Month: November 2004

No comments

Pt. 2: Explosive Court Docs Reveal Accusing Family’s Stormy Past – MB #227

Pt. 2: Explosive Court Docs Reveal Accusing Family’s Stormy Past – MJEOL Bullet #227
Allegations from a previous JC Penney civil case appears to be closely related to current Jackson allegations

We pick up with Part Two of this special MJEOL Bullet about explosive new court documents recently released. A court hearing was held November 29 2004 in this “case”.

Jackson’s attorneys may have failed, for now, to get their own independent psychological examination of the accuser, but prosecutors also failed to get the defense’s right to subpoena witnesses and records taken way.

Recently released info from local paper Santa Barbara News-Press (SBNP) revealed a reason why the defense may want their hands on the mother’s medical records. She, apparently, has lied about her medical condition—involving gynecological reports–before, coached her children to lie under oath before, and leveled false sex abuse allegations before in a civil case against department store JC Penney.

Since some TV lawyers, like Dan Abrams, seemed to only have glommed onto the defense request for gynecological records, today (Nov 30) brings a bit of possible clarity to the issue.

The SBNP report, “Jackson defense loses bid to conduct mental testing of accuser, family” dated Nov 30 2004, details some of the incredulous allegations level against JC Penney by this family. From the report:

The documents obtained by the News-Press and NBC were compiled by Dr. John Hochman, identified as an assistant clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology at UCLA…

Quoting the mother, Dr. Hochman said that after the J.C. Penney incident, she “saw a gynecologist due to irregularities in her menstruating and she was this way because her body was traumatized and ‘every hormone in her body was being released.’ “

There is no evidence confirming (the mother’s) testimony she had to get her hormones straightened out due to the mall episode.” (see Jackson defense loses bid to conduct mental testing of accuser, family)

No comments

Pt 1: Explosive Court Declaration Shows Damning Info – MJEOL Bullet #227

Pt 1: Explosive Court Declaration Shows Damning Info – MJEOL Bullet #227
Declaration by Jackson attorney Brian Oxman discusses incredibly damaging info about the accusing family’s credibility and current allegations

Explosive new court documents (docs) were released recently that may have completely obliterated the accusing family’s conspiracy allegations in the Michael Jackson “case”.

 The info is so damaging that most of the general media has so far stayed away from even reporting in detail what was stated in the redacted defense docs. What are they afraid of? Jackson attorney Brian Oxman discussed the accusing family’s changing stories and request for psychological examinations.

Even though a number of lines are blacked out in the court doc, much more info about the history of the accusing family is revealed. The history of this family is relevant because what some commentators don’t yet understand is that this is no longer a he-said/he-said “case”.

The accusing family—the mother, the sister, and the accuser’s brother—are also leveling specific allegations against Jackson about the way they were treated and what they allegedly suffered at the hands of Jackson or his employees.

That makes their history and credibility fair game as well. Oxman is the attorney who issued a subpoena which sparked the prosecution’s cry-baby motion as discussed in MJEOL Bullet #225: Prosecutors Whining After Obtaining Numerous Search Warrants.

In his declaration, Oxman states that contrary to what prosecutors are claiming, the subpoena does not violate the privacy of any of the accusing family members. As a matter of fact, Oxman writes, the Court has already endorsed these subpoenas.

No comments

Declaration of Brian Oxman in Opposition to Modify Teal Order UPDATE

Order for Release of Redacted Docs – Declaration of Brian Oxman (11-24-04) Excerpts: 4. In direct violation of this Court’s July 9 2004 order __________________ have informed the prosecution of the existence of a subpoena. Their disregard for this Court’s orders after being served with a copy of the July 9 2004 Order, demonstrates an overriding bias that is the product of their vested financial interest in this case that is so strong that it compels them to violate court orders. These individuals have no excuse for their inexcusable flaunting of the July 9 2004 Order. (pg 3) ———————————————————– 6. Plaintiff produced a medical report dated August 12 2004, from ____________ claiming the complaining mother was physically incapacitated and unable to attend court. (Exhibit “A”). Plaintiff then asks this Court to block Mr. Jackson’s subpoena that seeks to verify the medical representations that the prosecution and the complaining witness made to this Court. There was no limitation on the August 12 2004, _____________, and not only did plaintiff open the door to permit Mr. Jackson’s inquiry into the medical representations made in that letter, but also under Evidence Code section 998, there is no physician-patient privilege in criminal proceedings. Evidence Code section 998. (pg 4) —————————————————– 14. Laboratory tests for the complaining witnesses are critical in this case because the prosecution has claimed that Mr. Jackson was part of a vast conspiracy to dump a urine sample jar so that alcohol would not be detected in the older son’s urine. {Redacted information}. There was sufficient urine to test on the occasion in question, and the laboratory reports will demonstrate that fact. 15. The defense believes additional and other urine samples from both the mother and her children will demonstrate _________ is the complaining witnesses who has raised these issues and opened the door to the examination of their medical records. Mr. Jackson is entitled to subpoena those records 17. Mr Jackson’s subpoena seeks the complaining mother’s most recent medical treatments at UCLA and seeks gynecological records only to the extent they reflect her treatment, prescription of drugs, and her use or non-use of drugs. The subpoena seeks all of her medical records, and the mother’s gynecological records are relevant to this proceeding because the mother became pregnant at the same time she has given testimony in this case. Her medical records contain a history of the use of {Redacted Information} drugs, and {Redacted Information}. The records are relevant because they disclose other medical information dealing with the truth of her claims and not for the sake of the gynecological portion of the records. 18. {4 lines of redacted information}. The complaining mother’s gynecological records will demonstrate the fact she failed to take her medication. 20. {3 lines of redacted information}. The medical bills from heath care provides (sic) will demonstrate the mother defrauded Michael Jackson. (5-7) ————————————————————— 23. While the prosecution claims her medical records are irrelevant to this proceeding, the mother is the one who claims physical injuries to her and her children because of Michael Jackson. It is improper for anyone to offer a doctor’s report to a court of law {redacted info} and then to attempt to hide the medical records. Mr. Jackson has a right to determine the veracity of not only the complaining mother, but also the physicians involved, and the court should compel production of the medical reports 24. Mr. Jackson seeks records of the complaining witnesses American Express credit card. {5 lines of redacted info} 25. Attached as Exhibit “C” and “D” are copies of two (2) checks from the County of Los Angeles made out to _______________. The first check (Exhibit “C”) is dated January 2 2003, in the amount of $769.00, and was cashed ________________ on January 2 2003, the same day the check was issued. {redacted info} 26. {5 lines of redacted info}. That American Express card is also the means by which the funds collected by Fritz Coleman and others are expended. 27. But the second check (Exhibit “D”) is ___________________ a check dated February 19 2003, in the amount of $769.00 from the County of Los Angeles ______________. It was ____________ cashed through _______________ bank account on February 24 2003, right in the middle of the alleged child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion. {3 lines of redacted info} (pg 8-9) :nav Declaration of Brian Oxman in Opposition to Modify Teal Order

No comments

Defense: DA Attempting to Shield Witnesses from Cross-Examination – MB#226

Defense: DA Attempting to Shield Witnesses from Cross-Examination – MB#226 Prosecutors complained to the judge that Jackson’s attorneys wanted too much information about the accusing family. Now the defense has responded to the prosecution’s claims. They say the DA is attempting to “shield” the accusing family from scrutiny, and also want the defense to reveal their strategy in newly released documents dated Nov 23 2004. In the defense’s Opposition to District Attorney’s Request that Court Modify It’s Teal Order, they say that in accordance with the law they are not required to reveal defense strategy to prosecutors. They also make the argument that DA Tom Sneddon had an opportunity to question the Teal motion’s scope. Now these prosecutors want to change the game to handicap the defense. The defense also says the very notion of a Teal motion—which allows defense attorneys to “develop and investigate their cases” without notifying prosecutors of their intentions—would be meaningless if they had to clear their subpoenas with prosecutors. From the motion:

Defense counsel is not required to disclose potential defense strategies or work product to the prosecutor as a condition of receiving documents produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. (See Teal v Superior Court (Barrett) (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 1305, 1320.) (see Defense’s Reply to DA’s Request to Modify Teal Motion 11-24-04 pg 2)