Howard K. Stern destroys his reputation
[posted by Justin Levine]
Many in the media have suggested that Howard K. Stern was an “enabler” in terms of Anna Nicole Smith’s drug abuse. Others have speculated that he may have directly caused the death of Anna Nicole. But that charge is nothing compared to the damage that Stern has done to his own reputation by hiring attorney Lin Wood – a man who has made a legal career out of filing frivoulous defamation lawsuits.
Memo to Stern: If you actually care what the media says about you, then simply make yourself accessible to outlets other than Entertainment Tonight and tell the truth to the best of your recollection. Hiring Wood indicates that you have a lot to hide and that you are determined to try and bully the media into silence and submission.
This is my favorite part of Wood’s statement (I can’t help but chuckle every time I read it):
To those considering making future false accusations against Mr. Stern, please consider the following advice: don’t do it. You are not immune from suit if you are not a member of the traditional media. Redress for false attacks on reputation is available for Internet accusations as well as those published in print or uttered on television and radio broadcasts.
…
And to those who believe that Mr. Stern is hesitant to bring suit and thereby open up his life on cross examination during the discovery process, you are wrong. Mr. Stern has nothing to hide and he correctly views civil litigation not only as the forum for obtaining accountability for wrongdoing, but also as a forum for the public to learn the truth.
Why chose a courthouse as a “forum for the public to learn the truth” when you have unprecedented access to the media (in both traditional and new forms)? I don’t believe that Stern caused the death of Anna Nicole. But given his status as a public figure, his incessant need to be around Anna Nicole, and the fact that some of the prescription medications were reportedly in Stern’s name, it is not unreasonable for people to speculate about Stern’s role in recent events.
It is similar to the Jon-Bennet Ramsey situation. I ultimately don’t believe that the Ramsey’s had anything to do with their daughter’s death – but I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to speculate about what may have happened. Wood also represented the Ramseys in their attempts to browbeat the media. The way the Ramseys reacted to the media speculation and investigation ultimately did more to harm their reputations – not less. (It goes without saying that this same dynamic also applied to Wood’s client Gary Condit in relation to the death of Chandra Levy.)
The forum to redress unfounded speculation is the public sphere – not a courtroom. In a world with the blogosphere and unprecedented access to mass communication for the masses, the reckless gossip does more harm to his or her own reputation, rather than the target of their speculation.
So says I. So endeth the sermon.
Here’s what I don’t understand about Stern and his conduct:
1. He’s not stupid. Berkely undergrad, UCLA law school.
2. He’s executor of her estate, and I don’t think there is any signficant legal challenge to that fact. While the inheritance from the Marshall estate is still in legal limbo, I presume there is multiple 6 figure money in the estate unrelated to the inheritance — money from promotional appearances, TV show revenues, etc. As executor he has the authority to use that money to defend the estate, to pursue assets thought to belong to the estate, and to defend hiw own conduct as executor (to a degree). Why retain a schlock like Lin Wood? There are ton a great lawyers that he must know in the LA area, or that he could arrange to be introduced to through his own legal connections.
WLS (3f9087) — 4/9/2007 @ 1:44 pmPerhaps you haven’t heard some of the scurrilous comments by supposedly educated lawyers, TV hosts and people of law enforcement people who are all getting blood money for appearing on TV. I’ve had a bad back through all of this and have spent more hours than I would actually like anyone to know, listening and watching these people. It is disgusting. They have all drawn up sides, Larry Birkhead is their darling, Virgie is Virgie and Stern is the devil incarnate. What really disgusts me is the hypocrisy when they delight in pointing out he may be making money on this, well so are they, and milking it for every last penny. A pox on all their houses.
Ruth H (eb8221) — 4/9/2007 @ 2:41 pmRuth H –
You prove my point. “The reckless gossip does more harm to his or her own reputation, rather than the target of their speculation.”
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 4/9/2007 @ 3:10 pmSounds curious.
I posted previously on the apparent irresponsibility involved in Ms. Smith’s death. How much was her own and how much those around her I don’t know.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/9/2007 @ 3:12 pmConsidering the current state of his rep, total destruction may be the only viable option.
mojo (cfdadc) — 4/9/2007 @ 3:49 pmMaybe your analysis of the reasonableness of public speculation that someone is a murderer would change if you were the target; as it stands, it doesn’t seem focused on the pertinent legal standards. As for all the suits; the attorney may specialize in defamation, but I think he’s got some settlements, e.g., Condit.
Brian (45b0dd) — 4/9/2007 @ 5:02 pmBrian –
If your point is that I would supress certain criticisms of me if I were given that power within the law – you may be right. Everyone would be tempted to succumb to such temptations. That’s why it is important for free speech to be given a wide berth in order to prevent against potential abuse. You are also right that that Wood got a settlement against Domick Dunne for his speculation that Condit may have murdered Chandra Levy. But that is a testiment to the power that frivolous lawsuits can have against those who don’t want to spend the time and money to fight against them. It is not a testiment to the strength or moral justificiation of the case in question.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 4/9/2007 @ 5:49 pmStern had a reputation to destroy in the first place?
The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2) — 4/9/2007 @ 6:19 pmLiberal Avenger –
Touche.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 4/9/2007 @ 6:40 pmThe world is coming to an end. I agree with TLA…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/9/2007 @ 7:31 pmBeing one of her enablers does not mean he did not love her. As a matter of fact, enablers do do it out of love most of the time. “Conditional love” is an oxymoron. If I may practice a little medicine without a license here, whoever “killed” her was the doctor who cut off her methadone and then allowed her to self-administer the valium and chloral hydrate.
nk (306f5a) — 4/9/2007 @ 7:44 pmI dunno NK… I would put forward the idea that while being an enabler doesn’t mean he didn’t love her, killing her would suggest he might not have been overly fond of the lass…
Aledgedly killing her.
Don’t wanna get sued…
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 4/10/2007 @ 5:50 amI’m confused.
This lawyer was employed by both the Ramseys and Gary Condit …
… and Stern is hiring him to HELP his reputation?
And somebody up there suggested Stern is “smart?”
Dear God. I just started a list of “attorneys not to hire no matter what.” His is the only name on it.
I’m not sure its even possible to handle a public relations mess worse than the Jon Benet case was handled. If this is the guy responsible, he should write a book on “how to assassinate your own character.”
I admit, if you want to stay famous for a while – for all the wrong reasons – it sounds like this is the mouthpiece to hire. But if you wanna look good? Uh, no. Sheesh.
Professor Blather (c65bfa) — 4/10/2007 @ 12:04 pmblather, say what you will, but Gary Condit was actually extremely successful with his lawsuits.
He’s an asshole about suing people for defamation.
Now the Ramsey’s were super creepy and nothign could have elped them, they abused that child merely by dressing her up like a Pussycat Doll contestant and everyone hated them for it.
Good lawyers take hard cases. They are paid a lot of money because it’s hard to win at what they do. Great lawyers lose cases. My law professor is one of the top, if not THE TOP expert of Tort law, and he talks about cases he lost, cases he wouldn’t take but for an additional fee because he knew they’d lose.
These people hire this guy because he’s great at harassing people to stop talking. And I’m sorry, this lawyer is better than other lawyers at that. Sure, a few people are on to the game. Nobody cares.
I think it’s disgusting to sue someone for stating their opinion, but the fact is that this lawyer is really good for doing that.
Dustin (ea244e) — 4/10/2007 @ 7:43 pmThis guy can’t be THAT good at stopping people from talking…
*Ahem*
I believe that Howard K. Stern had a direct hand in the death of Anna Nicole Smith, and regardless of what was decided, I believe he had a similar hand in the death of her son. I believe the best thing that ever happened to Her daughter was it being proven that someone else is the father, because that had the suit for Anna’s late husband’s money been won before the baby was away from Stern, her life would be in danger.
And Mr. Lin Wood can stuff it…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/10/2007 @ 8:48 pmBlather and Dustin –
Re # 13 & 14. In a sense, you are both right. Nobody disputes Wood’s skills. But if the specific idea is to “protect your public reputation”, then hiring him just makes it worse (Blather is spot on with that point). It is the equivalent of someone charged with a criminal felony hiring Johnnie Cochran. Nobody disputes that Cochran was a great attorney – but hiring him will make you seem guilty in the public eye. Innocent people don’t need to hire Cochran. Guilty people do.
I’ve defended a few defamation cases in my day, and I’d be licking my chops to go against Wood on this one. I would definitely want to defend Scott Jacob’s right to express his opinion/belief as he has in # 15. If that is threatened, then it opens the door for politicians to sue people for saying “Bush lied about WMD’s”, “Clinton was responsible for killing Vince Foster”, etc. Say what you will about people who make such claims. But do we want a system that allows them to get sued for it? Nah. Not me anyway.
Justin Levine (b40016) — 4/11/2007 @ 3:54 amConsider yourself on retainer, Mr Levine… I’ll let you know when a letter from Mr Wood shows up… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/11/2007 @ 8:59 pmI will say one thing that Stern is not smart at all, to have let everything go as he did with DickHead or what ever his last name may be. Dickhead got the benefit bascially off of everything you might say. Right now he is now making money with the Baby’s picturea as of last night news he has made quite of alot money with all this. This what he wanted this child for to use her for his own needs MONEY. Right now I do not think Stern knows what he is doing or where his head or mind is for being such an educated man. Harvard Law? what a waste this was. You wouldn’t know it by looking at him and hearing talk. he does not make sense at all. What a loser he turn out to be. And at that I hope that no one gets the inheritance of Mr. Marshall no one deserves this money at all. Hope that the daughter in law gets smart and smells the coffee not to let this happen to let this will educated family as Marshall’s suppose to be. ANS did not deserve any of this money to begin with or ever did. She was not there when the old man Marshall died. it turn out to be the Maid of all people. ANS had no SCURPLES as far as I am concern she lived a filthy life. I really think that her son did commit suicide on his own because he was tried of seeing to much of what his mother was doing and did. Get real why blame someone eles for ANS life which she was nothing at all. Just a body and a blonde who wanted to be something she was not an actress or a model for that matter. A model alright of drugs and a bad example to her son. SAD.
CiCi (b3092b) — 4/20/2007 @ 4:37 pmScott Jacobs, I salute you! And I agree with you 100 percent. If he walks free 1)I will never visit the Bahamas because I’d be afraid of what might happen to me (Would they care?) and 2) I’m very sure he will probably live the rest of his life like OJ, with civil suits from Virgie, and being thrown out of restuarants!
Carole Nichols (1f0f07) — 5/12/2007 @ 5:45 pm“I believe that Howard K. Stern had a direct hand in the death of Anna Nicole Smith, and regardless of what was decided, I believe he had a similar hand in the death of her son.”
Well then, case closed.
And Mr. Lin Wood can stuff it…
My, my, my. You are obviously a man of great intellect.
Kate (474bc6) — 5/13/2007 @ 4:02 pm“I believe that Howard K. Stern had a direct hand in the death of Anna Nicole Smith, and regardless of what was decided, I believe he had a similar hand in the death of her son.”
Well then, case closed.
“And Mr. Lin Wood can stuff it…”
My, my, my. You are obviously a man of great intellect.
Kate (474bc6) — 5/13/2007 @ 4:04 pmKate, you missed the entire reason I said it. Lin WOod said: “To those considering making future false accusations against Mr. Stern, please consider the following advice: don’t do it. You are not immune from suit if you are not a member of the traditional media. Redress for false attacks on reputation is available for Internet accusations as well as those published in print or uttered on television and radio broadcasts.”
My statement was an expression of my personal belief. I’m not going to be serving on any jury for Stern, so I’m free to make the statement. Mr Wood’s press release suggested that my stateing my personal view would get me sued. I threw down the gauntlet, believing (correctly) that Mr Wood’s words were just hot air.
Your failure to grasp the reason for my words shows that while I may not be a man of great intellect, I am at the least of greater intellect than you…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 5/13/2007 @ 4:27 pmI think the Ramseys killed their daughter. I think Gary Condit killed that intern who was pregnant with his child. I think all three should be investigate until proof is found. Then convicted. Then hung by the neck until dead.
TCO (6894db) — 5/13/2007 @ 5:59 pm“Your failure to grasp the reason for my words shows that while I may not be a man of great intellect, I am at the least of greater intellect than you…”
You keep telling yourself that, love. Maybe one day you’ll actually come to believe it.
Your “personal belief” regardless of the EVIDENCE, means nothing, except that you make it clear that you’ve got a pretty unhealthy bias brewing, regarding Howard K. Stern.
Stern has a right to protect himself from the slanderous comments that “journalists” from media outlets have made about him. They’ve crossed the line time and time again. Calling Stern a murderer without any proof or before any investigation had been concluded is irresponsible journalism at its worst, and it hurts EVERYONE. These media outlets should be made to pay for dragging a man’s reputation through the mud.
Kate (474bc6) — 5/14/2007 @ 6:43 amWho is going to pay ALL THE LEGAL FEES?….If the courts rule {by the time Dannielynn is in her “teens”} that the ANS estate should NOT be awarded any money from the Marshall estate {WHICH I HOPE IS THE CASE AS I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT D/L WOULD HAVE A BETTER LIFE WITHOUT LARGE SUMS OF MONEY!} then Larry will be “broke” by paying fees…HK$ will continue to “blunder” his way to being a “LEACH” on society!…Virgie also will be broke trying for the money which she does not deserve…AND…Dannielynn hopefully will grow up in a normal enviroment.
Jill from Western Australia (4fea2a) — 5/14/2007 @ 10:39 pmYou have a good point Jill…
Money or not, she’ll have to avoid the lime-light for a good part of her life, sadly…
But she seems to have a sane, loving father. If he can kep her away from the jackles (stern, Virgie, the press), she stands a good chance…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 5/15/2007 @ 4:18 amLET’S TALK “FAIRPLAY”…with this in mind…HK$ please accept the fact that “the bimbo ANS” used you! Time to make a new life for yourself, let Larry raise D/L! I reiterate that I hope that the Marshall Estate gives NO money to D/L…then she can live a normal life….HK$ you “silly twit” …waiting for money just makes me KNOW that you are SPINELESS!!!….crawl into a “hole” and if you wan’t the world to respect you then “START ALL OVER AGAIN!!!”
Jill from Western Australia (f1e9eb) — 5/15/2007 @ 9:44 pmI find it interesting that no one ever talks about how ANS and HKS conspired to deprive Larry Birkhead of his parental rights through fraud.
Parental Alienation Syndrome writ large, and only resolved by the death of the primary perpetrator.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 5/16/2007 @ 5:18 amI wonder why people automatically assume Larry was the “good guy” in all of this. We attract what we are, and Anna attracted Larry…there’s more to him than meets the eye. Doesn’t mean he won’t make a good dad, or that he should have been kept from his child…but how can people be so naive to think he’s the sole angel among the demons?
If there is proof that Anna and Howard committed fraud, I’d like to see it. I’ve heard Howard say he thought he was the father based on the timing of the birth of Dannielynn. I’ve heard him say (before the results were in) that he believes he’s the child’s father. But when asked if he believed it with absolute certainty, Howard said he couldn’t know for sure without a DNA test. He covered his bases, even if Anna didn’t.
Sara (474bc6) — 5/16/2007 @ 2:13 pmLarry is at least good when compared to all other parties involved…
He might not be “good”, but he’s sure as hell the lesser of all involved evils.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 5/16/2007 @ 2:21 pmAs long as he’s good to his little girl, that’s all that matters now. I think he will be. There’s a question that I yet to have an answer for, and that is: Why did Larry file for a DNA test in California when he could have gone directly to the Bahamas (since Anna was a resident there at the time and dthe baby was born there) and demand a DNA test there? I know Anna and Larry both lived in California prior to her moving, but the baby was in the Bahamas.
Wouldn’t it have been quicker for him to go through the courts there? All I kept hearing was California was the wrong jurisdiction and yet he and his lawyers continued to file in California, which delayed the test being taken. Shouldn’t somebody have known that? His lawyers perhaps? Or was it that he (like Anna) preferred the publicity and attention of being interviewed by Entertainment Tonight instead of actually getting down to business in the proper jurisdiction.
If that wasn’t it, why was Larry trying to go through the California courts when they kept telling him that it was the wrong jurisdiction for this issue?
Sara (474bc6) — 5/16/2007 @ 3:49 pmPlease let D/L grow up in a normal life! BUTT OUT VIRGIE! HK$….get a new LIFE…you ?thought? you fell for a “BREAST-IMPLANTED” bimbo…and you are a lawyer??? hmmm…I look forward to hair testing….I suspect that you not only ENABLED the drugs BUT I THINK YOU TOOK THEM…I hold you responsible for 2 lives, as for your own…you are despicable!!!
Jill from Western Australia (65848c) — 5/17/2007 @ 10:09 pmUltram Ingredients…
Ultram Ingredients…
Ultram Ingredients (65f792) — 12/21/2007 @ 11:30 am