You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Stern Sues Anna Nicole Mom's Attorney for Slander
2007-04-15
Although no custody issues were hammered out Friday in the Bahamas, Howard K. Stern used the downtime to add more fuel to the legal fire that's been blazing out of control since Anna Nicole Smith died suddenly in February. Stern filed a federal slander lawsuit against attorney John O'Quinn, who represents Smith's estranged mother, Virgie Arthur, accusing him of suggesting to reporters that Stern was responsible for Smith's death.

According to court documents filed Friday in U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach and obtained by the Associated Press, O'Quinn appeared on several national TV shows to discuss the case in the days leading up to the medical examiner's announcement of what killed Smith. In an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, O'Quinn said that Arthur believed that Stern had murdered her daughter. He also implied on MSNBC that Stern was a little to eager to get a glimpse at Smith's will in the days leading up to her death, the lawsuit states. "The public airwaves should never be used to promote personal agendas or vendettas," Stern's attorney, L. Lin Wood, said in a statement Friday.

Stern himself was in the Bahamas today, where a custody hearing attended by him, Arthur and confirmed baby daddy Larry Birkhead was adjourned before a ruling could be made. The presiding judge said that he wanted to give Arthur, who is fighting for custody of granddaughter Dannielynn, and Birkhead more time to reach an agreement themselves. O'Quinn told reporters outside the courthouse that his client and Birkhead would have a face-to-face meeting, just the two of them, on Saturday "to figure out what's in the best interest of the child."
Posted by:Fred

#2  As the Wikipedia points out in the historic Royal Governor of New York versus John Peter Zenger: At the end of the trial on August 5, 1735, the twelve New York jurors returned a verdict of "not guilty" on the charge of publishing "seditious libels," despite the Governor's hand-picked judges presiding. Hamilton had successfully argued that Zenger's articles were not libelous because they were based on fact.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-04-15 13:14  

#1  "Lawsuits at twenty paces"?
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-04-15 12:04  

00:00