Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/28/2006 1:58:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:00:38 PM EDT
That depends...is she offering lapdances to the justices as part of her defense?

Because if she is, she probably would get ruth bader ginsberg's vote.

But lose david souter's vote...


Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:01:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 2:02:20 PM EDT by Bama-Shooter]
She should win. The old geezer changed his will to make her the beneficiary.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:02:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:05:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
She should win. The old geezer changed his will to make her the beneficiary.



+1

It was his money to do with as e saw fit. If he was of sound mind.......Case closed.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:05:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 2:16:59 PM EDT by callgood]
Lawyers-

please explain what a divorce case (state) is doing in the SC?

EDITED: yeah, I meant will.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:09:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
she should.
Whether or not her asshole step kids like it, she was his wife.
What did THEY do to earn that money that she didn't?



+1.


So what does she look like this week?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:09:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By callgood:
Lawyers-

please explain what a divorce case (state) is doing in the SC?



It's not a divorce case.
It's probate.
She was legally married to the man at the time of his death.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:10:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Anna Nicole's suit to get a piece of her dead, geriatric hubby's immense fortune is now being heard
before the Supreme Court of the United States.

News reports state that her breasts have been under scrutiny from the bench.


Care to post your opinion? Will she win or will she lose?



CJ



Fixed it.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:11:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By callgood:
Lawyers-

please explain what a divorce case (state) is doing in the SC?



It's not a divorce case.

Anna hooks up with rich old geezer. She marries him. He changes will to give her all his money.

He dies. Old geezers kids get the will voided.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:11:31 PM EDT
No.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:13:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:16:18 PM EDT
She earned it!
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:16:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
The worlds most expensive blow job!




You beat me to it, and thats all it was.

I think she will win!
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:18:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hapjack:

Originally Posted By vito113:
The worlds most expensive blow job!




You beat me to it, and thats all it was.

I think she will win!



A happy ending.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:18:43 PM EDT
I thought the root basis of the case (reason to go to the SCOTUS) was that a Federal Court interfered in a Local/State Probate Court ruling.


Not sure who won at each level.

Local Probate said (I think) that the Old Guy had given her $6m in Gifts, etc. and NOT intended to add her to the will. (Her Attys claimed that the kids destroyed evidence of the changed will). Kids get money.

She declares bankruptcy....Federal Court. Federal Court says, "wait a minute...Old Guy should have given her money in the Will...We'll count that as assets in the bankruptcy"

Kids appeal saying that Fed. Court Shouldn't have interfered in Local Probate Judgement.

Per something I read--normally Feds don't interfere UNLESS large sums of money are involved (as in this case) and plaintifs are residents of different states.


Anyone have any knowledge of the case?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:18:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 2:20:26 PM EDT by callgood]

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By callgood:
Lawyers-

please explain what a divorce case (state) is doing in the SC?



It's not a divorce case.
It's probate.
She was legally married to the man at the time of his death.



Yeah, I edited it. Isn't probate also a state deal?

When the will was read, someone calculated what her "pay" per day married to the old geezer was. More than most of us make in a year IIRC.

Thanks, AFARR. First account I've seen that explains it.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:23:54 PM EDT
I hope so.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:29:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 2:30:35 PM EDT by happycynic]

Originally Posted By AFARR:
I thought the root basis of the case (reason to go to the SCOTUS) was that a Federal Court interfered in a Local/State Probate Court ruling.


Not sure who won at each level.

Local Probate said (I think) that the Old Guy had given her $6m in Gifts, etc. and NOT intended to add her to the will. (Her Attys claimed that the kids destroyed evidence of the changed will). Kids get money.

She declares bankruptcy....Federal Court. Federal Court says, "wait a minute...Old Guy should have given her money in the Will...We'll count that as assets in the bankruptcy"

Kids appeal saying that Fed. Court Shouldn't have interfered in Local Probate Judgement.

Per something I read--normally Feds don't interfere UNLESS large sums of money are involved (as in this case) and plaintifs are residents of different states.


Anyone have any knowledge of the case?



That's generally what happened. I believe the issue is the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Federal Courts do not decide probate, the state court does that. Texas ruled that she didn't get the money. She declared bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy judge looked at a passage in the bankruptcy code which generally said that he could determine "any matter related to the bankruptcy" and decided that he could revisit the probate court's ruling. This is generally a big no-no with the courts. One court will not overturn the ruling of another court except for a really good reason. I suspect, that if this is the issue on appeal, that Anna will lose hard.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:32:33 PM EDT
I think flashing Clarence Thomas certainly didn't hurt her case at all!

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:34:55 PM EDT
From what I've read about the case, the son that's contesting it is a bigger shitbag than gold-digging Anna.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:37:42 PM EDT
Greedy relatives or greedy wife. A tough call. She'd certainly get that dough out there in the retail end of things, not in some stodgy conservative muni bond trust.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:38:04 PM EDT
she should get something out of it
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:43:24 PM EDT
What I read indicated that the case was more about the jurisdiction of state and federal courts in probate cases. THAT'S why the SCOTUS is hearing it. The fact that it's Anna Nicole is largely irrevelant to the case........
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:11:22 PM EDT
I have a question:

Her dead husband did not name her in the will. I do not know the law in the state where she is married in if she is entitled to anything based on marriage.

She claims her dead husband said "He would take care of her forever" (or something to that extent).

It is not in writing.

Now, Terry Schiavo's husband said "She wouldn't want to be kept alive" There was no written document stating that, and the courts sided with him based on his word.

Can that be used here? Could the lawyers for Anna use that as an argument for?

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:11:33 PM EDT
Hard to say... do judges still decide the outcome of a case based on law and not opinion/emotions?

I don't think she derserves.... mainly because she's worthless lowlife trash and doesn't deserve to have a leper take a dump on her face, let alone all that guy's money.

Unfortunately, if it's on paper I don't think there's much of a case... which has me wondering why the fuck it's all the way up to supreme court.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 5:43:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 5:45:38 PM EDT by ErinGirl]
Actually, the will stated 50% to her and 50% to be split among his children. In addition, she was allowed to keep her gifts from him (2 houses, jewelry, etc....).

She WAS his wife and if HE said she could have 50% they need to abide by his wishes. Who she is matters little. The fact is he willed it to her. She is legally entitled to what he granted her in his will.

What argument is there except that his greedy children want it all?

50% initially was $474 million for Anna Nicole Smith & the rest of the millions to the children (total estate est. around $1.6 billion) -- geez, just doesn't look there's enough to go around for all those rich kids.....
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 6:27:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By callgood:
Lawyers-

please explain what a divorce case (state) is doing in the SC?



It's not a divorce case.
It's probate.
She was legally married to the man at the time of his death.



Actually, it's a bankruptcy case with issues of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the reason it made it to the USSC--whether or not the federal bankruptcy court in California has jurisdiction over Texas probate issues.

bd
Top Top