Marshalling assets - Empiricum (corrected)

In today's news, the Bush administration is reportedly putting its finger and total weight on the side of Anna Nicole Smith before the Supreme Court under the guise of "preserving federal court jurisdiction in disputes." [AOL News - White House Aids Playmate in High Court Case.] This continuing policy of the Bush administration of engaging itself on private matters is reminiscent of the Schiavo case and is a total waste of taxpayers' money. Besides there is no dispute on federal jurisdiction in the case at hand. For these reasons, the Supreme Court should deny the petition for intervention by the Solicitor General who should rather devote his time in defending Bush on the domestic spy program.

For the benefit of Treowth readers, the following article offers a good background and analysis of the Anna Nicole case and the following quote is most interesting:

***The law is based on the assumption that that is what the average spouse would have wanted, and the assumption is a good one: Empirical studies indicate that most people want their surviving spouses to receive a significant proportion, if not all, of their estates.***
[ FindLaw's Writ - Grossman: Beauty And The Billionaire ]

All the theories of recovery, legal arguments and defenses, including litigation misconduct and spoliation of documents (topics that are of utmost interest to Rambus investors nowadays) are thoroughly and correctly discussed by Professor Grossman. However, it is interesting to note that she did not mention and discuss the mental capacity of a testator in executing a will especially by one who is 89 years old as a basis for a will challenge. One of the requirements of a valid will is that the testator must know the "extent and nature of his bounty." In an estate that is so large, an 89 year old may not know exactly the total extent and nature of his "bounty."

It should be noted that the Grossman article was written in November, 2000.

The next article will provide an update on the Anna Nicole story. However, the readers are warned that the article may contain images that may be offensive to their sensitivities and may just as well skip it. This should not reflect on Treowth which maintains a high editorial standard. The following article is linked mainly to provide a good reason / explanation why the Supreme Court decided to grant the Writ of Certiorari in this case which they refused in the CAFC / Rambus v. Infineon case. (Perhaps the justices find patent law most boring and not interesting enough compared to the Anna Nicole case.) When the Supreme Court announced to accept the case, without explanation, several eyebrows were raised --- including that of Keith Olberman of MSNBC. The JAWA Report offers two reasons why the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case: "The Rule of Four and TrimSpa." [The Jawa Report: Anna Nicole Smith Case Goes to Supreme Court.]

Indeed, it is most interesting to see if Justice Clarence Thomas will lead the charge in the interrogation on counsel.