Thursday, February 22, 2007

Greta Van Susteren Slanders Howard K. Stern

On February 21, Greta Van Susteren slandered Howard K. Stern,
the attorney for Anna Nicole Smith, stating that he had not
had a very successful legal career in response to testimony
by Stern that he was depending on his parents for money.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Howard K. Stern just
won his appeal last year that was heard in United States Supreme
Court. We know Greta has never had any case heard in our nation's
highest court, let alone won the approval of its honored
justices. Just because his work on that case is subject to
payment according to a contingency retainer, payable in the amount
of $6 million upon final judgment, and that judgment has yet to
be awarded, it does not negate its value at this time. Stern also
testified that the money received from his parents was on loan,
not gifted. It is not a legal form of income. Who has not
mortgaged a home with a loan before?

It is not like Stern has not been working. He has a job to do
to litigate Anna Nicole Smith's claim to her late husbands estate.
The litigation is continuing and may not be settled for years. There
is work to be done for attorneys involved in litigation, especially
when it involves climbing the ladder of courts that lead to our US
Supreme Court.

Obviously Stern is getting a bad rap based on the circumstances
of Smith's recent death. One thing I think we can conclude is that
Stern is not responsible for her death because he has not been
arrested for it and the cause of death has been known for at least
four days when the ME stated that people are going to be surprised
when the cause of death is released to the public.

On February 20 and 21 when Greta played the video of Smith being
filmed by Stern with her face painted, it seems obvious the intent
was an inflammatory attack on Stern. Blogs and quickly
concluded that Stern was a golddigger. But think about it. Did Stern
sell the video to the media? No he didn't. Greta received it from
Ford Shelly who stole it from Smith's residence. Yes, stole it, which
Greta disputes. The fact is that when a tenant dies, the owner does not
have any right to the property of the dead tenant. And any co-tenants
still living in the residence must be legally evicted. That is both the
law in the US and in the Bahamas. What Ford Shelly did was criminal when
he removed property from the home of Anna Nicole Smith after her death.
It makes no difference if he claims he was protecting it or not; either
way, removal was theft. He also changed the locks. He did not have to
remove the property in order to protect it. Changing the locks and
securing the residence was sufficient. He should have notified the police
if he feared other theft.

I am sick of the bad rap Stern is getting from Greta and and
other media. He is truly an underdog. A smart one though. He wants to
bury Smith and father her daughter as Smith wanted. So far he is pretty
successful. He is using Bahaman law to retain custody of the child and
as of now, no one can figure out any way to interfere with that. What
matters more to him, honoring Anna's wishes or the desires of the
biological father of the baby? As it stands, Stern is the legal father
and that is enough based on Bahaman law. His name is on the birth
certificate. Anna put it there. It does not matter that Stern is not
the biological father. Bahama law trumps that. I hope Stern prevails
just because he is emerging as the underdog in this fight and he is
getting a bad, unfair rap, one he has done nothing to deserve. All he
has done is try to honor Anna's wishes. There is no evidence he is a
murderer, a drug enabler, or any other form of criminal. He is on a
mission and damn it, he is succeeding. It is just like our Duke Lacrosse
players down in Durham.

Let the underdogs prevail. People like Greta and Ford Shelly and
Harvey Levin that resort to slander tactics and property theft and
crucification in the media are low. They lack character and integrity.
But we already knew that about Greta. She is the one that lied to us about
the birth of the Duke accuser's baby in November just so she could become
the media story herself by being the first to report it even though there
was no truth to it. And on she goes...
FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from