Character Assassination Marks Yet Another Attempt by Anna Nicole Smith's Attorneys to Gain Advantage in Litigation

DALLAS (March 10, 2009) Attorneys for the late Anna Nicole Smith have resorted to character assassination in an attempt to use publicity to obtain what they have yet to win in a court of law.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not reinstate the U.S. District Court judgment that was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2004 and remains vacated presently. Put simply, there is no judgment that Anna Nicole's attorneys can attempt to enforce. Even more bizarre is that attorneys for Anna Nicole's estate are asking the 9th Circuit to enforce a non-existent judgment, while at the same time trying to overturn that exact same lower court ruling, insisting it is too small.

E. Pierce Marshall's estate plan is completely transparent, perfectly legal, did not substantively change control of his assets and is subject to a full review by a Texas Probate Court.

There remain numerous other substantive legal issues that would preclude Anna Nicole's estate from receiving any money from the estate of the late E. Pierce Marshall.

The Houston Probate Court is the only court that held a jury trial determining Anna Nicole's claims against E. Pierce Marshall and the Estate of J. Howard Marshall II. After five and a half months of exhaustive testimony and evidence, the Court ruled that E. Pierce Marshall was innocent of any improper behavior or tampering with J. Howard Marshall II's will or living trust. The Houston decision is considered the only binding opinion of the facts with regards to the Marshall estate and its valuation, and despite speculation and posturing after Smith's untimely death, the Marshall family's position is that this decision precludes any others.

There are at least eight other significant legal issues raised by E. Pierce Marshall's attorneys that are still to be considered by the 9th Circuit. Any one of these issues would result in a ruling in favor of the Marshall family.

Anna Nicole's case was without merit when she originally filed it, failing to bring forth one single witness confirming her claim, and nothing has changed after more than a decade of litigation.