| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/13/2007 6:39:17 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
New thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1910919/posts?page=1 |
Posted on 04/07/2007 3:14:35 PM PDT by mom4kittys
Thread Number 3
I still think we should take the thread private to yahoo — or should have the first week...
PP gave a cute character a bad name.
Really.
Howard K. Stern destroys his reputation
Many in the media have suggested that Howard K. Stern was an “enabler” in terms of Anna Nicole Smith’s drug abuse. Others have speculated that he may have directly caused the death of Anna Nicole. But that charge is nothing compared to the damage that Stern has done to his own reputation by hiring attorney Lin Wood - a man who has made a legal career out of filing frivoulous defamation lawsuits.
Memo to Stern: If you actually care what the media says about you, then simply make yourself accessible to outlets other than Entertainment Tonight and tell the truth to the best of your recollection. Hiring Wood indicates that you have a lot to hide and that you are determined to try and bully the media into silence and submission.
This is my favorite part of Wood’s statement (I can’t help but chuckle every time I read it):
To those considering making future false accusations against Mr. Stern, please consider the following advice: don’t do it. You are not immune from suit if you are not a member of the traditional media. Redress for false attacks on reputation is available for Internet accusations as well as those published in print or uttered on television and radio broadcasts.
…
And to those who believe that Mr. Stern is hesitant to bring suit and thereby open up his life on cross examination during the discovery process, you are wrong. Mr. Stern has nothing to hide and he correctly views civil litigation not only as the forum for obtaining accountability for wrongdoing, but also as a forum for the public to learn the truth.
Why chose a courthouse as a “forum for the public to learn the truth” when you have unprecedented access to the media (in both traditional and new forms)? I don’t believe that Stern caused the death of Anna Nicole. But given his status as a public figure, his incessant need to be around Anna Nicole, and the fact that some of the prescription medications were reportedly in Stern’s name, it is not unreasonable for people to speculate about Stern’s role in recent events.
It is similar to the Jon-Bennet Ramsey situation. I ultimately don’t believe that the Ramsey’s had anything to do with their daughter’s death - but I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to speculate about what may have happened. Wood also represented the Ramseys in their attempts to browbeat the media. The way the Ramseys reacted to the media speculation and investigation ultimately did more to harm their reputations - not less. (It goes without saying that this same dynamic also applied to Wood’s client Gary Condit in relation to the death of Chandra Levy.)
The forum to redress unfounded speculation is the public sphere - not a courtroom. In a world with the blogosphere and unprecedented access to mass communication for the masses, the reckless gossip does more harm to his or her own reputation, rather than the target of their speculation.
So says I. So endeth the sermon.
http://patterico.com/2007/04/09/6141/howard-k-stern-destroys-his-reputation/
Is he bewigged? Oh, wait, he’s not “on duty” today, is here?
I wonder why?
How are you feeling today?
yeah those roots in those weeds go all the way to hell....lol
I just really fear for Dannielynn down the line. It can be overcome, look at Drew Barrymore -- she inherited the same type of genes as Dannielynn and at first overcome by the same demons before getting her life and head straight. Her father, grandfather, etc., were not all so lucky.
Opri: The Lobster Plot Thickens
Asteaming Debra Opri took to the airwaves today to defend the $620,492.84 bill she gave to her former client, Larry Birkhead, which TMZ first published.
The crustacean combatant would not get into specifics when talking with CourtTV’s Jami Floyd, but did address the issue of the $600 she billed Birkhead for lobsters. Opri maintains that the bill TMZ published was “not complete,” and that Larry would “happily” pay the bill. We’ll see about that.
Opri also said that she feels like a proud parent today because “Larry is going to take that child home.” We’ll find out soon enough!
Inside edition had his lie detector test yesterday... he refused to take the one for OR, but took one for IE.... go figure.
Someone posted yesterday she had traveled to the Bahamas for today’s hearing..... so that was false info? Good... I couldn’t figure out why she would be there.
I may be in the minority, but I really dislike that woman.
Virgie Arthur — NOT Mother of the Year
We’re told Virgie Arthur will be fighting for custody of Dannielynn, whether Birkhead is the dad or not. But when it comes to Arthur’s track record in child rearing, it’s pretty clear she won’t win any awards.
Rewind to 1993. Arthur’s son, Donald Ray Hart Jr, then 21-years-old, was busted in Conroe, Texas. But it was anything but an ordinary arrest. Hart was charged with aggravated kidnapping, along with three friends. The victim — a 33-year-old paraplegic. The abducted woman watched in horror as her kidnappers waived a butcher knife in her direction, and discussed plans to murder her. An informant’s tip foiled the plot.
Hart pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison.
But that’s not all. Hart was also convicted of theft — he pled guilty to stealing a bunch of livestock.
By the way, Arthur’s daughter, Anna Nicole, also hated her. So is Arthur the best candidate for custody? You be the judge.
http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/10/virgie-arthur-not-mother-of-the-year/
My husband came into my office during that part of the program, but I don’t believe they gave the results on yesterday’s show.
I'm so sorry you have something similar - it is discouraging to deal with.
The ‘fictious’ scenario Opri set up for the lobster expenditure sounded reasonable to me.
IF you are a GUEST in someone’s home, it would be a gracious act to ‘repay’ them in a way some might consider extravagant.
I'm so sorry you have something similar - it is discouraging to deal with.
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.