Anna Nicole Smith's mother Virgie Arthur sues Conspiracy Bloggers

Update on the probate case website.

New items listed under Documents Filed.

Documents Filed

10/19/2011 Notice of Lodging
Filed by Attorney for Executor

10/19/2011 Approval - Settlement Agreement

10/19/2011 MOTION - SEAL COURT RECORDS
Filed by Attorney for Executor
__________

New items listed under Future Hearings.

Future Hearings

11/23/2011 at 10:00 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MOTION - SEAL COURT RECORDS

01/17/2012 at 08:30 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
APPROVAL - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (CONFIDENTIAL)
__________

Very interesting. I wonder what the item is they are filing to get approval of a settlement agreement regarding. It makes me even more curious since they want it kept confidential, naturally. LOL

JMO

Before anyone goes too crazy speculating. My first guess and rather boring guess would be that it is a settlement agreement with one or more of the creditors. That seems to me to be the simplest and most logical answer, but I really don't know for sure.

JMO

SheStone wrote:

Before anyone goes too crazy speculating. My first guess and rather boring guess would be that it is a settlement agreement with one or more of the creditors. That seems to me to be the simplest and most logical answer, but I really don't know for sure.
JMO

"crazy speculating"? that's RICH!

What? A few of you did not want ANS's estate to be repaid (compensated) for the theft of Horizons? The selling of the edited clown video? The stealing of the baby's birth certificate and paintings done by ANS??

There is no speculation about it.

That is not how they handle creditor's claims against any estate.

SC settled for their illegal TORTS - and with the courts so full in every state I bet the theives skated by without the DA in their county where the stolen materials came to from the Bahamas did not file any criminal charges against them! IMOO (b/c the actual illegal act was done out of the US)

Now, that is a shame, BUT that does mean HKS's cases and the cases he handles for DL thru the estate still have NO LOSSES. JMOO

(that is a good thing)

you should now go to the case # and court info website of SC..
"too crazy speculating" LOL!

JFA wrote:

<quoted text>
Now, that is a shame, BUT that does mean HKS's cases and the cases he handles for DL thru the estate still have NO LOSSES. JMOO
(that is a good thing)

Clarifying here---

still no losses of any case STARTED since her death..........

the Marshall case started over a decade ago, and IMO was lost in the beginning by the crooked Texas court system.

not that she deserved any huge amount, but to not be recognized as being the old guy's legal wife and the "disappearance" of papers by the son - I always thought she should have got all of her legal fees awarded. If not for those actions by Pierce (where the judge even stated in court docs where he was wrong) and then him following her to calif bankruptcy court...... the case would have not dragged on so long. JMOO of course! ;)

JFA wrote:

<quoted text>
"crazy speculating"? that's RICH!
What? A few of you did not want ANS's estate to be repaid (compensated) for the theft of Horizons? The selling of the edited clown video? The stealing of the baby's birth certificate and paintings done by ANS??
There is no speculation about it.
That is not how they handle creditor's claims against any estate.
SC settled for their illegal TORTS - and with the courts so full in every state I bet the theives skated by without the DA in their county where the stolen materials came to from the Bahamas did not file any criminal charges against them! IMOO (b/c the actual illegal act was done out of the US)
Now, that is a shame, BUT that does mean HKS's cases and the cases he handles for DL thru the estate still have NO LOSSES. JMOO
(that is a good thing)
you should now go to the case # and court info website of SC..
"too crazy speculating" LOL!

Anna never paid for Horizons. How can you steal something you don't own? She never produced proof that it was a gift either. So why should she be compensated for the loss of something she never owned?

One last time..........

THERE WAS A STANDING "STAY AWAY ORDER" FOR FS & co not TO STEP FOOT @ Horizons (until the courts determined the legal owner of HORIZONS) it was:::::

--against the law for him to even step foot in there (especially after he had turned off the electric earlier with a newborn in the house.... >> hince the STAY AWAY ORDER from the judge)

--FS & family went in TOOK/STOLE personal computers, personal papers, paintings by ANS, ect....

Hell! ET VIDEO TAPED when HKS walked in and it was broadcast to the WORLD all of the stuff TAKEN!
(right after ANS died, FS was there within 24 hrs STEALING from HER!)

-----YOU KNOW THIS-SHIT! ALREADY-----

FS and co MADE $$$$ off of the personal items THEY STOLE FROM HER!!!!!!

--HKS (speaking for DL the sole heir of ANS's estate =---->>> SUED them to reimburse DL (the estate) for all court costs, attorneys fees and ALL PROFITS MADE or assumed to be made from the stolen property..........

>> none of us will KNOW HOW MUCH they settled for, if they DID NOT SETTLE and it all came out in trial then the SC DA would have a chance to decide if they wanted to file separate charges for FS and co bringing STOLEN ITEMS into SC from out of the country.

---what you do not remember the SC sheriff's office ordering FS and co to bring the stolen items to them????

THE SC CASE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HORIZONS HOUSE!!---.. just theshit taken from it by THIEVES! IMOO
==========
NONE OF THESE REMARKS YOU MADE BELOW MAKE ANY SENSE AT WHATSOEVER!

Whack A Mole wrote:

<quoted text>
Anna never paid for Horizons. How can you steal something you don't own? She never produced proof that it was a gift either. So why should she be compensated for the loss of something she never owned?

==========

-- I AM SURPRISED AT HOW AMAZED I STILL GET CONCERNING THE COMMENTS MADE ON THESE CASES......

JFA wrote:

One last time..........JFA is C-RAZY!

I thought you weren't going to talk about all that old stuff? You say that all the time but yet here you are daily ranting and raving like a maniac. LOL

You think you know it all but guess what? Newsflash! You don't.

Now...rake a deep breath....you're going to have a heart attack at the rate you're going. Seriously, your blood pressure must be through the roof!

JFA wrote:

<quoted text>
Clarifying here---
still no losses of any case STARTED since her death..........
the Marshall case started over a decade ago, and IMO was lost in the beginning by the crooked Texas court system.
not that she deserved any huge amount, but to not be recognized as being the old guy's legal wife and the "disappearance" of papers by the son - I always thought she should have got all of her legal fees awarded. If not for those actions by Pierce (where the judge even stated in court docs where he was wrong) and then him following her to calif bankruptcy court...... the case would have not dragged on so long. JMOO of course! ;)

Don't be a dunce! The bulk of Marshall's assets were in a irrevocable trust that wasn't part of the probate. If the old man wanted her to have more that he had already been bilked out of he would have stated it in the trust.

Anna Nicole Smith`s estate settles house theft lawsuit

The estate of Anna Nicole Smith has settled a lawsuit filed over an alleged theft from her former home in the Bahamas.

The lawsuit was filed against a South Carolina real estate magnate, his son-in-law and others, stemming from the ALLEGED theft of items from the former Playboy Playmate's home in the Bahamas a day after she died.

Attorneys for Howard K. Stern, Smith's longtime personal confidante, lawyer and now the executor of her estate, filed papers in Los Angeles Superior Court asking that the settlement terms be SEALED.

The defendants denied taking the items, but the parties reached an agreement 'following protracted litigation,' according to the new court papers filed this week.

The items are not identified in the estate's court papers.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news...

Makes u go hmmm wrote:

Anna Nicole Smith`s estate settles house theft lawsuit
The estate of Anna Nicole Smith has settled a lawsuit filed over an alleged theft from her former home in the Bahamas.
The lawsuit was filed against a South Carolina real estate magnate, his son-in-law and others, stemming from the ALLEGED theft of items from the former Playboy Playmate's home in the Bahamas a day after she died.
Attorneys for Howard K. Stern, Smith's longtime personal confidante, lawyer and now the executor of her estate, filed papers in Los Angeles Superior Court asking that the settlement terms be SEALED.
The defendants denied taking the items, but the parties reached an agreement 'following protracted litigation,' according to the new court papers filed this week.
The items are not identified in the estate's court papers.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news...

Thanks for the information.

I considered it less likely that it would be related to those events because IIRC it was all the way back in the beginning of June when we heard that the stuff with South Carolina had been settled so I presumed that would have already been presented and approved by the court by now. LOL

JMO

I should add that we will now have to wait and see if it ends up showing any increase in the value of the estate. If so by how much.

I don't know if the value of the estate will be able to be kept underseal or confidential. We will have to wait and see. It shouldn't be able to be kept hidden from creditors though I would think.

JMO

JFA wrote:

<quoted text>
Clarifying here---
still no losses of any case STARTED since her death..........
the Marshall case started over a decade ago, and IMO was lost in the beginning by the crooked Texas court system.
not that she deserved any huge amount, but to not be recognized as being the old guy's legal wife and the "disappearance" of papers by the son - I always thought she should have got all of her legal fees awarded. If not for those actions by Pierce (where the judge even stated in court docs where he was wrong) and then him following her to calif bankruptcy court...... the case would have not dragged on so long. JMOO of course! ;)

So, if a case that goes against ANS or her estate or Stern, since he would have benefited, is lost it's because of a crooked court system but when it comes to the appeal in Stern's case it's because people don't know what they are talking about and are just bias against Stern. Alrighty then!

Hi,

Once again sorry I have been busy and haven't posted in awhile. Here is an update on the criminal appeal case since the last time I posted. A response brief has been filed for respondent/defendent Eroshevich on 10/31/2011. For respondent/defendent Stern another request for extension of time was filed and then granted. Here is what it shows under 'Docket':

Date: 10/31/2011

Description: Respondent's brief.

Notes: Defendant and Respondent: Eroshevich, Kristine
Attorney: Janyce Keiko Imata Blair
-=-=-=-=-=

Date: 11/08/2011

Description: Requested - extension of time

Notes:
-=-=-=-=-=

Date: 11/10/2011

Description: Change of address filed for:

Notes: Peter Gold old address 1: 2269 Chestnut Street,#124 new address 1: 5758 Geary Blvd. old address 2:{blank} new address 2: No. 160 old zip: 94123 new zip: 94121

-=-=-=-=-=

Date: 11/10/2011

Description: Granted - extension of time.

Notes:
__________

Under 'Scheduled Actions' it shows:

Description: Respondent's brief.

Due Date: 12/27/2011

Notes:
__________

Under 'Briefs' it shows:

Brief: Appellant's opening brief.

Due Date:

Date Filed: 09/12/2011

Party and Attorney: Plaintiff and Appellant: The People
Attorney: Office of the District Attorney

Notes:
-=-=-=-=-=

Brief: Respondent's brief.

Due Date: 12/27/2011

Date Filed:

Party and Attorney: Defendant and Respondent: Stern, Howard K.
Attorney: Peter Gold

Notes:
-=-=-=-=-=

Brief: Respondent's brief.

Due Date:

Date Filed: 10/31/2011

Party and Attorney: Defendant and Respondent: Eroshevich, Kristine
Attorney: Janyce Keiko Imata Blair

Notes:
__________

So right now they are waiting on Stern's response which is now due on 12/27/2011. Once that is filed then there will be a wait for a reply brief to be filed for the DA/Appellant to the responses.

So it is definitely going into next year. LOL

JMO

(I am reposting this in case the original post #2168 doesn't show or gets removed due to a change of address filing that I listed which gave an address for the attorney for Stern. I have had in the past where if there is an address the post doesn't show or gets removed so that is why I am reposting. I apologize if it turns out not to be necessary.)

Hi,

Once again sorry I have been busy and haven't posted in awhile. Here is an update on the criminal appeal case since the last time I posted. A response brief has been filed for respondent/defendent Eroshevich on 10/31/2011. For respondent/defendent Stern another request for extension of time was filed and then granted. Here is what it shows under 'Docket':

Date: 10/31/2011

Description: Respondent's brief.

Notes: Defendant and Respondent: Eroshevich, Kristine
Attorney: Janyce Keiko Imata Blair
-=-=-=-=-=

Date: 11/08/2011

Description: Requested - extension of time

Notes:
-=-=-=-=-=

Date: 11/10/2011

Description: Granted - extension of time.

Notes:
__________

Under 'Scheduled Actions' it shows:

Description: Respondent's brief.

Due Date: 12/27/2011

Notes:
__________

Under 'Briefs' it shows:

Brief: Appellant's opening brief.

Due Date:

Date Filed: 09/12/2011

Party and Attorney: Plaintiff and Appellant: The People
Attorney: Office of the District Attorney

Notes:
-=-=-=-=-=

Brief: Respondent's brief.

Due Date: 12/27/2011

Date Filed:

Party and Attorney: Defendant and Respondent: Stern, Howard K.
Attorney: Peter Gold

Notes:
-=-=-=-=-=

Brief: Respondent's brief.

Due Date:

Date Filed: 10/31/2011

Party and Attorney: Defendant and Respondent: Eroshevich, Kristine
Attorney: Janyce Keiko Imata Blair

Notes:
__________

So right now they are waiting on Stern's response which is now due on 12/27/2011. Once that is filed then there will be a wait for a reply brief to be filed for the DA/Appellant to the responses.

So it is definitely going into next year. LOL

JMO

Here is a small update I found on the current Medical Board investigation of Eroshevich.

Medical board adds charges against Anna Nicole Smith psychiatrist

November 10, 2011

http://www.psychcrime.org/news/index.php...

On October 12, 2011, the Medical Board of California issued a Second Amended Accusation against psychiatrist Khristine Eroshevich, to include the charge of Conviction of a Crime.

On July 13, 2011, the Board issued its initial Accusation against Eroshevich for dishonest acts, creation of false record and unprofessional conduct. The amended Accusation alleges that in two instances, Eroshevich submitted claims for psychiatric evaluations which she indicated she’d conducted when in fact he had never met with either of the patients. In one case, which occurred in 2006, a workers workers compensation claimant met with an employee of Eroshevich’s who took a psychiatric history and then with a colleague who performed a mental status exam. The claimant did not at any time meet with Eroshevich but the 38-page report which she provided stated “I, Kristine Eroshevich, M.D., Ph.D, personally took the pertinent history of the applicant and performed the psychiatric examination.” In the other instance, which occurred in 2004, a claimant met with a colleague of Eroshevich’s, who took a psychiatric history and performed a psychiatric examination but never met with Eroshevich. Nevertheless, Eroshevich provided a 44-page report which contained numerous statements such as “I took the applicant’s history and performed the psychiatric evaluation,” which were false.

Source: Accusation in the Matter of the Accusation Against Khristine Eroshevich, M.D., License No. C37980, Case No. 17-2009-197998, Medical Board of California.
__________

Here is a link to the page about her with Medical Board of California:
http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/LicenseLookupSystem/Ph...

If you go to the 'Public Record Documents', it shows three documents have been filed on the dates of 07/13/2011, 08/31/2011, and 10/12/2011.
__________

I hope the medical board does the right thing in this case and Kapoor's.

Sorry to post and run but I have to go again. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving everyone.

JMO

Thanks for the updates SheStone. Hope you have Happy Thanksgiving as well!

SheStone wrote:

(I am reposting this in case the original post #2168 doesn't show or gets removed due to a change of address filing that I listed which gave an address for the attorney for Stern. I have had in the past where if there is an address the post doesn't show or gets removed so that is why I am reposting. I apologize if it turns out not to be necessary.)
Hi,
Once again sorry I have been busy and haven't posted in awhile. Here is an update on the criminal appeal case since the last time I posted. A response brief has been filed for respondent/defendent Eroshevich on 10/31/2011. For respondent/defendent Stern another request for extension of time was filed and then granted. Here is what it shows under 'Docket':
Date: 10/31/2011
Description: Respondent's brief.
Notes: Defendant and Respondent: Eroshevich, Kristine
Attorney: Janyce Keiko Imata Blair
-=-=-=-=-=
Date: 11/08/2011
Description: Requested - extension of time
Notes:
-=-=-=-=-=
Date: 11/10/2011
Description: Granted - extension of time.
Notes:
__________
Under 'Scheduled Actions' it shows:
Description: Respondent's brief.
Due Date: 12/27/2011
Notes:
__________
Under 'Briefs' it shows:
Brief: Appellant's opening brief.
Due Date:
Date Filed: 09/12/2011
Party and Attorney: Plaintiff and Appellant: The People
Attorney: Office of the District Attorney
Notes:
-=-=-=-=-=
Brief: Respondent's brief.
Due Date: 12/27/2011
Date Filed:
Party and Attorney: Defendant and Respondent: Stern, Howard K.
Attorney: Peter Gold
Notes:
-=-=-=-=-=
Brief: Respondent's brief.
Due Date:
Date Filed: 10/31/2011
Party and Attorney: Defendant and Respondent: Eroshevich, Kristine
Attorney: Janyce Keiko Imata Blair
Notes:
__________
So right now they are waiting on Stern's response which is now due on 12/27/2011. Once that is filed then there will be a wait for a reply brief to be filed for the DA/Appellant to the responses.
So it is definitely going into next year. LOL
JMO

bump
Is this response posted at Rose's site or does she have a site still? If it was anywhere it would be there.

SheStone wrote:

Here is a small update I found on the current Medical Board investigation of Eroshevich.
Medical board adds charges against Anna Nicole Smith psychiatrist
November 10, 2011
http://www.psychcrime.org/news/index.php...
On October 12, 2011, the Medical Board of California issued a Second Amended Accusation against psychiatrist Khristine Eroshevich, to include the charge of Conviction of a Crime.
On July 13, 2011, the Board issued its initial Accusation against Eroshevich for dishonest acts, creation of false record and unprofessional conduct. The amended Accusation alleges that in two instances, Eroshevich submitted claims for psychiatric evaluations which she indicated she’d conducted when in fact he had never met with either of the patients. In one case, which occurred in 2006, a workers workers compensation claimant met with an employee of Eroshevich’s who took a psychiatric history and then with a colleague who performed a mental status exam. The claimant did not at any time meet with Eroshevich but the 38-page report which she provided stated “I, Kristine Eroshevich, M.D., Ph.D, personally took the pertinent history of the applicant and performed the psychiatric examination.” In the other instance, which occurred in 2004, a claimant met with a colleague of Eroshevich’s, who took a psychiatric history and performed a psychiatric examination but never met with Eroshevich. Nevertheless, Eroshevich provided a 44-page report which contained numerous statements such as “I took the applicant’s history and performed the psychiatric evaluation,” which were false.
Source: Accusation in the Matter of the Accusation Against Khristine Eroshevich, M.D., License No. C37980, Case No. 17-2009-197998, Medical Board of California.
__________
Here is a link to the page about her with Medical Board of California:
http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/LicenseLookupSystem/Ph...
If you go to the 'Public Record Documents', it shows three documents have been filed on the dates of 07/13/2011, 08/31/2011, and 10/12/2011.
__________
I hope the medical board does the right thing in this case and Kapoor's.
Sorry to post and run but I have to go again. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving everyone.
JMO

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07...

Her lawyer, Bradley Brunon, said he planned to file a response to the accusations refuting the claims, which he said were filed “way too late.”

“This is an effort by the medical doard to accomplish through administrative proceedings that they could not do in court,” Brunon said.

=====

Maybe 'she'(her attorney) filed a response to this stuff above and that is what someone 'read'.

bump wrote:

<quoted text>
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07...
Her lawyer, Bradley Brunon, said he planned to file a response to the accusations refuting the claims, which he said were filed “way too late.”
“This is an effort by the medical doard to accomplish through administrative proceedings that they could not do in court,” Brunon said.
=====
Maybe 'she'(her attorney) filed a response to this stuff above and that is what someone 'read'.

j/k
I know this would NOT have been the response but someone is not getting the 'hints' that the criminal appeal response has not been posted to read.

bump wrote:

<quoted text>
j/k
I know this would NOT have been the response but someone is not getting the 'hints' that the criminal appeal response has not been posted to read.

She is just playing some sort of sick game. For what reason only she knows.
It's beyond stupidity at this point.
I went back and saw where you re-posted SheStone's post about it for her and she completely ignored it and just continued to bicker with that other VAS.
That spoke volumes.