- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Feature
A Modern-Day Bleak House
(Page 2 of 3)
Nevertheless, the Texas jury issued its verdict on March 7, 2001, a year before the district court delivered its judgment on March 7, 2002. In normal circumstances, such a ruling might give a federal judge pause. Not here.
The federal trial judge decided a jury's weighing all the evidence shouldn't preclude him from deciding on some of it. And so, on a partial hearing and partial facts, he ruled to reverse the bankruptcy judge's findings substantially, yet still award more than $88 million to Anna Nicole.
Thus, another step up the litigation ladder and a few more years of time—the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There, in 2004, the judges threw out all Anna Nicole's claims and, on the basis that a state probate ruling should settle estate matters, not a bankruptcy court, dismissed her suit. So, by now, the state court had rejected her claims, the federal district judge had rejected most of her award, and the court of appeals had thrown out her case completely. But Anna Nicole and her lawyers didn't give up: they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court took the case, and she won a reprieve, sort of, in 2006. The Court did not give Anna Nicole any money. Instead, it ruled that the Ninth Circuit should examine the case yet again. It said that that court's application of a probate exception was not applicable to the district court's jurisdiction in deciding Anna Nicole's claim that E. Pierce Marshall had tortiously interfered with her inter vivos gift from J. Howard. Thus, the lawsuit was sent back to the Ninth Circuit.
Amazingly, Anna Nicole's only son, an offspring from a relationship prior to J. Howard, died, eliminating one potential heir. Then Anna Nicole herself died in February 2007, but not before giving birth to little Dannielynn, whose father was determined by a court to be Larry Birkhead, in a battle over paternity that had the hallmarks of being a contest over a ticket to the Marshall fortune lottery, not the love of a little girl.
Or at least that is what the media has speculated during the poor girl's 15 minutes of fame. In fact, Dannielynn is unlikely to strike gold. Why is she unlikely to win? Because the Supreme Court decided only that the Texas probate court's claim of exclusive jurisdiction over all the widow's (Anna Nicole's) claims against Marshall's son did not deprive a federal district court of jurisdiction over the widow's tort claim as asserted in her bankruptcy proceeding. It, in short, dealt only with a procedural and technical part of the Ninth Circuit ruling.
INDEED, JUSTICE GINSBURG, speaking for the majority, carefully noted, first, that the Court "did not address the question whether" Anna Nicole's claim was a "core proceeding" under the bankruptcy law. The Ninth Circuit will have to decide that issue on remand.
Ginsburg also noted that the Court's ruling did not "address Pierce's arguments concerning claim and issue preclusion." "Claim preclusion" prevents a second court (federal or state) from deciding a legal claim that another court with jurisdiction has already decided, even foreclosing litigation of matters that had never been litigated but are part of the claim. "Issue preclusion" prevents a court from deciding a particular issue that another court has already decided. These doctrines are broader than the "probate exception" to federal jurisdiction, which was all the Supreme Court considered. Federal courts routinely reject cases because of claim or issue preclusion— we do not have unlimited bites at the apple. Ginsburg cautioned in her opinion that these issues "remain open for consideration on remand."2
Next, after reminding us that the "Court of Appeals considered only the issue of federal subject-matter jurisdiction," Justice Ginsburg twice emphasized that the Ninth Circuit must decide whether the Texas pprobate jury verdict is "res judicata" (a lawyer's term meaning that the case, or the particular issue, has been decided and another court cannot decide it yet again).
It is clearly a fact that before the federal district court issued its opinion, the probate court and jury had already decided crucial facts against Anna Nicole—a decisive piece of information that the Supreme Court specifically noted when it sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit.
Anna Nicole had the chance, and indeed was compelled by Texas law, to litigate all her claims in the Texas probate court—even the claim that E. Pierce Marshall had tortiously interfered with her inter vivos gift or any other expectancy of an inheritance. The jury and the court ruled against her on one fact after another, despite her cross-examination of all witnesses, including Pierce. And the ruling wasn't close.
The jury was unanimous: J. Howard's 1982 trust, as amended, and his last will and testament were valid; no one forged or altered them. J. Howard had the requisite mental capacity when he executed the 1982 trust, as amended, and his last will and testament. J. Howard had not been the victim of fraud or undue influence; J. Howard did not have an agreement with Anna Nicole that he would give her one-half of all of his property; J. Howard did not intend to give and did not give Anna Nicole a gift from his 1982 trust, as amended, or a bequest in his last will and testament.3
MEANWHILE, THE federal district court proceeded to adjudicate, de novo, Anna Nicole's tortuous interference claim, vacating the bankruptcy court's $474 million judgment on June 20, 2001, more than three months after the Texas jury ruled. When on December 21, 2001, the district court denied Pierce's motion to dismiss on grounds of res judicata, it made a torturous twisting of the law to do so, by claiming she had not fully litigated her tortious interference claim in the Texas probate court and that principles of preclusion did not apply in the context of parallel litigation.
A rose, though, is a rose, whatever it is called. The fact that Anna Nicole non-suited her claim of tortuous interference at the very end of the probate proceeding is immaterial to the key legal question. The only things that matter in this context are whether Anna Nicole brought, or should have brought, a claim based on the same facts, argued that claim, and lost fair and square. She clearly did. The jury rejected her factual and legal allegations. The district court's argument that it need not apply res judicata in Pierce's favor because the probate court's decision did not predate the bankruptcy court's decision is likewise a red herring. It has long been the rule, as the Supreme Court has recognized, that an earlier judgment in a concurrently conducted case may be set up as res judicata. The issue is not whether the bankruptcy court's decision was before or after the probate court's judgment, because the bankruptcy court's decision was preliminary; that is why the district court decided the issues de novo. The issue is whether the district court's own judgment was before or after the probate court's decision. It clearly wasn't.
This is a textbook case of res judicata, a legal doctrine that prevents one court from entering findings inconsistent with the findings of another court. If courts allow this type of claim, they will simply encourage plaintiffs to both court and claim shop, looking for new venues in which to advance their claims, denying forever the justice that the law is supposed to serve.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Pingback| 3.5.09 @ 6:49AM
A Modern-Day Bleak House - Spectator.org >> Lottery Newswire links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.5.09 @ 8:10AM
The American Spectator : A Modern-Day Bleak House | Home Improvement blog. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.5.09 @ 11:29AM
Bankruptcy Laws, Bankruptcy Law - Darth Wall Street Destroying Distressed Debtors Wit links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
red| 3.5.09 @ 12:09PM
please go read the latest court doc's at QV's.
very telling..... seems a realtor on their side of the fence did a little dumpster diving and stole some mail from a persons mailbox.... all for little ole howie himself.... oh and art harris was egging her on to do it....
www.annanicoleandhowardkstern.com
john| 3.5.09 @ 6:25PM
What a change at first it was the detective from Va, tha did the dumpster diving now it changes to another person.Are you sur this woman WV did not do thing her self? If you read the actual court papers you can see that Pierce Marshall did interfere in his fathers life and hid assets He had his fathe put in a home than stole all his money.If their was nothing their why does anyone think The Texas team is so hell bent on destroying peoples lifes
Robert| 3.6.09 @ 2:57PM
Very well done piece. One of the best I have read on the topic. Gotta laugh at the made up stuff about the old man being put in a home and hidden assets, etc.
Chapman, low-level law school| 3.6.09 @ 10:36PM
I think this guy is off on his facts. If the law school where he worked wasn't the last place any law student picked, I might take it seriously. I wonder if he is related to the Marshal family?
Willy| 3.7.09 @ 2:50AM
Only a loser would challenge the authenticity of an article because of the author's school. Liberal moron.
Willy| 3.7.09 @ 2:52AM
"I think this guy is off on his facts." Any proof, idiot?
noodlemonkey| 3.7.09 @ 9:02PM
Great article--very informative!
Federalist| 3.8.09 @ 12:45PM
If the only criticism that can be made about the article is about the law school where the author is employed, that doesn't say much about the criticizer. Looking at Mr. Rotunda's profile from Chapman's website he recently came from George Mason Law School (highly ranked) and graduated from Harvard Law, magna cum laude. I think his credentials speak for themselves. I would bet his facts are straight.
http://www.chapman.edu/law/faculty/rotunda.asp
belicoso| 3.9.09 @ 4:36PM
The only thing that might have been overlooked here was that I think the author slow-played the situation when he said that Howard Marshall made no provision for Anna Nicole in his estate planning documents. I was under the impression that Mr. Marshall actually made an express provision that stated he would not be leaving any of his estate to Anna Nicole and that he intended to fully provide for her with the gifts he gave her during his lifetime...which were ample in the way of cars and jewelry and real estate. But as to the case itself I would say that if we make the shift to a system where a man's competently executed estate planning can be invalidated by some frivolous claim which was forum-shopped to no end by a shameless gold digger, then we are in real trouble.
Mady Maguire| 3.10.09 @ 5:51AM
Well, I certainly haven't all the facts either, and multiple laws here are conflicted to say the least, however, apparently neither do any of y'all seem to have either the facts or the law straight. Let's just get down to basics first of all. Vicky Marshall, AKA Anna Nicole Smith , was legally married to J. Howard Marshall--who I read somewhere was a lawyer himself, and taught law—it seems he was particularly knowledgeable in family/estate/ contract law...anyway Anna was very young and uneducated and he was a clever older feller and yet he was always after her to marry him, and so she finally did marry him –and without a prenuptial. In Texas, which is a common law state that does not necessarily mean Anna would get half of his estate though...unless he promised that she would, because he already had made most of his money before they got married. Still, surely he made a good bit more after they married and so Anna was probably entitled to half of that...had they gotten a divorce...but they didn’t divorce and were still legally married when he died...yes, I'm sure they were still married when he died, so surely she was entitled to a good bit of his estate as the surviving spouse…and more…if promised?
I understand Pierce Marshall started interfering with Anna and his dad's relationship early on...possibly in a tortuous way. Then too, Anna's husband, being such a clever fellow regarding the law, surely knew, although apparently his son did not, nor the Texas probate court nor the jurors, that "gifts," whether to your wife, your girlfriend or the mailman -- are just gifts and can't be used later to offset any marital property later due the party gifted--unless the gifts were in contemplation of marriage and Anna had reneged--but Anna went through with the marriage to Mr. Marshall and so all his gifts (what was it 6 million?) before or after their marriage would not be legally deductable from whatever amount of marital assets she stood to inherit upon her husband's death whether by the common law or as orally promised. Surely by no stretch of the imagination could anyone believe that this famous young woman would otherwise marry, except for love or money. Whichever this marriage was based on—it was a legal marriage and poor Anna ought to have been treated by the courts with the same legal respect due any rich old ugly hag.
Here however, it appears likely that the Texas Probate Court was tampered with by Anna's stepson more than J. Howard Marshall tampered with Anna before they were married. And, it was certainly unfair to Anna/Vicky to permit a jury of her peers, composed of a gaggle of unattractive, jealous, bible thumping, lower middle-class oil men worshipping Texans to decide facts that only those who know what goes on behind closed doors could possibly have known. This case ought to have been presented before an unbiased, uncompromised experienced judge with a fair mind and a firm grasp of basic marriage and contract law.
As for jurisdiction generally, and particularly as to which court adjudicated which res first...it seems that if Anna non suited her claim against her stepson in the probate court then she had a right to amend it and to file it again, in a timely manner, in whichever court she might hope to find an advantage. It is commonly the right of the filing party to file their case in whichever feasible court they prefer—and if the other party wants it moved to another court they better have a good reason to dare request to do so. It is inarguable that the beautiful, blonde, young mother/stripper/model/plaintiff was seen as entirely unsympathetic in the jaundiced eyes of the Texas Probate Court herd, which as a mob in righteous indignation trampled upon her marital/contractual rights. Since then, she has been prejudiced by many in the media and legal commentators who have also revealed themselves to be far more mercenary, lawless, heartless and vulgar than the statuesque, always child-like and emotionally fragile Anna Nicole ever was--no matter how deep in, or out, of her cups.
Federalist| 3.10.09 @ 8:44PM
Maady, I suggest you brush up on your Texas Family code and Probate Code. You also need to read the jury verdict in the case and the judgment of the Texas Court, who happens to be the authority on Texas law in this case. Anna got all she was entitled to under Texas law. Nothing more and nothing less. It was clearly decided she was not entitled to a good bit of her husband's estate. Even the Federal Courts agreed about that, which is why it was a in personam tort action against Pierce Marshall. Separate property trusts are a real challenge for the beautiful, blonde, young mother/stripper/model/plaintiff types in Texas. The ability of people to transfer their separate property to whomever they like is also a real bummer for such plaintiffs.
The jury also addressed and rejected claims of undue influence. You are correct that marital gifts cannot be used to offset martial property claims. Sadly for Anna, you are not correct that gifts made in consideration of marriage are only considered if the marriage did not take place. There would be no reason to offset the gifts in a martial property context if there was no marriage or marital property. Let's not forget community debt while were are at it. Anna is responsible for her community share of the decedents debts. In an insolvent estate, that tends to leave the wife with zero as well. Anna got what she was entitled to and was properly treated by the Texas courts as any other spouse would be under the same fact pattern. You probably also mistakenly believe the widows election applies in this case as well, but, alas, that too was not applicable. Even the Bankrutpcy Judge had to recant that theory.
Do you have evidence of any tampering with the TexasProbate Court, or is it just convenient to invent an issue when the facts don't fit the argument? Now, you want to trash the jury system and slander the jurors you don't even know? I am sure you must realize that disparaging one of the founding principles of our judicial system and levleing ad hominem attacks against the jurors fatally undermines your credibility. Maybe I am missing something but this case was presented before an unbiased, uncompramising, experienced judge with a fair mind and a firm grasp of basic TEXAS marriage, contract and probate law.
Apparently, you seem unfamiliar with the principles of preclusion. Since Anna's claim was a compulsory claim in Probate, she is required to bring it there and did so. A party has the right to non-suit but is still bound by any affirmative or declaratory judgment adjudicating their rights. Removal may happen for many reasons and it is a Constitutional right in many instances. Sorry you consider it really inconvenient when parties dare to demand their Constitutionally guarenteed rights. What is inarguable is that Anna lost her case in front of objective finders of fact and jurist. Her arguments to gain beyond what she was entitled left wanting and unpersuasive. As a public figure, and in no small measure by her own behaviour, any prejudice Anna endured was purely of her own making. It was also likely intentional as her career was practically based upon it.
Mady Maguire| 3.11.09 @ 3:01AM
Perhaps you should brush up on the definition of a "Federalist." I get the distinct impression that you are not one of these, but are of the other ilk--the crowd that claims the noble name when y'all are the Anti-Federalists. Do not whine that you are slandered by ad hominem attack... when this is merely my distinct impression.
Federalist| 3.11.09 @ 10:09AM
I am a Federalist in the original meaning of the word. I would suggest you read the Federalist Papers for further study.
Alan Brooks| 3.11.09 @ 2:51PM
Willy,
Chapman did say he was low level law school, he covered his little rear as any attorney ought to...
Mady Maguire| 3.17.09 @ 1:40AM
Just happen to have my copy right here. I don't have to study too deep to see that on page x-- in the Introduction--that you identify with those who originally claimed to be "Federalist," but in actuality were con-federalist --as they did not support the U.S. Constitution, and were therefore--Anti-Federalist--and still are-- but can't fool any of the people anymore.
pauld| 3.18.09 @ 7:16AM
"I think this guy is off on his facts. If the law school where he worked wasn't the last place any law student picked, I might take it seriously. I wonder if he is related to the Marshal family? "
Ronald Rotunda is a very well known and highly respected legal scholar. He taught at the University of Illinois for most of his career and then George Mason. both well respected law schools. He is widely published in legal journals and has written one of the standard textbooks on Constitutional law.
Pingback| 3.18.09 @ 9:56AM
A Model Case Run Amok » The Foundry links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.18.09 @ 10:21AM
A Model Case Run Amok — But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Federalist| 3.18.09 @ 1:29PM
You provide great comedic relief Mady.
From Wikipedia:
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist, was published in 1788 by J. and A. McLean.[1]
The Federalist Papers serve as a primary source for interpretation of the Constitution, as they outline the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government.[2] The authors of the Federalist Papers wanted both to influence the vote in favor of ratification and to shape future interpretations of the Constitution. According to historian Richard B. Morris, they are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_papers
Federalists in the traditional sense:
Statesmen and public figures supporting ratification of the proposed Constitution of the United States between 1787 and 1789. The Federalist Papers are documents associated with their movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist
Clearly the exact opposite as you describe. But nice try though.
Mady Maguire| 4.8.09 @ 1:45AM
Poor dear wannabe a real Federalist...how tragic that y'all require relief from comedy. And such a pity you had to go to Wikipedia to define the Federalist Papers! Are you kidding me...or are you actually ignorant of the fact that these ancient essays have been neatly compiled, notated and edited in the 20th-- and also in the 21st century? You can run right out and purchase your very own copy of the Signet Classic by Charles Kesler and Clinton Rossiter...that all the rest of us have had since our first political science class. When you get it-- immediately turn to page x of the Introduction and read the second paragraph--as I suggested you do in my post of 3.17.09 @ 1:40AM-- and voila--enlightenment will be yours. On second thought--read it over slowly several times before making up your mind about what being a true Federalist requires and whether you sincerely want to be one...of us:)
Federalist| 4.8.09 @ 6:25PM
You mean to tell me you don't know what comic relief is either, Mady? Really sad but still funny.
You cannot dispute the sources cited. Feel free to offer some objective validated proof that all can see. My source and cites are available for all to examine. You try to claim an introduction says something it does not and provide no proof. We are just supposed to "trust you."
I have a copy and it does not say that the Federalists were anti-constitutionalists. It is well documented to the opposite. Please comeback after you have graduated high school american history.
Mady Maguire| 4.20.09 @ 11:47PM
I was being ironic about your comic relief retort by which you affronted my comment regarding the true distinction between a Federalist and an Anti-Federalist.
I don't know what copy of the Federalist Papers you claim to have but apparently it is not the Signet Classic text edited by Charles Kesler and Clinton Rossiter in which, on page x, in the Introduction, you will find the passage in question. Providing this well accepted source in support of my claim is hardly asking for anyone’s blind trust regarding the unsubtle distinction between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist—on the contrary—you are directed to precisely the page where you may read it and weep. Read the entire Introduction and find further commentary on the distinction.
Should you venture to read beyond the Introduction you will note many other instances of distinction made between the two—as this is the main subject of the first part of the original Federalist Papers. There would have been no need to write the Federalist Papers if there were not such a broad distinction between the Federalist who supported the Union/Constitution and the Con-Federalist who preferred a loose Confederacy of independent states—the Anti-Federalist. Today the Con or Anti-Federalist continue to claim the good name of Federalist.
And you dare cite Wikipedia as a source— come on— better not try that when you turn in your junior high essays or you won't make it to high school.
Federalist| 4.22.09 @ 2:22PM
You don't know the meaning of irony either, Mady? Not surprising considering your continued trouble with the definition of Federalist, and yet still funny.
Stating that the Federalists were anti-constitutionalists and trying to rewrite history by misstating a source is beyond the pale. Quoting a source and page does not lend anymore support to your misstatement.
You still are unable to refute the sources cited on Wikipedia, simply throw mud to see if it sticks. The additional comedy is the legion of books available on the web, for all to see, that demonstrate the folly of your sophmoric diatribe. The unremarkable fact that Anti-Federalists/Anti-Constitutionalists existed has no bearing on what the Federalists unquestionably stood for. Not a single reference states that Federalists were anti-constitutionalists. Despite the fact that you have shown no evidence of any modern misappropriation of the term Federalist by Anti-Federalits, it is also immaterial. I referred to the classic defiinition early on. Please have your parents proof-read your posts before writing them.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2RxO89k0Q-gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=federalist+papers&ei=olfvSd2WG5LgywSf3fHIDQ#PRA1-PA3,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=6TATAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=federalist+papers&ei=olfvSd2WG5LgywSf3fHIDQ#PPA3,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZML1EwfD2vUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=federalist+papers&ei=olfvSd2WG5LgywSf3fHIDQ
http://books.google.com/books?id=5x239fpczBwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=federalist+papers&ei=olfvSd2WG5LgywSf3fHIDQ#PPR7,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=2-7DDxR-3KQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=federalist+papers&ei=olfvSd2WG5LgywSf3fHIDQ#PPR10,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=BtU9AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=federalist+papers&ei=olfvSd2WG5LgywSf3fHIDQ
http://books.google.com/books?id=fRCn-oeNq7gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=federalist+papers&ei=D17vScCdIoSSzQTgmqTiAw
If you actually want to learn the distinctions read:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8E8Zk3ZZNoYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=federalist+papers&lr;=&ei=eV7vScS0NJWOyATB6vWvBQ#PPP1,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=FxcN75XdGjkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=federalist+papers&lr;=&ei=eV7vScS0NJWOyATB6vWvBQ#PPP1,M1
Mady Maguire| 4.29.09 @ 5:11PM
I have given up trying to elicit appreciation for my humor from you. Now why not calm down, read and cogitate on the source I have quoted, before you go off the deep end trying to refute it. Then we might have a real debate about what being a Federalist meant and means. Otherwise, I'll have also to accept it must be true that you can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink, think or wink ... only blink.
Federalist| 5.5.09 @ 11:01PM
You really should give up more than comedy. I have read that source more times than I care to count. Your misstatement was in need of refutation, nothing else and it has been done several times over. The debate over what it meant and means to be a Federalist ended long before you were born. Leading horses around probably suits you better.
Mady Maguire| 5.14.09 @ 1:04AM
What--give up comedy--when the fun is only beginning! Try reading the source again without moving your lips or counting-- maybe it will sink in. The debate over what a "Federalist" actually was and is has certainly worn down many. Hang out with horses now and again-- you may yet acquire "horse sense."
Federalist| 5.18.09 @ 1:34AM
There is no accounting for your masochistic interest in embarrasing yourself. Try reading the myriad of sources ctied and maybe you will stop cutting yourself. There's no debate, since you need a debatable point to make an argument. You lost any semblence of one of those after your first post.
Mady Maguire| 7.6.09 @ 8:16PM
So you give up huh? OK, well... just one final point. I never said a Federalist was a con-federalist/Anti-Federalist--on the contrary-- I said that: A Federalist was (and still is) -- at the core --one who supported the Union's (Federal government's) supremacy over that of any State or loose confederation of states. This is a given--a simple statement of fact-- simple enough for anyone of any political persuasion to grasp. Yet ration is just not your bag—and I suggest that possibly this is because you are an Anti-Federalist—and just can’t believe that you are one! It's okay, there is no sin in it—others will be tolerant if only you will admit what you are. Then you can either accept yourself or change. But living in denial and resorting to calling others names because they point out simple facts is not helpful to you...or to your cause.
Federalist| 8.5.09 @ 8:36PM
Still enjoying the pain, eh? Waiting two months to write more rubbish when everyone can see the truth is just more evidence you need to keep taking your meds and stop cutting yourself. Despite your new version of history Federalism is nothing more than support for ratification of the US Constitution under the priciples of federalism, which was already pointed out to you. It has nothing to do with supremecy of the federal government, never did and is simply more drivel you enjoy writing. Your view would turn the very concept on it's head and is why the states have reserved powers and there is a balance of power. Anti-Federalists simply did not want to ratify the US Constitution as written, simple as that. That's the stubborn thing about facts, they just don't care what Mady thinks.
But like so many other passive/agressive masochists, you will againt wait two months for another drubbing while continuing to emulate Sonia Sotomayor imitating John Roberts.
Trackback| 11.4.09 @ 12:40PM
how to fix my credit, on how to fix my credit, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ryan Christian| 11.24.09 @ 12:00PM
Mady:
If this is Mady Maguire from "Norma" and "The Jekyll and Hyde Portfolio", please contact me asap. I have important information regarding your wonderful films.
Cheers,
RC
filmrepair (at) gmail.com
jhjh| 11.25.09 @ 9:13PM
MOV Converter Mac,
MOV Converter Mac
hjgh| 11.25.09 @ 9:14PM
MOV Converter for Mac,
MOV Converter for Mac
jhhj| 12.2.09 @ 1:27AM
H264 Converter,
H264 Converter for Mac
fafaf| 12.20.09 @ 11:50AM
I think this guy is off on his facts. If the law school where he worked wasn't the last place any law student picked, I might take it seriously. I wonder if he is related to the Marshal family? http://www.led-lamp-manufacturer.com/
mnbg| 1.7.10 @ 9:43PM
DVD Converter for Mac,
SWF Converter Mac
Hydraulic Tools| 2.1.10 @ 7:20AM
Fivestar Tools,Manufacture hand and hydraulic tools,such as crimping tool,cable cutter,pipe bender,gear puller and hand pumps.
ms office 2007| 3.15.10 @ 10:48PM
Office 2007 Pro
Office 2007 Ultimate