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
31.

Pacer    

1752. "Court's rule by law not spin."

Well, no one following the activities in the State lawsuit would agree with that statement.


Posted at 3:09AM on Mar 7th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

_______________

With all the spoliation I'm surprised we haven't seen major sanctions.

2004 days ago
32.

Cool    

1753. "Court's rule by law not spin."

Well, no one following the activities in the State lawsuit would agree with that statement.

Posted at 3:09AM on Mar 7th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

2004 days ago
33.

box of marples    


Rosie does TMZ wrote:

Nope did not say for you to turn on Rose. You will see!!! Just keep a watchful eye on pacer!!!!!
Light side, dark side...Does not matter.. You aint seen nothing yet!!!!!yee-haw
Email here... Email there...Email everywhere
EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS
HAHAHAHAHAHA

2004 days ago
34.

Howard Supporter    

1740. 1732. 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.

Posted at 9:05PM on Mar 6th 2009 by clarification needed
*****
It sure is. Every nit-picking, drama-inducing piece of fluff you could imagine turned into Motions after Motions after Motions. It's the same as the O'Q/VA bloggers' directives: Heavy mouth-breathing about drama, drama, drama as their leader loses, loses, loses his cases.

McCabe/VA lawsuits are baseless. Always have been. Still are.

McCabe is facing tough CBS Lawyers now who are alleging fraud and collusion. McCabe files a Response to CBS's Motion in Houston's Federal Court and blabs on about drama while never addressing the fraud/collusion allegations. McCabe files Contempt charges against AH and has the chutzpah to suggest AH is the one lying to the State Court. O'Q did the same thing when HKS sued him. 3 Motions to Dismiss before he ever deigned to Answer (25 days late at that) the complaint itself; all paperwork with no substance.

McCabe is at least proving to be a star protégé for O'Q; shovel it, shovel it deep, shovel it into a big heap... and keep digging.

Posted at 10:40PM on Mar 6th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

Great posts last night Swim! This one is my favorite, especially the last line. :-)

2004 days ago
35.

THANK YOU    



OsitO,
Thanks for answering my question.
When this 'Pacer' poster said I was wrong, it did confuse me a bit!
LOL I agree with Facts 'just facts'!

All I know is that the Motion Docket can state what you go into Court for, and other issues (like explaining WHY a party is 'Requesting' these materials in more detail then the motion states on that docket!)
Yes, CBS may not be asking for sanctions on McC yet from the Federal Court, and maybe on Monday March 9th; McC may not get in big trouble that EXACT day; but I do honestly see him falling down soon!
Just cannot figure out in which Court it will be! It could be the State Court where there are motions to bring it back to the originating State Court?
I do know that this poster who states to follow Texas Rules... does not seem to understand that the Texas Law Firm does not seem to KNOW what these rules are. IMO
Like Pacer quoting: "Texas Civil Practice & Remedy Code" & " Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 194.2,ect..."
It almost DOES sound like the 'Professor' LOL Trying to explain himself! JMO

On a personal note, one of the reasons I like to read your posts (Swims), Facts, please, and Facts just facts (and a few others) is because when we ask a question on here it is up to you guys if you chose to take the time to answer it. We appreciate your answers and know that this is your opinion... This Pacer person MUST not be a regular blogger because not to many people keep telling others; How WRONG they are and shove a citation of a Code or a Law to 'back-up' their statement.
By the way, that does not impress me or make believe this person. Codes or State laws will probably BRING McC down in the end... I was just hoping that at least the Federal Judge could attempt to stop the intimidations and harassments of that TX team on Monday, as I think it needs to be done soon! JMO Thanks, Swims!

2004 days ago
36.

Only swim in the Ocean    

1757. Before you quote 194.2 (i), you need to go back up and read:

"192.3 Scope of Discovery.
(a) Generally. In general, a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not
privileged and is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the
claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party. It
is not a ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if the
information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

"...any matter that is not priviledged..."

Thanks for the offer of a link, though. ☺

Posted at 3:06AM on Mar 7th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

_______________

Actually you need to read 192.3(h).

Statements of persons with knowledge of relevant facts. A party may obtain discovery
of the statement of any person with knowledge of relevant facts--a "witness statement"--
regardless of when the statement was made. A witness statement is (1) a written statement
signed or otherwise adopted or approved in writing by the person making it, or (2) a
stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other type of recording of a witness's oral statement,
or any substantially verbatim transcription of such a recording. Notes taken during a
conversation or interview with a witness are not a witness statement. Any person may obtain,
upon written request, his or her own statement concerning the lawsuit, which is in the
possession, custody or control of any party.

Posted at 3:32AM on Mar 7th 2009 by Pacer
*****
Yes, yes, the death by a thousand cuts.

You are suggesting CBS wait to be sued or wait to be added as responsible third-parties, and only then, fight to introduce depositions and docs from VA's Federal case, subject of course to objections and whining and crying from McCabe. For every move against CBS in any form you expect CBS to reinvent the wheel, over and over again. At every turn you expect CBS to wait patiently while a State Judge decides to allow the sealed depositions to be received in State Court, while CBS over and over again requests the Federal Judge to release them.

No, CBS is cutting through all that time and cost by asking the Federal Judge to give it the depositions and docs from VA's now dismissed Federal case so they can be used if (likely when) McCabe files any Motion, any lawsuit, or 'convinces' any other person to try to add them as responsible third parties from now until forever. CBS is asking the Federal Court to order that those materials remain under seal in State Court as well. The authority for this request comes from the language of the Federal 'Protective Order' itself, as I commented days ago:

"Under the Agreed Protective Order, the confidentiality of designated doc uments “shall survive and remain
in full force and effect after the entry of final judgment (including any appellate proceedings) in
this case, whether by settlement or litigation” unless the parties stipulate otherwise or seek an
order of the Court modifying the Protective Order. (Agreed Protective Order at p. 12)."

McCabe in his response didn't provide any reason why VA's own words had to remain under seal. McCabe's Motion cites the same civil procedure rules as you listed. McCabe boasts that he nearly outsmarted CBS by having RT add them as a third-party. All fluff - he never addressed why the materials couldn't or shouldn't be released to CBS. He never addressed the fact that the authority CBS used was the Protective Order language itself.

It's already been widely published in the media that Leigh hawked VA to every news media in America after Daniel's death (making her at least a limited public figure if not a failed 'celebrity'). You said CBS was going to immediately use the material during AH's Special Appearance to show that as a Journalist, he was reporting on a limited public figure, as if that was a secret and nefarious agenda. It's in CBS's Motion in clear language:

"Even though Turner, who has now obtained counsel, has withdrawn the Motion, CBS
fears that Arthur will continue to attempt to drag CBS into the State Court Suit and will
challenge CBS broadcasts. It is for this reason that CBS wishes to retain and potentially use the
Arthur, Leigh, and Tunstall depositions and the doc uments produced by Leigh, all of which
relate, in part, to Arthur’s status as a “public figure.” Harris, who is now defended by the
undersigned in the State Court Suit, also wishes to have continued access to these depositions in
order to defend one of the CBS broadcasts for which Arthur alleges Harris is responsible."

No, this discussion about TX Rules of Civil Procedure is a diversion. McCabe has no reason to keep the depositions and docs sealed EXCEPT t

2004 days ago
37.

Only swim in the Ocean    

How could I be incorrect. You just restated the same thing I said.

Posted at 2:58AM on Mar 7th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean
*******
Swins,
Could you be posting with the professor himself??????????????????????????????????? LOL

Posted at 4:39AM on Mar 7th 2009 by Fact just facts
*****
LOL. Or with someone who is quoting McCabe's exact words from his Response to CBS's Motion.

2004 days ago
38.

Only swim in the Ocean    

...
But, all of that does not compare when you put it into the context of what they did to Virgie Arthur and the very people that were to testify at Daniel's inquest.

What the Hell were they thinking!

Excuse my language but a more forceful word seems appropriate.

Posted at 10:50AM on Mar 7th 2009 by box of marples
*****
Oh, the latest drama. McCabe charging AH with contempt of court. Too bad that Motion won't be heard in Court.

Speaking of garbage, this is how McCabe and his minions try to rewrite history. A person, who later became a defendant in the baseless 'bloggers' lawsuit, apparently swiped Wilma's garbage and sent materials to Journalist AH. The same person may have gone to the O'Q Law Firm's Christmas party to take pictures and see exactly who showed up. Was this an attempt to 'defame' VA or to 'intimidate' people? No - let's take a trip back to November - December, 2007.

After 'nannygate', Judge Chin had ordered an expedited deposition from Cosby to be done in November, 2007. Portions of that deposition leaked, and we knew from Cosby that Clark and a mystery person Wilma were her primary sources for her libelous book. Clark was on TV denying, denying, denying - coming unhinged during one appearance on 'Geraldo At Large' after which Geraldo's own panel judged him to have been lying. Who was Wilma, what did Clark and she do, what did they know and when did they know it. The focus was Cosby, not VA. As a Journalist pursuing the truth about public person Cosby, AH employed the usual and customary and legal avenues of investigation and nailed the story. We recall the vicious and racist rhetoric of the O'Q/VA bloggers at the same time - HKS and LB were going down - DL needed to be saved and in the arms of VA, more to come, just wait for next week/next month - all of the rhetoric designed to divert from the huge story in front of all of our faces.

But the story was clear - O'Q and his people and Cosby and her people were all in this massive defamation effort against HKS, LB and DL together. We all saw the noticeable drop-off of regular bloggers who were no longer willing to voice support for the O'Q people after this story was released. The same significant drop-off that was seen later after O'Q settled his defamation lawsuit.

Back in November - December 2007, no one was blogging about VA or cared less, except the O'Q/VA operatives. The focus was Cosby and her now clear connection with O'Q/Clark/Wilma. VA was irrelevant from 04/10/2007 onwards (the day the DNA results were presented to the Supreme Court in Nassau, The Bahamas).

To even suggest now that the old 'garbage' story had anything to do with 'defaming' VA is nuts!

2004 days ago
39.

Only swim in the Ocean    

1758. 1752. "Court's rule by law not spin."

Well, no one following the activities in the State lawsuit would agree with that statement.

Posted at 3:09AM on Mar 7th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean
_______________

With all the spoliation I'm surprised we haven't seen major sanctions.

Posted at 3:35AM on Mar 7th 2009 by Pacer
*****
Well, if that's true, Judge Lindsay would have to read the paperwork at some time and hold a Hearing. What an idea!

2004 days ago
40.

THANK YOU    

OMG! My eyes!
"box of marples" - that should state marbles! are your marbles loose?
why on earth would you post stupid comments from topix the hate all site on here?
especially qv lover mrs marpels!
AH has done nothing wrong compared to Virgie, and her team of "Shooters"
LOL shooter=head marble!

2004 days ago
41.

Howard Supporter    

Seems to me that McCabe's entire Response to the federal court is about Third-Party Gate and RT. He must have felt that it required a detailed explanation from his point of view, replete with exhibis of their email correspondence. Of course, this was in response to the email exhibits provided the court by CBS.

Although Motion to Modify is the basis for CBS involving the federal court in a closed case in order to obtain use of the sealed depos for the state court case, the elephant in the room IS Third-Party Gate. His bragadoccio shines through as how proud he is that CBS feels he pulled a fast one on both courts with the Third-Party baloney and RT.

Since this is all he has to say in writing a motion--the usual throwing someone under the bus business--and in this case he's throwing the 'only defendant that cooperated with plaintiff's counsel' I just don't see HOW Judge R can NOT address Third-Party Gate. Since the actual CBS motion presents a paper trail in itself, and McC's Response completes that paper trail (his defense) there are just way too many unanswered questions here for a judge to avoid. IMO a hearing would be the best place for such questions and answers. How can she address the problem otherwise?

2004 days ago
42.

Cool    

Speaking of garbage, this is how McCabe and his minions try to rewrite history. A person, who later became a defendant in the baseless 'bloggers' lawsuit, apparently swiped Wilma's garbage and sent materials to Journalist AH. The same person may have gone to the O'Q Law Firm's Christmas party to take pictures and see exactly who showed up. Was this an attempt to 'defame' VA or to 'intimidate' people? No - let's take a trip back to November - December, 2007.

Posted at 2:34PM on Mar 7th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

The defendant did not do any of those things for Art Harris.

2004 days ago
43.

Higher truths    

Posted at 10:50AM on Mar 7th 2009 by box of marples


My my and how the left flank moves inward! The whole think is ludicrous.
Wasn't your number in the trash along with Patrick and pols and Craig riveras? Noone calle dyou: phone logs can prove that but it does show wher ethe real conspiracy lies, as usual per the OQ operatives.

Forum owners have a right to enforce their TOS and protect other posters.
Still stings for you, Marples?

So that's the big case now?
Going after a lone blogger to get dear old ART in.
Lie afater lie about her.

When all is said and done, there will be a few OQ bloggers facing the red and black ink as well.

Let's not forget the collusion that McCabe committed with a defendant, shall we?
Be a good gilr and go back to the propoganda pit called T.



2004 days ago
44.

Cool    

1774. Seems to me that McCabe's entire Response to the federal court is about Third-Party Gate and RT. He must have felt that it required a detailed explanation from his point of view, replete with exhibis of their email correspondence. Of course, this was in response to the email exhibits provided the court by CBS.

Although Motion to Modify is the basis for CBS involving the federal court in a closed case in order to obtain use of the sealed depos for the state court case, the elephant in the room IS Third-Party Gate. His bragadoccio shines through as how proud he is that CBS feels he pulled a fast one on both courts with the Third-Party baloney and RT.

Since this is all he has to say in writing a motion--the usual throwing someone under the bus business--and in this case he's throwing the 'only defendant that cooperated with plaintiff's counsel' I just don't see HOW Judge R can NOT address Third-Party Gate. Since the actual CBS motion presents a paper trail in itself, and McC's Response completes that paper trail (his defense) there are just way too many unanswered questions here for a judge to avoid. IMO a hearing would be the best place for such questions and answers. How can she address the problem otherwise?

Posted at 2:45PM on Mar 7th 2009 by Facts, please

So McCabe just did 3rd Party Gate defense. LOL. It just shows the collusion more IMO.

I thought it was the Texas State case that requested a in chambers review to the Admin Judge?

2004 days ago
45.

Howard Supporter    

So McCabe just did 3rd Party Gate defense. LOL. It just shows the collusion more IMO.

I thought it was the Texas State case that requested a in chambers review to the Admin Judge?

Posted at 3:52PM on Mar 7th 2009 by ?

The collusion resulted in the fraud--however, it is MC's conduct that should be questioned. His explanation consisted of the defendant is not to be believed, and CBS should have known that, and he did nothing wrong because she was a willing participant in filing the motion to designate. His presumptuous and flippant attitude to CBS insinuates that they should simply wait until another defendant names them as a third party and then they can seek depositions AFTER the court grants the Motion to Designate.

Swim already dealt with all this garbage in one of his posts, plus that civil rule about deposing witnesses AFTER a Third Party has been officially added to a case has nothing to do with the Motion by CBS to Modify the Protective Order from the closed federal case. Mc is just being facetious with that one--implying 'sombeody' will do it soon or later--another defendant (motion to designate third party).

As far as the submission to the Administrative Judge in Harris County District Court--that was a tiny footnote about 'another ground for transfer' that needed to be discussed in chambers. Thinking back, Mc's motion to DENY transfer was another bit of childish 'just when everything's going just right for me, these people dare to defy me' whine.

2004 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web