Appeals Court Rejects Anna Nicole Smith's Grab for the Gold; Bankruptcy Court Ignored Law and Facts in Smith Case.

SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit today dashed the hopes of Vickie Lynn Marshall (Anna Nicole Smith) and her bevy of contingency fee lawyers when it overturned a decision by a lower California federal court awarding the former stripper more than $88 million from businessman E. Pierce Marshall.

"We are deeply appreciative that the 9th Circuit took the time to closely examine the important legal issues raised by this case and agreed with our analysis of the law and the facts regarding those issues," said G. Eric Brunstad, Jr. who represented E. Pierce Marshall.

"After almost nine years of litigation, I am very pleased by the Judgment issued by the 9th Circuit Appellate Court today upholding my late father's wishes regarding the disposition of his assets. The 9th Circuit Court's findings were based on the law and the facts rather than on the speculation, fabrication and baseless sanctions that played a major role in the lower federal court decisions concerning this case," said E. Pierce Marshall. "Judges Kleinfeld, Beezer and Paez corrected what up to now has been a legal travesty. The Circuit Court's opinion supported the 95-day jury trial in Texas Probate Court which established that Smith was never entitled to any assets from the Marshall family beyond the $7 million she received during her late husband's life nor did anyone interfere with her receiving any additional gifts from my father while he was alive," said Marshall.

"Anna Nicole would never have had to work another day in her life if she had listened to her husband's advice and not frittered away the money that he gave her for her future," said Pierce Marshall. "Many people have asked over the many years if the fight to uphold my father's last wishes has been worth it. I know Anna and her lawyers were counting on our family giving up and paying them an absurd sum to go away. That was never going to happen. We were and are prepared to go to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to protect my father's well-documented estate plan and to refute the lies heaped upon our family and its honorable advisors. Despite the early setbacks in the lower California federal courts, we never wavered from that commitment or our belief that in the end justice based on the rule of law would prevail."