| 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’ve been thinking more and more along those same lines- that HKS has participated in the drug use. At the very least, he looked/acted like he was on something right after Anna’s death, and Daniels, too.
Yup! Been high and dry for many, many years:) Thanks.
I just don’t know. He is on the list of witnesses for the inquest, if I remember correctly.
As a matter of law, however, they said they could find nothing that entitled Smith to more then she already received. True, the new videos would work against her. True, the additonal evidence on tort would work against Pierce. But the issues themselves are nothing new. They were both present during the probate trial.
Attorneys for Smith had always contended that Pierce interferred with the living trust (this was heard because although usually independent from probate, the trust was co-dependent on the will). The Pierce attorneys swore before the SCOTUS the documents reviewed by Judge Carter were the same documents afforded the Texas probate court. Attorneys for Smith concur this to the SCOTUS as well, with the EXCEPTION of the bills, most notably, that lended further proof to Pierce's tortious interference that a catchall trust should have been included in the estate plan; i.e., that Marshall intended to provide for Smith. It was the additional pieces of evidence. It's not true that the Texas court didn't hear complaints from Smith that Pierce interferred with the trust. They did. I have the transcript of the SCOTUS oral argument, so I do know it's there and both counsels agree it was argued. It's other pieces of evidence that were not that you noted - both videos and collusion evidence.
The legal problem becomes evident in res judicata where the 9th Circuit threw it out and gave Smith nothing, again. In addition to their belief they had no jurisdiction, under res judicata, the law is you cannot re-litigate a matter that's already been through an appeal and has sustained a final judgment. Furthermore, the Pierce attorneys argue that the bankruptcy court did not review all evidence of the probate court.
Under Texas law, the Pierce attorneys maintain that in order for Smith to receive a gift under the estate plan, you must go back and overturn the estate plan in probate court. The Smith attorneys argued that the plan could be deemed valid yet Smith still could receive a claim under the tort.
Justice Ginsberg harped on the point that while two cases could reside in state and federal courts simultaneously, that it happens all the time, the court which comes to the verdict first controls any further proceedings -- which would be the probate court in this case.
On remand, Ginsberg makes a case for Pierce in that regard. Because if the issue to be decided NOW is in whether the bankruptcy court made a decision, under a tort action, of an issue that belonged to the probate court, under res judicata, the matter has already been determined. So how can they hear it again under a tort action where a final judgment has been entered elsewhere? Do you hear the tort action anyway or do you go back to the original probate court?
It's my understanding that's what they will be deciding on remand.
I hope she is. I was comforted when I heard Anna had the nannies read to her from the Bible after Daniel died. Anna had great appetites, which I think stemmed from a huge void in her soul. Happens to lots of people. She looked for a father figure her whole life, tried to fill it with material things, sex and drugs, and all were found wanting. I really think she could have come around, though, especially before Daniel died. She did say in one interview in 2002 with Greta that she really wanted to have a more normal home life, but wasn’t sure she was capable of it(paraphrasing.)
Why are we always "waiting" for everythng in this case lol
I’m heading out for now. It’s a beauty of a day and gardening and cleaning beckons, then taking daughter to visit her college. Will try to pop in, but there might not be much news happening here for a bit. Be back whenever:)
thank you. I find it so interesting that our own personal experiences can’t help but affect our perspectives. I cannot entirely relate, in this instance, to dealing with alcoholism or addiction, but for many years, I was a codependent ‘fixer’ who loved too much and I was married to a “Sleeping With the Enemy”-type mysogynist, therefore, I tend to see HKS as a mysogynist/psychopath and Larry, as a codependent ‘fixer’. Fortunately, IMO, for Larry, Anna pushed him away. HKS, on the other hand, has, IMO, displayed many of the exact traits of the man to whom I was married. Because of the way I see HKS yes, with disdain beyond imagination...a control freak who wouldn’t begin to know how to really love someone, it is just very difficult for me when others not only don’t see him as I do, but see him even as the weak and wimpy ‘codependent’ who loves too much, because then, you see, that places HKS in the same role I had, which is impossible for me to comprehend. I get that your and my perspectives are going to be vastly different and now why that is, I’m just trying to understand it all and what might account for at least some of the freeking out going on the thread ;)
I strongly feel she was sexually abused at a young age. Her actions from her early teens forward are indicative of such as is her being sexually promiscuous on one hand and writing she hated sex on the other.
She only said she hated sex once and that was when she was writing about the guy from Guess hounding her... she probably just hated sex with guys that were unattractive, old or found especially wanting in the bedroom.
I think ANS liked sex plenty...with others and herself. She would spend hours masturbating daily according to herself and others.
Bronwynn,
I think you are mistaken and there was extensive additional evidence from the exhaustive discovery that Pierce did interfere. Don’t forget that Pierce hired a high priced PR firm that has been churning out articles and the website devoted to this subject to their spin.
The Texas jury did NOT hear all of that evidence despite the claims by Pierce that they did. I will post more on this later...
BBL.
“No coincedence there, that is the length of time from Daniel’s death until ANS died.”
So what? It’s a complete lie. Even Perper found Methadone in her bile.
***
Oh yes, it’s a lie for sure, but the five month window was what I was talking about,.
Rose Hall Plantation >>>
That’s weird, that’s my daughter’s name. First and last.
Can you stay somewhere else? Or do you have to stay there to visit the Great House and the slave quarters?
THUD!!!
Bon Bon...are you OK???
OK....I’ll say it for the anti Virgie crowd...DL was pulling on her hair cuz she didn’t want anything to do with her. LOL..(it’s just a joke..)Dannielynn is just following Anna’s wishes. OK seriously..I’m glad that she got to spend time and hold her grandchild. MSNBC seems to up their reporting on the weekend in the Bahamas. It seems that they always break things on Saturdays.
You have to stay at a hotel elsewhere in Jamaica. We were there back in the early 80’s, I’m not positive it is still standing... you might want to google Rosehall Plantation.
The Texas jury did NOT hear all of that evidence despite the claims by Pierce that they did. I will post more on this later..." -----------------
That's exactly what I said. It was additional evidence that came out during the bankruptcy hearing. That's not to say that the original allegation of Pierce interferring wasn't alleged in the probate trial. It was. I've included their sworn testimonies about just that below. She challenged the estate plan and made a number of interference allegations. It's why it was reviewed, in depth. I just don't see how billing records are going to thwart the entire case when many pieces of evidence against Pierce were already submitted re: interference, and the jury still gave her nothing.
But regardless, the remand is not about that. The remand is about whether a tort issue is allowed to proceed beyond the scope of a probate court's final judgment and jurisdiction. Pierce claims that under Texas law, the proper procedure is to go back to the probate court and overturn the estate plan. Smith claims that the estate plan and the will can still be valid and make an award based on a tort claim. That's what is being decided. The merits on the appeals.
I'm not arguing there's new evidence post-Texas-probate judgment. There is new evidence for both parties to be had. The remand is about where and how those merits can, if at all, be heard and where.
JUSTICE BREYER: By the way, in Texas if you have to go through all this probate stuff and everything, and they want to claim 15 years ago my mother gave a ring to my cousin who stole it, is that precluded to bring that tort action when the person who, you know, was supposed to get it finds out about it?
MR. BRUNSTAD: Justice Breyer, all claims of incomplete gift, which Vickie's claim is here, compete with an estate plan.
JUSTICE BREYER: So -- so, in other words, if it -- when the guy is 2 years -- 15 years old, he gives a ring to somebody, and now he dies at age 93, and when they find out about that incomplete gift at age 15, nobody can bring a lawsuit anymore. You have to go to the probate court.
MR. BRUNSTAD: If in fact the ring passed under his valid estate plan, yes. Because the ring passed under the valid estate plan, you have to overturn the estate plan before you say the property goes somewhere else.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.
----------------------
JUSTICE BREYER: But that -- that sounds to me like a matter of preemption, but -- but -- or not preemption but, you know, res judicata.
But just out of curiosity or -- because I think it is relevant, did the Texas probate court have in front of it the documents among the lawyers that the district judge, Judge Carter, relied upon in showing that there was an intent to create the catchall trust?
MR. BRUNSTAD: Yes, Justice Breyer.
JUSTICE BREYER: It had all those documents.
MR. BRUNSTAD: Yes, Justice Breyer. Everything that the district court had and more was examined, adjudicated in the 5-and-a-half-month jury trial in the Texas probate court exhaustively.
---------------------------------------
MR. RICHLAND: Thank you, Your Honor.
Justice Breyer, to answer your question about whether the Texas court had all of the material before it that was before the bankruptcy court, the answer to that can be seen at page 45 of the appendix where the district court judge says that there were 400 boxes of documents.
JUSTICE BREYER: Yes, but did those documents -- did those boxes contain the key documents --
MR. RICHLAND: They did.
JUSTICE BREYER: -- about the catchall trust?
MR. RICHLAND: They did. They contained the -- perhaps the most key documents, which were the billing records that showed that that trust was actually drafted. The trust, of course, never saw the light of day, but those billing records reflected that. And none of that was in front of the Texas probate court.
Larry Birkhead Feels Sorry for Howard Stern
Photographer Larry Birkhead feels sorry for the other men in the battle to confirm paternity of late Anna Nicole Smith’s baby daughter. Birkhead was confirmed as Dannielynn’s biological father on April 10 - two months after Smith died from an accidental drug overdose.
But he was part of a three-strong race to become the daddy with the tragic model’s partner Howard Stern, who was named the father on the baby’s birth certificate, an Prince Frederic Von Anhalt, who insisted he was the baby’s biological dad.
Birkhead tells OK! magazine, “In court, when they were about to open that envelope, it was like the Academy Awards and they say, ‘And the winner is...’ You just sit there trembling. I told my brother it was almost like, `If you don’t win the award of being named father, do you say it was great to be nominated?’
“I feel sorry for everybody, even though people may have not always been the best to me. I feel sorry for Howard. I hope that everybody can try to move on and make sense of stuff and not be at war, because I’m tired of war.”
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/04/21/larry_birkhead_feels_sorry_for_howard_st
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.