Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
New at Reason
Robert Alt looks at the real lessons from the Anna Nicole Smith debacle—the shameless manipulation of the legal system.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Grizzled old prospectors, gouging away for years at the earth's innards, patiently working their way toward the vein of gold surely awaiting them...
J sub D | December 21, 2007, 1:44pm | #
This is the second post today (Sex, Gold, and Raw Milk, was the first) that doesn't include the appropriate titillating cheesecake photos.Hit and Run, You've got some splaining to do!
Alan Vanneman | December 21, 2007, 1:53pm | #
Mr. Alt is shocked, shocked, to discover that rich, greedy people manipulate the legal system for their own benefit. Unless easily replicable legal robots can be developed, capable of quickly distinguishing between "good" people who deserve to have their day in court and "bad" people (like virtually everyone connected with the Smith cases) who don't, the law will continue to be what it has, to a great extent, always been, a monument to codified selfishness. I think it's called human nature.Despite all the sleaziness, doesn't it sort of look like the system got things mostly right? Anna probably isn't entitled to much more than the $$ she sweet talked out of Marshall, Birkhead was declared the father, and Stern is managing the estate(probably what Smith wanted).
Dave W. | December 21, 2007, 2:19pm | #
doesn't it sort of look like the system got things mostly right?No.
Malto Dextrin | December 21, 2007, 2:19pm | #
Damn. Even Reason.brotherben | December 21, 2007, 2:29pm | #
Damn, she looks like natalie maines in that pic.Kaganspawn | December 21, 2007, 2:36pm | #
Don't think I can agree with this take on Stern's role. If there's a colorable claim that Danielynn is entitled to the big chunk of the estate, it is probably worth a relatively small investment in legal fees for that claim to be pursued, even if Mr. Alt thinks the claim lacks merit. His hostility to Stern sounds too much like knee-jerk stereotyping of the plaintiff's bar as bloodsuckers. We libertarians believe that such civil disputes are best settled through private litigation, right? Would Mr. Alt prefer that the (nanny) State bar the claim and appoint a guardian to manage Danielynn's affairs?cvddgcg@yahoo,com | December 21, 2007, 2:36pm | #
In a Heinlein novel (Time Enough For Love?) the concept of pre-probate was briefly mentioned. You submit your LW&T to the court, the court approves or sends it back for modification to make it legal. After court approval, NO challenges are heard. I liked the idea when I read it. I still like it.Kaganspawn | December 21, 2007, 2:46pm | #
Jsub, you're a gentleman and a scholar, but the fact is people who stand to benefit from bequests have been known to manipulate the process (see Tacitus' Annals) and there needs to be some recourse.Kaganspawn, thans for the accolade. We can all be manipulated, but who is better positioned to decide the distribution of THEIR OWN ASSETS. I'll grant that the mentally incompetent, as determined by an impartial judicial proceeding, should not be given carte blanche over their assets. Absent PROOF that a person is incompetent to manage his or her own affairs, to hell with the relatives and other bloodsuckers. If I want to piss of my adult offspring with my bequest, it should be, no is, my unalienable right. Pre-probate would protect minor dependents.
Hugh | December 21, 2007, 4:32pm | #
In this context, the correct spelling is "manipple-ated."Shane | December 21, 2007, 4:37pm | #
Davw W @ 1:28- that what i thought, everyone thought i was just paranoid though.Holmes | December 21, 2007, 4:40pm | #
I'm with Alan Vanneman on this one. What was the point of this article? Several people spend a lot of their own (or their lawyers') money pursuing claims that they think have value. So?interesting | December 22, 2007, 3:10am | #
Why use this ridiculous book by Rita Cosby, that is currently under litigation itself for defamation to explain the Marshall's legal history? I don't see the connection except for the book saying the lawyer and the baby's father are leeches, when Pierce Marshall refused depositions, destroyed documentation of finances and the list goes on. Anna Nicole Smith was fighting for & awarded what any other spouse in the State of Texas would have received with no problem.To use this hideous book and connect it to your opinion of the Marshall money makes one wonder if you have not fully recovered from Rita's spin!
Scott66 | December 22, 2007, 1:00pm | #
Alt completely misses the real untold story and that is the lack of father's rights in the USA. Birkhead is not a some random photographer as Alt describes him, he is the father. If Birkhead cut some deal with Stern it is only becuase the feminist-chivarlist courts did not protect his rights as a father and he was forced to do so or risk losing the child.Birkhead claimed he was the father before the child was born. Upon the child's birth a simple DNA test should have been done and when it showed Birkhead was the father he should have been given equal custody of the child. Instead Smith fled the country to deny Birkhead any access to the child and the courts did nothing about it. Can you imagine if a father had done the same, he would have been arrested for kidnapping and non-thinking media types like Alt would have condemned him.
Kaganspawn | December 22, 2007, 3:25pm | #
Interesting - the book is connected to the case so a legitimate hook. Scott, on the charge that Smith improperly used different jurisdictions to stop Birkhead asserting parental rights I agree the courts have overcorrected for the past favor towards fathers in custody matters. But libertarians believe in respecting the sovereignty of other nations. Compare R. Balko's year-end lament skewering the admin for asserting we can kidnap British subjects in Britain with Ron Paul's isolationism. The only alternative is that anytime there is a dispute over paternity an automatic restraining order would prevent the mother from leaving the jurisdiction. That's a mighty big imposition on the freedom to travel.In our brave new world dna fingerprinting will be required of all babies at birth and the database searching will be good enough to eliminate traditional paternity inquiries in most cases. Sigh like Balko.
noodlemonkey | December 24, 2007, 2:36pm | #
"Cosby’s book is subtitled The Untold Story Behind Anna Nicole Smith’s Death. But the untold story that really matters is a tale of forum shopping and litigation run amok, and of a little girl who has been used as a pawn by people relentlessly seeking millions. When the Supreme Court found that the federal courts should be able to hear some probate-related cases, I doubt that the justices intended to foster such endless, selfish litigation."Bravo and Amen!
Kaganspawn | December 24, 2007, 10:24pm | #
Noodlemonkey, I'm overwhelmed by your keen insight and reasoning. I've changed my mind, Birkhead and Stern must clearly be villains of the basest stripe.Noodlemonkey | December 27, 2007, 3:48pm | #
Kaganspawn--Didn't see a need to restate the obvious. But here goes: LB and HKS are vile, greedy, litigiuos synchophants of the lowest order. The evidence is abundant. Selling coverage of your daughter's first birthday party is repugnant. Making backroom deals regarding your respective stake in Dannielynn's finanical future--repugnant. And unfortunately for Dannielynn, the list goes on and on.
