Anna Nicole Pot Judge Burns Out

91. READ THE LAST SENTENCE

“After 10 years of uncompensated litigation, Anna Nicole’s contingency-fee attorneys are still hoping that we will offer them money to make this case go away. From the beginning, this litigation has been a fraudulent attempt to extort money from my father’s estate. Also from the beginning, we have stated firmly that we would take this case to the highest court in the land if necessary to protect my father’s estate plan. The most recent decisions by the 9th Circuit prove once again that the findings of the Texas jury have been correct all along on the law and on the facts in this case and those who would attempt to upend my father’s estate plan for their own selfish interests would not be allowed to prevail,” Marshall added.
The losing lawyers representing Smith in the Texas probate case are Tom Alan Cunningham, Richard Zook and Diana E. Marshall. In California, the losers are ***Howard K. Stern***, Philip Boesch and Kent L. Richland of the Greines Martin firm.


Posted at 10:13PM on Jun 19th 2007 by Tell it like it is

Posted at 1:00PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information

92. SEIDLIN: That video we saw the other day, is that her normal state of addressing someone?

STERN: The -- what you saw on the video?

Yes, that's how Anna Nicole talks. That's how she's talked since I've known her. I mean there are times when she's more impaired than that...

SEIDLIN: More impaired than that?

STERN: There are times...

SEIDLIN: Was she impaired in that?

STERN: No. I don't think she was there.

SEIDLIN: You just said more impaired than that.

STERN: Right. More impaired than that. Exactly. Her...

SEIDLIN: Was she impaired? Was she under the influence then?

STERN: No, I don't think so.

SEIDLIN: But you just said to me she was more impaired than that.

Posted at 10:17PM on Jun 19th 2007 by a stroll down memory lane

Posted at 1:00PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information

93. TEXAS

Anna Nicole Smith: Turn Out the Lights, The Party's Over;
Houston Judge Orders Former Stripper to Pay Attorneys' Fees

Houston, Texas – Anna Nicole Smith has something new to cry about. Jurors didn't buy her story that she was promised half of her late husband's wealth and didn't buy her courtroom act, which frequently included crocodile tears.

Today a Houston judge gave Smith something to really cry about. In addition to losing her case the judge today signed a Final Judgment ordering that Smith pay the legal fees of her late husband's rightful heir, E. Pierce Marshall.

In the final judgment, signed today by Houston Probate Judge Mike Wood, Smith is ordered to pay Marshall $541,000 in legal fees. In addition, Marshall can collect an additional $100,000 in legal fees from Smith each time she files an unsuccessful appeal. Smith was also ordered to pay more than $20,000 in fees that were paid to a court appointed temporary administrator of her late husband's estate.

"Smith and her contingency fee plaintiffs lawyers thought my father was far wealthier than he really was," said Pierce Marshall. "They vastly overestimated his wealth and I am pleased that those inflated estimates were never allowed to go to the jury.

"The public has learned what our family has known for many years, that Smith was cruel to my father and was never his wife in the traditional sense. She worked hard to avoid being with my father but managed to call him constantly demanding more and more money. My father told close associates that the marriage had been a mistake and I believe he would have ended it had he lived.

"My father's wishes concerning our family business were clearly spelled out in six wills and seven trusts and in numerous conversations with a wide range of people who did not have a stake in the estate. Those who continue to pursue these frivolous claims are wasting their time and costing themselves money. Anna Nicole Smith and her attorneys are poorer today than they were when they started this litigation. You would think they would eventually learn from experience."

Anna Nicole Smith was represented in her defeat by: Tom Cunningham, Richard Zook, John Chapoton, John Powell and Kalli O'Malley of Cunningham, Zook, Darlow and Chapoton, L.L.P., Houston.

Another of Smith's attorneys, Diana E. Marshall (no relation), formerly of Schechter & Marshall, L.L.P., Houston., previously lost a multimillion-dollar defamation suit brought by E. Pierce Marshall on similar facts.

Posted at 9:40PM on Jun 19th 2007 by Tell it like it is

Posted at 12:59PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information

94.
Houston, Texas (March 7, 2007)—Wednesday marks the six year anniversary of the original Anna Nicole Smith court case in which a Houston jury unanimously upheld J. Howard Marshall II’s estate plan in Marshall, et al. v. McIntyre (the Estate of J. Howard Marshall II), et al. The Houston Probate Court ruled that Vickie Lynn Marshall (a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith) did not have an agreement with J. Howard Marshall II that would give her one-half of all his property. Furthermore, the Court also decreed that J. Howard Marshall II “did not intend to give and did not give to Anna Nicole Smith a gift or bequest from his estate or living trust either prior to or upon his death.”



Rusty Hardin, Don Jackson, and Jeff Chambers were attorneys for the Marshall family in the original Houston Probate Court decision and are available to discuss the facts of the case and the legal implications of Anna Nicole Smith’s recent passing.



The Houston Probate Court is the only court that held a jury trial in this case, and after five and a half months of exhaustive testimony and evidence, the Court ruled that E. Pierce Marshall was innocent of any improper behavior or tampering with J. Howard Marshall II’s will or living trust. The Houston decision is considered the ruling of legal record with regards to the Marshall estate, and despite speculation and posturing after Smith’s untimely death, the Marshall family’s position is that this decision precludes any others.



“A jury agreed that Anna Nicole Smith’s claims were unfounded and desperate,” says Rusty Hardin attorney for defendant, E. Pierce Marshall. “It was clear that Marshall took every measure to leave his fortune and his legacy to his son, Pierce Marshall, and the jury agreed.”



“Over the course of the relationship with Marshall, Smith received over $6.2 million in cash and other material possessions,” says Don Jackson, defense attorney for the Marshalls. “This was a frivolous lawsuit and a desperate money grab—the jury came to the correct decision by upholding Marshall’s estate plan outlined in his will and living trust.”



“The unfortunate passing of Smith caused a stir in the media over the potential inheritance from her marriage, but the fact remains that the Marshall estate was left to E. Pierce Marshall,” says Jeff Chambers, defense attorney for E. Pierce Marshall. “Wild accusations of tampering and tearful outbursts in the courtroom did not sway the jury to ignore the facts of the case, and Smith’s untimely passing does nothing to change the Houston ruling.”

Posted at 6:28PM on Jun 19th 2007 by Tell it like it is

Posted at 2:24PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Lions, Tigers & Bears Oh My

95. . I think that Anna was avoiding Methadone because of Daniels death. I think she was in withdrawals at the time of her death. The fact that Dr. E told Perper about the CH is rather odd, considering I would think he would test for every drug he found in the room. There is also one more drug that was in her body but not listed on the meds found by police (was it the ativan)?

I think that Anna was avoiding the hospital AT THAT TIME.... because of her drug intake, but I don't think she was in her right mind to make that decision with a fever of 105 and her obviously serious medical condition in the days preceeding her death. I think Dr. E overstepped her bounds and didn't have the expertise to think she could cope with whatever was ailing Anna, needless to say she should not have left her had she thought she had the expertise.

I don't think Anna had ready access to the CH--where was it found? How come every other medication was given to her on every other day, except the day of her death? She couldn't walk to the bathroom yet could find a bottle and hide a bottle. (I think Anna took the CH about the time she went to the bathroom---my opinion.) I think Anna would have been severely dehydrated not to have any urine in her bladder unless she just went to the bathroom before death or emptied her bladder upon death. I don't know where the bottle was when the police originally went through the hotel...and why Dr Perper didn't test for it if it was there...and why we don't know how much of the bottle had been used since it was prescribed.

I think there was a protocol before calling 911. I also think Moe was arrogant to say he saved Anna before and he could do it again... Taz and Bridgette were in the room....yet no one called 911 when she was slack jawed, blue in the lips and had purple blotches and would have only had minutes to be saved. She was already dead....or very close. (I think she was dead.)

Why did Moe say he took the covers off Anna's head---if he's right, had taz given up (on cpr) and covered her back up? What do the cell phone timelines show?

My opinion of the events....and I too stayed at the Holiday Inn Express....

Posted at 10:13PM on Jun 18th 2007 by Behind the HardRock

Posted at 2:23PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Lions, Tigers & Bears Oh My

96. I'm not a forensic pathologists, but
I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

It is very clear from the autopsy result that Anna Nicole Smith died from a lethal dose of chloral hydrate that was ingested 3 to 4 hours prior to her death.

Time of death could be suspect
Contributing factors could be suspect
But cause of death is clear.

As for the other complicating factors
There is NO BIOLOGICAL/MEDICAL Evidence of any secondary infections
The CDC could not culture any of the following
Influenza
Norwalk Virus
Or Infection

Granted the CIPRO could have masked any bacteriological agents that were present in Anna Nicole's system, but it would not have affected viral agents

Dr. Perper is clear that he was relying on "clinical evaluation" when he stated that these secondary contributors were present in the days prior to Anna Nicole's death.
Reports of flue like symptoms
Gastrointestional distress (Norwalk Virus)
Bacterialogical Infection from the abcess

They were not able to culture any of the above from the samples given to them.

Whether Anna Nicole had any of the above medical conditions is based entirely on the statements given to Dr. Perper by Dr. Erosovich, Howard and others present.

There is NO INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION of any of this.

Posted at 9:45PM on Jun 18th 2007 by Einstein S C

Posted at 2:23PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Lions, Tigers & Bears Oh My

97. . Here is something that I rediscovered in the Affidavit filed by the Nanny Quethlie Alexis

She states that on at least 2 occasions Anna Nicole Smith attempted to commit suicide.
On the first occasion she "drank in my presence an entire bottle of a liquid sleeping aid" This resulted in Anna Nicole Smith going into "unrousable coma for 48 hours."

The second attempt
"Anna Nicole Smith was taken by Howard K. Stern and Mo and placed in a patio chair by the pool. Later she was found in ther swimming pool."

This was the occasion in which Howard was heard to say to Anna
"...if anything happens to you, I would go to jail."

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

Now here are some thoughts that I had concerning these events

- This affidavit was filed before the death of Anna Nicole Smith

- Whether "true or false" the allegations was out there that Anna Nicole Smith tried to commit suicide by drinking an entire bottle of liquid sleeping aid.

- If true, The why in God's name would those people [who would have been aware of this suicide attempt] have left that drug anywhere within reach of Anna Nicole Smith that day at the Hard Rock Hotel. Why would anyone do that? A child would know better than to allow her access to that "same kind of drug" that she had previously used to try and kill herself with.

- If not true, then how convenient that Anna eventually died from "swigging a lethal dose of a liquid sleeping aid" directly from the bottle.

Posted at 2:23PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information

98. Here's an old but very interesting piece Potts asking Rale about the
off-shore accounts....POTTS: People around him feel that he`s created
this house of cards. He moved Anna Nicole, the corporation, offshore,
the way a company would go offshore to the Bahamas, to be able to be
outside the rule of the U.S. law, which has proven the case here. I
also hear from people inside and around that situation that Moe is
now willing to talk. He knows more than he has said. He has not lied
-- I want to make that clear -- but he has not explained everything,
all the details that he knows. And I can tell you for a fact that he
knows a lot more, and bodyguards always do. The question is, is he
saying this now, because he feels at some point down the road he will
be in front of a judge and he will have to, under oath...GRACE: Wait.
Is he saying -- what now? What do you mean he knows a lot? You know
for a fact he knows more than he is revealing, what do you mean?
POTTS: Absolutely. I know that he`s talking about that there was a
bottle, a baby bottle close by on top of Anna Nicole on the sheets.
And there are other things that he knows that he`s willing to talk
about. And we just have to -- we`re all working to try to get to Moe
to talk about those things. But I think Moe is an honest guy. I think
Moe is trying to do the right thing. I think now he realizes that he
better say what`s right, and say what`s real, and say what he knows,
because at some point he will be under oath, Nancy. GRACE: Ron Rale,
this is Anna Nicole Smith`s attorney, friend of Stern, do you believe
that`s true? Do you believe that the bodyguard will end up under oath?
And if so, why? RON RALE, ANNA NICOLE SMITH`S ATTORNEY: You know,
Tony, I got a new nickname for you, Tony Potshot, because you don`t
know -- these allegations, offshore, corporation...GRACE: Well, is it
true or not? RALE: It`s all speculation.POTTS: It`s not an allegation.
RALE: He`s got no basis for anything he`s saying. POTTS: That`s not
true. (CROSSTALK)RALE: Tony, I`m disappointed. I`m
disappointed.(CROSSTALK) POTTS: Ron, I`ve talked to these people.
RALE: ... check our sources. I don`t know if you...POTTS: My sources
are inside, Ron. My sources are inside, Ron. (CROSSTALK) RALE:
Inside? I mean, what more inside is there than Howard or Moe? And I`m
sure you haven`t talked to Moe about that, because that doesn`t sound
like the Moe that I know. (CROSSTALK) POTTS: Well, then you don`t
know much about these people then. (CROSSTALK)GRACE: Wait, wait,
wait. Here`s your chance. Ron, is it true, in response to Tony Potts,
is it true, did he move that offshore? RALE: This is the first I`ve
heard of anything. You know, so it`s something that I would say is
not true. But I would check his sources.POTTS: Ron... RALE: In terms
of talking about -- I mean, offshore what? What are we talking about
that he moved offshore, some corporation? What is he talking about?
POTTS: Like a corporation, Ron, like a corporation, what you do is
you move them offshore, like a corporation. RALE: What corporation
are you talking about? POTTS: I`m saying "like a corporation," Ron.
Like a corporation. You move somebody and what you`re doing offshore.
Anna Nicole Smith was incorporated. RALE: So you`re saying he moved
Anna Nicole offshore like a corporation? POTTS: Absolutely. RALE:
That doesn`t make sense. OK, it was just an analogy. I`m sorry, so
it`s just an analogy. OK.GRACE: Well, to compare Anna Nicole Smith to
a corporation, I don`t see it. But I think what Tony Potts is hitting
at is that it has been rumored that he moved her away from her U.S.
domicile, away from her surrounding friends, her...RALE: I can
respond to that, because you heard the testimony at trial from Ford
Shelley, who is basically an adverse witness. He was put on by - -
was it Virgie`s side? But I think he testified at trial, assuming he
was telling what he thought was the truth, that, when Anna moved to
the Bahamas, it was because of his idea in South Carolina when she
wanted to get away from the media. So it had nothing to do -- that`s
what he testified at trial.

Posted at 2:23PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information

99. Here is the post I found with the transcript of the other part of the interviw that is now removed from the site.

Posted by A Citizen Reporter to Sacajaweau
On General/Chat 03/11/2007 3:03:56 PM EDT · 836 of 20,191

Interview with Brigitte Neven and Rita Cosby http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=1c13475a-1cb4-4e43-bf0a-e3223080a1ee&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8828200/&fg= MSNBC’s Rita Cosby spoke exclusively with the woman who found Anna Nicole. So Rita, what did she tell you?
Rita: Well Amy, this morning everybody is talking about this interview that we did last night (holds up a Nassau Guardian newspaper with the headline “Stolen picts anger Stern” and a picture of of King Eric Gibson and Brigitte Neven below). This is the cover of the local newspaper here in the Bahamas and this is a clip from our interview that we did last night with the couple that was with Anna Nicole Smith and Howard Stern in Florida, right before Anna Nicole died.

About ten years ago Anna Nicole Smith came to the Bahamas because she was dating and eventually modeling for fashion mogul Peter Nygard. Then when she came back here for the birth of her daughter, she reunited with this couple, because they met her first with Peter Nygard, then they saw her again just recently. They went on boats with her, spent a lot of time with her and eventually became essentially her adopted parents, Brigitte Neven and Eric Gibson then went up to Florida last week and they were planning to go back on the yacht with Howard K. Stern and Anna Nicole Smith. But when they arrived on Thursday morning they realized that things were horribly wrong. Brigitte Neven arrived in that Florida hotel room and saw Anna Nicole napping, what she thought was napping. Then after about an hour and a half, she thought it was a long nap and eventually went to check on Anna Nicole Smith and realized something was very, very wrong at this point, this is what she saw.

Neven: When I looked at her I knew something was wrong instantly because there was no…..when people sleep the chest rises and falls and she was just lying there. And I thought, ‘that can’t be…there is something not right’. And I tried to……her jaw had dropped ….I tried to push it shut and….it, it wouldn’t. And I said, “You got to come here, something’s wrong” and she said, “what do you mean?” And I said please, and then everything, you know, just happened so quick. She tried to do CPR, she put the pillow away and started CPR and I rubbed her feet, and she tried to put some water in it but she couldn’t find a pulse and then she called Mo and he called 911.

Rita: This was the bodyguard’s wife?

Neven: Yeah, she called her husband to call 911 because we were so busy, we didn’t want to leave her there like that. We wanted to try….we still believed we could, you know, somehow, you know, talk. We, we yelled at her, we got water, we got a mirror to see if there was any breath…it was…..it was terrible.

Rita: There was no breath obviously?

Neven: No. No, like there was…..she was not cold. She was, she was warm. But she also had a big comforter over her, like her feet were warm, but it was like she was comatose, for sure.

Rita: What was she wearing?

Neven: Nothing

Rita: Nothing, she was naked, I understand.

Neven: She got, yeah. She didn’t wear any night gown or anything like that.

Posted at 2:22PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information

100. Regarding atropine being pumped by CPR - Found this from a responder in Oakland CA -

“This call was different, though. Neither the family nor my crew had any hope that we could save this patient, and in fact none of us had any real desire to try. But protocol is protocol, so we dragged him out of bed and into the kitchen where we would have space to work. The captain and the driver from my crew began CPR while the other firefighter and myself (both paramedics) went to work. I got down on the floor at the patient’s head, pried his mouth open with my laryngoscope and stuffed an endotracheal tube down his windpipe. The tube is more effective than a bag-and-mask system because it delivers pure oxygen directly to the lungs with no leakage. While I was securing the tube my partner had managed to insert a large-bore IV into the left arm. I called for epinephrine, 1 milligram, the front-line drug in most codes. I followed the epi with atropine, and we circulated both through the bloodstream with chest compressions. Every minute or so I stopped all the action and rechecked the heart monitor to make sure that the patient was still in flatline. We repeated the drug sequence one more time. The patient stayed dead, so we flipped off the monitor, stood up, stretched, and started clearing our mess. Only a coroner can touch a dead body after resuscitation efforts have failed, so we had to leave the poor guy naked and stuck full of tubes, lying on the linoleum. All because he never signed his “Do Not Resuscitate” form.”

did ya catch that - circulated atropine thru blood with chest compressions.

Posted at 2:22PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information

101.

Larry King Live - What Killed Anna Nicole Smith? Aired February 12, 2007 - 21:00 ET

Larry says: Tony Potts in Nassau in the Bahamas . We understand you have something to add to all of this.

POTTS: Yes. There were talks earlier about Howard being very controlling. I can tell you that I have learned firsthand that there's an audiotape of Anna Nicole calling her mother after Daniel died. There's a phone conversation for a short period of time. And then Howard comes in the background. You can hear him clearly, and there's some sort of discussion, and then the phone is slammed down because he had found out that she was trying to contact her mother.

I can tell you that the person that I received this information from has heard this firsthand, and, by the way, is in possession of this tape -- one, I hear, of many tapes that will give examples -- audiotapes -- of how controlling Howard K. Stern was. Larry.

Posted at 2:22PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information

102. Great article about the Marshall Estate.



http://www.law.com/traffic/AnnaNicole.html

Posted at 1:10PM on May 15th 2007 by Trainwreck

Posted at 2:22PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information

103. 927. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"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
- - - www.legaltimes.com

As many in the media awaited the results of a DNA test to determine the real father of Anna Nicole Smith’s infant daughter Dannielynn, some reports 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 at best. 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 is 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. Then 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 is 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 (which was found by DNA testing to be Larry Birkhead).

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 went forward to determine who Dannielynn’s biological father is. Once that was 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 had the wisdom to find a father for this baby.

- - - By Horace Cooper, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University in Arlington, VA

Posted at 3:05PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information

104. This is an excerpt from Nancy Grace on CNN regarding Ann's will 05/15/07:

GRACE: To Pat Brown, criminal profiler, what do you make of these new items stolen from this Vermont studio? First, similar items were stolen from her home in the Bahamas. Now this.

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Well, I do think, Nancy, those are just some kids out there, because they were all teenagers.

But I do want to say something about Howard Stern. He`s an opportunistic parasite. And I`m wondering, why is nobody questioning how much he siphoned off of Anna Nicole during all that time with her? After all, half the time, she`s out of it, and he`s feeding her drugs. God knows what he told her or where to put that money, perhaps in his own bank account someplace out there. So I`d be looking real strongly at Howard to see what he did with all her stuff.

GRACE: And I`m just wondering, Pat Brown, you just said many criminal investigations, will there be a court-ordered accounting for all of her monies?

BROWN: Well, I sure hope there would be, because, like you say, it`s gone into this big black hole. And it doesn`t make a whole lot of sense. I mean, $10,000 is ridiculous.

GRACE: Ridiculous. Ridiculous.

BROWN: So he should have to account for all that time he`s with her, where is it? I`d be looking at him very carefully. I hope they do check it out, because something`s fishy.

Posted at 3:04PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information

105. Bahamas Probing Check Forgery in Anna Nicole Case
Posted Feb 21st 2007 5:09PM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: Celebrity Justice, Anna Nicole Smith

Officials in the Bahamas are investigating an allegation that a company called ANS Interactive forged signatures on checks written in the Bahamas and with cash winding up in Santa Monica, Calif., Debra Opri, the attorney for Larry Birkhead, revealed in court just moments ago.

Howard K. Stern, the subject of the questioning, said he wasn't aware of the investigation. He says he "didn't know" if he was an officer of the company. He did admit that ANS Interactive ran Anna Nicole's official website.

Posted at 4:01PM on Jul 2nd 2007 by Information