TMZ

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.

0103_oksana_marty_EX_GETTY_TMZ
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."

293 COMMENTS

No Avatar
76.

Belinda    

Just can't figure out how a 1st Amendment lawyer would bring anything to the table.

If piano player is allowed to say what she wants -- isn't Mr. Gibson allowed the same with his opinion of her regarding the alleged 'tapes?'

Just seems to me that it would open up a lot of things that the piano player would not want brought up.

Tee hee

Posted at 12:48 PM on Jan 3, 2011 by middleagedcrazy
________________________________________________________

I have to wonder if Mel would really want to get into that. So far he has taken the high road. Don't forget that contrary to Oksana ... Mel has a family that he loves and wants to protect and maybe doesn't want to put them through any more than they already have. Plus I don't think that during the time he was with Oksana that he was like Oksana and plotting to destroy anyone. She seems to have been plotting her scheme long before that actual split and had already collected stuff, for example pictures of pill bottles and illegally taping conversations. Setting up bogus appointment with a doctor she never met to corroborate that concussion allegation. That took alot of plotting. Mel was busy with life and working most of the time.

Even though I personally would like to see him let her have in public.

1298 days ago
77.

Bunny that earns scooby snacks!    

When it is out of control, the best way to fight fire is with fire.

I HOPE Berk is well aware of when to take the high road and when to stand and fight with all they have.

Mel has taken the high road so far, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't fight tootha and nail when it is called for.

1298 days ago
78.

middleagedcrazy    

@ Belinda --

I do not think Mr. Gibson wants to get into any of it, but I was wondering because the piano player has made such a deal about the tapes and how horrible -- if they are going for free speech, why not his in the tapes as well? Not threats, just opinions and rhetoric -- as most of us have thought.

From her comments on Larry King, it sounded like she wanted public hearings on child custody -- or a way to try cases involving children by public opinion.

She certainly has not had a qualm about putting personal information about children out in public.

Bleah.

1298 days ago
79.

ketjo    

Hold your horses folks.... the tidbit says that he has been approved to represent her period it doesn't say he is representing her as a lawyer in the custody hearing just that he is now legal in CA.... ..which leaves you to wonder just what is he going to represent her in ?????
She on her way to a deposition in the custody case and she is sick ,where did it say he was with her ? Now where I saw..

Good old TMZ ....they sure know how to spin a story don't they ?
Not saying he's not but it don't make a sence all his mouthing off has been about the abuse case and extortion cases so my guess is that is what he is there for......

You all just knew he would get approved soon enough the law stalled him for as long as they could...

So ring the bell ringmaster and bring out the fighters cause we got us a new manager in Oxshanna's corner.... Hoowhathisname is going have to take a back seat for now.......

Come on Mr GABMouth show us what a NYC lawyer shyster lawyer can pull out of his bag of tricks... Ought to be right good fun...

1298 days ago
80.

Belinda    

When it is out of control, the best way to fight fire is with fire.

I HOPE Berk is well aware of when to take the high road and when to stand and fight with all they have.

Mel has taken the high road so far, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't fight tootha and nail when it is called for.


Posted at 1:08 PM on Jan 3, 2011 by Sam
_____________________________________________________

Well I know I would be the first one cheering him on and saying 'it's about time'.

1298 days ago
81.

Curious    

Excellent point, but does hearsay apply to recorded interviews? Even though it was not said under oath, wouldn't it be admissible as to credibility?

Posted at 12:52 PM on Jan 3, 2011 by Char
--------------------------------------------------
I'm no legal eagle, so I refer to shyone's lessons once again.

The interview came from a source that CAN be cross-examined, Miss Oksana. (Ref #2 hearsay rules)

From shyone's second post about hearsay -

--The general hearsay exclusionary rule:

Those statements that meet the definition of hearsay are generally inadmissible to prove the truth of the facts shown in the statements unless they come with in one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule. CA Ev Code Sec 1200.

Second Thing to Know:

Certain statements are excluded from the definition of hearsay, and therefore are admissible in evidence if relevant to an issue in the case.

Third Thing to Know:

These are the exclusions from the hearsay rule. These things are not hearsay.

A. Prior Statements by a Witness are admissible if:
1- Made under oath and inconsistent with present testimony;
2- Consistent with challenges to the witness' motive, show improper influence, or rebut claims the witness recently fabricated certain claims/statements;
or
3- Involve the witness recognizing the identity of another person. CA Evid Code Sec 1238


B. Admissions by Opposing Party are admissible if:
The statement is offered against a party (either a plaintiff or defendant in a civil case or the defendant in a criminal case) and is either:
1- the party's own statement
2- the party's authorized representative's statement
3- a statement the party has adopted or indicated belief in
or
4- a co-conspirator's statement during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
CA Evid Code Sec. 1204, 1220-1223
(this explanation has been much simplified)

Fourth Thing to Know:

Definition of Hearsay, (essentially out of court statement offered to prove the truth of its content)

Hearsay is:

1. A statement not made under oath
2. Either oral, written, or by nonverbal conduct
3. Of a person
4. That is intended by that person as an assertion of fact.
Such statements are generally not admissible in evidence under the hearsay rule. CA Evid Code Sec 1200

It is important to note that if a statement is offered for some reason other than to prove the truth of the facts it asserts, it is NOT hearsay and may be admissible to prove something other than the facts it contains.--

From the above, two things catch my eye with regards to interviews -
1. "A. Prior Statements by a Witness are admissible if:
1- Made under oath and inconsistent with present testimony;
2- Consistent with challenges to the witness' motive, show improper influence, or rebut claims the witness recently fabricated certain claims/statements;"
--- It wouldn't be hearsay, if the judge concurs, to argue admission of interview material to challenge witness motive. For example, Miss Oksana has been claiming the reason she recorded Mr. Mel was that she was in fear for her life; yet in the LKL interview, she freely admits disabling her phone and going to bed.

2."It is important to note that if a statement is offered for some reason other than to prove the truth of the facts it asserts, it is NOT hearsay and may be admissible to prove something other than the facts it contains.--""
--- Again using that segment of LKL, it can be used not to prove whether or not she actually disabled the phones, but that her actions are counter to someone in fear of their life.

1298 days ago
82.

Sincerity    

Ole Greedy knows the "NOOSE IS TIGHTENING AROUND HER NECK" and doesn't want to be caught in ANYMORE LIES before the DA makes his decision. More than likely, she's going to bail when the questioning becomes too intense. She has no problem slinging mud at others but when it's time for her to substantiate her allegations, "SHE PUNKS OUT". It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to figure out that she's headed to the slammer unless she can "FLIP ON SOMEBODY ELSE" in order to bargain for a reduced or suspended sentence. Perhaps, Ole Baldy (Herzog) has been having some "interesting conversations" with the LASD. He would have everything to gain by "THROWING HER TRIFLING CARCASS UNDER THE BUS"! If this happens, SHE'S TOAST!!! Hopefully, within the next few days will, "the long arm of the law will reach out and touch her" in the most profound way!

1298 days ago
83.

Rosie    

The ACLU has aggressively tried to destroy MG many times in the past 7 or 8 years.

They and the NY Times are in league plotting against him AGAIN! How dirty can they get and by what authority do they act? How are they allowed to exert this influence?
If our court systems can be changed at the whim of ANY group, then this is not America!

It is unthinkable that the ACLU, (claiming to be concerned with liberty) is interfering with a California family law case, by insisting that the Judge be overrided, so that they can insert their own lawyer, Garbus.

This is BLATANT CORRUPTION. This is the ACLU and the NY Times thumbing their noses at everything they claim to support. This is TYANNY in action.

I wanted to put this comment on the NY Times page, but they have no place for the exercise of free speech. They are not allowing it!

NYTs: "Weighing In on Mel Gibson Case, A.C.L.U. Opposes Move to Bar Ex-Lover’s Lawyer Over Interview
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: December 30, 2010"

1298 days ago
84.

fuddyduddy    

Let's not forget that Horowitz and Garbus worked together as a team before. They worked on the 'How Stella Got Her Groove Back' author's suit against her former husband who came out as gay. So, how does a 1st ammendment attorney figure in that?

1298 days ago
85.

Bunny that earns scooby snacks!    

When it is out of control, the best way to fight fire is with fire.

I HOPE Berk is well aware of when to take the high road and when to stand and fight with all they have.

Mel has taken the high road so far, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't fight tootha and nail when it is called for.


Posted at 1:08 PM on Jan 3, 2011 by Sam
_____________________________________________________

Well I know I would be the first one cheering him on and saying 'it's about time'.

Posted at 1:11 PM on Jan 3, 2011 by Belinda


Na-uh! me first! :P

1298 days ago
86.

Duane Garrett    

Please, lets give Oksana a break! She's got a lot to deal with right now. Mel's a nut job.

1298 days ago
87.

Chia    

Ewwwwwww! There should be a no nose hair policy on this site (or a warning: Click here for discussing picture).

1298 days ago
88.

fuddyduddy    

A defendant in a criminal case may not be deposed without his consent because of the Fifth Amendment right to not give testimony against oneself.

1298 days ago
89.

Curious    

Just can't figure out how a 1st Amendment lawyer would bring anything to the table.

If piano player is allowed to say what she wants -- isn't Mr. Gibson allowed the same with his opinion of her regarding the alleged 'tapes?'

Just seems to me that it would open up a lot of things that the piano player would not want brought up.

Tee hee

Posted at 12:48 PM on Jan 3, 2011 by middleagedcrazy
--------------------------------------------------------

Just speculating here, but I think a part of Attorney Garbus's job is going to be damage control.

I WISH I could remember the article (didn't save link) in which there were four contempt of court charges listed on the docket and in attendance was a lawyer from TMZ. It was after that the TMZ became rather quiet. I believe that's when Judge Gordon brought the ban hammer down and sealed do***ents.

By then, of course, much had come out that contradicted everything Miss Oksana claimed during the summer of love between her and ROL. Gag order aside, since we don't know exactly what it said, she babbled herself into a tight corner. Perhaps Attorney Garbus is going to try and explain away her inconsistent, self serving speeches as merely self expression of a horrifying event, relevant to the current investigations and what she says NOW under oath is the actual true story.

1298 days ago
90.

fuddyduddy    

And if OG's extortion case is supposedly 'weak' then why does she need to bring Garbus on board?

1298 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web