TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

What Oksana and Mel Are Really Fighting Over

10/31/2010 2:30 PM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

The real fight between Oksana Grigorieva and Mel Gibson may not be about child custody at all ... we've learned the various lawyers who have been repping Oksana have been focused on a legal document created long before Lucia was born.

0928-mel-gibson-oksana-tmz-ex
TMZ was first to report the problem with the Icon Trust -- created by Mel and Robyn to provide for their seven children. The trust defines "issue" (aka children) as kids born from Mel or Robyn. When it was drafted, no one thought Mel or Robyn would have a child outside the marriage. Enter Oksana.

Sources connected with Mel and Robyn say no one in their family wants to screw Lucia out of her inheritance, but if she becomes a beneficiary in Mel's trust it would create some complicated tax issues.

So when Oksana and Mel broke up and struck a settlement deal during the mediation in May, the very first term reads, "Oksana consents to amendment of Icon Trust to exclude Lucia."

In return for excluding Lucia, Mel agreed to provide a financial package for the baby worth more than $8 million.

Sounds like a sweet deal. So why did Oksana disavow the mediation she signed? We're told the lawyers Oksana hooked up with after the mediation believed Lucia got royally screwed by giving up an interest in the trust. They told Oksana that Lucia would stand to get around $50 million under the trust agreement ... which they believe represents 1/8 the value of a $400,000,000 trust.

Sources connected with Gibson tell us the money in the trust is not even in the universe of $400,000,000 ... not remotely close.

But here's the deal. If Oksana's lawyers persist and Mel settles out of court, the attorney would get a percentage of the settlement. So they've convinced Oksana there's something in it for her ... and there's something in it for them.

1097 COMMENTS

No Avatar
1051.

kali    

considering it is a Gibson family trust, I wouldn't think Gibson's lawyers would have much to ask her about.

you can bet it will be brought up in his depo

Posted at 10:19 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by TMZgossip


If the above story is true I would think that Gibsons lawyers would be much more interested in her answers than her lawyers asking Gibson because I'm sure they can all read a legal do***ent.

1366 days ago
1052.

kali    

^^ if that made sense...super tired tonight :(

1366 days ago
1053.

V    

Fuddy,

I have found some more specific information about Mr. Garbus and the malpractice suit filed in 2008. Apparently it was settled in Feb. 2009 and Sam Ronson petitioned the court in March for the case to be dismissed.

Here is the link - hope it works.

http://lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil

In case it doesn't here is the case # BC 390043

Here is a history:
03/17/2009 Notice

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/04/2009 Request and Entry of Dismissal (DISMISSAL FILED ON 3-4-09 WITH PREJUDICE AS TO THE ENTIRE ACTION )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

02/11/2009 Notice-Settlement
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

12/31/2008 Notice of Ruling
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

12/22/2008 Answer to Cross-Complaint
Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

11/25/2008 Notice
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

11/18/2008 Notice
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

11/17/2008 Cross-complaint
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

11/14/2008 Notice
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

11/06/2008 Notice of Continuance
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

11/06/2008 Notice
Filed by Interested Party

11/04/2008 Answer to First Amended Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

11/03/2008 Answer to First Amended Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

10/30/2008 Declaration (OF MICHAEL PLONSKER )
Filed by Interested Party

10/30/2008 Reply to Motion
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

10/28/2008 Notice
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

10/28/2008 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

10/24/2008 Exhibit
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

10/24/2008 Joinder
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

10/24/2008 Opposition Do***ent
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

10/15/2008 Declaration (OF SAMANTHA RONSON )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

10/15/2008 Declaration (OF DAVID M. BASS )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

10/15/2008 Motion for an Order (PROTECTIVE )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

10/15/2008 Declaration (OF DAVID N. SCHULTZ )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

10/10/2008 Reply to Motion
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

10/08/2008 Declaration (OF MICHAEL PLONSKER )
Filed by Joined Party

10/08/2008 Declaration (OF JENNI MURO )
Filed by Joined Party

10/08/2008 Miscellaneous-Other
Filed by Joined Party

10/08/2008 Motion for an Order
Filed by Joined Party

10/06/2008 Points and Authorities
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

09/16/2008 Notice of Continuance
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

Click on any of the below link(s) to see do***ents filed on or before the date indicated:
TOP 09/15/2008

09/15/2008 Notice of Continuance
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

08/15/2008 Joinder
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

08/12/2008 Defendant's Demurrer
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

08/12/2008 Motion to Strike
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

07/15/2008 First Amended Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

06/20/2008 Defendant's Demurrer
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

06/20/2008 Joinder
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/29/2008 Motion to Strike
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/14/2008 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

05/07/2008 Notice-Case Management Conference
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

05/05/2008 Notice-Case Management Conference
Filed by Clerk

05/01/2008 Complaint

Click on any of the below link(s) to see do***ents filed on or before the date indicated:
TOP 09/15/2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Information | Party Information | Do***ents Filed
Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)

03/12/2009 at 11:30 am in Department 64, Kenneth R. Freeman, Presiding
Court Order - Court makes order

02/17/2009 at 08:32 am in Department 64, Kenneth R. Freeman, Presiding
Conference-Post Mediation Status (2) MSC SETTING) - Case Deemed Settled

11/06/2008 at 08:31 am in Department 64, Kenneth R. Freeman, Presiding
Motion for Protective Order (2) MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER) - Court makes order

10/20/2008 at 08:31 am in Department 64, Kenneth R. Freeman, Presiding
Hearing on Demurrer ( TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT2) MOTION TO STRIKE3) MSC SETTING4) FINAL STATUS CONFERENCEC/F 9/29/08) - Completed

09/18/2008 at 08:32 am in Department 64, Kenneth R. Freeman, Presiding
Final Status Conference (2) MSC SETTING) - Continued by Court

07/16/2008 at 08:30 am in Department 64, Kenneth R. Freeman, Presiding
Motion to Strike - Court makes order
---------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
I wondered initially if THAT case was why I couldn't find his license? But then I found where he hadn't renewed his NY BAR CARD either, his b-day is second week of Aug.

When I read the CA statutes they seemed to say in ORDER to PRACTICE in CA for a CIVIL matter, you needed to be able to

1 - have a CURRENT BAR CARD somewhere - you had to have your registration up to date AND you had be in good standing.
2 - could not have any prior malpractice cases lodged against you in CA. Maybe it is malpractice cases won? Not sure what a settled case would mean as far as ability to practice in CA?

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/11/local/me-samantha-ronson11/5

http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_do***ents/1009_lilo_sam_wm.pdf

It was really strange to me how his website listed CA on day and then after I posted the info from NY bar, it wasn't there.

I really don't understand HOW or WHY Mr. Garbus was brought into Oksana's CIVIL FAMILY LAW case in the first place. And I certainly don't understand how he keeps walking through the doors of a CA courthouse for civil cases when he hasn't bothered to get a CA law license. The man has had 50 years to get a license in CA. Why keep taking cases in CA if you aren't going to bother and get a license?

It seems he had left the practice he has founded and moved to DAVIS firm when he was sued for malpractice in CA, in LOS ANGELES in 2008. At some point he moved to a different practice, to the best of my knowledge he is still with that firm. He hasn't been there two years though I don't think. And yet here he is once again in a case involving the internet and celebrity gossip - this time ROL. In the LA TIMES article, this is the last few sentences:

For his part, Garbus said he is not worried about the case -- his first malpractice suit in 48 years of practicing law -- affecting his reputation.

"I'm not part of that world," he said referring to the new industry of celebrity journalism that chronicles every detail of Lohan and Ronson, no matter how insignificant. "I'm very detached from it."

SEEMS very odd he would take this case WHEN he did to me? Maybe one of the attorneys can help explain it?

1366 days ago
1055.

V    

SHYONE,

The two oddest things to me regarding Mr. Garbus is why he hasn't paid his bar registration fees in ANY STATE. I called them all.

He isn't even in ANY state's database except NY and there his status says he still hasn't paid his bar fees. HOWEVER in NY according to some Appellate court officer, once someone is admitted to the NY bar he can practice INSIDE the state regardless of whether he keeps his bar card current.


I am assuming your brother and .. had UP to date bar cards and were considered in GOOD STANDING.

How does GOOD STANDING work if an attorney has had a malpractice suit filed against him and it was settled less than 2 years ago? How would it work if the person was not listed in the state's database because he had no state license?

Just curious. I really expected to find his name in BOTH CA and NY bar associations. In fact since I found the curren case in Delaware, I expected to find it there too (since that is a state where many companies are incorporated).

Why do you think a NY constitutional lawyer who has active cases in both Delaware and New Jersey would fly to CA to get involved with Oksana Grigorieva? Understand it is entirely SPECULATION.

He claims he left his founding practice to concentrate on Intellectual properties law. Then wound up involved in that RONSON case in CA.

He supposedly is involved in an INTERNATIONAL case out of DELAWARE, and he is now on the ground in CA going to FAMILY COURT with Oksana Grigorieva.

Count me CONFUSED.

1366 days ago
1056.

shyone    

@ gonesi

I really don't know what evidence the police have. I believe that settling your claim against MG in an agreement to destroy the "evidence" and then violating many fo the terms of the agreement coupled with demands for more money sounds criminal to my ears.

Wish we knew exactly what the emails/texts/etc. say between OG and MG.

I don't think getting advice from an attorney would protect OG from criminal charges because, as we have observed, she doesn't take and follow the legal advice she is given.

JMO

1366 days ago
1057.

Bubba    

@ hellnurse

"1076.
http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/fPWPN6DAJ9ykw3Jocmpid=hw_fb_se;

Posted at 10:36 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by hellnurse"

Hillarious!!!

1366 days ago
1058.

igotfleasfromtmz    

Hillarious!!!

Posted at 11:06 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by Bubba
Thanks bubba that is my family just threw old mel in there for fun

1366 days ago
1059.

shyone    

V posted:

The two oddest things to me regarding Mr. Garbus is why he hasn't paid his bar registration fees in ANY STATE. I called them all.

He isn't even in ANY state's database except NY and there his status says he still hasn't paid his bar fees. HOWEVER in NY according to some Appellate court officer, once someone is admitted to the NY bar he can practice INSIDE the state regardless of whether he keeps his bar card current.


I am assuming your brother and .. had UP to date bar cards and were considered in GOOD STANDING.

How does GOOD STANDING work if an attorney has had a malpractice suit filed against him and it was settled less than 2 years ago? How would it work if the person was not listed in the state's database because he had no state license?

Just curious. I really expected to find his name in BOTH CA and NY bar associations. In fact since I found the curren case in Delaware, I expected to find it there too (since that is a state where many companies are incorporated).

Why do you think a NY constitutional lawyer who has active cases in both Delaware and New Jersey would fly to CA to get involved with Oksana Grigorieva? Understand it is entirely SPECULATION.

He claims he left his founding practice to concentrate on Intellectual properties law. Then wound up involved in that RONSON case in CA.

He supposedly is involved in an INTERNATIONAL case out of DELAWARE, and he is now on the ground in CA going to FAMILY COURT with Oksana Grigorieva.

-------------------------------------------

I'll try to respond in order as best I can:

1. In most places a lawyer is NOT considered to be in good standing if there is a problem of not paying bar dues IF he practices in a state where membership in the bar association is mandatory.

2. Yes, both my brother and my father were in good standing in the state where they practiced when they were admitted pro hac vice to work on two different cases with me in my state.

3. Malpractice suits wouldn't generally affect an attorney's being in good standing UNLESS the same person complained and started disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer which resulted in some lawyer discipline affecting his standing (such as suspension or disbarment) or unless the disciplinary proceedings had not yet been completed.

4. Speculation on why a NY constitutional lawyer would represent someone in CA? Money and publicity. Criminal cases involve constitutional issues. I expect if OG is charged with any crimes, there will be constitutional issues raised.

5. More and more lawyers are representing people in their specialty area across state lines. Most lawyers who do this get regular admission to the bars in all the states where they practice as opposed to getting pro hac vice admission. In my career I was first admitted ot the bar in my home state (where my dad & bro are admitted) and in the state where I practice now. My brother has been admitted regularly to the bars of three diferent states and has been admitted pro hac vice in several others.

If Garbus is attempting ot have a regular practice in CA, he should get regular admission to the bar there and not rely on being admitted pro hac vice more than once in CA. State bars frown on lawyers who don't get regular admission but who ask for repeated pro hac vice admission.

I don't believe that the court in CA would look favorably on Garbus asking to represent OG in her family law case and later in any criminal case where she is charged -- especially IF he is not in good standing in any state.

JMO

1366 days ago
1060.

chickenblaster    

http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/fPWPN6DAJ9ykw3Jo?cmpid=hw_fb_self
;

Posted at 10:36 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by hellnurse
----------------------------------------------------------

LOL, now that was awesome :-)

Cheers

Chicken

1366 days ago
1061.

gonesi    

@ gonesi

I really don't know what evidence the police have. I believe that settling your claim against MG in an agreement to destroy the "evidence" and then violating many fo the terms of the agreement coupled with demands for more money sounds criminal to my ears.

Wish we knew exactly what the emails/texts/etc. say between OG and MG.

I don't think getting advice from an attorney would protect OG from criminal charges because, as we have observed, she doesn't take and follow the legal advice she is given.

JMO

Posted at 10:50 PM on Oct 31, 2010 by shyone
.........................

Thanks, I feel so sorry for that child.

1366 days ago
1062.

igotfleasfromtmz    

If that video is still available when Horrorwitz was on TMZ
Harvey starts to say what is on the letter, backs up so he can repeat it word for word. He has the letter.

1366 days ago
1063.

twilightmom    

I could give you a little cash too if you need it.....my guess is you do.
Posted at 6 :06 PM on Oct 31 , 2010 by pray for mel

My guess would be that you need to pull that stick out of your a.s.s. (=

1366 days ago
1064.

chickenblaster    

Ring Ring Ring
Ring Ring Ring

St Peter:Hello, this is St. Peter how can i help you

It's me, Satan i NEED to talk to your boss, it's urgent!

St.Peter: You got a direct phone line, don't you?

Satan: yes but i tried and HE is ignoring ME!

St.Peter: yes i know lol...let me try to get him but i know what this is about and it will be difficult to get him to talk about it, that i can promise....let

me put you on hold...click (song starts playing"Knock-knock-knockin' on heaven's door")

1 minute later:

St.Peter: Satan are you there?

Satan: of course i am here, this is too important to hang up....

St.Peter: , thx for waiting, i got him here but you owe me big time for that, ok?

Satan: Whatever.....God, are you with me?

God: Yes, why are you bothering me.....

Satan: Aren't you following TMZ??

God: Yes i do lol

Satan: Can you believe this Oksana Drama, I need your help
-i cannot take her to my place on due date, hell she is worse than me!!

God: This is your own fault, you probably created her when you where fooling around in Russia!

Satan: I cannot remember, i probably was drunk but...but....if she comes to my place she will take over, man she is evil, more evil than i ever will be...i do whatever you want me to do, i release Berny Madoff..or Kate Goslin or even Cartman but please please help me out here......

"CLICK" beep beep beep....your connection has been interrupted.....

1366 days ago
1065.

Kevin Chinnock    

Seven Children ! Oh, i am really worried about their future. Please make a compromise for the sake of children. I saying you both. - Kevin Chinnock.

1366 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web