By Debbie Schlussel
I’m not concerned in the least with the Anna Nicole Smith death. And actually, I believe her kid will be a lot better off growing up with a different parent.
That said, for those of you who never went to law school, her death is one of these bizarre stories you often see on a law school exam, as I discussed on my regular Thursday appearance, yesterday, on KNZR-AM 1560 Bakersfield’s “Jaz McKay Show.”
Smith’s case would be a Trust & Estates exam. There are so many questions regarding who gets the money and various conditional answers, all of which would be the answer to the law school exam question:
1) Did she have a valid will?

That will help decide who will receive her assets and have the privilege of continuing years of lawsuits for the money of the ancient, late billionaire she married.

2) If so, who wrote the will and was she not under the influence of drugs when she signed it?

That will decide whether the will is valid and enforceable. If Howard K. Stern wrote the will, he may have had “undue influence,” and the will could be invalidated. Plus, there are huge conflict of interest issues. Ditto if she was on drugs, as she normally is.

3) Is she truly, legally married to lawyer Howard K. Stern and in what state or country (they were living in the Bahamas)?

If legally married, he will be a legal heir to her fortune (unless written out of a valid will if she had one–in which case, in some states (like Wisconsin, where I went to law school), he’d still be entitled to take a portion of her fortune as her legal husband). It will depend where they were married and on the laws at that locale whether the marriage is legal.

4) In which state or country (she was living in the Bahamas) was the will signed? In which state will her estate be filed?

That could effect whether the will is valid (different states have different laws on that).

5) In which state or country (she was living in the Bahamas) was she a citizen or legal resident?

That could effect how her estate is doled out and who is an heir, etc.

6) Who is the real father of her daughter?

The daughter is an heir (unless written out of a valid will, if there is one). If that’s the case, whoever is proven to be the father will control a lot of money as the child’s guardian and perhaps all of it if Howard K. Stern is not her legal husband or is written out of the will.
If the father of the child cannot be determined–the men claiming paternity are excluded through DNA tests and Howard K. Stern is not her legal husband–and Smith eith did not have a valid will or did not specify guardianship in a valid will, then Smith’s estranged mother would be entitled to take custody of Smith’s daughter.

7) What about Smith’s mother, who she disowned?

She’s a legal heir in most states, unless written out of a valid will, and will be entitled to a portion of the proceeds.
If the father of the child cannot be determined–the men claiming paternity are excluded through DNA tests and Howard K. Stern is not her legal husband–and Smith eith did not have a valid will or did not specify guardianship in a valid will, then Smith’s estranged mother would be entitled to take custody of Smith’s daughter.

8) What if Howard K. Stern is the legal husband, but there are questions as to the identity of the father of her daughter (as there are)?

In some states, the law prevents a judicial order for a paternity test, as the child of a legally wed couple, even if the result of an extramarital affair, is presumed to be the child of the husband, in which case–if Howard K. Stern was legally married to Smith at the time of the daughter’s birth–the child is legally the child of Stern, regardless of paternity.
In states where that is still the law, a judge may be barred by law from ordering a paternity/DNA test. And if a judge in a state where that is not the law orders a DNA test, his order will likely be unenforceable in another state, especially in a state where the law does presume that a child born to a wife within a valid marriage is presumed to be the child of her legal husband.

9) What about the fact that Smith is dead as is the octegenarian billionaire she married and his son she was fighting in court?

Her heirs and his heirs can still keep fighting and appealing for years for those billions.

10) What if Howard K. Stern is found guilty of murdering either Smith’s son or her?

Depending upon the law in the particular state, if he murdered her, he will likely be prevented from inheriting her money even if he’s a legal heir (it’s the law most places, which have “Slayer’s Rules” preventing inheritance in those cases). Even if he is accused of murder, but acquitted, a court deciding a will can still use the evidence to deny him property, though. Attorney Neil E. Hendershot has an excellent and interesting explanation of Slayer’s Rules and murder cases where they are enforced.
If he murdered her son (to eliminate a competing heir or for whatever reason), the Slayer’s Rule may still apply because the son was an heir and killing him would benefit Howard K. Stern. Or it may be a different story, and he might still get to inherit the money, depending upon state law (which in some states does not bar convicted murderers from inheriting if their victim is not the person from whom they’d inherit).
I’m not sure if there is a Slayer’s Rule in the Bahamas, so if her estate is domiciled there, that could be a whole different ballgame.

So this is going to be a very confusing and long legal battle that will provide the tabloids with plenty of years of Anna Nicole Smith fodder, regardless of the fact that she’s dead.
Who’d have thought that such a sleazy and messed-up woman could inspire such a great understanding of how trust and estate law is decided?
***
Looks like somebody was ahead of the game in trying to enable a lot of men to cash in on the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith.

By Debbie Schlussel
If you live in the Detroit area, one of the most swanky, expensive private schools in town is Detroit Country Day School. Annual tuition is more than the average person makes in a year, and the school sends a lot of its graduates off to Harvard and the other Ivy League schools.
Country Day is also one of those bastions of the wealthy liberal noblesse oblige. While some conservatives send their kids there, it’s largely a very liberal place.
And that’s why I was amused by its racist marketing campaign, which I happened upon. Since I live in a black neighborhood, businesses near my home feature a lot of Black magazines and other cultural phenoma. At one business, I picked up a copy of the January issue of African American Family magazine. Below is the full-page ad Country Day uses to recruit Black students. It features NBA star and Country Day alum Shane Battier and screams: “Hey Homies, come play basketball wit’ us and reach the NBA. Hoop Dreams, Baby.”

Country Day always has a good basketball team because it recruits Black basketball stars and gives them scholarship. But not all Blacks who want a good education play basketball–most of them do not. And the ad is just plain insulting and bigoted.
Why would Country Day specifically market basketball to Blacks in order to recruit Black students? Is a basketball player the only type of student Country Day believes that Blacks are interested in becoming? Basketball would never be the marketing tool to advertise this tony, expensive prep school to White people. The school would market academics and ivy league admittees to them.
Then, I happened upon the latest Country Day annual report–sent to the school’s mostly White, mostly liberal donors and parents–at the gym. As I looked through, there wasn’t anything about Black basketball players. But check out the picture of Black students that the school markets to White limousine liberals. (A similar picture of Black female students appears on Country Day’s website.)

It’s a completely different message, designed to make them feel good about diversity and academic opportunities for Blacks at Country Day. It’s interesting to contrast the type of Black student that is marketed to Black people by this elite (and, apparently, elitist) school, and the type of Black student that is marketed to White people.
You’s never see this low advertising double standard from conservatives or a conservative private school. So why do liberals and liberal schools–which constantly decry racism, but apparently don’t practice what they preach–get away with it?

By Debbie Schlussel
Hmmm . . . Did they do this for the Irish, Italians, Germans, and Jews?
The Washington Post reported, this week, that incoming National Intelligence Chief, Navy Vice Adm. John M. McConnell, wants to relax rules requiring U.S. citizenship for the relatives of first-generation Americans, in order to get highly sensitive intelligence jobs. He wants to do this to get more Muslims and Arabs with language skills in these jobs.
Perhaps intelligence director is really not a job for which he’s equipped, because he seems to be devoid of basic intelligence. Isn’t McConnell aware of the vast problems the FBI, CIA, and other agencies have had with Arabic translators who are Muslim? Has he not read a paper in the last 5.5 years to discover a plethora of reports on how part of the backlog in document translation is because disloyal Muslims (mostly Arabs) have deliberately mis-translated documents? Hello . . . ?

National Intelligence Chief John McConnell Wants to Relax Important Anti-Espionage Rules
Some of this information was made public by courageous former FBI translator Sibel Edmond, a Turkish Muslim who is one of the few translators that could be trusted. She turned in a fellow Muslim translator who was deliberately providing fraudulent translations, and in response, the FBI fired Edmonds.
So, let’s just bend the rules for them . . . even though we’ve never done it for any other ethnicity or religious group. Because to hell with equal protection laws and due process.
The rules sound like necessities, not something to be thrown away in the name of PC for Muslims and Arabs:

They require citizenship verification for access to the most highly classified data, known as sensitive compartmented information. For the foreign-born, there must be verification of U.S. citizenship and legal status in this country of immediate family members, including “spouse, cohabitant, father, mother, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters,” the directive states.
Another element that must be considered when hiring is “foreign influence,” according to adjudication guidelines that the White House adopted in December 2005. One section of the guidelines refers to “contact with a foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.”
An intelligence agency chief can waive these criteria, but McConnell said he wants to change them.

Relaxing these rules would make the intelligence services far more vulnerable to espionage and should frighten us all. Comforting to know that we now have a “Director of National Intelligence” of limited basic personal intelligence.
Thanks to nationally syndicated columnist and friend, Cal Thomas, for the tip.

By Debbie Schlussel
**** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ****
Thanks to nationally syndicated columnist and attorney David Limbaugh for citing me in his new column on Imam Husham Al-Husainy:

Democrats invited Imam Husham Al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Mich., to pray at their annual winter meeting in Washington. Columnist Debbie Schlussel has reported that last summer this same imam led “almost-daily protests of thousands of Hezbollah supporters on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit, swarming with swastikas and anti-Semitic, anti-American signs.”

It’s a great column. Read it all–“Known By The Company They Keep?”
**** UPDATE: And I want to again thank nationally syndicated columnist Cal Thomas and New York Times best selling author Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch for citing me in their columns on Al-Husainy, earlier this week.

By Debbie Schlussel
Remember the millions–no, billions!–we sent to Iraq to help create their democratic government and fund it?
Well, it seems that Iraq’s Deputy Health Minister, Hakim Al-Zamili, was sending millions of that money to Shi’ite terrorist Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Jaish Al-Mahdi (Mahdi Militia/Army)! AND he let them use ambulances and hospitals for kidnappings and killings.

Hakim Al-Zamili Stole U.S. Money, Gave it to Terrorists
To make matters worse, our Shi’ite “friends” in the Iraqi government are denouncing his arrest by U.S. forces, yesterday, as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
Hey, if they can’t handle sovereignty in a civil manner, they don’t get to have it. Or our money!

By Debbie Schlussel
The far left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have long shrieked that you and I–who want to control our borders and get illegal alien criminals deported once and for all–are in league with the Ku Klux Klan, and, in fact, are racists ourselves.
It’s their attempt to brush all of us–the SPLC’s and ADL’s real targets are not the Klan but the Minutemen, etc.–who want to control immigration as racist extremists. As I’ve written in the past, the SPLC defines those of us who want safe borders as “civil rights violators” and “hate-crime perpetrators.” The group gives millions in “tolerance” grants specifying tolerance as acceptance of illegal aliens.

Fortunately, few in the Mainstream Media bought that absurd propaganda. Until now. Today, USA Today has a headline that screams:

Immigration Becomes KKK Rallying Point

But wanting to control our borders has nothing to do with racism. That the KKK allegedly is using this issue is irrelevant. If you’re joining the Klan, you’re a racist and a bigot. Immigration has nothing to do with it. If you’re just into controlling the borders, you’ll have nothing to do with the Klan.
Saying that we are on the same side as the Klan is like saying we are like them because we both have to go to the bathroom and relieve ourselves also. It reminds me of the absurdity when idiots like Rosie O’Donnell say that Islamic terrorists have children and love them, too. What it has to do with the price of tea in China, I’m not sure (and it’s debatable that they love their children).
But since the SPLC and ADL–multi-million dollar conglomerates–need new targets to sue and suck money from–and racist targets are drying out, they sue those of us who oppose the illegal alien tsunami and take our property on behalf of those illegal aliens, as I’ve documented.
And they need to drum up business and anti-border control advocate sentiment. And USA Today, today, is helping these far left interest groups in the cause.
And the ADL is just a tad hypocritical on the illegal alien issue. the ADL rightly issues frequent reports complaining about Islamic terrorists and terror supporters in the U.S. But many of them came here because of lax immigration laws or because they are here illegally.
You can’t have it both ways. That’s why the ADL report issued, this week, citing immigration as an issue that makes it “easy to spread hate,” is even more annoying. (Full report here.)

By Debbie Schlussel
So we thought we finally got rid of our terror-lovin’ friends of the United Arab Emirates, when AIG acquired the U.S. ports contract from Dubai Ports World a/k/a “DP World.”
Not so fast. It appears the DP World/U.S. ports problem is manifesting itself all over again, according to the Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire,” by John Harwood:

PORT-SECURITY FEARS could shape congressional debate on U.S.-Peru trade pact. House Democrats Murtha of Pennsylvania and Taylor of Mississippi warn Dubai Ports World has operations in Peru and could gain “new rights” to operate in U.S. under the deal. A spokesman for U.S. Trade Representative Schwab calls that concern “a red herring,” noting exceptions in the agreement for national security.

Deja Vu All Over Again?
“Red herring”? Methinks not. After all, isn’t this the same administration that supported the last Dubai Ports deal and had its national security people approve the deal?
Why, yes, it is.

By Debbie Schlussel
**** UPDATE: I’ve added a 25th question I would have asked Imam Al-Husainy. See below. ****
So last night, Sean (Hannity) Vanity (full credit: I got that name from one of La Shawn Barber’s commenters) had the Dems’ fave Imam, Husham Al-Husainy on “Vanity & Colmes.” Video at Hot Air.
Unfortunately, since Sean Hannity plagiarized my work on Al-Husainy, he was really not equipped to ask the right questions or deal with Al-Husainy. The interview was weak at best. Typical for Vanity when he lifts others work and does not really know what he’s talking about (which is almost always). The only good question he asked, around which Al-Husainy tip-toed, was whether Al-Husainy supports Hezbollah. Sean stole that information from me (without ever giving credit). Al-Husainy tapdanced around it and was able to because Sean didn’t really have the background on this.

Sean Hannity Had Weak Interview w/ Imam Husham Al-Husainy
Sean the Plagiarist let him get away with claiming that he did not lead Hezbollah rallies and events, that these were for the families of the people of Lebanon. Well, since I was there, for example at the Bint Jebail Cultural Center a/k/a the “Hezbollah Social Club,” I actually have recordings of the speeches that were delivered in both English and Arabic, and it’s quite clear that they were Hezbollah events. And I have pictures to document it, too. Had Vanity and FOX News worked with me, I would have shared those with them.
Vanity wasted a lot of time with dumb questions, like “Do you think Israel is a peaceful nation?” Who cares? If he said no, I don’t agree with him, but it’s not a question whose answer denotes the far scarier things about Al-Husainy about which we should be far more concerned.
I and federal intelligence sources both believe that Al-Husainy is an agent of the Government of Iran. His open support of Ayatollah Khomeini and Moqtada Al-Sadr is disturbing, as are his anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Many of his congregants have ties to Hezbollah and relatives in the group. Sean Vanity asked about none of that, because he simply doesn’t have the intellect or background to know to ask those. That’s what happens when you’re a simple plagiarist, with nothing else behind the talking head.
Here are the questions I would have asked:

1) How many of your congregants are from the Hezbollah stronghold of Bint Jbeil?
2) Who paid for your mosque and please provide us documentation for the financing? Was any of it from the Government of Iran?
3) Why did you hold up posters of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini at a protest march in memory of Yasser Arafat? Will you condemn Khomeini?
4) Did you support Yasser Arafat, for whom you led a protest march? Will you condemn Arafat?
5) Will you condemn Arafat’s murder of American diplomats Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore in Sudan?
6) Will you condemn the Iranian kidnapping and holding of Americans as hostages for 444 days by Khomeini and his puppets?
7) Where is the Zakat [“Charity”] money given by your mosque congregants going? Can you provide full documentation for where it is going and that it is not going to terrorists?
8) Do you really believe “Zionists” are behind the fighting between Shi’ites and Sunnis in Iraq, the murder of Imam Mohammed Bakr Al-Hakim in Iraq, and Sergio De Mello, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights–as you’ve claimed in interviews?
9) Do you really believe that Saddam Hussein, up until his hanging death, was an American agent, as you have said in interviews?
10) Do you support Moqtada Al-Sadr? Will you condemn him and Jaish Al-Mahdi (the Mahdi Militia/Army)?
11) Will you call on Moqtada Al-Sadr to release the American soldier he’s holding hostage? Why not?
12) Do you support Moqtada Al-Sadr and his Jaish Al-Mahdi’s violent attacks on American soldiers and fellow Iraqis?
13) Will you call on Al-Sadr and Jaish Al-Mahdi to stop those attacks? Why not?
14) When was the last time you visited Iran?
15) Will you denounce Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with whom you have ties and in favor of whom you’ve made statements?
16) Will you denounce Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial statements?
17) You are friends with Neturei Karta Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, about whom you said, “We Make a Great Team, Don’t We?” Do you agree with his attendance at Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust Denial Conference? Do you agree with Weiss that there the number of Holocaust murders of Jews were vastly exaggerated?
18) How often are you in contact with clerics from Iran? What are their names?
19) Have you ever received any money from the Government of Iran?
20) Why were you supporting and advising the late Imam Mohammed Bakr Al-Hakim, who took his orders from the Government of Iran, for leadership of Iraq?
21) Do you believe that Iraq should be a democracy or a Shi’ite theocracy with the Koran as the ultimate law?
22) Would you support the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iraq if it did not follow Shi’ite dictates or Islamic religious law (Sharia)?
23) At a pro-Hezbollah event at Dearbornistan’s Bint Jebail Cultural Center, you were seen cheering when your colleague, Imam Mohammed Ali Elahi said that Americans and Jews are “diseased.” Why did you cheer for that? Will you now denounce him and those statements and call on him to apologize to America and the Jewish community?
24) At a pro-Hezbollah event at Dearbornistan’s Bint Jebail Cultural Center, you were seen cheering when your friend, Founding Chairman of the Center, Haj Mohammed Turfe, gleefully and repeatedly spoke of how “only a few thousand Jews will survive Armageddon”? Why did you cheer for that? Will you now denounce Turfe and those statements and call on him to apologize to the Jewish community?
25) Have you met with Hezbollah Spiritual Leader Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah–who delivered the fatwa to execute over 300 U.S. Marines and civilians–as your Detroit Shia colleagues, Imams Mohammed Ali Elahi and Hassan Qazwini, have? Why or why not? Will you condemn Fadlallah and/or the murder of those 300 U.S. citizens? Why not?

****
Meanwhile, another prominent conservative blogger, Independent Conservative (an insightful site I like and frequent from time to time), takes Sean Hannity to task for plagiarizing my work. Based on my tons of mail and comments, few respect Hannity, and everyone realizes he unethically stole from me.
Here’s an excerpt from Independent Conservative:

Sean Hannity is being called on the carpet for good reason. One who has helped to inform us about the threat posed by Islamists says she’s become a victim of Hannity stating things over the air that only she revealed and Hannity failed to give her the credit she is due. The person is none other than Debbie Schlussel and rightfully she’s ticked.
This is the kind of thing that could sink Hannity. He’s obviously violating the hard work of others and even after being informed about it he appears to have nothing to say. . . . he’s misleading the public and obviously pulling some nice ratings because of it.
This is one issue he’s not going to be able to resolve with silence. He’s going to have to come clean and offer proper attribution. . . . Hannity professes good values, but . . . every kid who has finished high school English classes knows you always credit your source when giving a report.

AMEN. Read the whole thing.

By Debbie Schlussel
At 10:05 a.m. Eastern, this morning, I’ll be on “The Tom Marr Show” on Baltimore’s WCBM-AM 680, to discuss Imam Husham Al-Husainy, the Dems’ Fave Imam. Listen Live.
Visit Tom Marr’s Website.

By Debbie Schlussel
I will be on the nationally syndicated “Michael Reagan Show” at 6:30 p.m. Eastern, this evening to discuss my work on the Democrats’ Fave Imam, Husham Al-Husainy.
Listen/Watch Live.