framers of the Constitution because of failures in the earlier Articles of Confederation to impose legal duties on other states to honor contracts or other legal judgments. The principle is so important that it is explicitly embodied in the full faith and credit clause.

The idea is that our law strikes a balance between competing interests. On one hand, we ensure that we can provide litigants with certainty of finality that prevents a defendant from having to defend the same claim repeatedly. On the other hand, we can also guarantee that a plaintiff will be granted his or her day in court without limits on what claims they’re allowed to make. But if this claim has already been dealt with earlier, instead of dismissing the case, the court will apply the findings of the earlier judgment.

The Supreme Court last year ruled that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation that the federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over probate matters was overly broad, and the justices have sent the case back to the 9th Circuit on remand. Now the 9th Circuit will focus on the specific arguments of this legal dispute.

This is bad news for Dannielynn and Smith’s legal team. The remaining legal issues surrounding this litigation are fairly straightforward and uncomplicated. J. Howard Marshall was legally allowed to direct his bequest to whomever he pleased, and he chose his son Pierce. He never intended to leave any portion of his estate to Smith or her heirs. We know these things because that’s what the jury found after a six-month trial in Texas. We also know that, under the doctrine of res judicata, each of these findings must be upheld in any other courts that look at this case.

ON THE MERITS

Now the case has returned to the 9th Circuit. When it originally invoked the “probate exception,” the 9th Circuit panel didn’t rule on the merits of either the federal bankruptcy court or the federal district court decisions. With the Supreme Court’s narrow opinion explaining that none of the Supreme Court’s earlier cases endorsed the notion that federal courts couldn’t independently weigh in on probate matters, the 9th Circuit now will have to deal with the merits.

In that context, the most compelling question for the 9th Circuit will be a determination of which court — the federal bankruptcy or district court or the Texas probate court — issued a final judgment first. Chronologically the Texas probate case started first, but the federal bankruptcy court issued its verdict first. The 9th Circuit panel reviewing the case will have to determine which decision counts as the first “final judgment.”

There are two issues here. First, the federal district court vacated the ruling of the bankruptcy court and reviewed the matter de novo. It did so after the Texas probate trial had concluded. If this decision about vacating the bankruptcy ruling is upheld, it would mean that the bankruptcy ruling has no effect for purposes of res judicata — that is, neither the bankruptcy decision nor the federal district court’s ruling were final judgments for this purpose.

Second, even if the federal bankruptcy court’s ruling was final and determined to have occurred first, there are serious questions, relevant to judicial economy and the principles behind res judicata, about the evidentiary record used by the federal district court.

A review of the record indicates that whereas the Texas probate trial took nearly six months to sort through all of the legal and evidentiary issues before reaching a conclusion, the federal district court was able to do so in a few days. How? Primarily by reviewing many of the depositions from the concluded Texas probate trial and also by disallowing most of the witnesses that Pierce Marshall sought to call.

Such an approach has the advantage of expediting matters, but it severely constrains the ability of the court to weigh all evidence necessary. Depositions are useful, but they are not an equal alternative to witnesses testifying subject to cross-examination. As a result, there are serious questions about the sufficiency of the record that the district court relied upon. And such an outcome is contrary to the benefits of res judicata — which is to allow subsequent courts the ability to rely on the findings of fact of earlier courts.

Additionally, judicial economy would dictate that the Texas probate court (as a specialty court) should be given greater deference and weight in making these determinations. In this case, the probate court took nearly six months to reach a determination. Casting aside its work will not be done lightly.

Together, judicial economy and res judicata militate against the 9th Circuit directing a brand new trial to determine the validity of the Marshall will or estate plan. Accordingly, no one should be surprised when, at the end of all the proceedings, it is the original Texas trial verdict that determines the disposition of the Marshall estate. When that occurs (as it almost certainly will), Marshall’s money will go to his son — not to Smith’s estate, her child Dannielynn, or Dannielynn’s father (whoever that may be).

At this point, of course, the tragic center of this saga is not Smith, but Dannielynn. One fears, at worst, that this child may be being used as leverage to support the ongoing claims of Smith’s lawyers and a number of hangers-on who seek to get rich quick.

A separate trial in the Bahamas is going forward to determine who Dannielynn’s biological father is. Once that is answered, will the biological father continue his efforts to secure custody after all the legal claims on the Marshall estate are extinguished?

I predict that once those claims are finally exhausted, even King Solomon himself might not have the wisdom to find a father for this baby.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horace Cooper is an assistant professor of law at George Mason University in Arlington, Va.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted at 10:59PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Not the Marshall family's problem, we feed our own children by having jobs.

101. Hope, what planet did you come from? Head up ass. Vergie is a gold digging bitch. Where has she been all these years? She has been out for the all mightly $ since day one. Notice how she side stepped the question on whether she has collected any money? She needs to stay away from Dannielynn, Daniel and Vickey. She may be the grandmother/mother, but I don't think she knows how to be one unless their is money in it for her.

Posted at 4:56PM on Apr 25th 2007 by squart

102. THANK GOODNESS....When Dannilynn hits American soil can the Bahamian courts force Larry to take her back for a hearing? Larry is the dad, and Dannilynn is a U.S. citizen????? I know Larry will be happy to be home. The last few months have taken their toll on him.

Posted at 4:45PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Debra

103. 48. I was just wondering could Larry get in trouble if he never returns to the Bahamas? In any event wouldn't it further Virgie's case if he doesn't come back for the hearing? I am just wonder because if he doesn't have the US courts take over the custody hearing doesn't that mean he has to come back?

Posted at 4:26PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Eden
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Good Question! I think he should comply with any orders he has been given.

Posted at 4:42PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Olive

104. Hope you are nuts!

Posted at 4:34PM on Apr 25th 2007 by ********ronda********

105. John O'Quinn has no license to practice in the Bahamas.......wasn't even allowed to stay in courtroom some of the time.......Virg had a woman BAHAMIAN lawyer.....OGin is wanting in on the Marshall estate

Posted at 4:35PM on Apr 25th 2007 by hahahehe