Home : Celebrity Justice, Anna Nicole Smith, Exclusives : Birkhead and Stern Reunite -- In Lawsuit

Birkhead and Stern Reunite -- In Lawsuit

Posted Jan 22nd 2009 2:54PM by TMZ Staff

Larry Birkhead & Howard K Stern Howard 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.

Comments [3661]

SHARE |

Email 4ie6

Reader Comments

(Page 5 of 245) Previous 15 Comments | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

61. http://www.factweb.net/cgi-data/pdf2/files/05.2006_-_9th_Circuit_Request_for_Renewal_of_Prior_Motion_1.pdf

1. Claim Preclusion (seems to be restated in Probate Preclusion)
2. Issue Preclusion (see above)
3. Waiver
4. No Cause of Action
5. Due Process
6. Clearly Erroneous Findings
7. Error in Awarding Damages
8. Bankrutpcy Jurisdiction
9. Core/Non-core
10. Consent

Posted at 7:29PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Robert

62. So in reference to them refusing to cooperate I will take it as the May 2008 mediation did not go well? If this is the case, then do the Judges go ahead with what Robert suggested or something different as a mediation was required?

Posted at 7:29PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by butterfly

The only mediation I know of was Dec. 15, 2006 and ANS and HKS left the Bahamas for San Fran.

Mediation is still on the agenda IMO--there is a 'new' mediation unit chief who took over that entity.

The Federal court lowered the 1/2 billion dollar aware that Marshall appealed and set aside the $88 million award in ANS' favor. Marshall took it to the 9th circuit which reversed the federal court award. The SCOTUS remanded it back to the 9th circuit.

Posted at 7:34PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Facts, please

63. So in reference to them refusing to cooperate I will take it as the May 2008 mediation did not go well? If this is the case, then do the Judges go ahead with what Robert suggested or something different as a mediation was required?

Posted at 7:29PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by butterfly
********

The 1/2 billion was overturned by the District court and reduced to 88 million. That too was overtunrned by the 9th. SCOTUS did not like the reason the 9th used and essentially told them to rule on the others.

If what Facts, please says is true, then the mediation already happened on Dec 15, 2006 and if there were a resolution then i'm sure the world would have heard by now. Swims is making the comments about no cooperation, so i think its just speculation, like the other comments.

Posted at 7:35PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Robert

64. 59. I thought there was a reward of the 88 million at one time? Is that not the $$ that is tied up that OsitO is referencing? Thanks for the response.

Posted at 7:20PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by butterfly

________________________________________________________
I thought you were pleading insanity? You do not seem that nutty to me? Do you really think it will work? Do you think you will get away with saying that someone stole your hard drive out of a bank vault? Just curious.

Posted at 7:28PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Its over

Obviously you do not have the facts, no one ever said the hard drive was stolen from a bank vault.

How does one plead insanity when they are suing a bank? BTW She already won, in a Court, there was no problem in that area, but a nice try by those covering up crimes! Losers never win!

Posted at 7:39PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by butterfly

65. Obviously you do not have the facts, no one ever said the hard drive was stolen from a bank vault.

How does one plead insanity when they are suing a bank? BTW She already won, in a Court, there was no problem in that area, but a nice try by those covering up crimes! Losers never win!

Posted at 7:39PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by butterfly

___________________________________________

You are so full of chit! You and your fake insanity defense. SHAME ON YOU~

Posted at 7:43PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Its over

66. *****
ANS was awarded a substantial amount of money during her life from the Estate of her late husband. It's tied up in Court and the money in question is in a segregated account earning interest. Neither the surviving Marshalls nor ANS's Estate possess the money. When a person dies, it doesn't mean legal claims vanish. DL is the sole heir to ANS's Estate.

Posted at 5:21PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

*******

Odd that her live-in attorney, who violated the rules against lawyers becoming involved with their clients, didn't take the time to amend the will to include DL and remove Daniel after his death. How long did it take to transfer the CA house into the corps name? I think that was like 3 days.....but Stern couldn't be bothered to change Anna's will? In fact, her will excludes DL. How strange that Stern never submitted a revised will.

Posted at 7:45PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Whack A Mole

67. There is a STAY on this case ordered by the court in order to transfer it to the replacement appellants--HKS, Executor and Elaine Marshall.

All parties have request the STAY be lifted now--but the court has not responded.

The mediation ANS entered into in 2006 may not necessarily have been the only mediation in the case as it now stands. That is, perhaps, why in the log of events/docket entries, etc. the new mediation unit chief is named--a procedural entry.

I think all parties are now ready to roll, but the judge has yet to let it go forward. Also the entire litigation record is combined within the case and if you pull up old bankruptcy court proceedings or the other courts, you still have to pay PACER. No mistakes for free.

Posted at 7:47PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Facts, please

68.
Stranger things have happened but the new mediation chief ascended almost 2 years ago. I don't think mediation is on the agenda in that case. If the mediation happened 2 years ago and another is not scheduled, then it just seems really unlikely.

Posted at 7:48PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Robert

69. Here is some more of the log:

02/02/2007 177 Filed order CONFATT (DEL) Elaine T. Marshall shall file her response to Vicki Lynn Marshall's motion to "regularize" th appeal on or before March 9, 2007. Vickie Lynn Marshall may file an optional reply within 14 days after service of the response. These cases are released from the mediation program and referred to the panel for further proceedings. All further inquiries regarding the appeals, including requests for ext. of time, should be directed to the clerk's office. [02-56002, 02-56067, 02-56603, 02-57157, 03-56870, 03-73210]

03/09/2007 178 Filed pltf Elaine Marshall response to defs mtn to regularize appeal upon remand from the USSC, served on 3/9/07 PANEL [02-56002, 02-56067] 03/14/2007 179 Filed Vickie Lynn Marshallsuggestion of death of a party (Rule 43, FRAP) and motion to stay proceedings on appeal until substitution for the deceased party is ordered and for and order modifying the briefing scheduel on the pending motion to regularize; supporting declarartion of Alan Diamond. (PANEL) motion to stay further action [02-56002, 02-56067] served on 3/13/07

Posted at 7:52PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Facts, please

70. 66. *****
ANS was awarded a substantial amount of money during her life from the Estate of her late husband. It's tied up in Court and the money in question is in a segregated account earning interest. Neither the surviving Marshalls nor ANS's Estate possess the money. When a person dies, it doesn't mean legal claims vanish. DL is the sole heir to ANS's Estate.

Posted at 5:21PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

*******

Odd that her live-in attorney, who violated the rules against lawyers becoming involved with their clients, didn't take the time to amend the will to include DL and remove Daniel after his death. How long did it take to transfer the CA house into the corps name? I think that was like 3 days.....but Stern couldn't be bothered to change Anna's will? In fact, her will excludes DL. How strange that Stern never submitted a revised will.

Posted at 7:45PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Whack A Mole

DL is the sole heir.

HKS is the executor.

What does it matter about the will not being changed? What difference would it have made if it had been updated? DL is the heir.

Posted at 7:59PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by .,.

71. 67. There is a STAY on this case ordered by the court in order to transfer it to the replacement appellants--HKS, Executor and Elaine Marshall.

All parties have request the STAY be lifted now--but the court has not responded.

The mediation ANS entered into in 2006 may not necessarily have been the only mediation in the case as it now stands. That is, perhaps, why in the log of events/docket entries, etc. the new mediation unit chief is named--a procedural entry.

I think all parties are now ready to roll, but the judge has yet to let it go forward. Also the entire litigation record is combined within the case and if you pull up old bankruptcy court proceedings or the other courts, you still have to pay PACER. No mistakes for free.

Posted at 7:47PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Facts, please
*******************

Not exactly. The STAY is in place and was put in place on remand. It has nothing to do with substituting the parties, that is already done, as your previous posts have already pointed out. Both executors are parties. Check for yourself.

Where do you see that all parties want the stay lifted. i see where letters were written, initiated by HKS and responded to by EM but unless you have some content to share with the rest of us, you cannot say both parties want the stay lifted. considering these parties, I doubt there is anything they agree on.

If you look further back the mediators stay was lifted prior to ANS death. That only occurs when a mediator hands the case back to a panel for adjuducation. The old chief obviosuly retired and the new chief took over.

I do not think any parties are ready to roll. The panel is probably considering what they want to do with the rest of the issues. I see nowhere that the panel is preventing mediation. They did not before and it makes no sense for them to start now. I am not sure what the bankruptcy prceedings have to do with anything at this point.

Posted at 7:59PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Robert

72. 03/14/2008 195 Received Eric Brunstad, Jr., Esq. counsel for Appellant Elaine Marshall in 02-56002 letter dated 03/13/2008 re: to lift the current stay. Served on 03/13/2008 [02-56002, 02-56067] (panel)

Posted at 8:03PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Facts, please

73. 56. http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1591324,00.html

"Two issues remain to be decided by the Ninth Circuit. One: To settle whether or not E. Pierce Marshall interfered with Anna Nicole's claim against her husband's estate, as the district court ruled. Two: To uphold the Texas jury verdict rejecting her claims stand or take Judge Carter's side and allow her to inherit $88 million. It took two months to update court filings following Pierce Marshall's death in 2006, Hardin said. Updating them after Anna Nicole's death may take just as long — and that will be after the long deliberations over an administrator. Richland also wants to file additional briefs with the Ninth Circuit. Then there could be oral arguments, even a further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. By then, little Danielynn may well be able to read the legal briefs for herself. "

Posted at 7:18PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Facts, please
*****
Excellent article, Facts, please.

I find it amusing to hear so many, simultaneously, make the following contradictory statements:

- HKS murdered ANS and Daniel to get the 'Marshall Millions'.
- The 'Marshall Millions' don't exist or the Marshalls will never give up the fight to keep them.
- The Marshall Family will specifically never allow the money to go to HKS/LB/DL no matter what happens to the money that both does and does not exist.

or,

- LB needs VA to help administer the money DL will inherit.
- The money doesn't exist or the Marshalls will never fork it over.
- VA is not about the money anyway, it's 'tainted'

Posted at 8:07PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Only swim in the Ocean

74. 03/30/2007 181 Filed order (Robert R. BEEZER, Andrew J. KLEINFELD, Richard A. PAEZ): Pending resolution of (1) the identity and appearance of the necessary parties to this appeal, and (2) appearance of csl for such parties, it is ORDERED that action on all pending and further motions are STAYED and such stay shall remain in effect until terminated by an express order of this court. [02-56002, 02-56067, 02-57157]

Posted at 8:07PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Facts, please

75. 72. 03/14/2008 195 Received Eric Brunstad, Jr., Esq. counsel for Appellant Elaine Marshall in 02-56002 letter dated 03/13/2008 re: to lift the current stay. Served on 03/13/2008 [02-56002, 02-56067] (panel)

Posted at 8:03PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Facts, please

***************
It is obvious that the topic was regarding lifting the stay (re: lifting the stay). Since HKS sent the first letter, i assume he wants the stay lifted. Feel free to post the contents of both HKS' letter and EM's letter so that we may see the parties actual positions.

The FRAP 43s were granted on both sides. The stay has nothing to do with substitution.

Posted at 8:09PM on Jan 22nd 2009 by Robert

Previous 15 Comments | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments