Opposing Views Published “Retelling Playboy Playmate’s Profile, as Supreme Court Mulls Verdict”

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored,” said famous English writer Aldous Huxley—my sentiments too after reading the pseudo profile of former Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith in a recent edition of the New York Magazine.

The in-depth 16-page article, written on the heels of a pending Supreme Court decision inStern v. Marshall (formerly Marshall v. Marshall) failed to accurately portray the extraordinary legal case that should have ended when Smith died from a drug overdose in 2007.

Journalism short of hard facts is nothing more than sensationalism. In this case at stake is a sizable fortune and long-awaited justice due to the Marshall family. The New York story is an illustration of fame hijacking justice.

Tales told of a sad saga taken from a best-selling novel ripe with greed, sex, drugs and money. Except in this instance, it is the Marshall’s money. And it appears Howard K. Stern—executor of Smith’s estate—Larry Birkhead, and their army of attorneys want some of it.

But again, whose money is it?  Just the facts …

Read the original article.

6 thoughts on “Opposing Views Published “Retelling Playboy Playmate’s Profile, as Supreme Court Mulls Verdict”

  1. Maybelle Conger,

    Didn’t you hear that Cosby was sued for libel? Federal Judge Chin said about Cosby’s book: “There is evidence that Cosby acted with hatred, ill will or spite toward Stern…Moreover, there is a qualitative difference between comments made on tabloid TV show and written statements in a book purportive to be the product of investigative journalism.” Judge also said: “Cosby proposed paying the nannies to sign an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the statments she attributed in her book.” Cosby’s book is a book of lies and smut. She was an opportunist who wanted to make a quick buck off of a dead stripper.

    Only people with twisted system of values or low IQ can praise that book.

  2. Didn’t you hear the case was dismissed and the book survived and is still available to be purchased.


    1. The settlement in HS v. RC was confidential. On the other hand, Virgie Artur’s defamation lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice when TMZ, CBS, etc. WON summary judgement because THEY told the truth about Virgie and her marriage to a stepbrother. New York magazine recently published the story about Anna and her mother Virgie who didn’t help her daughter when Virgie’s boyfriends abused her. Is Virgie going to sue NY mag. for libel?

      1. I haven’t seen any actual proof of a settlement in the Stern v. Cosby suit. It wasn’t mentioned at all in the dismissal which was merely a dismissal with prejudice.
        I do believe there was an agreement to end the case which some might refer to as a settlement. I haven’t seen anything yet though that indicates what most seem to imply by a settlement though. Also whatever agreement/settlement there was doesn’t appear to have been to the benefit of Mr. Stern. The book survived as a non-fiction book with no retraction or apology, actually with a statement from Cosby standing behind her journalism. Also since it appears he is indigent based on information from his criminal appeal where he has gotten a court appointed attorney it doesn’t look like he made any money off of it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *