The American Spectator

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.

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.