We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart.

Official papers (MJ)

Court petition by Joe jackson to have MJ’s UCLA records

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Date: February 19, 2010 DEPARTMENT 5
HONORABLE: Mitchell L. Beckloff
DEPUTY SHERIFF: NOME
M. Dewey, DEPUTY JUDICIAL ASSISTANT
No REPORTER
BP 117321
In re the Estate of Michael
Joseph Jackson
(Parties and Counsel checked if present)
COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER N/A
COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT N/A
RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER
(Motion to Quash)
This matter is before the court on The Estate of Michael Jackson’s Notice of Motion and
Motion to Quash the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records Served on
UCLA Medical Center/UCLA Health Systems and Request for Attorneys’ Fees in the
Amount of $8,856.25 (the “Motion to Quash”) filed January 14, 2010.
The Special Administrator’s for the Estate of Michael Jackson seek an order quashing “in
its entirety” the “deposition subpoena for production of business records served on UCLA
Medical Center/UCLA Health Systems by Petitioner Joseph Jackson. The request is
based on three grounds: Privacy, Physician-Patient privilege, and relevance.
The Special Administrators assert that Michael Jackson’s fundamental privacy rights
prevent disclosure of the UCLA medical records. {Motion to Quash, p. 8.) While the court
acknowledges that medical records are documents to which the right of privacy attaches,
Michael Jackson’s right of privacy does not apply under these facts because Michael
Jackson is deceased.
“It is well settled that the right to privacy is purely a personal one; it cannot be asserted by
anyone other than the person whose privacy has been invaded . . . .
Further, the right does not survive but dies with the person.” (Hendrickson v. California
Newspapers, Inc. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 59, 62. See also Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc.
(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1131.)
The authorities cited by the Special Administrators do not provide otherwise. The Motion
to Quash is denied on the daim of privacy.
Physician-Patient Privilege
The Special Administrators hold Michael Jackson’s physician-patient privilege. (Evid.
Code sec. 953, subd. (c).) The privilege may be asserted after an individual’s death.
(Rittenhouse v. Superior Court (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1584,1588.)
Minutes Entered:
Department 5
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Date: February 19, 2010 DEPARTMENT 5
HONORABLE: Mitchell L. Beckloff
DEPUTY SHERIFF: NONE
M. Dewey, DEPUTY JUDICIAL ASSISTANT
No REPORTER
BP 117321
In re the Estate of Michael
Joseph Jackson
(Parties and Counsel checked if present)
COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER N/A
COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT N/A
Joseph Jackson argues, however, that the privilege is not implicated herein because
Michael Jackson “was deceased when he arrived at UCLA.” (Memorandum in Opposition,
p. 6.) Joseph Jackson contends that “because Michael Jackson had no heart beat, no
pulse, no respirations, and no vital signs for hours prior to his admission to UCLA, he
made no communications to any of the doctors and had no physician-patient privilege.”
(Memorandum in Opposition, p. 6.)
On this record, the court cannot determine whether and to what extent a “patient” may
have had “confidential communications” with his health care providers at UCLA Medical
Center. (See Evid. Code sees. 991 and 992.)
To evaluate the applicability of the privilege asserted by the Special Administrators, the
court is required to examine the requested records in camera.
Relevance
Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 provides in part: “Unless otherwise limited by
order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding
any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” “‘[Tjhe relevance of the
subject matter standard must be reasonably applied;… in accordance with the liberal
policies underlying the discovery procedures, doubts as to relevance should generally be
resolved in favor of permitting discovery … .”‘ (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.Sd 785, 790 {quoting Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior
Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173].)
The pending action is Joseph Jackson’s petition for family allowance. Thus, the subject
matter before the court includes Joseph Jackson’s financial situation and his need, if any,
for financial support from Michael Jackson’s estate during the course of administration.
Assuming Joseph Jackson makes the necessary showing that he was “actually dependent
in whole or in part upon [Michael Jackson] for support, the court “may” provide Joseph
Jackson a “reasonable family allowance out of the estate as the court in its discretion
determines is necessary for [his] maintenance according to [his] circumstances
Minutes Entered:
Department 5
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Date: February 19, 2010 DEPARTMENT 5
HONORABLE: Mitchell L. Beckloff
DEPUTY SHERIFF: NONE
M. Dewey, DEPUTY JUDICIAL ASSISTANT
No REPORTER
BP 117321
In re the Estate of Michael
Joseph Jackson
(Parties and Counsel checked if present)
COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER N/A
COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT N/A
(Prob. Code sec. 6540, subd. (b).) The court has broad discretion in setting the amount of
a family allowance award.
Joseph Jackson has argued that he intends to file a wrongful death action for the death of
Michael Jackson. The Code of Civil Procedure provides him with standing for such an
action assuming he was “dependent” upon Michael Jackson. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sec.
377.60, subd. (b).)
According to Joseph Jackson, his pursuit of the wrongful death action directly impacts his
financial circumstances. He claims that to the extent he pays legal fees and/or costs, his
need for a family allowance is increased. That is, as he incurs more legal expenses, he
needs more money for his maintenance.
Joseph Jackson claims that the UCLA Medical Center records are necessary to evaluate
his wrongful death claim for purposes of determining the likely cost of pursuing that action.
He asserts that the records will provide the necessary foundation for evidence he will
present at the family allowance hearing about his overall ongoing financial needs during
the course of estate administration.
Given the applicable standards and Joseph Jackson’s stated justification for the UCLA
Medical Center records, the Motion to Quash is denied on the grounds of relevance. The
court finds that the requested records are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence in the pending family allowance matter.
confidentiality.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer for purposes of reaching a stipulation with
regard to the confidentiality of the UCLA Medical Records. The court will require Joseph
Jackson and his attorneys, Mr. Oxman and Ms. Jaroscak, to sign the confidentiality
agreement. Any expert consulted by Joseph Jackson shall be required to sign the
confidentiality agreement, will not be permitted to make copies of the records and shall
return the records to Joseph Jackson’s attorney at the conclusion of the consultation.
Minutes Entered:
Department 5
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Date: February 19, 2010 DEPARTMENT 5
HONORABLE: Mitchell L. Beckloff
DEPUTY SHERIFF: NONE
M. Dewey, DEPUTY JUDICIAL ASSISTANT
No REPORTER
BP 117321
In re the Estate of Michael
Joseph Jackson
(Parties and Counsel checked if present)
COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER N/A
COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT N/A
Subpoena Revision
The court finds the subpoena to be overbroad. Joseph Jackson shall limit the scope of
the request to documents created on or after June 25, 2009, communications occurring on
or after June 25, 2009, and correspondence dated on or after June 25, 2009.
in Camera Review
As noted, the court is required to examine the documents produced pursuant to the
subpoena in camera to evaluate the physician-patient privilege claim. The documents are
to be subpoenaed directly to Department 5 of this court for such review. Joseph
Jackson’s attorneys shall make arrangements to ensure that the documents are handdelivered
to the clerk of this department. The parties are to meet and confer concerning
the delivery of the documents to this court and take appropriate steps to ensure the
security of the documents.
Sanctions
The Estate’s request for sanctions is denied.
A copy of this order is sent this date by way of facsimile transmission to Attorneys Howard
Weitzman (FAX: 310-566-9871) and Brian Oxman (FAX: 714-521-1317). The court
clerk’s Certificate of Mailing otherwise reflects the service of this order.
Paul Gordon Hoffman, Esq., Hoffman, Sabban et al., 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Howard Weitzman, Esq., Kinsella, Weitzman et al., 808 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90401
Joseph Zimring, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, 300 S. Spring Street, Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA90013
Margaret Lodise, Esq., Sacks, Glazier et al., 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Brian Oxman, Esq., 14126 East Rosecrans Blvd., Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
4 Minutes Entered:
Department 5
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Date: February 19, 2010 DEPARTMENT 5
HONORABLE: Mitchell L. Beckloff
DEPUTY SHERIFF: NONE
M. Dewey, DEPUTY JUDICIAL ASSISTANT
No REPORTER
BP 117321
In re the Estate of Michael
Joseph Jackson
(Parties and Counsel checked if present)
COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER N/A
COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT N/A
Adam Streisand, Esq., Loeb and Loeb, 10100 Santa Monica Blvd.,
Los Angeles, CA 90067
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. I am familiar with the Los Angeles Superior Court practice for
collection and processing of correspondence and know that such correspondence is deposited with postage prepaid with the United
States Postal Service the same day it is delivered to the mailroom in the Los Angeles Superior Court. I declare under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that I delivered a true copy of the document to which this is attached to the parties or their
attorney addressed as listed above by placing the copy in a sealed envelope to the mail room of this court.
Date: February 19, 2010 JOHN A. CLARKE, Executive Officer/
Clerk of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles
by: M. Dewey, Deputy Clerk
Minutes Entered:
Department 5

http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/Michael%20Jackson%20Ruling%202-19-10.pdf


Murray’s search warrant

jacksonwarrant (murray’s search warrant)


Michael Jackson’s autopsy results (complete)

Below is a link to MJ’s complete autopsy result. What I noticed is that it does indeed look like an authentic document. However, a couple of things stood out to me. In page 3 it says the body was identified as “Michael JOSEPH jackson” by visual comparison to his driver’s license (family couldn’t identify it?) The name sticks out coz in his driver’s license it does say “Joe” not “Joseph”, however this is based on a license from 1989:

Next, it says propofol was found in his stomache contents (page 12). That doesn’t make sense to me. Propofol was given IV, don’t see how it could be in the stomache.

The file may take a bit of time to load (PDF file with 51 pages)

0208_mj_case_report_wm