| 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
btt
Whew...just caught up on the thread after a long day of actual work (the dangers of owning your own company during the ANS case is far too much internet time).
While I know some believe that the Marshall case has little hope for success I disagree. I think the Marshall’s will finally put a decent offer on the table to put it to bed for two reasons.
Despite their high priced PR firm it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Pierce and the lawyers did scheme to make sure ANS did not get any big $$$$ from HJM either dead or alive. They manipulated J. Howard into signing his assets into an irrevocable trust and until his death the old man never knew he didn’t have control of his assets.
Some argue that this was OK because ANS was a low down scheming gold digger and the father needed to be protected from her. However, I disagree. It was the old man’s money and not his son’s and obviously J. Howard didn’t take it with him. What right did Pierce have to decieve his father with false documents and later, commit other acts of deception to deceive the courts? Additionally J. Howard was wilding wealthy and millions to him would be like hundreds to you and I.
Danielynn and is wildly popular in America and the Marshall’s could buy a whole lot of goodwill with a generous offer to that baby. In fact, it might be possible for the lawsuit to go away and for the Marshall’s to simply gift the child outside of the estate to insure for her future. I don’t think LB is greedy like HKS and ANS and would happily settle for a much smaller amount to avoid the unpleasantness of litigation.
We shall see.
Hahahaha, I’m wondering exactly what those “secret herbs” are. Maybe they cracked the secret recipe for KFC?
You’re right of course. Dannielynn’s safety is paramount. However I do not want anyone to get away scot-free with the staggering amount of wrongdoing either.
Larry should be free to leave with his baby immediately. Let O’Quinn and Virgie deal with the rest. Besides the money, let’s not forget the deaths that need to be answered for. Drug pushing, gaslighting, etc.
What I want to know is if this Dannielynn Trust Fund is one and the same as the alleged Dannielynn Trust Fund into which the “proceeds” of ANS’s funeral were put.
There’s a Larry/Dannielynn Trust with at least $1.7 million in it.
There’s a Howard/Milstein/Dannielynn Trust with $4 million in it.
Where are these and who is administering them and investing the money, being the fiduciary for these? There is no “controlling authority” to whom the trustee would report - Dannielynn is just a baby. Lots of bad things could be done before she turns 25.
“”””Bahamas said it had to go to California - see my discussion right here about the Horizons suit.””””
Yup - I was a minute late and a dollar short.
LOL
Well then there needs to be a "controlling authority" poste haste. If I had a mind for figures, I'd love to see the books on the Stern/Milstein/DL trust. I'm lying. I'd probably see something that would make me sick...
“..and one point that Larry, if he was the father, was nothing more than a sperm donor.”
Oh yes, I almost forgot about that smart remark.
Sorry to disagree, but it's long past time for this kind of thing to die down. It works heinously against her interests, as a human being trying to live a life.
I could be entirely wrong but aren't there are some finer points to the issue to consider.
Is ANS' will valid? If not, it wouldn't go through probate. Doesn't her will specifically state that any other offspring than Daniel would be denied any claim? Hasn't HKS now specifically said that he will help LB obtain sole custody of the child.
Which I think is HKS' effort to keep the law off of his arse re: fraudulent birth cerficate - and squatting in a home he doesn't either own, rent or lease.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Six Year Anniversary of Houston Jury Upholding J. Howard Marshall II’s Estate Plan
Marshall Family’s Texas Defense Team Available to Discuss Houston Verdict and New Developments
Houston, Texas (March 7, 2007)—Wednesday marks the six year anniversary of the original Anna Nicole Smith court case in which a Houston jury unanimously upheld J. Howard Marshall II’s estate plan in Marshall, et al. v. McIntyre (the Estate of J. Howard Marshall II), et al. The Houston Probate Court ruled that Vickie Lynn Marshall (a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith) did not have an agreement with J. Howard Marshall II that would give her one-half of all his property. Furthermore, the Court also decreed that J. Howard Marshall II “did not intend to give and did not give to Anna Nicole Smith a gift or bequest from his estate or living trust either prior to or upon his death.”
Rusty Hardin, Don Jackson, and Jeff Chambers were attorneys for the Marshall family in the original Houston Probate Court decision and are available to discuss the facts of the case and the legal implications of Anna Nicole Smith’s recent passing.
The Houston Probate Court is the only court that held a jury trial in this case, and after five and a half months of exhaustive testimony and evidence, the Court ruled that E. Pierce Marshall was innocent of any improper behavior or tampering with J. Howard Marshall II’s will or living trust. The Houston decision is considered the ruling of legal record with regards to the Marshall estate, and despite speculation and posturing after Smith’s untimely death, the Marshall family’s position is that this decision precludes any others.
“A jury agreed that Anna Nicole Smith’s claims were unfounded and desperate,” says Rusty Hardin attorney for defendant, E. Pierce Marshall. “It was clear that Marshall took every measure to leave his fortune and his legacy to his son, Pierce Marshall, and the jury agreed.”
“Over the course of the relationship with Marshall, Smith received over $6.2 million in cash and other material possessions,” says Don Jackson, defense attorney for the Marshalls. “This was a frivolous lawsuit and a desperate money grab—the jury came to the correct decision by upholding Marshall’s estate plan outlined in his will and living trust.”
“The unfortunate passing of Smith caused a stir in the media over the potential inheritance from her marriage, but the fact remains that the Marshall estate was left to E. Pierce Marshall,” says Jeff Chambers, defense attorney for E. Pierce Marshall. “Wild accusations of tampering and tearful outbursts in the courtroom did not sway the jury to ignore the facts of the case, and Smith’s untimely passing does nothing to change the Houston ruling.”
Rusty Hardin is founder of Rusty Hardin and Associates, P.C. in Houston, TX and represented various Marshall entities in the Houston Probate Court Case, Marshall, et al. v. McIntyre (the Estate of J. Howard Marshall II), et al.
Don Jackson is a partner in Ware, Jackson, Lee and Chambers, a Limited Liability Partnership in Houston, TX and represented the Pierce Marshall and his family in the Houston Probate Court Case, Marshall, et al. v. McIntyre (the Estate of J. Howard Marshall II), et al.
Jeff Chambers is also a partner in Ware, Jackson, Lee and Chambers, a Limited Liability Partnership in Houston, TX and a Board Certified Specialist in Personal Injury Trial Law - Texas Board of Legal Specialization. He represented the various trusts in the estate of the J. Howard Marshall II during the Houston Probate Court Case, Marshall, et al. v. McIntyre (the Estate of J. Howard Marshall II), et al.
And, using your links, I see that Anna’s will preparer, Atty Eric Lund has an attorney’s brother in the firm with him as his partner and the brother, Atty Eric Lund specializes in “international law:”
How convenient! A one-stop firm for HKS.
James L. Lund
Firm: Lund & Lund
Address: 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1555
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6021
Phone: (310) 286-2861
Fax: (310) 286-7486
West Practice Categories:
International Law
Monday, May 1, 2006
Supreme Court Overturns 9th Circuit
Pierce Marshall: “I will continue to fight for my father’s will & trust.”
Dallas, Texas (May 1, 2006) – “Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Marshall v. Marshall was on a technical issue and does not validate Smith’s false claims and libelous accusations. The Texas Probate Court jury verdict that cleared me of any wrongdoing still stands,” said E. Pierce Marshall. “I will continue to fight to clear my name in California federal court. That is a promise that Vickie and her lawyers can take to the bank.” We will now ask the 9th Circuit to overturn the District Court decision on one of the following grounds:
Vickie’s alleged cause of action does not exist as a matter of Texas law.
After a 95-day jury trial, the Texas Probate Court ruled first on the same issues.
The District Court violated Pierce Marshall’s right of due process by failing to allow the defense to call a single witness and improperly waiving his attorney/client privilege.
The District Court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and the opposite of the sworn testimony of those who did testify. The District Court’s decision is based on a single memo between two lawyers written two and a half years before J. Howard’s death. Both attorneys have testified under oath that J. Howard changed his mind about creating a “catch all trust.”
The District and Bankruptcy Courts lacked jurisdiction because the bankruptcy case had ended and the claim would have no impact on her bankruptcy estate and creditors.
The District Court based its decision on documents that were clearly covered by the attorney-client privilege.
“After eleven years of litigation, even Smith’s own attorneys acknowledge they have failed to present a single witness to support her claim that anyone interfered in my father’s business affairs before or after his death,” said E. Pierce Marshall. “I will continue to fight to uphold my father’s estate plan and clear my name.”
“The fact that my father gave Vicki more than $7 million dollars is absolute proof that no one was interfering in his business,” said Marshall. “If Vicki had just acted responsibly she would be financially set for life.”
http://factweb.net/SupremeRuling.htm
You saw it here first! There was also a terrorism foundation, too.
I remember when I first looked him up, there were 4 different attorneys named Stern in his office building and I was going to “someday” see if any were related to the monstern family.
“Well... I’ll say it then, it’s all about the money.”
I’ll second that.
Wait a sec. I thought that Ron Rales was int the "executor #2" position. What happened?
See, I was worried that “since there’s already a trust set up” and “since I’m an attorney and you’re not and haven’t even played one on TV like I have,” that Larry would be talked into putting “his” Dannielynn money into that same trust - administered, of course, for a fee, of course, by the handy dandy daddy helper, Esquire.
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.