| 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
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...
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040903.html
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...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_km3608/is_200409/ai_n8623705
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.
http://www.parentsrights.org/media/ky_pr.html
***
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
http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/grandparents-rights
Excellent articles. It does sound like from the Uniform Child Protection Act that whatever the Bahamian decision is construed to be might be applicable.
Or at least that court has provided some arguable proof of a relationship. Although the article said a 2001 appellate court had struck down the California 1998 law re grandparents rights as unconstitutional.
Once again, it’s surprising no main stream TV station has offered up time to a legal expert,talking head to opine about this stuff...
1 - at the hearing she said she had received no money
2 - she did finally testify that her sister-in-law sold a video of Daniel’s grave
Another contradiction in her interview with Greta is the response to whether Virgie had ever heard about any boyfriends that ANS might go out with or any men that she was going out with or anything like that? ARTHUR: No.
Virgie had more than ‘heard about’ Mark ‘Hollywood’ Hatten. http://extratv.warnerbros.com/doc/annaletter03032.pdf
I’ve never watched Amazing Home Makeover, but I’m well versed in the dangers of mold. When we saw it, all I was thinking was all the work it was going to take for us to do it ourselves. This calls for hospital grade respiratory masks.
Re: the emails-
I’m sure all copies will be made available to Moe, or whomever, for books as long as they follow the HKS script.
I’m not even slightly curious about Moe’s book. I heard or read most of his interviews and his ‘baby girl’ thing creeps me out. That’s a strange term for an employee to use in regard to an employer.
Per conversations here at the time of the hearing, Moe was scheduled to testify. Perper hurried them with the deteriorating ANS calls and the witnesses were cut short.
I would link you, but didn’t think Moe information/role consistent enough to save.
“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.”
I have no clue how you figure that. ‘Judge Hollywood’ said to HKS, ‘you came knocking on my door in the middle of the night’. But for Perper’s alarm sounding at the condition of the body, the hearing might still be going on.
“”””Then Opri slammed a 20-day stay on the body and got into the fight.””””
Opri was certainly fighting a lot of battles that resulted in hurting Virgie and helping Howard. I don’t think that was her intent when she came on board as Larry’s attorney.
I would love to know the precise details and final straw that caused her to be fired or quit. Guess that will come out in someone’s book!
I agree. I think she has some kind of really big mental problem.
The Horizons?? Bet it's settled out of court and Howard will pay the "rent tab" and move on. Of course, there will be a confidentiality agreement.
Maybe Thompson will find the strength to take him on....but one never knows what videos Howard has tucked away.
He’s afraid becuase he knows she will not stop until she uncovers exactly what went on with Daniel and Vicki.
TWO YOUNG PEOPLE died at crucial points in their lives and no one cares....except Virgie.
TWO PEOPLE know what they did and there's not a sign of "moral conscience" in either of them....Like "It happened, big deal, so what".
“””””Maybe Thompson will find the strength to take him on....but one never knows what videos Howard has tucked away.....””””
Takes a lot of courage to report extortion, especially in the Bahamas, where it is probably not even a misdemeanor.
Mornin Saca!
“””TWO YOUNG PEOPLE died at crucial points in their lives and no one cares....except Virgie.”””
Are you optimistic that anyone in the justice system or in LE is investigating the circumstances surrounding these 2 deaths? i.e. misappropriation of funds, tax evasion, illegal Rx drug transportation, witness tampering, crime scene tampering, obstruction of justice, fleeing the scene, fraudulent documents, perjury etc., etc.,??
“There were a few things that bothered me about Virgie’s interview. One of them was about not knowing Donna Hogan at all.”
I thought that was strange, too. I didn’t think they’d be friends, but I just assumed that if she was Anna’s half sister, and Anna knew her, Virgie would also.
FOX 26 Exclusive: Up Close with Virgie Arthur
I believe that a wrongful death suit can be about more than money - see OJ Simpson.
That is only partially correct. At the trial in Florida she testified that her sister in law (?) or whomever went with her did receive money for her video footage. In the Greta interview..Greta specifically asked her if any relatives had received any money and she said no.
I think the kidnapping claim is going to stem from when Birkhead took her passport to keep her from going off with G. Ben. I think that story was running around prior to paternity.
Hmm, Virgie in a chair. . .waiting. Nice wallpaper for HKS.
We still don't know that they WON'T make him co-guardian.
That’s why I’m not jumping on the burn Virgie bandwagon. Not one DARN person knows what is going on in that frickin’ courtroom but they can’t wait to pick up Stern’s talking points...i.e...”If it was up to me it would have been settled today”. BS...Dannielynn would not have gotten out of Horizons any sooner. So what if it turns out that Stern and Larry have agreed to a co-guardianship and that’s what Virgie is fighting. I personally don’t think that’s the case because if so I don’t think Virgie would be so complimentary to Birkhead. This is becoming a public relation war and the only reason why is because the one liked the most will make the most money when the dust settles(and in the case of Stern avoid prison time). Larry has AccessHollywood...Stern has ET and now Virgie is jumping on with Fox.
Virgie had a stroke a few years and during the interview Greta says something like I know you’re not good with dates. I think it was probably rehearsed but some people aren’t very good communicator but that doesn’t mean that they are lying . Our President has gotten slammed repeatedly for not being a good communicator.
There’s a collective sigh of relief that Larry and Daniel are here. As for the inquest Leroy has done his job and most of the press is running scared. Totally disgusting!!
There’s a collective sigh of relief that Larry and Dannielynn are here. As for the inquest Leroy has done his job and most of the press is running scared. Totally disgusting!!
thanks for posting this link. great interview!
“Virgie Arthur realizes no matter what she says, some people will always be convinced she is after the money.”
What’s that saying....’truer words were never spoken’.
Hang tough Virgie.
there Doc! Stay out of the line of fire!
Hi there! I don't see the point of getting involved in the Larry vs. Virgie debate...
IMO Larry will be awarded sole custody. He's a fit parent with no criminal background, and no court will take sole custody away from him...
Ditto!
What is a roombox? (Like a diarama?)
I have seen all of the CSI Las Vegas up to the episode where Nick is buried alive. I have heard spoilers that Gil and Sarah got together after that. I need to see if any new seasons are out on DVD to catch up. I think Grisson is so cool. I like the actor (I’ve seen him in other things) and I like the character Grissom.
I remember Virgie’s testimony differently. That she was asked did she take and or sell pictures of that occasion. She said she did not. Then she said that her sister in law took pictures. When asked what arrangements or deals her sister in law made with the pictures, I recall her saying she had no part in it and did not know anything about her sister in law’s
actions in that regard. I don’t recall her saying “no” when asked if her sister in law sold them. Just claimed no involvement in or knowledge of it (except that she did take pictures).
Hi there! Welcome.
Please check my post #10,495. Can we reconcile my memory of her testimony, and your post here? I don’t think we are way far apart. In my post I was replying to the assertion that Virgie denied a relative of hers did “this” when testifying, then told Greta differently last night. And I don’t thing Virgie did THAT.
Is it possible that some on this thread, just like in the media, don’t know or understand the difference between:
CUSTODY of a CHILD
VISITATION of a CHILD
and,
CUSTODIAL responsibilities for an ESTATE
and have missed each time she’s CLEARLY stated:
Virgie Arthur DOES NOT want CUSTODY of DL.
Virgie Arthur DOES want VISITATION with DL.
Virgie Arthur DOES want to participate in the legal (CUSTODIAL) responsibilities of ANS’s estate.
Lot’s of folks read and vist our thread. Can we at least get this straight, once and for all? If you’re not sure of VA’s position, go back and read the transcript of her interview with Greta.
On the stand in Fort Lauderdale, Arthur was hammered with questions about any compensation she has or would receive from news organizations for access to interviews or footage after the deaths of her daughter and grandson.
She frequently said no to questions about arrangements with specific media outlets, and sidestepped other questions or claimed she didn’t understand them.
“Have you in any fashion profited at all from the death of your daughter?” asked Krista Barth, an attorney for Stern.
Arthur stared for a moment. “I’m trying to process that question,” she said. Then Arthur attempted to deflect the attention, pointing at Stern.
“He has,” she said.
It was a refrain Arthur repeated several times in an attempt to raise suspicions about Stern and the unsolved deaths of her daughter and grandson.
“I knew she would be next. My grandson did not overdose. Howard was there when he died, and Howard was there when my daughter died. And he has my granddaughter now and it is not even his child. I’m afraid for her life as well,” Arthur said, crying. “Please, help us.”
Stern shook his head. Earlier in Arthur’s testimony, he angrily rose from his seat, but the judge interrupted him before he could complete a sentence.
“You have no podium here, Mr. Stern,” the judge said. “Appreciate you being here, though.”
Later in the day, Arthur acknowledged that she had received some compensation from news organizations. She said the tabloid news agency Splash paid to fly her to the Bahamas when she visited her grandson’s grave last month, and she acknowledged her sister-in-law had sold family video footage.
Arthur also acknowledged that a Splash representative accompanied her to a viewing of Smith’s body Wednesday afternoon.
VAN SUSTEREN: Now let’s talk about who got what money. Did you get any money from any news organization or media outlet since Daniel died?
ARTHUR: OK. Splash magazine. And all they do is sell pictures.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK.
ARTHUR: You know. And this was way before Daniel died that they came to me and asked me, did I want to, you know, sell them some pictures, you know, of Daniel and Vickie and the family, and did I want to do a book? You know, and I thought well, you know, I might think about it. And that’s all I told them, I might think about it. So I did give them some pictures.
VAN SUSTEREN: How much did you get?
ARTHUR: Huh?
VAN SUSTEREN: How much did you get?
ARTHUR: Oh, how much money?
VAN SUSTEREN: Yes.
ARTHUR: Five thousand dollars.
VAN SUSTEREN: How many pictures?
ARTHUR: Oh, I don’t know, bunch, a bunch, you know, 50, 100, a bunch of pictures.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did you give them to use for as long as they wanted or to just use them in one-time deal with them?
ARTHUR: No. They can use them for whatever.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK. All right. So you got $5,000 from Splash for pictures. Any other money?
ARTHUR: No. That’s all I have got.
VAN SUSTEREN: What about any relative of yours get any money?
ARTHUR: Relative?
VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. Like — I mean, it was like, you know, anyone who you — besides Anna Nicole — Vickie? Like did any family member cut any deal that you know of?
ARTHUR: Not that I know of, no.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK. So there is no other money pouring into your family?
ARTHUR: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: How about your legal bills? Who is paying those?
ARTHUR: Well, I’m going to have to pay those.
VAN SUSTEREN: Nobody has made a promised to pay them?
ARTHUR: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: No lawyer has gotten paid?
ARTHUR: No.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269821,00.html
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.