| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/08/2007 12:03:14 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Continuing discussion: |
Posted on 03/09/2007 8:53:08 PM PST by mom4kittys
Edited on 03/09/2007 9:36:53 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Thread Number Two
Do you think HKS could have refused to sign the release since he was being ordered to take the DNA? Just trying to think one step ahead here.
The consent paper must be signed before the swabbing is done because the child is under the age of 18. If it is not signed by Stern (currently the legal guardian of the baby) - then the swabbing would not have been done that day.
DDC will not do it without the consent of the child's current legal guardian. This is clearly stated on their website because the child is under the age of 18.
Also Stern was not ordered by the Bahamian judge - he was directed to submit the baby. They don't make "orders" for DNA tests in the Bahamas. Our media used the word "ordered" but the reality is he was directed to do it - A direction by judge in the Bahamas is not like an order in the US.
If you scroll back within the last 100 to 150 posts you will see why I think Stern went ahead a submitted the baby for the DNA tests.
TY! I was just wondering if there was a way around it since he was ordered to take it instead of volunteering the info.
I hope LB can get the results out and soon. If he has to file kidnapping charges then so be it!
go to post # 14,546
Yes, I understand the difference between directed and ordered. I figured we were on the same page with what I was asking :) TY, I will go back and read your posts.
Yes, and although I know the difference I made the same mistake in terminology lolol
CORRECTION
or before 10am eastern time
should be...
or before 10am eastern time Monday
Inside the Anna Nicole Smith Baby Battle
HOWARD K. STERN will make his case in a Bahamian court of appeals Monday to dismiss DNA test results in the paternity battle for ANNA NICOLE SMITH's baby DANNIELYNN.
Howard is objecting to DNA testing based on the lack of evidence presented to the court by LARRY BIRKHEAD. He claims there is no evidence that Larry is the father, at least none so far that has been submitted to the Bahamian court.
Howard's team believes the judge violated the statute pertaining to DNA collection because Larry didn't sufficiently rebut Howard's presumption of paternity. To secure the paternity test, they're making a case that Larry must first offer proof of evidence that he is the father, and also prove his relationship with Anna didn't end 280 days before the birth of Dannielynn.
~SNIP~ more at link
http://www.etonline.com/celebrities/news/47593/
3 ARTICLES IN THIS POST
http://www.jonesbahamas.com/?c=45&a=12133
30th March
Smith Inquest Snags on Technicality
By Quincy Parker
After two days of arguments about them, and a ruling from the bench that no questionnaire be given to them, jurors in the inquest into Daniel Smith’s was finally selected and empanelled death on Thursday morning.
But that jury was unable to hear a scintilla of testimony, as lawyers once again veered into arguments on points of law and procedure, derailing Chief Magistrate Roger Gomez’s intention to get testimony in the inquest underway.
Just before Mr. Gomez was set to rule on an application from Wayne Munroe – who represents Howard K. Stern – that the judge question the jury, Mr. Munroe’s co-counsel Anthony McKinney noted that the Stern legal team had changed its position.
Mr. Stern is the live-in lawyer for the late American celebrity Anna Nicole Smith who claimed to love Daniel – her 20-year-old son – like a brother, and later claimed to be the father of her daughter Dannielynn Hope. He is among the 40 or so witnesses expected to give testimony in the inquest.
Daniel Smith died suddenly under reported unusual circumstances at Doctors Hospital on September 10 where he was visiting his mother and newborn sister.
On Thursday, instead of continuing with their application that the judge question the jury in order to ascertain their impartiality, Mr. Stern’s lawyers argued that the since the coroner has no right to question the jury, Mr. Gomez cannot legally provide the remedy they are seeking on Mr. Stern’s behalf.
Therefore, they applied to the Supreme Court for an order that Mr. Gomez compose a questionnaire to give to the jury, which they would then answer under oath, and for the court to permit the lawyers to question jurors on their answers.
In the end, though, a seven-woman jury was empanelled, and testimony in the case was finally set to begin.
Mr. Gomez ruled on Mr. Munroe’s application, deciding that while he agreed that something extra ought to be said to the jury because of the publicity surrounding the trial, he did not agree that there should be a questionnaire given to the jurors.
"Even if you draw up all the questionnaires in the world…it all boils down to the honesty of the juror," Mr. Gomez said.
He also said, "You can ask a million questions. Anyone who has not been living in a cave would have heard of this case."
Speaking to the jury, Mr. Gomez said, "If you feel that your mind is so clogged with prejudice that you cannot make an honest verdict, please disqualify yourself now."
He picked the names of the seven women at random out of a raffle box.
When no one disqualified themselves, Mr. Gomez had the jurors take the oath, in which they swore to "diligently inquire and true presentment make, on behalf of our sovereign lady the queen, when, where, how and after what manner Daniel Smith came to his death, and such other matters relating to such death as shall be lawfully inquired of by (the jury)."
Mr. Gomez said the Smith inquest is "a very important inquest" because of the worldwide publicity generated by the case.
This is an apparent reversal of the legal establishment’s position that there might not even need to be an inquest into the youth’s death, after the original October 23 date set by then-Chief Coroner Linda Virgill came and went.
Some legal observers note that the questions of escalating press coverage would have been avoided had the inquest taken place when originally set.
After the submissions about the Supreme Court application were concluded, Mr. Gomez adjourned the proceedings, and dismissed the jury until April 14.
"It is with regret that we’re going to adjourn this matter," he told the courtroom. "I was very anxious to get this matter started. Maybe we’ll be finished by Christmas."
Just before the proceedings wrapped up for the day, the lawyers argued about who Mr. Gomez would designate as "interested parties" in the inquest. The coroner determines who is an interested party.
Bernard Turner, Director of Public Prosecutions, noted that being a witness doesn’t mean a person is an interested party.
The question as to who is an interested party is important because it will determine which lawyers will be able to question all witnesses – lawyers for an interested party will be able to question any witness, but lawyers representing the interests of those designated as witnesses will have a limited scope of questioning.
The interested parties, according to Mr. Turner, usually include the estate of the deceased and anyone who may have a contingent liability or whose conduct may come into question during the proceedings.
http://www.jonesbahamas.com/?c=45&a=12134
BHA: Bahamavention A Bust
By Rogan M. Smith
A group of senior hotel executives says the Ministry of Tourism’s highly touted ‘Bahamavention’ ad campaign was a bust.
The campaign which has received a lukewarm reaction was widely criticized by international media as being "over the top" and "bordering on ridiculous."
Bahamas Hotel Association (BHA) President Russell Miller said the advertisements, have proven to be a dud.
"I don’t think we have seen the results come in from those ads as well as we expected and that’s not only from our side, but from the Ministry of Tourism’s side," he said.
"I don’t think it’s a secret, I think it’s something that can be said. Everybody knows that."
Bahamavention was launched last December as part of a fully integrated campaign that included television spots, print ads and nearly 600 Bahamavention branded subway cars in New York City.
The ad campaign targeted overworked individuals who were looking for a vacation intervention.
Mr. Miller said the Ministry of Tourism must take a new and fresh look at how it is marketing and promoting the Islands of the Bahamas.
"The competitive marketplace is crowded and our advertising and marketing efforts must be second to none, as they have been at other critical times in our industry’s history," he said.
Tourism experts admit that this is a crucial period for The Bahamas that is facing some fallout from the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative; razor sharp rivalry from our vacation destinations and inadequate hotel room inventory.
On the flip side there are various resort properties around the country that are expanding their offerings. Kerzner International’s Atlantis is one of them. Already one of the central elements of the third phase expansion is open for business and officials at other hotels have taken notice.
BHA Treasurer and British Colonial Hilton General Manager, Peter Webster said despite failed marketing efforts he expects The Cove, Atlantis to generate more business and promotion for the islands.
"The Cove is a phenomenal product. It’s like nothing else the Caribbean has ever seen. I think there’s going to be a lot of positive PR from that," he said.
"Our islands are very prominent in the U.S’ minds at the moment. I think when you take into account the passport initiative…more and more people will be coming to The Bahamas through almost subliminal advertising through [the] Anna Nicole [Smith saga] and initiatives like The Cove. We stand a better chance unlike many other islands in the Caribbean, without having to do new [ad] campaigns."
He said however there needs to be greater commitment to partnerships and collaboration among partners in the tourism sector and the government.
"While we are strong in this area relative to some of our competitors, we must be better. The commitment to improved partnership and collaboration should extend beyond the industry and the Ministry of Tourism – to all relevant areas of government," he said.
"It amazes us as well as other industry partners that in today’s day and age there are some areas of government where the common courtesies of communication fail to exist. This is not a political statement, rather a reflection on the need to change a long-term modus operandi, to continue to mature as a democracy and people – for the betterment of our industry and our nation."
http://www.jonesbahamas.com/?c=45&a=12128
30th March
Coroners Act Challenged
By Quincy Parker
Howard K. Stern – Anna Nicole Smith’s live-in lawyer and the presumptive father of her daughter Dannielynn – has asked the Supreme Court to declare that the Coroners Act is unconstitutional.
Anna Nicole Smith is the controversial Bahamian permanent resident, and former Playboy playmate, who appeared in photographs with former Immigration, Labour and Training Minister Shane Gibson that caused controversy, and eventually led to Mr. Gibson’s resignation from the Christie Cabinet.
And, Mr. Stern wants the Supreme Court of The Bahamas to order the coroner in the inquest into the death of Anna Nicole’s son Daniel to do things that he cannot do under the current Coroners Act.
The application asks the Supreme Court to order the Coroner to compose a questionnaire to be answered by prospective jurors on oath, that the aforesaid questionnaire be composed after representation from lawyers for interested parties and that those lawyers be allowed to question – and challenge for cause related to bias – prospective jurors on their answers.
The Coroners Act makes no provision for any such questioning or challenging of the jury.
If the higher court makes no order allowing for the questioning and challenging of the jury, Mr. Stern wants the Supreme Court to issue an Order staying the inquest into the young man’s sudden death at Doctors Hospital on September 10, 2006, until the legislature or the Rules Committee take steps, "legislatively or by making regulations, to ensure impartiality of jurors."
Wayne Munroe filed the Supreme Court action on Mr. Stern’s behalf. He is Mr. Stern’s counsel in the inquest into the young man’s death, which began in the Coroner’s Court on Tuesday.
The questionnaire is a remedy offered by Mr. Munroe to the dilemma of ensuring an impartial jury in the inquest without abridging the provisions of the Coroners Act.
At Thursday’s proceedings, Mr. Munroe told Mr. Gomez, "the only question is, as a matter of law, can you provide a remedy? And the only problem is, as a matter of law, you can’t."
The application seeks a declaration that the Coroners Act is expressly inconsistent with Section 20(8) of the Bahamas Constitution in that it fails to provide mechanism to ensure an impartial jury in general, and specifically in the Daniel Smith inquest.
"It is a challenge that is fundamental in its nature," Anthony McKinney told the court. Mr. McKinney is Mr. Munroe’s co-counsel in the inquest.
Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Bernard Turner, who is marshalling the evidence, pointed out in response that the legal team for Mr. Stern had taken it upon themselves to file an application seeking for the Supreme Court to order the Coroners Court to do what that selfsame legal team has concluded that the Coroners Court cannot do.
"If there is now a Constitutional challenge to the Constitutionality of the Coroners Act, it is not something which came up ex improviso – it was known all along that the date for this matter was set," Mr. Turner said, pointing out that the scope of the Coroners Act was also known all along.
He said the issue could have been raised, and resolved, before the inquest began.
After the question of the Supreme Court application was concluded – the lawyers will return to court to update the coroner on the status of the application on April 4 – talk turned to the determination of "properly interested parties" to the inquest.
Just a pop-in before a 2 week vacation. I'll miss y'all.
One thought to ponder.
Howard Stern has no sense of humor. Looking at all the video and still photos - he is never laughing - nothing in his eyes to show that he is in touch with the world around him.
IMHO
bbl
sp
Just a thought, but do you think there is any way to find, online, any motions that might have been recently filed regarding the enforcement of the California order?
I live in Columbus, but am unfamliar with where the DNA is. If LB filed any kind of motion to get the DNA results from the lab, would there be anything on line about....I'll look it up, but I don't know anything about the lab (name, etc.)
No, none. Stern and his lawyers stalling.
The PI is NOT on the witness list.
I agree kcw2007. Thank you for yor post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.