Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

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

Oksana Grigorieva

Gets New Lawyer

... and the Flu

1/3/2011 3:55 PM PST BY TMZ STAFF

Oksana Grigorieva has a new lawyer -- #42 by our count -- but she also has a sick feeling in her stomach.

New York attorney Marty Garbus just got approval by an L.A. County Superior Court judge to appear on Oksana's behalf.  He joins attorney Dan Horowitz.

Now for the sick feeling ... Oksana is on her way to a law office for part 4 of her ongoing deposition in the Mel Gibson custody war.  But we're told she feels like crap and may have to pull the plug on the depo.

If she goes home sick, she can get a few pointers from "The People's Court."


No Avatar

little aussie reader    

Hey, a bonus is a bonus, I'm sure you deserve it!! I know I was swelling with pride for you and them while I was eavesdropping :o)
Sorry, it's my bedtime now (bloody time zones!) but don't be shy about emailing me sometime if you'd like:

Catch you later, take care


1354 days ago

LA me    

Lil...You anywhere near Griffin? One of the band crew stayed a few days extra to visit family there.

1354 days ago


Well folks ... I am going to hang up my tin foil hat for tonight.

Hope tomorrow brings more juice.

Goodnight all.

1354 days ago


This girl is nuts. She made Mel sound insane but since then I have changed my mind. He deserves the baby.

1354 days ago


Boy is she in for quite the surprise when she realizes that all these lawyers are gonna have to be paid from all this money she thinks shes getting. Hope that $100 cut was really worth it lol

1354 days ago

little aussie reader    

LA if you mean Griffin, Queensland (that I had to google) I'm 1500km's. If you mean Griffith, New South Wales I'm almost 2700 km's. Hubby is pouting have to go to bed or he'll be a grumpy-bum in the morning. Hugs at ya :o)

1354 days ago

LA me    

LIL....Griffin New Queensland. Supposed to have a large Italian population.
You've probably gone to bed. I'm off as well. Got a gig with "Housewives of...."fill in the blank". Don't frickin know, and don't really care....

They are all from the same silicon mold.

1354 days ago


Figured I would add these to's CONFUSING count.

"Oksana Loses Lawyer 41, Hires Lawyer 42

11/15/2010 5:39 PM PST by TMZ Staff

Oksana Grigorieva is Guinness Book material, because she's just parted company with lawyer #41, and she's already hired lawyer #42...We're told Oksana has already hired a new family law attorney -- #42 -- Ronald A. Litz."

Beginning to wonder if is as mathemathically challenged as Oksana herself?

Still wondering - did TMZ not include Mr Garbus in their COUNT in Sept, when they published JUST BEFORE THE MEDIA IMAGE TURNAROUND BLITZ occured?

Will never forget Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Garbus trying to convince JohnQPublic Oksana REALLY was been a SUCCESSFUL MUSICIAL ARTIST who just needed to GET out from under Mel Gibson's grasp! Yet Mr. Garbus read selections from her bio (some of them altered just days or weeks before) with misinformation or vague puzzling key information missing -

LIKE --- where and how had been successful? What concert(s)? What cds (?) or what songs had she composed?

Oksana reported was in THREE MOVIES while she lived in ENGLAND. WHILE there, she was promoting herself as a MUSICIAN at all was she? She at that time was a MODEL turned ACTRESS right?

The three movies were "A to Zen", which was shown at the Edinburgh International Film Festival's 50th year Anniversary,
"Looking for Atlantis", and "Pushka and the Sandtrap".

She also supposedly provided original music to the production
"Flower Boy" -

Yet instead of list what she claimed earlier were hers, Mr. Garbus and Mr. Horowitz just float the twisted tale Oksana had worked as a musician and built a career!

WHY hasn't anyone uncovered those movies? Why did the Edinburg Film Festival show "A to Zen" - who submitted it? Who produced or directed ANY of her prior works?

And where's her MODELING portfolio shots? Or any of work she supposedly did while a "SUPER MODEL" - a self proclaimed moniker used on her online bios for a while. Isn't it normally very easy to find photos of SUPER MODELS?

Which NAME did she use to to build her career? Oksana Chernuhka? Sasha Chernuhka, Oksana Grigorieva? Maybe it matters which "career"?

1354 days ago


New thread.

1354 days ago


Also, on that same video, Horowitz states that OG did not really read the 4 page agreement she signed, nor the other agreement that he states he cannot talk about. I wonder if that's the cohabitation agreement or the custody agreement?

Posted at 10:26 PM on Jan 3, 2011 by fuddyduddy

What does it matter if she read it or not? Who CARES? It's HER problem! What does matter is that she signed it! Besides, from her emails we can see that she was very well informed AT ALL TIMES about what was about going to happen and a very active participants of all "negotiations," and how she lashed out at her attorney once for not bringing up the DV to extort more money out of her lover.

This Mr. Horowitz is delusional himself. I have a feeling he doesn't know what he is talking about. I am not sure if he is familiar with the background of this case.

1354 days ago


Will never forget Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Garbus trying to convince JohnQPublic Oksana REALLY was been a SUCCESSFUL MUSICIAL ARTIST who just needed to GET out from under Mel Gibson's grasp!

Ha-ha-ha! Nice try, Horowitz. Mel says she CAN'T play concerts because she can't endure playing a concert. She could probably do CDs. How DUMB one should be to have all the resources in the world like Gibson and his Icon and FAIL?
The only talent she has is showing off in front of the cameras and badmouth her lover.

1354 days ago


Apologize for the horrible post. Not sure why it posted that way. If anyone thinks I should repost let me know. So much of the time I am busy multi-tasking and my posts are so long, I am torn if I should fix the mistakes or if folks can decipher them OK?

FUDDY! -- I hope all of the legal eagles will OPINE about this GARBUS PUSH and your posts! I recall reading that McMillan case AND the real work was at the appellate level - so I couldn't figure out WHY Mr. Garbus would EVEN care about being a member of Oksana's FAMILY court legal team. He seemed to me he would prefer logistically to be the SWOOPING in TOP FLIGHT LEGAL EXPERT who appeared on Oksana's behalf in the higher courts. (would make for terrific PR wouldn't it?) BUT NOOOOOOOOO,for some reason - he has tried for a LONG TIME to GET ADDED to the FAMILY COURT team able to appear in Judge Gordon's courtroom.

I also think it is $$$$$$$$$$$$. I think he is determined to bleed Mel Gibson.

What I want to know is IF he can be admitted as counsel BUT denied expenses or at the very least NOT be able to bill for any expenses BEFORE he was legally permitted to practice in CA?

And one more thing - one of the criticisms mentioned in the RONSON MALPRACTICE SUIT against Mr. Garbus was how some of his work appeared to be CUT AND PASTED from OTHER WORK.

I had to wonder about this McMillian case and what has actually been filed and what was filed by EITHER SIDE of that case. I HATE that the child custody case is a BF case and no public record will be available.

How do attorneys guard THEIR intellectual properties? And how does or can a Judge review do***ents to see if exact sections have been lifted from other work? Surely the second case, even if used by the same attorney, wouldn't require the same billable hours?

Just some thoughts I had.

I also wonder about Mr. Garbus and/or Mr. Horowitz who are from out of the area trying to bill for transportation - considering they have Oksana acting as their chauffeur for much of the time, which means Mel Gibson is ALREADY paying for their expenses, is it Mel Gibson's side who would introduce or request that sum be offset from whatever is finally submitted, or make sure it isn't billed twice?

Still don't understand WHY Mr. Garbus hasn't bothered to just SIT for the CA BAR! It would have made so much so easier for him, his client, and the court which means the taxpayers of CA.

I wonder just how much other cases he tried to join cost CA taxpayers? And I wonder how much at the case, he billed and tucked in his wallet? And I wonder how much he personally paid in taxes in the state of CA over the last 10 years versus how much he made from CA cases (and that would include mention in his books or in any film)?

Beginning to wonder about financing of films and revenue. Understand there are licensing fees and contracts to allow folks to use/show the work -

I would love to know what that SHOUT movie he "starred" in, his daughter produced and directed banked, and how the showings at the ACLU events were represented on the ledger book?

I posted - some time back -some of the actual court papers for that McMilliam case, I thought. Wish I could put my hands on it now! REALLY would love for you to take a second look.

What is really ODD to me, Mr. Garbus originally was involved because he represented her publisher's parent company, Penguin, right? Terry McMillian, her publisher was VIKING, seemed to attract a LOT of lawsuits - she was sued by an ex-boyfriend in 1990 who claimed she had defamed him by using him as a character in one of her works. Martin Garbus had this to say at that time:***ent

On advice of counsel, McMillan declined to discuss the case. Martin Garbus, the lawyer for Penguin USA, called Welch's action "a private passion, a vendetta." Acknowledging that Welch and McMillan lived together in Brooklyn for three years and had a child, as did the main characters in "Disappearing Acts," Garbus added: "It is not so much a lawsuit as a marital dispute."

Sounds remarkably on a similar legal plain- by design or not waits to be determined or revealed.

Here is the link -***ent

I tell you as I have watched Oksana's shifting versions, her allegations sound like FICTION, don't they?

Ironic? She and her attorneys/pr team have tried to create a WELTER-LAND by laying out false claims, omitting key facts, shifting the timeline, and seemingly ignoring fundamental rules.

OK- so maybe there is some contorted premise a recollection doesn't have to be REAL, only what one IMAGINES or THINKS is REAL, BUT

Attorneys don't live and work in WELTER-LAND, do they? In REALITY-LAND, the rules are FUNDAMENTAL for a reason, events must be measured in real time, facts MUST sought and allowed to bubble into the record (even if only in the court), BUT if any one establishes, i.e throws or tosses or alleges, something into PUBLIC DOMAIN, that SOMETHING must be FACTUALLY accurate or there should be CONSEQUENCES, and the SOMEONE responsible must be scrutinized to ensure the rules were followed, right?

An attorney is SUPPOSED to DEFEND their client - NOT AID them in making their WELTER-LAND excursion a PUBLIC AMUSEMENT RIDE

Especially when there is a CLEAR VICTIM who may be harmed!

ALL IMO of course. I find it SHAMEFUL if the COURT just rewarded Martin Garbus - it would have made more sense for him to approach BEFORE the LKL show and be admitted any afterwards to me. I can't discount his involvement and the lack of a CA BAR card at the time.

1354 days ago


Garbus HAS to sign on as an attorney for the Child Custody part of this if he wants to get paid!! Mel is NOT responsible to pay for any of Oinky's attorney fees except for the Child Custody case. Oinky doesn't have any money to pay her legal counsel for DV or Extortion cases. Any one's thoughts??

Posted at 3:34 AM on Jan 4, 2011 by LA me

Pictures are worth a thousand words. Martin Garbus at the BEVERLY HILLS FOUR SEASONS, WAY before he was admitted to case (HAD HE EVEN BOTHERED TO FILE FOR PROHACVICE yet?); considering how he hadn't even paid his NEW YORK BAR FEES, gotta wonder is he tightfisted? Determined to find angle so HE doesn't have to pay?

Oct. 7th
Oct 27

Also -here is a link that someone has posted before. I know the woman's bias is off the charts. Can't recall who posted it- please forgive - there is a critique of Martin Garbus' appearance ON Larry King Live included in the piece (scroll down for it - the top part more negative opining of Mel Gibson, some of it is the woman's professional livilhood- evaluating body language and I think she zero'd in on a few things that should be highlighted. I have to note she works WITH Robin Sax and is a self promoter EXTRAORDINAIRE imo, Sax was one of the PR specialists/attorneys whom Oksana hired back in the summer)

NOTE the TAG for the story. Wonder if that is how it continued to be so easily searchable in GOOGLE?

1354 days ago


Quote from Herzog's 'Will' posted on ROL:

‘To ACLU Managing Attorney Peter [redacted], thank you for your friendship and keep fighting the good fight, Please help Oksana all you can.’ (page 3 of 4)

Looks like Herzog is almost as 'large and in charge' as Fauxana.

Tee hee

Posted at 4:58 PM on Jan 3, 2011 by middleagedcrazy

That is where that Eliasberg guy name came up before! I couldn't remember. I wrote it down when that WILL first appeared.

Managing Director PETER Eliasberg was the GUY who spoke to NYTimes Cieply! When I looked him I it felt like dejavu!


1354 days ago


BUT if any one establishes, i.e throws or tosses or alleges, something into PUBLIC DOMAIN, that SOMETHING must be FACTUALLY accurate or there should be CONSEQUENCES, and the SOMEONE responsible must be scrutinized to ensure the rules were followed, right?

Right.I wonder why nobody has been scrutinized to be held responsible in this case?

1354 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web