Posted on 10/13/2007 6:14:00 PM PDT by fatima
No, ha ha - caught him again. You know how I always correct his timespan with Anna? He and his “team” are always saying 12 years, 15 years, and so on.
I said I couldn’t find a single instance of their knowing each other before Feb 1998, so I didn’t think they even knew each other for 9 years before she died. The closest he has come to that was saying to Seidlin that it was 1997 when he met her.
Anyway, to answer your question - he said no, that she had sold the ranch before he knew her.
I know from the property records that she sold it on October 7, 1998. There you have it!
Who was Stern hooked up with during those years...I think it had to be Rale.
Rale was his neighbor since they were kids and Rale said he still visits the family.
So when did Rale get hooked up with Anna in any way, shape or form?
The will was 2001 but I can't believe there wasn't an earlier one and I certainly can't believe there was "no insurance".
Did old man Marshall have insurance on Anna that would include Danny? I can't imagine any man not insuring a wife and a child.
I don’t know about medical insurance. Surely, JHMII had it on Anna and Daniel - but sometimes wealthy people just “self-insure” - that is, pay their own bills.
What I mean is, I don’t know at his age if he was still covered by his company’s group insurance or key man insurance or if he was considered retired and had to have his own coverage, even though probably paid for from company profits.
While he threw money around (and away) on Anna, he was kind of a tightwad about many other things.
I really don’t know. I’m sure it wasn’t a worry for any of them as long as Anna was married to him. After that, I just don’t know. I’m sure she was too scatter-brained to actually pay any premiums, since she couldn’t even keep the electricity on.
Oh, I did find some money in unclaimed property for her from a paid prescription service (one for Dr KE, too) - so she did have that at one time.
Oh, as far as Rale getting hooked up with Anna, I’m not sure about that.
We know he was on the will in 2001 and we “hear” in the depo that Stern claims there is a contingent fee agreement in the name of a law firm called Stern Rale & Khavarian, which has never existed, but I’m not sure he named the year or date on that in the depo, did he? I’ll have to go back and look.
We know Stern was partnering with Shebby in the same building with Boesch during the time of ANS’s ongoing pieces of her bankruptcy filing with them (started in Jan 1996, not litigated until 1998 or 1999 and onward). Rale had to have come into the picture later than that - after Shebby, I mean.
Have to look at my notes on dates when he was with Shebby, can’t recall offhand.
IIRC, seems like Rale had been with Trope & Trope at some previous time before going back with them in what, 2001-2002 or thereabouts, until last year?
We know that one of JHMII’s atty’s had contacted Trope & Trope in 1993-1994 when he was trying to see if it would be possible for JHMII to adopt Daniel, as another way to entice Anna to marry him. (But Billy said no way.)
" ... We know Stern was partnering with Shebby in the same building with Boesch during the time of ANS’s ongoing pieces of her bankruptcy filing with them (started in Jan 1996, not litigated until 1998 or 1999 and onward). Rale had to have come into the picture later than that - after Shebby, I mean. ..."
when I said her "filing with them," I mean the Boesch Law Firm, not Stern or partners.
Wonder if there is/was any litigation with either of these two familes with Boesch at some time. I just think there's some cross connection someplace that we don't know about.
Nothing to do today...It's friggin' cold up here in NY and the roads are a little slick. Eh...I save money and gas!!
It's only 4 days until the inquest resumes. I fear Howard will never take the stand again...EXCEPT to present some video he has hidden where Anna says how wonderful Howard has been and "possibly" confesses to leaving her pills hanging around. (The reason she never used Methadon again)....according to Howard.
Trope & Trope...That’s who joins everyone together?
I don’t know about families. I can’t imagine Anna being involved with anyone’s family, lol. I *know* Aunt BonBon said she came for Passover and Thanksgiving and so forth, but Anna just wasn’t someone you’d hang out with as a family unit, I don’t believe.
Maybe if we could ever find out where Daniel went to all those “private schools” Anna said he attended, we could figure something out. I think education is Stern’s mother’s main interest.
I know nothing about Rale’s family except he mentioned his aunt who I think lived in Studio City, maybe? Might’ve been Sherman Oaks, not sure. I know they “say” HKS was reared in Sherman Oaks and attended school there, but I haven’t seen “proof,” lol.
Rale is a bit older than HKS, so the whole “schoolmate” thing didn’t make sense to me. And I still can’t picture HKS playing football, not even in JUNIOR high, let alone HS or college - so I wonder how well Rale actually knew him.
I suppose they might’ve attended the same synagogue or their moms were in Hadassah together, I just don’t know. Rale has a sister who is somehow physically challenged, in what way I don’t know. And one of Stern’s siblings went to boarding school in Sedona (AZ) - probably Gary, but I don’t know that for sure.
There is the San Diego connection of some sort - that guy who bought the Hot Smoochie Lips company, plus the Sterns having owned some property down there and Rale having gone to school there. (And ANS’s former doctor retired down there - the one whose dad was a doctor to the stars and whose practice Kapoor took over.)
Just thinking out loud about all this, trying to see if anything sticks!
No, Anna didn’t have anything to do with the Marshall-Trope consultation back then - she was still stripping in Houston at the time.
He was licensed in the same year as Howard (1994). Rale was in 1988.
I assume Rale is about 6 years older than Howard so what Rale said about Howard being a pretty good football player etc...doesn't make a lot of sense excepting that he was likely closer to his family than Howard early on...and partnering with Howard when Shebby booted him might have been a Howard family request.
I think the date on that 6% fee is important....and that's why Howard isn't going to give it to them without a fight...
*When was the date of the will?
I think in the deposition, Howard said at the time of the 6% agreement, the three were working together....but as it stands, Khavarian wouldn't get a cut.
Glad you got an answer on that - yeah, the will was July 30, 2001 - Khavarian’s first suspension was just 2 days later - August 1, 2001. He was suspended most of the next 2.5 years and finally disbarred in March 2004.
~~~~
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law
Effective Date Description Case Number Resulting Status
Disciplinary and Related Actions
3/20/2004 Disbarment 03-N-1071 Disbarred
9/14/2003 Ordered inactive 03-N-1071 Not Eligible To Practice Law
7/31/2003 Ordered inactive 03-N-1071 Not Eligible To Practice Law
6/22/2003 Discipline w/actual suspension 02-O-11765 Not Eligible To Practice Law
2/5/2003 Discipline w/actual suspension 02-PM-11217 Not Eligible To Practice Law
10/11/2002 Ordered inactive 02-PM-11217 Not Eligible To Practice Law
9/19/2002 Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 99-O-13254 Not Eligible To Practice Law
8/30/2002 Ordered inactive 02-O-11765 Not Eligible To Practice Law
8/1/2001 Discipline w/actual suspension 99-O-13254 Not Eligible To Practice Law
Administrative Actions
9/16/2002 Suspended, failed to pay Bar membr. fees Not Eligible To Practice Law
~~~~
>>I have no idea what the date of the “Stern Rale Khavarian” 6% agreement might have been. I’ve been trying to find a logical point for making an educated guess, from looking at all the proceedings, but I just can’t - since we have no idea what part these guys played in any of it, other than Stern saying he was the atty for “entertainment contracts” and doesn’t give any concrete examples.
ANS’s actual Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization itself was discharged on March 25, 1999, effective as of March 8, 1999. So many cross-claims and counter-claims took place after that, under the same case pleading, that I don’t know up from down.
With all the “awards” of multi-million dollars and all the attendant overturnings and appeals of those awards, I’m not sure how in the world those debts could’ve been discharged!
I’m still looking for the judgment document that actually lists the debtor claims and how they were settled. That’s where HKS “says” this epheremous document shows up publicly. I don’t have Pacer or Lexis-Nexis, so can’t browse to find it.
I *believe* I have a partial list in among the Texas probate papers, but it’s not fully detailed. I remember the attorney claims in the 100s of 1000s, like 350-400.
Anyway, I can’t take much more time on looking until after I’m finished updating the Case Name List for Monday! Aarrgh!
btt
I agree this death was an accident and Howie not on the scene. Yet what rings false is that the masseuse called the Olsen twins and not 911. Makes no sense.
Ha ha - just re-read my post to see where I left off and see that I made up a new word, “epheremous.” Not bad, but it should have been “ephemeral.” I knew better!
However I choose to describe the ephemera that is HKS’s business dealings, it doesn’t really matter, lol. Now, back to the Jello-nailing.
Once the task is done. Get some one by one's, make a frame around the slop and voila!!! A work of art!!
I really believe these stars all have this Don’t call 911 mentality and they hammer that mentality into the people that work with them and around them. I can imagine alot more of these stars have OD’s or other health issues and they never get reported because there’s someone there with a syringe full of adrenaline.
Duh *slapping head* I forgot to freeze it!
Aside: I don’t have cable, but my regular local news just said that a body has been found in IL that matches the description of Stacy Peterson - certainly not confirmed or anything. Anybody hear anything on cable or other news? Thanks!
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.