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
46.

Higher truths    

Who is the attorney of record for Art hariis at this time?
It is possible that another defendant may have information he may need for his case.

Thank you.

2056 days ago
47.

Only swim in the Ocean    

...
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
*****
I agree. When the Motion is heard, the Judge will want to know why McCabe objects to providing CBS with the depositions and docs requested, which it has the right to request, based on the Protective Order that McCabe himself signed. He never addressed this in his Response.

Judge to McCabe:

- do you recall withdrawing this case with prejudice in my Court?
- do you recall signing the Protective Order and what its provisions are?
- why should I not release the depositions and docs requested to CBS?

McCabe launches into his fantasy about conspiracies everywhere and poor VA and poor DL. McCabe reiterates how proud he is to have almost out-smarted CBS by convincing a blogger defendant that the exercise of her right to voice an opinion in America is in fact a crime. He restates that everything RT said that helped him is the gospel truth, but everything the same person told CBS is craziness and CBS should have known better than to talk to her. CBS should have to fight it out in Harris County State Court and file Motions there (snicker) over and over again. Hey, I spent a ton of cash fighting against these depositions being taken, and I withdrew this case with prejudice with the idea that all that 'truth' would be buried forever.

Judge to McCabe (interrupting):

- is it your intention today to try and out-smart me too?
- what in the Protective Order language, that you agreed to, prevents me from granting CBS's Motion?
- and while you're talking, could you explain in more detail why you withdrew your case from my Court and then filed on behalf of RT a Motion for Leave to designate responsible Third-Parties (one of which is CBS) in your State lawsuit? Surely you have a better argument than saying RT is a loon now, but apparently wasn't always.

2056 days ago
48.

Only swim in the Ocean    

1776. 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.

Posted at 3:48PM on Mar 7th 2009 by Just Saying
*****
That's why I used the words 'apparently' and 'may' when setting the background of the story as told by O'Q/VA bloggers. ☺

2056 days ago
49.

Only swim in the Ocean    

1780. Who is the attorney of record for Art hariis at this time?
It is possible that another defendant may have information he may need for his case.

Thank you.

Posted at 4:16PM on Mar 7th 2009 by Question
*****
Amanda Bush indicated in her Motion (To Enforce and Modify the Protective Order) for CBS that the 'undersigned' Attorneys for CBS are also the Attorneys for AH. They are:

Charles L. Babco ck
Nancy W. Hamilton
Amanda L. Bush
JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
1401 McKinney, Suite 1900
Houston, Texas 77010
Telephone: (713) 752-4200
Facsimile: (713) 752-4221

2056 days ago
50.

Only swim in the Ocean    

...
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.
...
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!

Posted at 12:01PM on Mar 7th 2009 by Thank you, Swims
*****
Your welcome and thank you. I also enjoy reading all the same posters' comments as you mentioned. I think many of us are expecting some Judge somewhere to move things along. Serious people with serious Lawyers and serious issues have filed mountains of paperwork for the baseless 'bloggers' case, just to have it sit in piles at the Court house. And it was a mistake to have stuck all of these people with the 280th District Court in the first place.

It has been long noted that O'Q/McCabe have fought hard to have all lawsuits heard in Houston. They have also fought hard to have everything labelled 'confidential'. They have fought tooth and nail to prevent depositions being taken, even successfully running out the clock once in the HKS v. O'Q et al FL defamation case. Recall the effort Wood had to put into having materials from the Cosby case in NY used in the FL case and vice versa. The 'death by a thousand cuts' - forcing defendants to expend tons of cash and months of time to get the same material over and over again.

And all of this crap happening in a case with no merit - the 'bloggers' case - which would have been booted long ago if the Judge had ever read the piles of paperwork. Good for CBS taking an aggressive stand. Move this thing along.

2056 days ago
51.

Hawaii spring break    



VIRGIE'S SUPPORTERS ARE FANATICAL BIGOTS WHO CONSTANTLY BABBLE ABOUT ALLEGED DEFAMATION OF THEIR HERO.
ROSE TURNER IS VERY ILL, POOR WOMAN.SHE TOTALLY LOST ORIENTATION IN SPACE AND TIME.
NOBODY SANE WOULD TRUST THAT ILL WOMAN.SHE IS LOST IN HER IMAGINARY WORLD OF SELF-IMPORTANCE, JUST LIKE HER "RIVAL" QV A.K.A. YVONNE B. WADDLE (51) OF OHIO.
THEY ARE PITIFUL MIDDLE AGED, UNEMPLOYED WOMEN WITHOUT THEIR OWN PRIVATE LIVES.
CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION,....WHAT A BIG, EMPTY WORDS.

2056 days ago
52.

Howard Supporter    

10 gigs should keep the blog wars going another two years...as he doles the emails out as exhibits in some loony motion that has nothing to do with anything, his favorite blog will duly download the crap and the feeding frenzy will continue with the daily fix. They've been fixating for two years and counting, what's a few more of the same?

Blog Wars anyone? Hail to the Chief Blogger in Charge--fiddling while Rome burns (cases lost).

2056 days ago
53.

THANK YOU    

"bla bla bla bla bla..."

by "..... only Haldol can help you"

****
Stop it Wilma! I do not want you or your paid bloggers to taint tmz again!

2056 days ago
54.

Cool    

So, for example, if your case was in the Federal Courts, and you lived and practiced in Houston (Southern District of TX) and wanted to subpoena someone who lives over 200 miles north of you in Tyler (Eastern District of TX), you might assume the costs for travel yourself and offer to pay for the production of docs and open a case and issue your subpoena from the Eastern District's Federal District Court located in Tyler, TX. This overcomes two of the most common reasons a person receiving a subpoena might cite as a reason for the Court to quash it.

Of course, if you already had an identical case in the Southern District (Houston Division), one might question what the deal is opening the other case in the Eastern District. You can pay fees to cover travel costs, production costs or just travel yourself to Tyler to inspect or copy or otherwise take possession of the desired docs.
Posted at 5:20PM on Feb 28th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean


For some reasons these 2 paragraphs keep contradicting each other while referencing mccabe or im not getting something. you say open a case in the other district to prevent objections but then say if u already have case open then do it through that case in different county. how can doing the subpoena through the open case prevent objections?

2056 days ago
55.

Adub    

The codes, or whatever, state that the subpoena needs to be filed in the court where the person resides. If they live more than 200 miles from the court where the suit was filed. It's so as not to present a hardship. So it would be an ancillary, or something like that. McC wanted Rose's computers. So it was proper to file the subpoena close to Rose's residence. But Rose was happy working in the Houston court. Her attorney kept filing things in Houston and McC kept whining that is was the wrong district. That was the Federal suit before Rose decided to make a free for all of the discovery.

2056 days ago
56.

Only swim in the Ocean    

And speaking of fighting in Federal Court - let's not forget who O'Q/McCabe are. It's an interesting discussion about CBS in Houston trying to get depositions and docs released, but that's only a part of the ongoing defamation effort O'Q/McCabe began on or about the time of Daniel's or ANS's death.

HKS/Wood are in Federal Court in FL asking that Court to release the entire Clark depo (taken simultaneously for the HKS v. O'Q and the HKS v. Cosby cases) to the CA DOJ because of media reports that Clark/Wilma are in CA trying to unduly influence investigators. From HKS's Motion in FL:

3. Don Clark admitted under oath in his deposition in this action that he has not been
able to develop any legitimate evidence of probative value to give to any law enforcement agent
that would implicate Stern in any criminal activity involving Ms. Smith’s death. (See Deposition
of Don Clark, dated October 14, 2008 (“Clark Dep.”), at 350:14—352:3 – these specific pages of
the deposition are non-confidential.)

4. Despite this admitted lack of evidence, Clark had admitted that he continues to
attempt to influence law enforcement agencies to prosecute Stern.

5. The deposition testimony of Don Clark in its entirety demonstrates his lack of
objectivity regarding Stern, his complete lack of evidence of Stern’s involvement in Ms. Smith’s
death, and his irrational commitment to seeing Stern prosecuted despite admittedly lacking any
evidence to support criminal charges against Stern.

CBS is not the only one fighting to dig out 'confidential' labelled truth it took many months to drag out of O'Q/VA people.

2056 days ago
57.

Only swim in the Ocean    

1788. So, for example, if your case was in the Federal Courts, and you lived and practiced in Houston (Southern District of TX) and wanted to subpoena someone who lives over 200 miles north of you in Tyler (Eastern District of TX), you might assume the costs for travel yourself and offer to pay for the production of docs and open a case and issue your subpoena from the Eastern District's Federal District Court located in Tyler, TX. This overcomes two of the most common reasons a person receiving a subpoena might cite as a reason for the Court to quash it.

Of course, if you already had an identical case in the Southern District (Houston Division), one might question what the deal is opening the other case in the Eastern District. You can pay fees to cover travel costs, production costs or just travel yourself to Tyler to inspect or copy or otherwise take possession of the desired docs.
Posted at 5:20PM on Feb 28th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

For some reasons these 2 paragraphs keep contradicting each other while referencing mccabe or im not getting something. you say open a case in the other district to prevent objections but then say if u already have case open then do it through that case in different county. how can doing the subpoena through the open case prevent objections?

Posted at 7:34PM on Mar 7th 2009 by lahlah
*****
The second paragraph is rhetorical. I wasn't using bloggers' names at the time. McCabe tried to act innocent when all this was exposed.

In Tyler, TX (Eastern District) he was filing subpoenas for hard drives, etc., he claimed, for the convenience of RT (closer to her home). However, McCabe was filing identical subpoenas in Houston (Southern District) and RT was answering them only in Houston. McCabe actually tried to get Motions to Compel and threatened Contempt Motions, in Tyler, saying that RT and her husband had ignored his subpoenas from that Court when in fact both had filed Motions to quash/modify, etc. in the other Court. At the time RT was a third-party witness, not a defendant.

Now that could be characterized as threatening and harassing behavior as well as an attempt to bamboozle the Eastern District Court.

2056 days ago
58.

Cool    


CBS is not the only one fighting to dig out 'confidential' labelled truth it took many months to drag out of O'Q/VA people.

Posted at 8:47PM on Mar 7th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

Was there something filed in NY as well? Or due to they were posted for a window of time not lead to anything?

2056 days ago
59.

Cool    

There is a particular email to McCabe where Rose states [paraphrasing] she can give McCabe this that blah blah. One of them is that he lied in his depo (sound like Havana lol) Anyways, is there any proof offered further through the docs or just a statement?

2056 days ago
60.

Cool    

1791. 1788. So, for example, if your case was in the Federal Courts, and you lived and practiced in Houston (Southern District of TX) and wanted to subpoena someone who lives over 200 miles north of you in Tyler (Eastern District of TX), you might assume the costs for travel yourself and offer to pay for the production of docs and open a case and issue your subpoena from the Eastern District's Federal District Court located in Tyler, TX. This overcomes two of the most common reasons a person receiving a subpoena might cite as a reason for the Court to quash it.

Of course, if you already had an identical case in the Southern District (Houston Division), one might question what the deal is opening the other case in the Eastern District. You can pay fees to cover travel costs, production costs or just travel yourself to Tyler to inspect or copy or otherwise take possession of the desired docs.
Posted at 5:20PM on Feb 28th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

For some reasons these 2 paragraphs keep contradicting each other while referencing mccabe or im not getting something. you say open a case in the other district to prevent objections but then say if u already have case open then do it through that case in different county. how can doing the subpoena through the open case prevent objections?

Posted at 7:34PM on Mar 7th 2009 by lahlah
*****
The second paragraph is rhetorical. I wasn't using bloggers' names at the time. McCabe tried to act innocent when all this was exposed.

In Tyler, TX (Eastern District) he was filing subpoenas for hard drives, etc., he claimed, for the convenience of RT (closer to her home). However, McCabe was filing identical subpoenas in Houston (Southern District) and RT was answering them only in Houston. McCabe actually tried to get Motions to Compel and threatened Contempt Motions, in Tyler, saying that RT and her husband had ignored his subpoenas from that Court when in fact both had filed Motions to quash/modify, etc. in the other Court. At the time RT was a third-party witness, not a defendant.

Now that could be characterized as threatening and harassing behavior as well as an attempt to bamboozle the Eastern District Court.

Posted at 9:17PM on Mar 7th 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

___

1789. The codes, or whatever, state that the subpoena needs to be filed in the court where the person resides. If they live more than 200 miles from the court where the suit was filed. It's so as not to present a hardship. So it would be an ancillary, or something like that. McC wanted Rose's computers. So it was proper to file the subpoena close to Rose's residence. But Rose was happy working in the Houston court. Her attorney kept filing things in Houston and McC kept whining that is was the wrong district. That was the Federal suit before Rose decided to make a free for all of the discovery.

Posted at 8:38PM on Mar 7th 2009 by Adub

_+___P{P

K. So technically if you are involved with litigation and want to subpoena records to a NON PARTY out of state witness, you would not get the subpoena from where your case is filed, but open up a 'subpoena case' in the state where the witness resides and follow that states rules for issuance? To avoid objections?

2056 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web