|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:|
Skip to comments.Anna Nicole Smith, The Investigation #3
Posted on 04/07/2007 3:14:35 PM PDT by mom4kittys
Thread Number 3
You mean Howard’s book!!
That’s why ‘his’ was in quotes. Moe is still a puppet.
Well, cheez-its - finished all the back-reading and no one said anything much about the ET tapes that obviously came from Howie.
The man is a sick, sick voyeur. Yeah, we knew that, but this goes far above and beyond the lines of decency. Did Anna decide to “target” Larry, like for some experiment or something, so HKS took camera in hand to document it from start to finish?
I realize someone else shot the footage at the Barnstable Brown party table, since HKS is sitting there in plain view (and of course, provided them with the “whispered” remarks), but did they hatch the plot that night, before the Derby Day party the next day?
I am just dumbfounded by these tapes and ANS squeezing LB’s butt. I have to *assume* that if these were given to ET, then there are *others* somewhere else of a more advanced nature that will be sold somewhere down the line. That is just sick.
I was shocked when they turned that direction last year... low level austic, interesting thought. I think because the show has been on so long we know all the foibles of each character really well... same is happening on CSI New York. Miami not as much...
When I saw the butt squeeze I almost fell out of bed...
NO - Larry would have been required to name himself and/or another party as trustee.
yup. trusts must have trustees, and many families give their own parents trusteeships for their kids. Never know when one might get in an auto accident or disappear from a cruise, or something tragic like that.
There were a few things that bothered me about Virgie’s interview. One of them was about not knowing Donna Hogan at all. I recall Donna H. saying in an interview that she got some information for her book from Virgie, but that they were not at all close and didn’t know each other well. Perhaps Donna meant she got info from Virgie’s side of the family, and not Virgie herself. I don’t know. It seemed apparent Donna H. may not have cared much for Virgie, but I didn’t hear her say anything bad about her.
It was DL that was posing for the magazine photoshoot, and it's DL's mother, who's the subject of any tell-alls LB might chose to sell, so shouldn't any money "he" makes from that, go to DL's trust?
has he put the money he's made from interviews about Daniel's death (that he told Seidlin about), into DL's trust too? Noone thinks he would want to personally profit from DL's dead 20yr old brother. :)
LB has a background in real estate agent and photography and short stories. So I have no doubt he can make a living and he should be able to go back to work very soon and raise DL on his own without even touching her trust.
I'm sure glad she's back in the USA - fire-flys will be dancing in a month or two and I'm sure she will find them just amazing :-)
Just a couple comments/questions about Greta’s VA interview.
VA said she got $5,000 for many pictures of Daniel (and other family members) she sold after Daniel died. Didn’t she say on the stand in FL that she’d not received any money whatsoever for photos or videos concerning Daniel or Anna? Also, remember that Anna had wanted pictures and things of Daniel’s from Virgie, but Virgie didn’t give her any? Perhaps because Virgie had already sold them?
She also answered Greta’s inquiry as to whether or not any of her relatives had received any monies for pictures/videos, and her answer was “No.” Didn’t she admit on the stand in FL, finally, that her sister-in-law did sell a video of Daniel’s grave to Splash?
As far as the interview went, it seemed fairly well-rehearsed and possibly edited , and I’m sure Mr. O’Q was the overseer, as well he should be as her attorney.
thanks, RT - I thought that was a good Virgie Arthur interview, and I can’t believe it if LB said, Virgie made anna unhappy so we dont’ want you around the baby - how mean! - that’s the OPPOSITE of what he said in Seidlin’s court - that the mommydearest video was NOT how Anna thought of her mother. And he KNOWS that anna wanted her mom with her during pregnancy because he TOLD US about her email! But now it’s AWHWITW?
I really don’t understand this at all - why is the wholesale putdown and degradation of Anna and her Mom and Mom’s family going on even on this thread? People are making millions on contracts on movies about how slutty and foobar’d Anna was, and how rotten her family was, but they’re trying to re-write DL’s dna? DL was not, immaculate conception fcol. If I were in Virgie’s position, I’d be royally pissed! (but she’s too busy chasing HK and those responsible for her daughter’s and grandson’s death and can’t waste the emotion right now)
DC is right - LB is acting like a 19yo in a 35yo body.... and he’s being led around by HK like he has a ring in his nose and a tag in his right ear - did HK hypnotize HIM too? what DOES Hk have on LB?
And the reason I say that is because, while anyone can say anything in a tv interview, it's not ' under oath' so to speak, the same way a book is.
Moe could be sued for anything he says in a book. Would he run that risk? for what?
holding someone against their will, is kidnapping. it was kidnapping with DL, but what if it was also kidnapping (or intentionally denying liberty) with ANS ?
some say Moe is in cahoots with HK and that's why he would say something bad about LB;
but wait a minute - it's LB and HK in cahoots according to HK's mysterious comments about not expecting to be out of DL's life,
so why would HK, tell Moe, to "attack" LB (and maybe cost LB his custody) on HK's (cloaked) behalf if HK thinks he's ALREADY got a deal going with LB?
doesn't make sense to me
it would be nice to get more quotes from this Moe Book...
all I've ever heard Virgie Arthur say is, that she didn't know Donna, and turned her down for an interview about her book because she didnt' want to talk about Anna for that book. If Donna said that she got info 'from virgie' then I wouldn't believe that (and I don't recall her saying that at all but I didn't see all of her interviews). Virgie also turned her down ,when Donna wanted her to go on some sort of 'jerry springer-ish' show for some 'daniel' reunion fabrication, that was hatched by Donna about the time the book idea was hatched. so obviously Donna called Virgie on the telephone at least twice, but I don't think Donna was ever in Virgie's home for a family function or dinner. Virgie worked for years to keep Hogan away from her family, and inviting Donna over or striking up a friendship with her, would have given Hogan excuse to hang around. JMO
well, he couldn't - the body possession hearing was supposed to be just that - it was originally between HK and Virgie Arthur. Virgie went to claim the body, and HK had filed his own claim. Then Opri slammed a 20-day stay on the body and got into the fight. Had it been between Virgie and HK, Virgie would have been given the body of her single daughter, and buried Anna in Texas within 4 days. Well, at least, in the Real World lol
I believe you misread the transcripts - she sold them long before Daniel died. she made no other money, not after Daniel died, not after Anna died. She did get a free one-day trip to go to the Bahamas to visit Daniel's grave(and ws hounded by graveyard security) and to pound on Anna's gate trying to talk to her. iirc
Thanks for the ping ...and hello to all from a Texan who is “just sittin’ on the side of the Bay” ....
since it hasn’t been really brought up a lot, I thought I’d post some info on the topic of Grandparents’ Rights. Note the phrase ‘when a parent has died’ - it seems to be an important point for the Courts. This first post is snipped sentences from the below-link to make it shorter:
California - like every other state — has a grandparent visitation law: Under the law, courts can order that grandparents be permitted to visit their grandchildren, even if the children’s parents object. Recently, in the case of Butler v. Harris, the California Supreme Court upheld the law against a constitutional challenge.
Butler was decided in the shadow of a very similar 2000 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Troxel v. Granville. There, the Court struck down, as unconstitutional, an order granting visitation to grandparents over the objection of the children’s mother.
The Court found the state’s visitation statute “breathtakingly broad.” It also found fault with the court order itself - holding it invalid because it failed to sufficiently defer to the constitutionally protected right of parental autonomy.
Given Troxel, shouldn’t the California case have come out the other way - with the parents, not the grandparents, winning? As I will explain, that depends on how you read Troxel.
...Since Troxel was issued in 2000, several state supreme courts have had occasion to consider or reconsider the validity of their own grandparent visitation statutes. The results have been mixed - as I discussed in an earlier column. With varying statutes before them, state supreme courts have split fairly evenly about the constitutionality of grandparent visitation laws.
...One obvious trend is toward upholding laws that permit grandparents to seek visitation only when the nuclear family is not intact because the parents have never married, divorced, or one of them has died. The California decision and the statute underlying it are consistent with this trend.
...To begin, here are the facts of the California case: A married couple, Karen Butler and Charles Harris, had a child, Emily. Shortly thereafter, they divorced. According to Karen, Charles was physically and psychologically abusive, and he admitted striking her on at least some occasions.
The court granted Karen sole legal and physical custody of Emily. But it also granted Charles’s parents visitation several times a year.
After some difficult visits, Karen sought to terminate the grandparents’ visitation with Emily. The visitation had required young Emily to fly, unaccompanied, from Utah to California several times a year. And Karen worried the grandparents would not be able to protect Emily from her violent father. (Indeed, ultimately, Charles’s parental rights were completely terminated.)
But despite Karen’s wishes, the trial court allowed three visitation periods per year: two that were twelve days long, and one that was six days long. The result was that Emily would spend a month out of every year visiting her grandparents in another state.
...Karen appealed the order, citing Troxel.
...California Law on Grandparent Visitation
California statutes allow grandparents to get visitation rights in three ways.
First, when a parent has died, a court may award visitation to close relatives of that parent, if it is in the best interests of the child.
Second, in a custody proceeding, a court may grant grandparents visitation rights if it is in the best interests of the child.
Third - in the provision that was at issue in the Butler case — grandparents may petition for visitation if the grandchild’s parents are not married or if certain other conditions are met. That provision applied here - because Karen and Charles were divorced.
...Thus, Karen had an uphill battle, to say the least, in challenging the statute. Perhaps realizing that challenging the statute “on its face” would fail, she also challenged it “as applied” to her particular situation.
....But here, too, she lost. The California Supreme Court was unwilling to hold that granting the grandparents’ request, under the circumstances, violated Karen’s parental rights...
more Grandparent law:
State Child-Visitation Laws
All 50 states currently have some type of “grandparent visitation” statute through which grandparents and sometimes others (foster parents and stepparents, for example) can ask a court to grant them the legal right to maintain their relationships with loved children. But state laws vary greatly when it comes to the crucial details, such as who can visit and under what circumstances.
Approximately twenty states have “restrictive” visitation statutes, meaning that generally only grandparents can get a court order for visitation — and only if the child’s parents are divorcing or if one or both parents have died. Most states have more permissive visitation...
two more (note again, when a parent has died; note also, marital status of the surviving parent at time child was born may be considered). I don’t have an answer yet for the question, - Under the Uniform Child Protection Act, custody orders between states must be honored - I’m wondering if that might apply also, under the International Act, to Bahama decisions translating to the States?:
KENTUCKY: A court may award visitation rights if visitation would be in the child’s best interest. A court may award a grandparent the same visitation rights as a parent without custody if the grandparent’s child is deceased and the grandparent has provided CHILD SUPPORT to the grandchild.
State statutes providing visitation to grandparents generally require that a number of conditions occur before visitation rights can be granted. The marital status of the parents must be considered in a majority of states before a court will evaluate the relevant factors to determine if visitation is appropriate. In some of these states, the parents’ marital status is considered only if the grandparent or grandparents have been denied visitation by the parents
A minority of states require that at least one parent is deceased before a court can award visitation to the parent of the deceased parent of the child. For example, a maternal grandparent in one of these states may be awarded visitation only if the mother of the child is deceased.
Once the statutory conditions for visitation are met, grandparents must establish the factors that courts may or must consider to grant visitation rights. In every state, grandparents must prove that granting visitation to the grandchild is in the best interest of the child. Several states also require that the court consider the prior relationship between the grandparent and the grandchild, the effect grandparental visitation will have on the relationship between the parent and child, and/or a showing of harm to the grandchild if visitation is not allowed.
If a child’s parents and/or grandparents live in different states, one of several laws will determine the appropriate court to hear a custody or visitation case. If a valid custody or visitation DECREE has been entered in one state, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act requires that another state must enforce and must not modify the decree. Another state may modify the decree only if the original state no longer has jurisdiction over the case or has declined jurisdiction to modify the custody or visitation decree. Congress amended this statute in 1998 to include a grandparent in the definition of “contestant.”
If no state has made a valid custody determination, the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, as adopted by each state, will apply. A court in a particular state has power to hear a custody case if that state is the child’s “home state” or has been the home state of the child within six months of the date the legal action was brought and at least one parent continues to reside in the state. Other situations include those in which a state with jurisdiction over a custody case declines jurisdiction or no other state may assert jurisdiction over the child.
CALIFORNIA: Conditions for grandparent visitation rights include a determination of whether a parent is deceased, the child’s parents are divorced or separated, the whereabouts of one parent is unknown, or the child is not residing with either parent. In addition to determining that visitation is in the child’s best interests, the court must find that the grandparents had a preexisting relationship with the grandchild
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.