Joe is asking for Michaels medical records
hope
Posts: 543
This is getting scarier by the day <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->
<!-- m -->http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/31/michael-j ... -subpoena/<!-- m -->
<!-- m -->http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/31/michael-j ... -subpoena/<!-- m -->
Comments
Why would the MJJ estate be furious that he has requested these? Surely if the man is dead, then the truth coming out would be the best in all interests??? Why would the estate be angry Joe Jackson wants the hospital reports and autopsy reports.
As MJs father.... this must mean that Joe hasnt seen the autopsy reports either... WHAT???????? MJs own father hasnt seen the autopsy reports?????
Joe's lawyer, Brian Oxman, sent 2 subpoenas to the UCLA Medical Center -- the hospital where Michael Jackson was pronounced dead on June 25. Oxman is asking for a number of documents, including medical records, autopsy reports, autopsy photos, medications and prognosis assessments.
Joe Jackson tells TMZ his entire family is behind the subpoenas -- Katherine, the brothers and sisters, along with him. He says they all believe the medical records
will show what was in Jackson's body when he passed and they believe the information will expose foul play.
We've obtained a letter sent to Oxman by estate lawyer Howard Weitzman, in which Weitzman calls the subpoenas "clearly improper." Weitzman claims the subpoenas violate Jackson's right of privacy and the physician/patient privilege. Weitzman also says the subpoenas are irrelevant to Joe Jackson's only legal claim -- a financial allowance
Why on earth would parents and next of kin have to fight to see medical records and autopsy reports for their son?? That makes no sense to me.
What about if the UCLA medical reports show that the dead guy is not real Michael? And family has been "fooled"?...or make believe they have been fooled...
or everybody (UCLA doctors included)make believe they have been fooled by genius Michael!!!
It is going to be a good january.
Maybe Joe is just helping Michael in the hoax!
When Brittany Murphy died recently at Cedars-Sinai, the hospital immediately released an official statement from the hospital spokesperson that she was indeed dead. This is permissible under the HIPAA privacy rules, that the hospital can say what condition the person is in, but give no details or confirm the cause.
<!-- m -->http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/sta ... id=9385992<!-- m -->
Why did UCLA not have a spokesperson who could have uttered just these few words concerning Michael Jackson? (if indeed it was true?)
On the UCLA press site they have Jermaine Jackson's statement, stating that MJ passed at UCLA on June 25. "The family of Michael Jackson made this brief statement available on June 25 at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center:" His family made the statement AVAILABLE?? What does this mean, really? It seems that UCLA did everything they could do to distance themselves from this situation that just happened to occur at their facility.
<!-- m -->http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl ... 94914.aspx<!-- m -->
And in this video from the UCLA press site they never mention "Michael Jackson". The guy from UCLA says, in essence, "I'm here to introduce a friend of Mr. (Jermaine) Jackson, Dr. Thome, who will make a brief statement and then we'll bring up (the aforementioned) Jermaine Jackson."
<!-- m -->http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl ... id=E0C5478<!-- m -->
And this next article has always intrigued me, in the way that someone else with knowledge of PR saw this whole "death announcement" situation unfold. "I was extremely surprised at UCLA Medical Center's lack of preparedness... After the death of superstar Michael Jackson at 2:26 pm today, the medical center had more than enough time to prepare for the press conference called on site for 5:15 pm. In fact, if a crisis plan was in place for one of the best known and largest medical centers in the country, it would have taken about one hour to implement all the steps... There was no UCLA Medical Center spokesperson or ER physician at the press conference. Instead the press conference spokesperson was Jermaine Jackson." (The person that was present at the press conference was the "chief operating officer of the UCLA Hospital System" - and he did not make any statement other than to introduce Dr. Thome, who then introduced Jermaine)
<!-- m -->http://www.tellem.com/id86.html<!-- m -->
If MY son had died in suspicious circumstances i would want to see EVERYTHING!
Including the autopsy report and photos and all medical records.
I would want the truth and ALL the truth about what happened to my son.
1. jow wanted to take advantage of those pictures and medical records by selling them to media
2, what surprised me was why dr murray and his lawyer asked to release the full autopsy report when dr murray was suspected for homicide , chances are there if there was someone else body that day , why would he ask for full autopsy report to prove his innocence ?
Well sure, I can understand that...but isn't Michael supposed to be alive? And if he isn't, why isn't Katherine asking for the files? It doesn't make sense to me that Joe would be the one to subpoena UCLA, especially since he was left out of the will and is fighting for an allowance. I'd say the lawyers have good reason to suspect Joe isn't just doing this for investigative purposes. Either way, I still think it strongly suggests Joe doesn't know anything about a hoax.
IMO, if he was so interested in Michael's "medical condition(s)" he should've talked to Michael himself. That is a blatant violation of Michael's privacy and in violation of HIPPA laws. Michael was an adult. His parents should not be privy to his personal medical history prior to the events of 6/25/09. Some things should remain confidential. If he is indeed deceased,having his medical records won't bring him back, so what's the real motive?
Wont bring him back.. but would give understanding and therefore closure
Completely agree. Michael was a grown man, not a child...his medical history is none of Joe's business. MIchael was a very private person, I'm sure he'd be mortified if Joe and his lawyer got their hands on those. Now I can see that Joe might subpoena the coroner's office, because they're the ones who have the autopsy findings, not UCLA. But wouldn't those be available to the family without a subpoena anyway? I would think at the very least Katherine would be allowed to see the information, unless maybe it's under lock and key until the investigation is over. Something about this is very fishy to me.
'All states have laws about what is called the physician-patient privilege. This privilege includes a patient’s right to medical privacy and the right to prevent a physician from revealing the contents of medical files without the patient’s permission. This privilege is frequently an issue in wrongful death lawsuits, where wrongful death lawyers need access to the medical information to prepare for a case. Because the plaintiff (the person suing) in the wrongful death lawsuit must prove that the defendant(s) caused the wrongful death, medical evidence is crucial.'
<!-- m -->http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/12 ... portunist/<!-- m -->
If Joe is looking to sue AEG, as Murray's employer, then i presume Joe will receive compensation should he win because he is the father of the deceased. It may not be just about money though. So much time has passed since MJ's 'death'. There are still many facts that have yet to even surface. The LAPD is sitting on all of this, but can they be trusted? The full autopsy report has still not been published. What was the estimated time of death? Was he still revivable when paramendics got there..........and Murray is back at work. The coroner won't release the report independently until they get the go-ahead from LAPD. Perhaps the family are just tired of being kept out of the loop. I do fear though that the MJ Estate (and its people) is becoming a formidable entity to be reckoned with, even by MJ's own family! Are they there to protect MJ's dignity and legacy as a human being, or do they see the estate as a huge opportunity to make money from his death any which way they can regardless of whether MJ would approve. What do they really represent? The issue with the Jackson-Murray-AEG contract is also interesting. AEG denies the existence of a valid signed contract, but what was in the contract that MJ and AEG couldn't agree on?
As for this particular article:
- shouldn't it be UCLA or even LAPD officials to stand up to the request for these documents due to physician/patient privilege and the ongoing investigation. Such opposition would be 100 times more authoritative and logical in the eyes of the world, rather than this done by the estate laywers and compromising the Jackson family with a doubt of their good intentions.
-in the letter it is mentioned that including MJ's SSN in the subpoena is a clear violation of his privacy, as such highly confidential information may not be part of any public record, BUT... don't we already know his SSN from SSDI? Now i'm not sure if SSN should remain confidential after the person passes away or only while alive? After all we could also see MJ's drivers licence which is considered a private record and cannot be disclosed to the public while the person is alive in order to prevent any fraudulent actions.
Social Security Death Index
Name: Michael Joseph Jackson
Date of Birth: Friday August 29, 1958
Date of Death: Thursday June 25, 2009
Est. Age at death: 50 years, 9 months, 27 days
Last known residence:
State: California
Confirmation: Proven
Social Security details:
State of Issue: Indiana
Social Security Number: 303-62-5728
<!-- m -->http://www.genealogyblog.com/?p=5363<!-- m -->
So the question is, why to put such a stress on keeping it a secret while it's all over the internet... smells of a drama... or did they fill another (REAL) number in the subpoena? <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
The SSN from celebrities that have died have been made public (ie Elvis, Marilyn) so I don't see why Michael's should be treated any differently (if he had really died). Also, did they release his current drivers licence/passport or just expired ones?
And that's exactly my point, why to make a problem out of it (as stems from the letter by Weitzman) unless MJ is ALIVE? It's not logical.
Don't think the thought hasn't crossed my mind that Joe may have been involved in the murder of ..... and he's hoping to be allowed to see what medical evidence there is to know where his ass stands. Next, I'm going to wash my mouth out with soap for saying that.
Now, the deception surrounding "the death of MJ". All this suspicious behavior and bad acting. The elaborate staging. 2 and 2 not adding up.......
Is there anyone on this board who can actually go snoop around to verify that conference room at UCLA in fact exists? Did you notice there were sound effects but the news crews and cameras were out of video range? The fact that no official UCLA people were there and the statement made that 'NO QUESTIONS' were permitted ? That would cover up the fact it may have been staged. Leave no stone unturned.
Also it is true that while the family tries to pull of a hoax, our investigation may be hampering their progress. I keep wondering if we may need to figure out a way to set up an underground investigation?
What do you think ?
The family has every right to the medical records. When my mother died I was given a copy of the full set of hospital records, which contained her medical history and the full autopy report. There were no forms to sign. This is in the US also, where HIPAA laws are strongly enforced and this was a good hospital. We had many questions as to the cause of death (hospital and/or prior medical negligence, or natural consequences of her illness). That is why we requested, and were given, her full medical records, without the need for a subpoena. I don't see why the Estate would argue against this. That is what really bothers me, unless the Estate has something to hide. I have no problem with the family getting the complete reports. The whole family supports the request. Either the reports will show that no one died at UCLA, that someone other than Michael died there, or that Michael really did die at UCLA for whatever reason (autopsy would show this). I am thinking that either the family believes something is fishy, or it is the beginning of the reveal. If the report doesn't exist, then we will have proof that Michael did not die at UCLA. The family also has it's own autopsy reports so they must either know that Michael died, or their autopsy was a fake, or the autopsy was done on someone else. I hope that whatever the case, the real records are given to the public by the family and that some accurate reporting is done. I am more suspicious of the Estate for trying to block what the family has a right to than I am suspicious of Joe. Bottom line is I hope the family gets the records. It's their right, no matter what Joe decides to do with what the information. LOL Sorry for rambling. I am just thinking out loud. Whatever the case, this is good news because we will have more information. I hope the Estate is not succesful in blocking Joe's request. This is exciting! I am hoping that it's the beginning of the reveal!