Entrevista a BRIAN OXMAN hecha por fans
A continuación pongo la transcripción de la entrevista realizadA por MJJF TALK RADIO (del MJJ FORUM) al abogado que representa a la familia Jackson, BRIAN OXMAN.
MJJF Talk Radio Interview with Brian Oxman.
12-29-03
Ron: With us today is attorney Brian Oxman. Brian represents the Jackson family in various capacities and has served as a legal analyst for various news programs. Brian, we know you’re very busy. We really appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us.
Brian: My pleasure.
Ron: Brian, so much has been said recently about you being a “self-appointed spokesman” for the Jackson family. Can you please clarify for us how long you have been representing the family and in what capacity you represent them, i.e., you know, what areas of law specifically you cover?
Brian: I have represented members of the Jackson family for the past fourteen years. I started with doing Randy Jackson’s divorce, and then he introduced me to his brother Jermaine. I did his divorce. They introduced me to Tito, and I did his divorce. Then they introduced me to Jackie, and I did his divorce, and then they introduced me to LaToya, and I did her divorce. I have represented the mom and the dad and Rebbie, who is the oldest. The children of children, Siggy, who is Jackie’s child, Autumn, who is Jermaine’s child, and Brandi, who is Jackie’s child, and Taj, Taryll, and T.J., who are Tito’s children. So I’ve kind of been around the entire family and been a part of their lives, the birth of their children and the deaths of their spouses. It’s been quite an experience.
Ron: Lots of divorces there, Brian.
Brian: They certainly seem to have kept me very busy.
Ron: Okay. It’s a big family too. We’ll keep that in mind. Can you tell us to what extent you specifically represent the criminal investigation, you know, the family in regards to the criminal investigation against Michael Jackson right now?
Brian: Mark Geragos is Michael’s attorney, and he is the only one who is authorized to make statements on behalf of Michael. And what we see, really, is that Michael is the one who makes statements on behalf of Michael. It is only when Michael speaks that we should really pay close attention because Michael has always chosen to speak for himself.
Ron: Excellent. Okay, Trish, go ahead.
Trish: Hi. Speaking of the family, how is the Jackson family as a whole handling this, especially Michael’s mother, Katherine?
Brian: They are extraordinary people and they have an extraordinary constitution. They’re just tough minded. They see things for what they are, and they tend not to get real upset at the various things which cross their path, including this investigation. But it has been absolutely nerve wracking for them, and it has gotten to them to the point where they really would like to do everything in their power to make sure that their brother, Michael, is vindicated.
Trish: Brian, you saw last night the interview that Michael conducted with Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes. Overall, do you think it helped him or hurt him in any way, and why?
Brian: I think the public demanded that Michael come before them and tell them what it is that went on here. It was more of a greeting of his fans to make sure that we see Michael, because only Michael speaks for Michael. And from that point of view, it was absolutely imperative that he do it, and his discussion was serious, it was reasonable, it was intelligent, and I think a lot of people were impressed with Michael Jackson.
Trish: Now, the interview took place on Thursday night and it’s obvious to everyone that Michael was in a considerable amount of physical pain. How is he doing?
Brian: Michael has not discussed with the family members his physical condition. It is something which has been a matter of rumblings between the family members because of the treatment which he received at the Santa Barbara Police Department, but he has never really described his physical condition.
Ron: Brian, in the interview, Michael Jackson alleges that the police “manhandled him”, they dislocated his shoulder, and locked him in a bathroom for 45 minutes, even showing us a gruesome photo allegedly taken after the incident. Do you know what legal recourse Michael Jackson and his attorney, Mark Geragos, would have against the Santa Barbara Police Department, and are they looking to do something, and to what degree?
Brian: There are a number of things which can be done to complain about the type of treatment that Michael had, and only Michael is going to tell us what that is. Mark Geragos has said that he will take the appropriate action at the appropriate time, and I think we need to trust that. I want to say something about the experience of being arrested. It is not pleasant. It is not fun. All the years that I have practiced, I have seen that the defendants complain bitterly that the police have not treated them appropriately. This is another such incident. I don’t think that it’s something which rises to the level of absolute outrage, but it certainly rises to the level of saying that this is the standard operating procedure. This is how procedures are conducted by the police, and they are rough.
Ron: In the interview, Michael also alleges that police “totally trashed” his property, wrecking valuables, cutting open mattresses, etc. He states in the interview that he was not provided a list of items which were seized from his ranch. Now, of course, Brian, we haven’t seen the original search warrants that have been issued in this case as of yet, but what is a typical procedure with respect to searching the premises, and seizing items, and subsequent notification of what was taken? Has that somehow been breached or have they done everything that they needed to do?
Brian: Standard procedure is for the seizing officer to inventory everything which has been seized, and then to leave with the person in charge of the premises that has been searched a copy of that inventory. Now what we’ve heard is that this has not been done. That would be a violation of police procedure, but I think you’re going to have to wait to hear how all of this has taken place, and perhaps this inventory was delayed or has been sent later. We don’t know what the situation is with respect to the inventory yet.
Ron: Okay. He also states that the officers went into places on his property, including his private office, which they did not have search warrants for. If that’s true, to what extent could this potentially be an invasion of his privacy, and could the officers enter these other areas if they suspected something of significance might be in there, even if they didn’t have a warrant specifically allowing them to do so?
Brian: The Fourth Amendment says that the search warrant must specify the particular places to be searched and the particular things to be seized. And what you’re hearing is that this search warrant went far and wide of the particularity which is required of all search warrants. When that happens in the ordinary circumstance, it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the individual and a civil rights violation which can be redressed in a civil rights lawsuit. Now, what the police have by way of justification for having done that in this case, we’re going to have to wait to find out.
Ron: If they actually found anything, could they use it as evidence if they found in an area where they didn’t specifically have a search warrant to search?
Brian: The Fourth Amendment precludes evidence illegally seized from being introduced into the court during a trial. So there would be a motion to exclude such evidence if evidence was seized beyond the scope of the search warrant. That will result in all kinds of arguments as to whether or not the police then had grounds or reasonable belief that caused them to go beyond the search warrant. It will take a hearing by the judge to sort it out.
Ron: Okay. Trish?
Trish: Michael has gone on record stating that he does not have a problem or see a problem with sharing his bed with children. After the Bashir interview, Sneddon issued a statement that acknowledged that assuming no improper activity took place there is no criminal conduct involved. Brian, specifically what can Michael do to protect himself from a third incident of these types of accusations?
Brian: I think Michael has taken some pretty strong measures to assure that he is being supervised and accompanied by people who are responsible all the time, and that will come out I am certain as this case progresses. So these are the reasonable measures that he has taken. It’s smart. It’s the thing to do. And in Michael’s position I think we’re going to see that evidence being introduced in this case.
Trish: Now so much has been said recently about Michael’s possible involvement with the Nation of Islam. Michael has gone on record saying that he is not a member of the organization. However, to what extent is Leonard Muhammad, the Nation of Islam’s Chief of Staff, exercising control or influence over Michael’s business and staffing decisions? For example, does he have the authority to represent Michael in business decisions such as hiring or firing of staff?
Brian: Michael is the only one who tells us who are his administrative people who are the people who can negotiate on his behalf. And we’ve not heard one word from Michael authorizing anyone except Michael Jackson to do these things. And you have to take Michael at his word. If he would like to change it to have anyone, including people who have particular religious beliefs or faiths, so be it. And that will be Michael’s business and it should not be something which is really an issue in this case.
Trish: There are a lot of rumors that members of Michael’s management have been isolated from Michael, taking the Roger Friedman article today. It goes on to say that his publicist, Stuart Backerman is isolated and Dieter Wiesner, Michael’s manager, has been isolated because of this so called Nation of Islam incident. Is there any light you can shed on this? Is Mr. Backerman still representing Michael and, if not, why?
Brian: I think we need to keep our eye on the ball as to what this case is all about, and that’s the accusation from a young boy who claims he was molested by Michael but who signed under penalty of perjury a statement saying that Michael never touched him. That’s the issue in this case, and not who is working for Michael, whether or not Michael is being controlled by somebody. Those things are business decisions that Michael needs to make on his own and really have nothing to do with this case.
Trish: Right, absolutely. But you know, as a president of a Michael Jackson fan club, I’ve talked to many presidents of fan clubs around the world and they’ve expressed concern, some going as far as to possibly taking down their sites due to reported involvement and control of the Nation of Islam. Given that Michael’s fans represent an eclectic mix of whites, blacks, Christians, and Jews, some of which would be highly offended by such involvement, is there anything you can tell these fans and fan clubs worldwide that could comfort them?
Brian: Michael is one of the most inclusive individuals that I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting, and that is that he loves people of every race, every creed, every religion. I have never seen anything to the contrary in Michael’s entire experience. There are people who come and go from his employment all the time, and at this point, I don’t think you can read anything into the presence or absence of any particular group among his employees, and the Nation of Islam has been around, has gone to Michael’s concerts, appeared with Michael years and years and years ago, and he has never been co-opted or directed by them. If something has changed, I think we need to wait until Michael tells us. Until then, I don’t think there’s been any change.
Ron: Brian, this is Ron. Based on what you know about the defense’s strategy at this point, what do you think the chances are that the case would be dismissed prior to a trial?
Brian: I think this is a case which shows us the district attorney has battened down the hatches and is ready for battle, because the district attorney just doesn’t want to look at the nature of this case or even see that he has a problem. So I expect this case to go to battle, and the reason I think that is when the district attorney of Santa Barbara says, “Oh, that’s L.A.”, it’s almost comical. It is a government entity insulting another government entity and that tells me that this case is going to go all the way to battle.
Ron: Brian, you’re probably aware that Tellem Worldwide, an L.A. based PR agency has volunteered to assist the Santa Barbara’s DA office pro bono in this case. Tellem lists Rent-A-Wreck as a client, and I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but on their website they list Rent-A-Wreck, who is founded by David Schwartz, the stepfather of the boy who accused Michael Jackson of child abuse in 1993. In 1994, the following year, Schwartz filed a lawsuit against Michael Jackson for “breaking up his family”. Given these connections, do you think there’s a possible conflict of interest of Tellem representing the DA’s office in this case?
Brian: I not only think that there’s a possible conflict of interest, I think that there is an absolute conflict of interest. The question is, whose interest is the Santa Barbara district attorney seeking to promote? Are they trying to try a case in court or are they trying to try a case in the press? And when they bring in private individuals, whether they are paid for or not, they become the agents of the district attorney and their personal agendas then get infused into the public’s business. That is a conflict of interest.
Ron: Okay. Brian, I know you’ve gone head to head with journalists such as Court TV’s Diane Dimond on more than one occasion. Ms. Dimond has also claimed on various interviews to have “very high, high sources” in the Santa Barbara DA’s office where she seems to get a lot of her inside information before it’s made publicly available to everybody else. If this high source was Sneddon or someone else on his staff, can you tell us to what extent there could be a breach of fiduciary duty or at least some kind of violation of fundamental legal ethics?
Brian: The prosecutor’s legal obligation is to try the case in a court of law and not try to influence jury pools, have public relations people, or to leak to reporters who are their favorites the details of a criminal case. All of those things are being violated here. It is not appropriate for the district attorney to choose a member of the media who is their favorite and gives them all kinds of information that no one else has available. I view that as unethical.
Ron: Okay. Well we’d be inclined to agree, but to what extent is it punishable? I mean, could he lose his license to practice, is it that severe, or somewhere in the middle?
Brian: This is an ethical obligation which is regulated by the State Bar of California and most certainly a claim and complaint can be made to the State Bar. But it also goes as to whether or not the district attorney is violating the constitutional rights of a defendant by engaging in this kind of activity, so it’s certainly an issue that Michael can raise at a point.
Ron: Okay. Brian, I recently spent eight months of my own life going through an ordeal of a lawsuit. How possible is it for Michael to begin to focus on his career, his family, you know, with everything that’s going on around him right now?
Brian: Michael is one of the most strong, single minded, and directed people that anyone would ever want to meet or encounter. He runs a mega-business which has been involved in all kinds of deals and transactions, buying and selling property, so he is no stranger to the legal business of entertainment. This is something which is a little bit more stressful and a whole lot more serious because it involves a criminal charge. He is an amazing man, and I expect him to weather this storm as he has weathered every storm he’s ever faced.
Ron: Excellent. Trish?
Trish: Brian, this is a two part question. Sources close to this case have alleged to us that outside interests, including journalists, supposedly approached the accuser’s family to come forward some time in early February after the U.K. airing of the Martin Bashir interview. Here are my questions. Is it common or legal for journalists to approach or seek out potential victims and ask them to come forward in a case?
Brian: It is extraordinary for a journalist to seek out and create a story by insisting somebody was harmed when that individual has three times said under penalty of perjury they weren’t harmed. So this kind of activity of journalists is really not only a violation of journalistic ethics but also it raises questions as to the criminal law, was this child lying when he lied to a government agency that was investigating him? And indeed, who was it that made him change his mind? I look at the fact that instead of going back to Social Services who was investigating this matter when the child decided to change his mind, instead he went to an attorney, Larry Feldman. And did Mr. Feldman then go to Social Services? No, he didn’t. Did he go to the police? No, he didn’t. Did he go anywhere else? Yes, he went to a psychiatrist. And did the psychiatrist go back to Social Services? No, he filed a criminal claim saying that something had gone on with this child. This smacks of influence peddling, of influence making, of changing claims. It doesn’t pass the smell test. It doesn’t pass the lab test.
Trish: Now if the outside interest is true, what effect would it have on this case? To be more specific, if it came to pass that there was an outside interest, like a specific journalist, that was influential in bringing this case to a civil attorney and the Santa Barbara district attorney, how could the defense use this to their advantage?
Brian: This would be part of the facts which are presented at trial, and I’m going to leave that to Mr. Geragos to determine how, in fact, he wants to use this information. I think it’s plain to all of us that it makes us wonder what in the world is going on and what kind of skullduggery is present here. And I am certain that Mark Geragos will use this information appropriately.
Ron: Brian, during Mark Gerago’s press conference in response to the charges, he mentioned that the charges were motivated by “revenge and money”, further stating that the prosecutors involved, seemingly referring to Sneddon, had an “ax to grind” against Michael Jackson. Sneddon has gone on the record denying he has any personal vendetta against Michael Jackson. What comments do you have with regards to how Sneddon has been handling this case thus far?
Brian: The initial press conference here was a grandstanding of monumental proportions where it was more important to tell jokes than it was to get the information out. It was a lot of backslapping and congratulating one another as though this were an opening to a Broadway play. That is not the way prosecutors conduct themselves in the state of California under the rules of ethics. A prosecutor is supposed to supply information to the public not tell jokes and grandstand at a press conference. A prosecutor is not supposed to suggest that another governmental agency is incompetent because they came to a different conclusion than he came to when he held a second press conference and criticized Los Angeles’ Children’s Services Investigation. These are improper by way of prosecutorial conduct and they are questionable by way of whether or not this prosecutor is exercising good judgment.
Ron: Thanks, Brian. Based on the media coverage in this case, do you think it’s even possible that Michael Jackson can receive a fair trial.
Brian: I think that Michael can receive a fair trial and really, I don’t really care where this case is tried. I’m going to leave that up to Mr. Geragos to make the decision. But no matter who the jury is, no matter what the persuasion or constitution of that jury might be, it seems to me that when a jury sees that this accusing witness three times said that Michael did not touch him, Michael did not sleep with him, that this accusing witness signed under penalty of perjury such a statement, the jury is just gonna shake their head and say, “We don’t understand why this case is being prosecuted.”
Ron: If that’s the case, wouldn’t Geragos be able to use that as evidence to get the whole thing thrown out before it even gets to trial? Why would he have to go to trial to prove that, I mean, if he’s already said under penalty of perjury that it didn’t happen?
Brian: In the American justice system, everyone is entitled to their day in court, including witnesses who recant their testimony and change it after signing a statement under penalty of perjury. They’re all entitled to their day in court, and if that’s the case in this particular proceeding, so be it. I think we’ll be watching this thing unravel in front of the district attorney’s eyes for some time to come.
Ron: Great. That concludes our interview with Jackson family attorney, Brian Oxman. Thank you very much for joining us, Brian.
Brian: My great pleasure. Thank you.
A continuación pongo la transcripción de la entrevista realizadA por MJJF TALK RADIO (del MJJ FORUM) al abogado que representa a la familia Jackson, BRIAN OXMAN.
MJJF Talk Radio Interview with Brian Oxman.
12-29-03
Ron: With us today is attorney Brian Oxman. Brian represents the Jackson family in various capacities and has served as a legal analyst for various news programs. Brian, we know you’re very busy. We really appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us.
Brian: My pleasure.
Ron: Brian, so much has been said recently about you being a “self-appointed spokesman” for the Jackson family. Can you please clarify for us how long you have been representing the family and in what capacity you represent them, i.e., you know, what areas of law specifically you cover?
Brian: I have represented members of the Jackson family for the past fourteen years. I started with doing Randy Jackson’s divorce, and then he introduced me to his brother Jermaine. I did his divorce. They introduced me to Tito, and I did his divorce. Then they introduced me to Jackie, and I did his divorce, and then they introduced me to LaToya, and I did her divorce. I have represented the mom and the dad and Rebbie, who is the oldest. The children of children, Siggy, who is Jackie’s child, Autumn, who is Jermaine’s child, and Brandi, who is Jackie’s child, and Taj, Taryll, and T.J., who are Tito’s children. So I’ve kind of been around the entire family and been a part of their lives, the birth of their children and the deaths of their spouses. It’s been quite an experience.
Ron: Lots of divorces there, Brian.
Brian: They certainly seem to have kept me very busy.
Ron: Okay. It’s a big family too. We’ll keep that in mind. Can you tell us to what extent you specifically represent the criminal investigation, you know, the family in regards to the criminal investigation against Michael Jackson right now?
Brian: Mark Geragos is Michael’s attorney, and he is the only one who is authorized to make statements on behalf of Michael. And what we see, really, is that Michael is the one who makes statements on behalf of Michael. It is only when Michael speaks that we should really pay close attention because Michael has always chosen to speak for himself.
Ron: Excellent. Okay, Trish, go ahead.
Trish: Hi. Speaking of the family, how is the Jackson family as a whole handling this, especially Michael’s mother, Katherine?
Brian: They are extraordinary people and they have an extraordinary constitution. They’re just tough minded. They see things for what they are, and they tend not to get real upset at the various things which cross their path, including this investigation. But it has been absolutely nerve wracking for them, and it has gotten to them to the point where they really would like to do everything in their power to make sure that their brother, Michael, is vindicated.
Trish: Brian, you saw last night the interview that Michael conducted with Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes. Overall, do you think it helped him or hurt him in any way, and why?
Brian: I think the public demanded that Michael come before them and tell them what it is that went on here. It was more of a greeting of his fans to make sure that we see Michael, because only Michael speaks for Michael. And from that point of view, it was absolutely imperative that he do it, and his discussion was serious, it was reasonable, it was intelligent, and I think a lot of people were impressed with Michael Jackson.
Trish: Now, the interview took place on Thursday night and it’s obvious to everyone that Michael was in a considerable amount of physical pain. How is he doing?
Brian: Michael has not discussed with the family members his physical condition. It is something which has been a matter of rumblings between the family members because of the treatment which he received at the Santa Barbara Police Department, but he has never really described his physical condition.
Ron: Brian, in the interview, Michael Jackson alleges that the police “manhandled him”, they dislocated his shoulder, and locked him in a bathroom for 45 minutes, even showing us a gruesome photo allegedly taken after the incident. Do you know what legal recourse Michael Jackson and his attorney, Mark Geragos, would have against the Santa Barbara Police Department, and are they looking to do something, and to what degree?
Brian: There are a number of things which can be done to complain about the type of treatment that Michael had, and only Michael is going to tell us what that is. Mark Geragos has said that he will take the appropriate action at the appropriate time, and I think we need to trust that. I want to say something about the experience of being arrested. It is not pleasant. It is not fun. All the years that I have practiced, I have seen that the defendants complain bitterly that the police have not treated them appropriately. This is another such incident. I don’t think that it’s something which rises to the level of absolute outrage, but it certainly rises to the level of saying that this is the standard operating procedure. This is how procedures are conducted by the police, and they are rough.
Ron: In the interview, Michael also alleges that police “totally trashed” his property, wrecking valuables, cutting open mattresses, etc. He states in the interview that he was not provided a list of items which were seized from his ranch. Now, of course, Brian, we haven’t seen the original search warrants that have been issued in this case as of yet, but what is a typical procedure with respect to searching the premises, and seizing items, and subsequent notification of what was taken? Has that somehow been breached or have they done everything that they needed to do?
Brian: Standard procedure is for the seizing officer to inventory everything which has been seized, and then to leave with the person in charge of the premises that has been searched a copy of that inventory. Now what we’ve heard is that this has not been done. That would be a violation of police procedure, but I think you’re going to have to wait to hear how all of this has taken place, and perhaps this inventory was delayed or has been sent later. We don’t know what the situation is with respect to the inventory yet.
Ron: Okay. He also states that the officers went into places on his property, including his private office, which they did not have search warrants for. If that’s true, to what extent could this potentially be an invasion of his privacy, and could the officers enter these other areas if they suspected something of significance might be in there, even if they didn’t have a warrant specifically allowing them to do so?
Brian: The Fourth Amendment says that the search warrant must specify the particular places to be searched and the particular things to be seized. And what you’re hearing is that this search warrant went far and wide of the particularity which is required of all search warrants. When that happens in the ordinary circumstance, it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the individual and a civil rights violation which can be redressed in a civil rights lawsuit. Now, what the police have by way of justification for having done that in this case, we’re going to have to wait to find out.
Ron: If they actually found anything, could they use it as evidence if they found in an area where they didn’t specifically have a search warrant to search?
Brian: The Fourth Amendment precludes evidence illegally seized from being introduced into the court during a trial. So there would be a motion to exclude such evidence if evidence was seized beyond the scope of the search warrant. That will result in all kinds of arguments as to whether or not the police then had grounds or reasonable belief that caused them to go beyond the search warrant. It will take a hearing by the judge to sort it out.
Ron: Okay. Trish?
Trish: Michael has gone on record stating that he does not have a problem or see a problem with sharing his bed with children. After the Bashir interview, Sneddon issued a statement that acknowledged that assuming no improper activity took place there is no criminal conduct involved. Brian, specifically what can Michael do to protect himself from a third incident of these types of accusations?
Brian: I think Michael has taken some pretty strong measures to assure that he is being supervised and accompanied by people who are responsible all the time, and that will come out I am certain as this case progresses. So these are the reasonable measures that he has taken. It’s smart. It’s the thing to do. And in Michael’s position I think we’re going to see that evidence being introduced in this case.
Trish: Now so much has been said recently about Michael’s possible involvement with the Nation of Islam. Michael has gone on record saying that he is not a member of the organization. However, to what extent is Leonard Muhammad, the Nation of Islam’s Chief of Staff, exercising control or influence over Michael’s business and staffing decisions? For example, does he have the authority to represent Michael in business decisions such as hiring or firing of staff?
Brian: Michael is the only one who tells us who are his administrative people who are the people who can negotiate on his behalf. And we’ve not heard one word from Michael authorizing anyone except Michael Jackson to do these things. And you have to take Michael at his word. If he would like to change it to have anyone, including people who have particular religious beliefs or faiths, so be it. And that will be Michael’s business and it should not be something which is really an issue in this case.
Trish: There are a lot of rumors that members of Michael’s management have been isolated from Michael, taking the Roger Friedman article today. It goes on to say that his publicist, Stuart Backerman is isolated and Dieter Wiesner, Michael’s manager, has been isolated because of this so called Nation of Islam incident. Is there any light you can shed on this? Is Mr. Backerman still representing Michael and, if not, why?
Brian: I think we need to keep our eye on the ball as to what this case is all about, and that’s the accusation from a young boy who claims he was molested by Michael but who signed under penalty of perjury a statement saying that Michael never touched him. That’s the issue in this case, and not who is working for Michael, whether or not Michael is being controlled by somebody. Those things are business decisions that Michael needs to make on his own and really have nothing to do with this case.
Trish: Right, absolutely. But you know, as a president of a Michael Jackson fan club, I’ve talked to many presidents of fan clubs around the world and they’ve expressed concern, some going as far as to possibly taking down their sites due to reported involvement and control of the Nation of Islam. Given that Michael’s fans represent an eclectic mix of whites, blacks, Christians, and Jews, some of which would be highly offended by such involvement, is there anything you can tell these fans and fan clubs worldwide that could comfort them?
Brian: Michael is one of the most inclusive individuals that I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting, and that is that he loves people of every race, every creed, every religion. I have never seen anything to the contrary in Michael’s entire experience. There are people who come and go from his employment all the time, and at this point, I don’t think you can read anything into the presence or absence of any particular group among his employees, and the Nation of Islam has been around, has gone to Michael’s concerts, appeared with Michael years and years and years ago, and he has never been co-opted or directed by them. If something has changed, I think we need to wait until Michael tells us. Until then, I don’t think there’s been any change.
Ron: Brian, this is Ron. Based on what you know about the defense’s strategy at this point, what do you think the chances are that the case would be dismissed prior to a trial?
Brian: I think this is a case which shows us the district attorney has battened down the hatches and is ready for battle, because the district attorney just doesn’t want to look at the nature of this case or even see that he has a problem. So I expect this case to go to battle, and the reason I think that is when the district attorney of Santa Barbara says, “Oh, that’s L.A.”, it’s almost comical. It is a government entity insulting another government entity and that tells me that this case is going to go all the way to battle.
Ron: Brian, you’re probably aware that Tellem Worldwide, an L.A. based PR agency has volunteered to assist the Santa Barbara’s DA office pro bono in this case. Tellem lists Rent-A-Wreck as a client, and I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but on their website they list Rent-A-Wreck, who is founded by David Schwartz, the stepfather of the boy who accused Michael Jackson of child abuse in 1993. In 1994, the following year, Schwartz filed a lawsuit against Michael Jackson for “breaking up his family”. Given these connections, do you think there’s a possible conflict of interest of Tellem representing the DA’s office in this case?
Brian: I not only think that there’s a possible conflict of interest, I think that there is an absolute conflict of interest. The question is, whose interest is the Santa Barbara district attorney seeking to promote? Are they trying to try a case in court or are they trying to try a case in the press? And when they bring in private individuals, whether they are paid for or not, they become the agents of the district attorney and their personal agendas then get infused into the public’s business. That is a conflict of interest.
Ron: Okay. Brian, I know you’ve gone head to head with journalists such as Court TV’s Diane Dimond on more than one occasion. Ms. Dimond has also claimed on various interviews to have “very high, high sources” in the Santa Barbara DA’s office where she seems to get a lot of her inside information before it’s made publicly available to everybody else. If this high source was Sneddon or someone else on his staff, can you tell us to what extent there could be a breach of fiduciary duty or at least some kind of violation of fundamental legal ethics?
Brian: The prosecutor’s legal obligation is to try the case in a court of law and not try to influence jury pools, have public relations people, or to leak to reporters who are their favorites the details of a criminal case. All of those things are being violated here. It is not appropriate for the district attorney to choose a member of the media who is their favorite and gives them all kinds of information that no one else has available. I view that as unethical.
Ron: Okay. Well we’d be inclined to agree, but to what extent is it punishable? I mean, could he lose his license to practice, is it that severe, or somewhere in the middle?
Brian: This is an ethical obligation which is regulated by the State Bar of California and most certainly a claim and complaint can be made to the State Bar. But it also goes as to whether or not the district attorney is violating the constitutional rights of a defendant by engaging in this kind of activity, so it’s certainly an issue that Michael can raise at a point.
Ron: Okay. Brian, I recently spent eight months of my own life going through an ordeal of a lawsuit. How possible is it for Michael to begin to focus on his career, his family, you know, with everything that’s going on around him right now?
Brian: Michael is one of the most strong, single minded, and directed people that anyone would ever want to meet or encounter. He runs a mega-business which has been involved in all kinds of deals and transactions, buying and selling property, so he is no stranger to the legal business of entertainment. This is something which is a little bit more stressful and a whole lot more serious because it involves a criminal charge. He is an amazing man, and I expect him to weather this storm as he has weathered every storm he’s ever faced.
Ron: Excellent. Trish?
Trish: Brian, this is a two part question. Sources close to this case have alleged to us that outside interests, including journalists, supposedly approached the accuser’s family to come forward some time in early February after the U.K. airing of the Martin Bashir interview. Here are my questions. Is it common or legal for journalists to approach or seek out potential victims and ask them to come forward in a case?
Brian: It is extraordinary for a journalist to seek out and create a story by insisting somebody was harmed when that individual has three times said under penalty of perjury they weren’t harmed. So this kind of activity of journalists is really not only a violation of journalistic ethics but also it raises questions as to the criminal law, was this child lying when he lied to a government agency that was investigating him? And indeed, who was it that made him change his mind? I look at the fact that instead of going back to Social Services who was investigating this matter when the child decided to change his mind, instead he went to an attorney, Larry Feldman. And did Mr. Feldman then go to Social Services? No, he didn’t. Did he go to the police? No, he didn’t. Did he go anywhere else? Yes, he went to a psychiatrist. And did the psychiatrist go back to Social Services? No, he filed a criminal claim saying that something had gone on with this child. This smacks of influence peddling, of influence making, of changing claims. It doesn’t pass the smell test. It doesn’t pass the lab test.
Trish: Now if the outside interest is true, what effect would it have on this case? To be more specific, if it came to pass that there was an outside interest, like a specific journalist, that was influential in bringing this case to a civil attorney and the Santa Barbara district attorney, how could the defense use this to their advantage?
Brian: This would be part of the facts which are presented at trial, and I’m going to leave that to Mr. Geragos to determine how, in fact, he wants to use this information. I think it’s plain to all of us that it makes us wonder what in the world is going on and what kind of skullduggery is present here. And I am certain that Mark Geragos will use this information appropriately.
Ron: Brian, during Mark Gerago’s press conference in response to the charges, he mentioned that the charges were motivated by “revenge and money”, further stating that the prosecutors involved, seemingly referring to Sneddon, had an “ax to grind” against Michael Jackson. Sneddon has gone on the record denying he has any personal vendetta against Michael Jackson. What comments do you have with regards to how Sneddon has been handling this case thus far?
Brian: The initial press conference here was a grandstanding of monumental proportions where it was more important to tell jokes than it was to get the information out. It was a lot of backslapping and congratulating one another as though this were an opening to a Broadway play. That is not the way prosecutors conduct themselves in the state of California under the rules of ethics. A prosecutor is supposed to supply information to the public not tell jokes and grandstand at a press conference. A prosecutor is not supposed to suggest that another governmental agency is incompetent because they came to a different conclusion than he came to when he held a second press conference and criticized Los Angeles’ Children’s Services Investigation. These are improper by way of prosecutorial conduct and they are questionable by way of whether or not this prosecutor is exercising good judgment.
Ron: Thanks, Brian. Based on the media coverage in this case, do you think it’s even possible that Michael Jackson can receive a fair trial.
Brian: I think that Michael can receive a fair trial and really, I don’t really care where this case is tried. I’m going to leave that up to Mr. Geragos to make the decision. But no matter who the jury is, no matter what the persuasion or constitution of that jury might be, it seems to me that when a jury sees that this accusing witness three times said that Michael did not touch him, Michael did not sleep with him, that this accusing witness signed under penalty of perjury such a statement, the jury is just gonna shake their head and say, “We don’t understand why this case is being prosecuted.”
Ron: If that’s the case, wouldn’t Geragos be able to use that as evidence to get the whole thing thrown out before it even gets to trial? Why would he have to go to trial to prove that, I mean, if he’s already said under penalty of perjury that it didn’t happen?
Brian: In the American justice system, everyone is entitled to their day in court, including witnesses who recant their testimony and change it after signing a statement under penalty of perjury. They’re all entitled to their day in court, and if that’s the case in this particular proceeding, so be it. I think we’ll be watching this thing unravel in front of the district attorney’s eyes for some time to come.
Ron: Great. That concludes our interview with Jackson family attorney, Brian Oxman. Thank you very much for joining us, Brian.
Brian: My great pleasure. Thank you.
