TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Birkhead and Stern Reunite -- In Lawsuit

1/22/2009 4:54 PM PST BY TMZ STAFF

Larry Birkhead & Howard K SternHoward K. Stern and Larry Birkhead have just filed sworn declarations, expressing outrage at various accusations, including suggestions that Stern drugged Anna Nicole Smith.

Stern has sued Mark Speer, a former associate of Birkhead's former lawyer, Debra Opri. Stern claims Speer was funneling false info to Rita Cosby in her so-called tell-all book.

In Stern's declaration, he says Speer told a pack of lies.

- Item: Stern says he was not criminally involved in Daniel Smith's death.
- Item: Stern says he never drugged Anna Nicole
- Item: He says he never told Birkhead, "I will give you your baby, if you leave me as executor of Anna's estate."

Birkhead also filed a declaration in support of Stern, also taking issue with what Speer allegedly told Cosby.

- Item: Birkhead says he never told Bahamian cops Stern stole millions of bucks from Anna Nicole.
- Item: Birkhead denies he was on a "mission" to get Stern investigated for the death of Daniel.
- Item: Birkhead denies he and Stern horse-traded Dannielynn in return for Howard becoming executor.

BTW, in case you're wondering, the fight over J. Howard Marshall and who gets his money is still locked up in the courts, with no end in sight.
Click to view!

3661 COMMENTS

No Avatar

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments
1.

Howard Supporter    

They did shut Art down he doesn't write about the ANS cases anymore since he was dragged into this. His forum is not used anymore either. You're really made me stop and think about how far this thing reaches into others lives.

Posted at 12:52PM on Mar 6th 2009 by Facts just facts

I just noticed your post. It seems the more Mc goes after AH and the nastier it gets the more I remember way back when the O'Q/VA/WV bloggers were ratcheting up the heat on AH. They had always resented the large influx of pro-HKS bloggers (this was before his forums) and I occasionally posted there--all posts went into moderation first. They could never reach the lengths of slandering HKS there as they could on TMZ and apparently TMZ wasn't enough for them. I never understood that really--TMZ was much more heavily trafficked, yet they not only hated RT's website once it got off the ground in the early days but they hated Art too. It just drove them crazy for some reason. Then QV became the stomping grounds from which to blather the hate speech about AH and specific people went over to AH to provoke him, insulting him PERSONALLY about what a bad father he was to his kids! He began deleting some of it when it got too bad. They went after him with a vengeance, almost as bad as they went after RT website. It was very strange.

Fast forward and now we see Mc going after AH with that same filthy vengeance. So, you tell me--who wrote the book on this crap, bloggers??? Sort of like the Cosby book only this book is the Blogger lawsuit, written by bloggers for bloggers about bloggers.

2005 days ago
2.

Howard Supporter    

Facts, please
I read that too but it's all been changed. NO hearing on Monday is right.

Posted at 9:18AM on Mar 6th 2009 by Facts just facts

I seem to have these small posts somehow!

I am simply going by the docket entries and March 9, is still listed --no entries cancelling it.

114 Filed & Entered: 03/05/2009 Response in Opposition to Motion

Docket Text: First RESPONSE in Opposition to [113] MOTION to Modify Agreed Protective Order, filed by Virgie Arthur. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A - D, # (2) Exhibit E - L, # (3) Exhibit M - T)(McCabe, Neil)

113 Filed & Entered: 02/17/2009 Motion to Modify

Docket Text: MOTION to Modify Agreed Protective Order by CBS Studios Inc., filed. Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Proposed Order)(Bush, Amanda)

Motion Docket Date 3/9/2009.


2005 days ago
3.

Howard Supporter    

1687. I READ ON TOPIX THAT BIRKHEAD WAS SERVED.NOW I FOUND OUT IT WAS A LIE.THEY COULDN'T FIND HIM ON STUDIO CITY ADDRESS.
WHERE IS BIRKHEAD?
WHY DID VIRGIE'S BLOGGERS LIE?

Posted at 9:31AM on Mar 6th 2009 by NEVERENDING HORROR

The summons was issued by the issuing agency (process server) on 2/19/09 but it was never served. The 'serve date' is BLANK (no entry).

2005 days ago
4.

Pacer    

Motion Docket Date 3/9/2009.

Posted at 6:19PM on Mar 6th 2009 by Facts, please
_____

Again, There was never a hearing for the 9th. The 9th is the date McCabe had to reply to the motion filed. The judge will now make a ruling on the Motion to Enforce and Modify the Protective Order and it's a done deal.

2005 days ago
5.

KQ    

1669. I forgot to add that in one of those exhibit emails, Mc says to RT when she is first apprehensive about filing that motion to designate--that if she doesn't do it, another defendant will do it! Is he referring to AH? He is demanding to know who is paying for RT's lawyer and gives a case citation on this. WHY is it his business? Will Judge R allow him to have that kind of information? He is unable to grasp that RT sent six DVD's to CBS attorneies and asks Amanda Bush, ' did you say you got six DVD's and Chip hasn't seen them yet or you didn't get the DVD's?"

On Feb. 24th RT is still writing to MC about exactly what she sent to the lawyers from her subpoena requests to produce doc uments. McC wants to know exactly what she sent to them!!!! She tells him that she has complied with sending communications of all the people on the list and sent it all to Mc by Feb. 24th. Isn't this time period long after the cooperation had supposedly ended? This is from MC email exhibits.

Posted at 9:18PM on Mar 5th 2009 by Facts, please
--

For clarification, could you point out where the Feb. 24th correspondence between RT and MC is located? I've looked over the new docs. and couldn't find it. Is it in another set of docs? Thanks

2005 days ago
6.

Cool    

How can you serve someone that was never officially added as a defendant?

2005 days ago
7.

Howard Supporter    

For clarification, could you point out where the Feb. 24th correspondence between RT and MC is located? I've looked over the new docs. and couldn't find it. Is it in another set of docs? Thanks

Posted at 7:56PM on Mar 6th 2009 by KQ

Thank you for noticing that! OMG--I just checked and it is Amanda Bush correspondence with MC about the six DVD's. Just above that are RT emails from Feb. 7th and JANUARY 24th.

Sorry about that. I read them last night quickly. That was the last exhibit--M-T

2005 days ago
8.

THANK YOU    

Again, There was never a hearing for the 9th. The 9th is the date
McCabe had to reply to the motion filed. The judge will now make a
ruling on the Motion to Enforce and Modify the Protective Order and
it's a done deal.
Posted at 7:37PM on Mar 6th 2009 by Pacer
***
The Federal Judge will also listen to what McCabe has done since they
withdrew the case with CBS and AH.
Don't you rember CBS's partial filing of the R.T. deposition?
NO, it is NOT a done deal. There will be many questions of McCabe.

2005 days ago
9.

Howard Supporter    

Going back of the email exhibits--I see that the secondone E-L is almost completely redacted.

I think my confusion about the terms of the 'settlement' actually refers to their confidential agreement (as Mc refers to it) and he admonishes RT about talking about it on her website. Last night I recall reading the Q&A regarding the terms of same and Mc says changing position on HKS was not required for the settlement (?) but it is his 'position' that she do so for dismissal, but he didn't use that word --he said something else I can't recall which implied dismissal.

Emails from Feb. 8th back and forth talk about if she will withdraw the Motion (she says no) and go back and forth that same day, Sunday, about what exactly she sent to AH attornies. He isn't interested in the compilation (of which he was given a copy) of the attacks against her from Topix and TMZ over a long period of time--he says he 'isn't responsible' for that and still asks what she sent to them.

Too much redacted--dates are all mixed up (to prove Mc's point in the response) so no chronology. Are these redacted for the court also?? Seems so.

And another email on Feb. 8 about telling Mc what was sent to the lawyers. This is the first exhibit A-D (would be C and only the first part is there--the rest is unredacted. Some emails have Michael Meyer's name and on some he is omitted.

2005 days ago
10.

silkwood    

Regarding the case against Art Harris and RT.....Is this evidence of the "death by a thousand cuts", or "the scorched earth" practice that is often mentioned in reference to those lawyers? Sounds like both to me. Truly disgusting IMO.My wish is that reputable attornies everywhere would speak out to stop this travesty, and perhaps bring some closure to this.

2005 days ago
11.

Howard Supporter    

Facts just facts

I tried to respond to one of your posts that I never saw from this morning and my responses did not come through my emails.

I see now they are up from around 6:40 PM and one response is garbled with your post as if you had written it! LOL. I don't see how that happened .....guess I did it.

You can figure out where your words ended and mine began.

You asked some good questions and I tried to answer some but really don't know the answers myself--we are just doing psychological observations maybe.

2005 days ago
12.

The Friend    

Has anyone noticed that McCabe called Wilma "Don Clark's friend" not a fellow investigator nor a O'Quinn employee? What was she just the head blogger?

2005 days ago
13.

Cool    

1734. Has anyone noticed that McCabe called Wilma "Don Clark's friend" not a fellow investigator nor a O'Quinn employee? What was she just the head blogger?

Posted at 9:33PM on Mar 6th 2009 by The Friend

Lately it seems that Wilma is trying very hard to get out of her status of a paid oquinn blogger. It won't work.

2005 days ago
14.

Only swim in the Ocean    

1734. Has anyone noticed that McCabe called Wilma "Don Clark's friend" not a fellow investigator nor a O'Quinn employee? What was she just the head blogger?

Posted at 9:33PM on Mar 6th 2009 by The Friend
*****
I noticed that too. LOL

Cosby in her deposition referred to Wilma as having 'a relationship' with Clark. O'Q originally had no idea who she was. When the O'Q Law Firm was righteously sued by HKS, O'Q suddenly lumped the activities of Clark/Wilma into a 'work product' package; didn't work because Wilma blabbed to the internet and Cosby. 'Wilma' has posted recently and many times that she is not now nor has ever been an O'Q employee. The O'Q Law Firm spent a fortune hiding her from HKS/Wood and the inevitable deposition and production of her internet activities; didn't work but not for lack of trying.

Now, what kind of 'friend' of an O'Q employee gets this level of protection from that employee's employer? And is always by Clark's side as he travels the USA and The Bahamas on his nefarious missions for O'Q? And who spoke on behalf of O'Q/VA as she tried to put the screws to LB (she among many) to sell DL to O'Q/VA?

So, if she is just the 'head blogger' for the O'Q Firm, she's awfully well compensated; ineffective as a blogger as she is.

I think only O'Q stumbled and told the truth in his depo - didn't know her. Cosby and McCabe have never been known to tell the truth when they think a lie would be more effective.

2005 days ago
15.

Only swim in the Ocean    

So, I'm reading the McCabe Motion for Contempt of Court against AH. The Court won't hear it, but it's fascinating nevertheless.

McCabe feels AH should be held in contempt and in custody until he complies with the Court order to turn over his computer for imaging. He also feels AH should be held in contempt and fined heavily for filing a false affidavit with the Court; the one where he tells the Court he has no sustained business with the State of TX and so is not subject to the Harris County Court's jurisdiction. McCabe points to the RT emails (yes, the person he calls a nut, now) as proof that AH has operatives in the State of TX working for him on ANS related and other issues.

FILING A FALSE AFFIDAVIT? McCabe's entire 'bloggers' lawsuit is replete with factual errors that he and VA have both admitted to, VA especially, in Federal Court. He's filed a Second Amended Complaint that repeats the lies he had already owned up to and adds a few pages more about LB and AH.

The 'bloggers' lawsuit is contemptuous of Court.

2005 days ago
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web