OJ's new Book

[WarmNCozy]

I respect that, if that's what sense to you.

I've investagted his site, some of it makes sense to me and some of it doesn't. My own personal opinion was years of research and struggling with various factors after initially believing that OJ was innocent.

I still agree with the criminal jury's verdict, but I do also now believe that OJ is guilty.

Kate

Thank you Kate for respecting my opinion. After all, it's just mine!

OJ is guilty of a multitude of sins. He is an absuer in the worst possible sense of the word. He has a vile temper. Has been involved in some pretty shady deals. And now this fiasco!

But it is still my opinion he did not murder Nicole and Ron. What else can I say!

[socaldiva]

*snip* After this weekend's discovery of people making money from Simpson's accomplishments and property, I am not giving one cent to the coffers of someone else stealing from OJ -- namely the Goldmans. He wrote the book and should be entitled to every cent it makes.



People stealing from Orenthal what he stole from the Goldman's :rolleyes:

Orenthal shouldn't be "entitled" to profit from a double murder he committed.

[WarmNCozy]

People stealing from Orenthal what he stole from the Goldman's :rolleyes:

Orenthal shouldn't be "entitled" to profit from a double murder he committed.

The jury didn't see it that way! He was found innocent!

[tv]

which I purchased for curiousity sake! After this weekend's discovery of people making money from Simpson's accomplishments and property, I am not giving one cent to the coffers of someone else stealing from OJ -- namely the Goldmans. He wrote the book and should be entitled to every cent it makes.

And with his latest stupidity, I think he'll need every cent he has for lawyers.So it's okay for OJ Simpson to make money off of killing his ex-wife and Ron Goldman? Oh, that's right, I forgot -- his children are poverty-stricken so it's okay for him to do whatever he has to do to make money.

[Bailey Boys]

He's a freak -- and he continues his freak shows. :cuss:

A freak that got away with murder...jmo...imo...

[Bailey Boys]

People stealing from Orenthal what he stole from the Goldman's :rolleyes:

Orenthal shouldn't be "entitled" to profit from a double murder he committed.

ITA!!:beer: might I add...and got away with.

[WarmNCozy]

So it's okay for OJ Simpson to make money off of killing his ex-wife and Ron Goldman? Oh, that's right, I forgot -- his children are poverty-stricken so it's okay for him to do whatever he has to do to make money.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

No one should take from OJ the bread he has earned!

[Kate Sachel]

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

No one should take from OJ the bread he has earned!

This is where it gets sticky I think. I can see where, if you believe OJ to be innocent, that you may be upset with someone being granted the money you feel he earned and for those who believe him guilty it's a matter of feeling good that a measure of justice was served.

I believe in the rights of a criminal trial and the rights of a civil trial. OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial and allowed to remain a free man, and he was found liable in a civil trial and is now bound to a judgment.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Thank you Kate for respecting my opinion. After all, it's just mine!

OJ is guilty of a multitude of sins. He is an absuer in the worst possible sense of the word. He has a vile temper. Has been involved in some pretty shady deals. And now this fiasco!

But it is still my opinion he did not murder Nicole and Ron. What else can I say!

You're welcome.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

This is where it gets sticky I think. I can see where, if you believe OJ to be innocent, that you may be upset with someone being granted the money you feel he earned and for those who believe him guilty it's a matter of feeling good that a measure of justice was served.

I believe in the rights of a criminal trial and the rights of a civil trial. OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial and allowed to remain a free man, and he was found liable in a civil trial and is now bound to a judgment.

Kate

You're right, here is where it gets sticky. But I have made the choice for the Goldman's judgment to be fulfilled other than this book, so I chose not to spend any money on it. JMO

[tv]

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

No one should take from OJ the bread he has earned!You have completely misused and taken this out of context. :no:

It also seems you left out an important part:

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

[WarmNCozy]

You have completely misused and taken this out of context. :no:

It also seems you left out an important part:

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

I didn't get it wrong. I didn't write it

I don't think Jefferson would like you editing his words!
:no:

[Kate Sachel]

I didn't get it wrong. I didn't write it

I don't think Jefferson would like you editing his words!
:no:

She didn't edit Jefferson's words, his quote was as she posted it and it came from his first inaugural address in 1801.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

She didn't edit Jefferson's words, his quote was as she posted it and it came from his first inaugural address in 1801.

KateI stand corrected for snipping it! And the injuring works both ways!

[tv]

She didn't edit Jefferson's words, his quote was as she posted it and it came from his first inaugural address in 1801.

KateThank you, Kate. :)

[tv]

I stand corrected for snipping it! And the injuring works both ways!You have still misused this quote to fit your allegation of Fred Goldman 'stealing' from OJ Simpson. Shameful.

[WarmNCozy]

You have still misused this quote to fit your allegation of Fred Goldman 'stealing' from OJ Simpson. Shameful.

It's all above perspectives! Not misuse!

[martin II]

You have still misused this quote to fit your allegation of Fred Goldman 'stealing' from OJ Simpson. Shameful.

fred is receiving free money. Money that he did not work for. Money that he wants to receive for selling a book about the death of his son.
imo
martin II

[WarmNCozy]

I respect that, if that's what sense to you.

I've investagted his site, some of it makes sense to me and some of it doesn't. My own personal opinion was years of research and struggling with various factors after initially believing that OJ was innocent.

I still agree with the criminal jury's verdict, but I do also now believe that OJ is guilty.

Kate

I originally thought him a murderer, and the jury fools!

So there you go! Checking out all the possibilities, led to my change of heart! And you also!

[tv]

fred is receiving free money. Money that he did not work for. Money that he wants to receive for selling a book about the death of his son.
imo
martin IImartin, your free money argument is getting old. Fred Goldman was awarded a judgement in a court of law. One things for sure, he didn't rob OJ Simpson at gunpoint.

[tv]

I originally thought him a murderer, and the jury fools!

So there you go! Checking out all the possibilities, led to my change of heart! And you also!Me also? What are you talking about?

[socaldiva]

fred is receiving free money. Money that he did not work for. Money that he wants to receive for selling a book about the death of his son.
imo
martin II


It's not "free money". It was awarded to him legally. Unlike Orenthal who used a group of thugs & guns to obtain something illegally.

[WarmNCozy]

I respect that, if that's what sense to you.

I've investagted his site, some of it makes sense to me and some of it doesn't. My own personal opinion was years of research and struggling with various factors after initially believing that OJ was innocent.

I still agree with the criminal jury's verdict, but I do also now believe that OJ is guilty.

Kate

"Quote from tv dinner
Me also? What are you talking about? "

Not you TV, Kate!

[martin II]

martin, your free money argument is getting old. Fred Goldman was awarded a judgement in a court of law. One things for sure, he didn't rob OJ Simpson at gunpoint.

fred did not work to make this book so the money is free.

martin II

[tv]

"Quote from tv dinner
Me also? What are you talking about? "

Not you TV, Kate!Thank you for clarifying. I see I misread.

[weezer]

fred did not work to make this book so the money is free.

martin II

so you think the double murderer/batterer and his co-conspirator should get the proceeds from a book that was -- as posted by you -- written by a ghostwriter?

[socaldiva]

fred did not work to make this book so the money is free.

martin II


Nah, "free money" is busting into someone's hotel room to steal something you stole from someone else ;)

[weezer]

Nah, "free money" is busting into someone's hotel room to steal something you stole from someone else ;)

LOL :beer: :beer:

[WarmNCozy]

Thank you for clarifying. I see I misread.

No problem!

[martin II]

martin, your free money argument is getting old. Fred Goldman was awarded a judgement in a court of law. One things for sure, he didn't rob OJ Simpson at gunpoint.

tv
whats getting old is you trying to pretend that fred did work for the money.

He is asking people to make him rich because someone killed his son. Is he any different than other mothers and fathers that lost their children. NO
imo
martin II

[weezer]

tv
whats getting old is you trying to pretend that fred did work for the money.

He is asking people to make him rich because someone killed his son. Is he any different than other mothers and fathers that lost their children. NO
imo
martin II

how do you figure orenthal and his co-conspirator 'worked' for the money off of the book?

[socaldiva]

tv
whats getting old is you trying to pretend that fred did work for the money.

He is asking people to make him rich because someone killed his son. Is he any different than other mothers and fathers that lost their children. NO
imo
martin II

Make him rich at 17 cents a copy? You're got to be joking.

I guess you consider damage awards in automobile accidents "free money" & think the injuried parties are "asking people to make them rich". How about the families of those killed in 9/11 that received money, is that "free money"?

[socaldiva]

*snip* Is he any different than other mothers and fathers that lost their children. NO


If those people lost their children in the same manner, they would be entitled to seek the same civil judgement. I guess you don't think any of them deserve anything for their loss. Fred isn't the first one or the only one to file such a suit.

[tv]

tv
whats getting old is you trying to pretend that fred did work for the money.

He is asking people to make him rich because someone killed his son. Is he any different than other mothers and fathers that lost their children. NO
imo
martin IImartin, he's not the only parent that has ever sued for wrongful death. Are you saying no one deserves to win a civil judgement in a wrongful death suit?

[tv]

Oops, sorry diva and weezer. I didn't read your responses before I answered. Great minds and all that stuff. :D

[tv]

tv
whats getting old is you trying to pretend that fred did work for the money.

He is asking people to make him rich because someone killed his son. Is he any different than other mothers and fathers that lost their children. NO
imo
martin III thought it was a bad book deal. Now you say he's going to get rich. Which is it? :shrug:

[socaldiva]

Oops, sorry diva and weezer. I didn't read your responses before I answered. Great minds and all that stuff. :D

No problem, I've done that myself a time or two :D

[martin II]

I thought it was a bad book deal. Now you say he's going to get rich. Which is it? :shrug:

you misquoted me.

I said he is asking people to make him rich ----.

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*

I said he is asking people to make him rich ----.

martin II

Like Orenthal was?? It's ok for Orenthal, but not for Fred?

[WarmNCozy]

how do you figure orenthal and his co-conspirator 'worked' for the money off of the book?

Should Tom Clancey give up his authorship of one, two, three or all he was the author of and person of producing in literature, or how about Alexander Bell, because maybe Alexander got involved in a situation whereby he was in a court of law proven innocent and afterward, his invention and the proceeds of his work, should belong to the general public and the accuser whether it true or not!

I hope I made my point!

[socaldiva]

Should Tom Clancey give up his authorship of one, two, three or all he was the author of and person of producing in literature, or how about Alexander Bell, because maybe Alexander got involved in a situation whereby he was in a court of law proven innocent and afterward, his invention and the proceeds of his work, should belong to the general public and the accuser whether it true or not!

I hope I made my point!

Yes, all of those authors should give up authorship of as many books as the courts deemed appropriate to help satisfy judgements. Are any of them known killers?

btw: Orenthal wasn't "proven innocent" in the civil trial, hence the judgement.

[WarmNCozy]

Yes, all of those authors should give up authorship of as many books as the courts deemed appropriate to help satisfy judgements. Are any of them known killers?

btw: Orenthal wasn't "proven innocent" in the civil trial, hence the judgement.

Civil trial does not make him guilty! Sorry!

[socaldiva]

Civil trial does not make him guilty! Sorry!

It makes him liable for the deaths. They were murdered.

[TobyTiger]

Civil trial does not make him guilty! Sorry!

This is from the case files on OJ Simpson here at Crime Library...

"In this civil suit filed by the Goldman and Brown families, Simpson could not invoke the Fifth Amendment and, unlike the criminal case, was forced to testify. Also, the standard of proof was a lot easier than in the criminal case. There, guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil case, guilt had only to be proven according to the "preponderance of the evidence", rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." In other words its purpose is to decide whether it is more likely than not that the defendant committed the crime."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/dead_16.html

[martin II]

This is from the case files on OJ Simpson here at Crime Library...

"In this civil suit filed by the Goldman and Brown families, Simpson could not invoke the Fifth Amendment and, unlike the criminal case, was forced to testify. Also, the standard of proof was a lot easier than in the criminal case. There, guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil case, guilt had only to be proven according to the "preponderance of the evidence", rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." In other words its purpose is to decide whether it is more likely than not that the defendant committed the crime."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/dead_16.html


Toby

oj was found Liable in the civilt trial . Guilty was not a consideration at all.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Civil trial does not make him guilty! Sorry!

No, but it means that he was found liable for the murder of Ron Goldman and the battery upon Nicole Brown and a judgment was rendered upon which he is required by a court of law to pay.

If you believe in the justice system that set him free in the criminal trial then you must also believe in that same justice system that rendered him liable in a civil trial and ordered him to pay money as a result.

If you don't believe in the justice system at all then that is a different story.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

tv
whats getting old is you trying to pretend that fred did work for the money.

He is asking people to make him rich because someone killed his son. Is he any different than other mothers and fathers that lost their children. NO
imo
martin II

That's quite the argument there martin; yet another stunning display.

Do you know how many people file wrongful death lawsuits? Sharon Rocha comes to mind, one of the classiest women I have noted whose daughter Laci Peterson was brutally murdered. Ms. Rocha filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Scott Peterson and not so that she could be made rich but so that she could ensure that Scott Peterson would never profit off of his crime by writing a book or selling property.

I maintain that the only reason Fred Goldman is different in your eyes is because he levels the playing field of a man you appear to worship.

Kate

[Bailey Boys]

Nah, "free money" is busting into someone's hotel room to steal something you stole from someone else ;)

How many times has OJ done that?

[Bailey Boys]

tv
whats getting old is you trying to pretend that fred did work for the money.

He is asking people to make him rich because someone killed his son. Is he any different than other mothers and fathers that lost their children. NO
imo
martin II

Sympathize much?

[Bailey Boys]

That's quite the argument there martin; yet another stunning display.

Do you know how many people file wrongful death lawsuits? Sharon Rocha comes to mind, one of the classiest women I have noted whose daughter Laci Peterson was brutally murdered. Ms. Rocha filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Scott Peterson and not so that she could be made rich but so that she could ensure that Scott Peterson would never profit off of his crime by writing a book or selling property.

I maintain that the only reason Fred Goldman is different in your eyes is because he levels the playing field of a man you appear to worship.

Kate

Mrs. Rocha is indeed a very classy women. I admire her strength and her courage. I am confused with something here..how can anyone admire OJ?:shrug:

[Kate Sachel]

Mrs. Rocha is indeed a very classy women. I admire her strength and her courage. I am confused with something here..how can anyone admire OJ?:shrug:

That would be a question I'd have to defer to martin for response.

Kate

[weezer]

Mrs. Rocha is indeed a very classy women. I admire her strength and her courage. I am confused with something here..how can anyone admire OJ?:shrug:

it takes all kinds and as we've seen, orenthal attracts a different kind. imo

[Bailey Boys]

it takes all kinds and as we've seen, orenthal attracts a different kind. imo

I suppose you are right. I imagine you would have to be a different kind to be attracted to OJ?;)

[WarmNCozy]

That's quite the argument there martin; yet another stunning display.

Do you know how many people file wrongful death lawsuits? Sharon Rocha comes to mind, one of the classiest women I have noted whose daughter Laci Peterson was brutally murdered. Ms. Rocha filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Scott Peterson and not so that she could be made rich but so that she could ensure that Scott Peterson would never profit off of his crime by writing a book or selling property.

I maintain that the only reason Fred Goldman is different in your eyes is because he levels the playing field of a man you appear to worship.

KateCall me crazy, but I have never seen posts by Martin indicating he worshiped OJ. But you can snip it for me.

[Kate Sachel]

Call me crazy, but I have never seen posts by Martin indicating he worshiped OJ. But you can snip it for me.

Crazy!

I don't mean that as an insult, but I wonder how long you've been lurking before posting on this forum because martin's love and worship for OJ Simpson has been evident from the get go.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

Crazy!

I don't mean that as an insult, but I wonder how long you've been lurking before posting on this forum because martin's love and worship for OJ Simpson has been evident from the get go.

Kate


I didn't take it as an insult! There are days ... well, we won't go into that. Ha!

Love and Worship??? He is obviously a defender of OJ's innocense and he probably remembers (as do I) the OJ of the Hertz, Orange Juice commercials, as well as his football days and the Naked Gun movies!

[Kate Sachel]

I didn't take it as an insult! There are days ... well, we won't go into that. Ha!

Love and Worship??? He is obviously a defender of OJ's innocense and he probably remembers (as do I) the OJ of the Hertz, Orange Juice commercials, as well as his football days and the Naked Gun movies!

He's more than a defender of his innocence, he's a defender of his entire lifestyle including the fact that he beat Nicole. Martin will tell you that no such thing ever happened, he'll also tell you that everything OJ did to Nicole was her fault and that OJ has always been a simple and innocent bystander.

He will trash Nicole's reported drug use and absolve OJ's reported drug use. He will tell you that Nicole was a wh*ore and defend OJ's numerous affairs.

He also told a woman poster here who was a victim of domestic violence that she deserved the black eyes and broken bones that her husband gave her.

He is, indeed, an OJ worshipper.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

He's more than a defender of his innocence, he's a defender of his entire lifestyle including the fact that he beat Nicole. Martin will tell you that no such thing ever happened, he'll also tell you that everything OJ did to Nicole was her fault and that OJ has always been a simple and innocent bystander.

He will trash Nicole's reported drug use and absolve OJ's reported drug use. He will tell you that Nicole was a wh*ore and defend OJ's numerous affairs.

He also told a woman poster here who was a victim of domestic violence that she deserved the black eyes and broken bones that her husband gave her.

He is, indeed, an OJ worshipper.

Kate

I haven't posted very long and have not seen anything like that said by Martin.

[Kate Sachel]

I haven't posted very long and have not seen anything like that said by Martin.

All you have to do is scroll through past threads or visit the old message board, the truth is saved there in black and white.

Kate

[socaldiva]

I haven't posted very long and have not seen anything like that said by Martin.

Then I doubt you've seen his 7,049 posts on this board ;)

[Heyes]

which I purchased for curiousity sake! After this weekend's discovery of people making money from Simpson's accomplishments and property, I am not giving one cent to the coffers of someone else stealing from OJ -- namely the Goldmans. He wrote the book and should be entitled to every cent it makes.

And with his latest stupidity, I think he'll need every cent he has for lawyers.
Not a problem......
I ordered two, so it all averages out. :D

[Bailey Boys]

He's more than a defender of his innocence, he's a defender of his entire lifestyle including the fact that he beat Nicole. Martin will tell you that no such thing ever happened, he'll also tell you that everything OJ did to Nicole was her fault and that OJ has always been a simple and innocent bystander.

He will trash Nicole's reported drug use and absolve OJ's reported drug use. He will tell you that Nicole was a wh*ore and defend OJ's numerous affairs.

He also told a woman poster here who was a victim of domestic violence that she deserved the black eyes and broken bones that her husband gave her.

He is, indeed, an OJ worshipper.

Kate


Lemme get this straight. He blames Nicole for the beatings? He told a posterr here, that it was her fault she was abused? Kidding, right?

[Bailey Boys]

Not a problem......
I ordered two, so it all averages out. :D

Perhaps I should order several as Christmas gifts?:D

[Kate Sachel]

Lemme get this straight. He blames Nicole for the beatings? He told a posterr here, that it was her fault she was abused? Kidding, right?

He doesn't blame Nicole for the beatings because he swears the beatings never occurred, but he blames her for everything else. And unfortunately I am not kidding when I say that he told Kayleighjo that she deserved the beatings she got from her husband.

Kate

[Bailey Boys]

He doesn't blame Nicole for the beatings because he swears the beatings never occurred, but he blames her for everything else. And unfortunately I am not kidding when I say that he told Kayleighjo that she deserved the beatings she got from her husband.

Kate


Wow. I have been around very few people like that. I am speechless. To blame Kayleighjo for something she had no control over is simply horrible!! I hope this person was surrounded by supportive posters, here? I have no doubt you and many others rallied around her. Shame on ANYONE that would do that!:flamemad:

[Heyes]

Perhaps I should order several as Christmas gifts?:D


LOL That's a great idea!
Going back to amazon!
I'll be back! lol

:patriot:
Ya know, I just can't erase this smile off my face.
ok brb

[Kate Sachel]

Wow. I have been around very few people like that. I am speechless. To blame Kayleighjo for something she had no control over is simply horrible!! I hope this person was surrounded by supportive posters, here? I have no doubt you and many others rallied around her. Shame on ANYONE that would do that!:flamemad:

She did indeed have many supporters. In my opinion, the women who post on this board (most notably fbgweezer, socaldiva, tazzy, and tvdinner) are unmatchable human beings in their intelligence, kindness, and humor.

Kate

[Bailey Boys]

LOL That's a great idea!
Going back to amazon!
I'll be back! lol

:patriot:
Ya know, I just can't erase this smile off my face.
ok brb


Get some pretty Santa paper to wrap them in!:hat:

[Bailey Boys]

She did indeed have many supporters. In my opinion, the women who post on this board (most notably fbgweezer, socaldiva, tazzy, and tvdinner) are unmatchable human beings in their intelligence, kindness, and humor.

Kate

That's so good to hear. She needed building up, encouragement from others. It took alot for her to share her personal experience, I would assume. My blessings to her, if she still posts or reads here!:rose:

[martin II]

tv

you may be interested in todays decision in CA court concerning freds attempts to get money from oj.

it is on TMZ

Ronald P. Slates, attorney for O.J. Simpson, sounded elated coming out of court today -- even offering up a little advice to David Cook -- the lawyer for the Goldmans!

Slates was excited that the judge turned down Cook's broad-based motion, requiring the Goldmans to file motions for items individually, not to make blanket requests. He then began to talk about how he would have gone after O.J.'s money if he were on the other side of things.

"I think Mr. Cook is an aggressive lawyer who sometimes does overkill," Slates told TMZ. "They should have done their homework."

Maybe "overkill" was a bad choice of words.

[martin II]

TV

http://www.tmz.com/tmz_main_video?titleid=1184769615
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Earlier Tuesday in California, a judge gave Fred Goldman a week to come up with a list of sports memorabilia O.J. Simpson is accused of stealing from the Vegas hotel room, but he refused to order Simpson to hand over his earnings from everything from autograph signings to video games.

[WarmNCozy]

He's more than a defender of his innocence, he's a defender of his entire lifestyle including the fact that he beat Nicole. Martin will tell you that no such thing ever happened, he'll also tell you that everything OJ did to Nicole was her fault and that OJ has always been a simple and innocent bystander.

He will trash Nicole's reported drug use and absolve OJ's reported drug use. He will tell you that Nicole was a wh*ore and defend OJ's numerous affairs.

He also told a woman poster here who was a victim of domestic violence that she deserved the black eyes and broken bones that her husband gave her.

He is, indeed, an OJ worshipper.

Kate

I have respect for Martin! He does not mud sling! He sent me the post you referred to so that I could judge FOR MYSELF!

There is no need to be mean and nasty while believing in your opinions! As you said to me, Kate, I'm entitled to my opinions and you respect that! Well, the same goes for me, I agree your are entitled to your opinions and respect that!

I hope that is the last of Martin being a bad guy!

[WarmNCozy]

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

To make a point that a man's works are HIS, I quoted Jefferson! Maybe I should have quoted from Ann Rand's books (novels based on the highest ideals instead) -- like the Fountainhead and Howard Roark's speech about being true to oneself and not letting someone steal and plagiarize your work!

Because Jefferson wrote beautiful words "All men are created equal" I admired him, but he owned slaves and thought them inferior at the same time!


Off topic
I think in the history of our nation, John Adams is so underrated! He was a far better man than Jefferson with his pretty words and life the opposite.

[socaldiva]

Earlier Tuesday in California, a judge gave Fred Goldman a week to come up with a list of sports memorabilia O.J. Simpson is accused of stealing from the Vegas hotel room, but he refused to order Simpson to hand over his earnings from everything from autograph signings to video games.

This has what to do with the thread topic??

[tv]

She did indeed have many supporters. In my opinion, the women who post on this board (most notably fbgweezer, socaldiva, tazzy, and tvdinner) are unmatchable human beings in their intelligence, kindness, and humor.

KateKate, you forgot to include yourself. You're the most intelligent, fairminded and kind person of any gender on this board. You made me feel so welcome when I first joined and was a little hesitant about jumping into the discussion and I'll always remember that. :)

[socaldiva]

She did indeed have many supporters. In my opinion, the women who post on this board (most notably fbgweezer, socaldiva, tazzy, and tvdinner) are unmatchable human beings in their intelligence, kindness, and humor.

Kate

What a lovely post. I've always admired you as a poster :rose:

I remember the posts to Kay :flamemad:

[tv]

TV

http://www.tmz.com/tmz_main_video?titleid=1184769615
MARTIN iiThank you for the link martin. What I see is one aggressive lawyer criticizing another aggressive lawyer. Isn't that the way it works? Fred Goldman may have hit a roadblock but I think it will all be resolved. He's in a better position than OJ Simpson right now; he's not in jail.

[Kate Sachel]

I have respect for Martin! He does not mud sling! He sent me the post you referred to so that I could judge FOR MYSELF!

There is no need to be mean and nasty while believing in your opinions! As you said to me, Kate, I'm entitled to my opinions and you respect that! Well, the same goes for me, I agree your are entitled to your opinions and respect that!

I hope that is the last of Martin being a bad guy!

You can have respect for whomever you'd like and I never told you that you couldn't, I'm simply explaining why I and most others on this board have zero respect for him.

Martin sent you the post that I was referring to did he? I'd gander to say that's impossible considering the fact that the Moderator permanently deleted that post and banned martin for it for a long period of time. Undoubtedly, based on the fact that the post no longer exists, I'd have to say he sent you something entirely different.

So no, it's not the last of martin being a bad guy, in fact it's the furthest thing from it. I absolutely will not be told to not speak aloud regarding my distaste for a man who blatantly came onto this board and told a woman she deserved to be beaten.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

You can have respect for whomever you'd like and I never told you that you couldn't, I'm simply explaining why I and most others on this board have zero respect for him.

Martin sent you the post that I was referring to did he? I'd gander to say that's impossible considering the fact that the Moderator permanently deleted that post and banned martin for it for a long period of time. Undoubtedly, based on the fact that the post no longer exists, I'd have to say he sent you something entirely different.

So no, it's not the last of martin being a bad guy, in fact it's the furthest thing from it. I absolutely will not be told to not speak aloud regarding my distaste for a man who blatantly came onto this board and told a woman she deserved to be beaten.

He sent me a post with the quote in it.

Kate


He sent me a post with the quote in it.

Hey, this is America. Say whatever you believe in.

[martin II]

Thank you for the link martin. What I see is one aggressive lawyer criticizing another aggressive lawyer. Isn't that the way it works? Fred Goldman may have hit a roadblock but I think it will all be resolved. He's in a better position than OJ Simpson right now; he's not in jail.

You got that right.
I would not be surprised if all the other people remain out on small bail and oj is denied bail. Maby the judge may believe OJ SIMPSON can move to someplace and hide. hahaha

martin II

[weezer]

She did indeed have many supporters. In my opinion, the women who post on this board (most notably fbgweezer, socaldiva, tazzy, and tvdinner) are unmatchable human beings in their intelligence, kindness, and humor.

Kate

:o aw shucks Kate, I like you too!

[weezer]

You got that right.
I would not be surprised if all the other people remain out on small bail and oj is denied bail. Maby the judge may believe OJ SIMPSON can move to someplace and hide. hahaha

martin II

well, we do know he likes to take Bronco rides -- :tongue:

[martin II]

Thank you for the link martin. What I see is one aggressive lawyer criticizing another aggressive lawyer. Isn't that the way it works? Fred Goldman may have hit a roadblock but I think it will all be resolved. He's in a better position than OJ Simpson right now; he's not in jail.

tv
Maby lvle will give fred all of the goods so he can take them as they may feel that they will not need these goods as EVIDENCE in a trial.

martin II

[tazzybaby]

She did indeed have many supporters. In my opinion, the women who post on this board (most notably fbgweezer, socaldiva, tazzy, and tvdinner) are unmatchable human beings in their intelligence, kindness, and humor.

Kate


Thanks Kate!!

I feel the same about you!!

:cool:

[Kayleighjo]

I have respect for Martin! He does not mud sling! He sent me the post you referred to so that I could judge FOR MYSELF!

There is no need to be mean and nasty while believing in your opinions! As you said to me, Kate, I'm entitled to my opinions and you respect that! Well, the same goes for me, I agree your are entitled to your opinions and respect that!

I hope that is the last of Martin being a bad guy!

Oh, you're talking about the post he sent to me right? This one:

"kay,
from your post it seems that you do have more experience in the area of cheating and AZZ kicking husbands than most on this thread. it may be your nasty mouth that caused you to recieve those black eyes and broken arms from you many husbands."

THAT POST? That's the post you find to be not insulting? That's the post that makes you uphold him in a shining light and respect him?

Holy crap everybody, we're in trouble now!

[weezer]

Everybody remember this? I thought of this today when I saw yale on tv running his mouth --

"O.J. Simpson's lawyer is denying The National Enquirer's claim that the disgraced gridiron star "confesses" in a new book to murdering ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her pal Ron Goldman — with an accomplice. The tab reports that Simpson is being paid $3.5 million to describe how he thinks the killings "might" have happened. But Simpson attorney Yale Galanter tells us Simpson "is not writing a book. We haven't been paid 35 cents, much less $3.5 million." Some suspect it may be an unauthorized book — written by a Simpson crony who's heard Simpson's rants about how the "real killers" would have done it. One insider heard that controversy-courting publisher Judith Regan at least considered the project. Regan's rep didn't return calls. But Galanter vows, "If anyone comes out with such a book, I'll go on every talk show and call it crap." Last week, a California state judge tentatively rejected the Goldman family's bid to seek the publicity rights to Simpson's name and image."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/464409p-390781c.html

:D :D :D

[martin II]

Everybody remember this? I thought of this today when I saw yale on tv running his mouth --

"O.J. Simpson's lawyer is denying The National Enquirer's claim that the disgraced gridiron star "confesses" in a new book to murdering ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her pal Ron Goldman — with an accomplice. The tab reports that Simpson is being paid $3.5 million to describe how he thinks the killings "might" have happened. But Simpson attorney Yale Galanter tells us Simpson "is not writing a book. We haven't been paid 35 cents, much less $3.5 million." Some suspect it may be an unauthorized book — written by a Simpson crony who's heard Simpson's rants about how the "real killers" would have done it. One insider heard that controversy-courting publisher Judith Regan at least considered the project. Regan's rep didn't return calls. But Galanter vows, "If anyone comes out with such a book, I'll go on every talk show and call it crap." Last week, a California state judge tentatively rejected the Goldman family's bid to seek the publicity rights to Simpson's name and image."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/464409p-390781c.html

:D :D :D


weezer
if you are talking about original IF I DID IT BOOK, oJ did not tell Yale about the contract with HC until it came out.

martin II

[weezer]

weezer
if you are talking about original IF I DID IT BOOK, oJ did not tell Yale about the contract with HC until it came out.

martin II

duh!

this is the part that always makes me laugh out loud: ". . .But Galanter vows, "If anyone comes out with such a book, I'll go on every talk show and call it crap."

[martin II]

duh!

this is the part that always makes me laugh out loud: ". . .But Galanter vows, "If anyone comes out with such a book, I'll go on every talk show and call it crap."

weezer
I think he did. But the larger question is what does it matter to you.Sounds like you are attempting to make some kind of attack on Yale for some reason.

martin II

[Kayleighjo]

weezer
I think he did. But the larger question is what does it matter to you.Sounds like you are attempting to make some kind of attack on Yale for some reason.

martin II

Maybe based on the fact that he's a lying idot ... which is why he represents O.J. so well.

But I think the better question is - why the heck are you always quoting Yale on this forum?

[socaldiva]

Maybe based on the fact that he's a lying idot ... which is why he represents O.J. so well.

But I think the better question is - why the heck are you always quoting Yale on this forum?

:beer: :beer: I was wondering the same thing myself!

[Kate Sachel]

Maybe based on the fact that he's a lying idot ... which is why he represents O.J. so well.

But I think the better question is - why the heck are you always quoting Yale on this forum?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Kate

[Heyes]

Oh, you're talking about the post he sent to me right? This one:

"kay,
from your post it seems that you do have more experience in the area of cheating and AZZ kicking husbands than most on this thread. it may be your nasty mouth that caused you to recieve those black eyes and broken arms from you many husbands."

THAT POST? That's the post you find to be not insulting? That's the post that makes you uphold him in a shining light and respect him?

Holy crap everybody, we're in trouble now!


OMG!
:flamemad:

[WarmNCozy]

Oh, you're talking about the post he sent to me right? This one:

"kay,
from your post it seems that you do have more experience in the area of cheating and AZZ kicking husbands than most on this thread. it may be your nasty mouth that caused you to recieve those black eyes and broken arms from you many husbands."

THAT POST? That's the post you find to be not insulting? That's the post that makes you uphold him in a shining light and respect him?

Holy crap everybody, we're in trouble now!:no:

Now what would make a mild mannered man write that I wonder?

Do you want to make available what you said about his wife?

[socaldiva]

:no:

Now what would make a mild mannered man write that I wonder?

Do you want to make available what you said about his wife?


This smacks of the same mantra the Orenthal appologists have relative to all of the heinous cr@p he does. The offender is the victim & someone else drove him to it :punch: :no: :flamemad:

[WarmNCozy]

tv

you may be interested in todays decision in CA court concerning freds attempts to get money from oj.

it is on TMZ

Ronald P. Slates, attorney for O.J. Simpson, sounded elated coming out of court today -- even offering up a little advice to David Cook -- the lawyer for the Goldmans!

Slates was excited that the judge turned down Cook's broad-based motion, requiring the Goldmans to file motions for items individually, not to make blanket requests. He then began to talk about how he would have gone after O.J.'s money if he were on the other side of things.

"I think Mr. Cook is an aggressive lawyer who sometimes does overkill," Slates told TMZ. "They should have done their homework."

Maybe "overkill" was a bad choice of words.

I have a real problem with a Civil Suit being brought against a person found innocent. I can see the Rochas filing a wrongful death suit because Scott was found guilty in a court of law.

OJ was not! Yet he has to fork over $32 million?

Personally, if I were accused of something, knew I was innocent, found innocent in a court of law, I would be hard pressed to want my earnings attached, my property seized, etc. in order to fulfill a court order. It just doesn't seem right to me!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
found innocent in a court of law

Orenthal wasn't "found innocent in a court of law".

[WarmNCozy]

Orenthal wasn't "found innocent in a court of law".

Not guilty is innocent!

[socaldiva]

Not guilty is innocent!

No, not really!

[martin II]

I have a real problem with a Civil Suit being brought against a person found innocent. I can see the Rochas filing a wrongful death suit because Scott was found guilty in a court of law.

OJ was not! Yet he has to fork over $32 million?

Personally, if I were accused of something, knew I was innocent, found innocent in a court of law, I would be hard pressed to want my earnings attached, my property seized, etc. in order to fulfill a court order. It just doesn't seem right to me!

i would not pay a civil judgement given to someone for a crime i did not commit. I don't believe there are many that would give up their home and their childrens education and future to do so either.Especially if it was $33,000,000. Although they would not have any problem saying another person should.imo

MARTIN ii
martin II

[WarmNCozy]

No, not really!

Do you live in America?:patriot:

[martin II]

I saw a article today that reported that Fred and his lawyers were flying to Nevada this morning to try to get lvle to take oj's rolex wristwatch. It was valued at $5,000 or $10,000.

Oj was seen on cnn about a hour ago traveling down the highway in a car on his way to the airport WITH MEDIA HELICOPTERS FILMING OVER HEAD on his way to the airport.

Saw a couple of very high powered NY lawyers on tv a few minutes ago. One said "this case is more about who the defendant is than what happened in the hotel room" He felt oj is being overcharged.
I am thinking about how dire the situation looked for oj when he was charged in the criminal trial. That situation changed in a big way in the end.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

Do you live in America?:patriot:

Yes, I do. Why? Are you trying to infer something derogatory about those that don't? :no:

Perhaps it would serve you to read up. Not guilty doesn't not mean "innocent" :read:

[martin II]

Tazzy
I think Yale Gallanter handeled himself well today in the news conferance.
It was a little long but he did not fall into the trap of giving up SOUND BITE comments when questioned by the press.
imo
martin II

[WarmNCozy]

I saw a article today that reported that Fred and his lawyers were flying to Nevada this morning to try to get lvle to take oj's rolex wristwatch. It was valued at $5,000 or $10,000.

Oj was seen on cnn about a hour ago traveling down the highway in a car on his way to the airport WITH MEDIA HELICOPTERS FILMING OVER HEAD on his way to the airport.

Saw a couple of very high powered NY lawyers on tv a few minutes ago. One said "this case is more about who the defendant is than what happened in the hotel room" He felt oj is being overcharged.
I am thinking about how dire the situation looked for oj when he was charged in the criminal trial. That situation changed in a big way in the end.imo
martin II
For a watch? How sick is this?:(

[martin II]

oj's lawyer, i believe Yale Gallanter is to be on lkl tonight.
martin II

[WarmNCozy]

Yes, I do. Why? Are you trying to infer something derogatory about those that don't? :no:

:Perhaps it would serve you to read up. Not guilty doesn't not mean "innocent" :read

No, I did not infer anything other than in America a person is Innocent until proven Guilty! OJ was found NOT GUILTY, hence INNOCENT!

Maybe you should read up! I have! And he did not murder Nicole and Ron!

[martin II]

For a watch? How sick is this?:(

I know. Unreal.


The judge told fred he could not give him blanket approval to get oj's goods.
He also told him that fred would have to get the watch, have it appraised and then make applicaiton to that court for a decision by the judge.
Wonder how fred plans to get the watch from oj?

This is Judge GOLDBERG, The judge that initially gave fred the right to auction off the book in ca.

martin II

[socaldiva]

No, I did not infer anything other than in America a person is Innocent until proven Guilty! OJ was found NOT GUILTY, hence INNOCENT!

Maybe you should read up! I have! And he did not murder Nicole and Ron!

You didn't specify that in your post, did you? All you asked was if I lived in America. I do, but you don't have to live here to understand American law, so I think you do a disservice to those that don't live here when you post like you did.We were not speaking of Innocent until proven guilty, were we? You posted about being "found innocent in a court of law". Not guilty does not mean innocent, perhaps you should read up some more.

[socaldiva]

*snip*


The judge told fred he could not give him blanket approval to get oj's goods.



It is my understanding that that was only because the judge couldn't be certain at this time that all of those goods actually belong to Orenthal. Remember it was part of a robbery & Orenthal seems to have gotten his meaty hands on stuff that wasn't his. I think the judge gave the Goldman's a week or two to sort that out.

[martin II]

No, I did not infer anything other than in America a person is Innocent until proven Guilty! OJ was found NOT GUILTY, hence INNOCENT!

Maybe you should read up! I have! And he did not murder Nicole and Ron!

Thanks
:beer: :beer: :beer:

martin II

[socaldiva]

Thanks
:beer: :beer: :beer:

martin II

Thanks for what, being misinformed & thinking not guilty equals innocence? That's funny. :tongue:

[WarmNCozy]

You didn't specify that in your post, did you? All you asked was if I lived in America. I do, but you don't have to live here to understand American law, so I think you do a disservice to those that don't live here when you post like you did.We were not speaking of Innocent until proven guilty, were we? You posted about being "found innocent in a court of law". Not guilty does not mean innocent, perhaps you should read up some more.

I live in South Florida, I think posters know it's in America!

Are you a lawyer? Quote from a legal source that not quilty means not innocent! Until you can, I will put you on ignore!

[WarmNCozy]

oj's lawyer, i believe Yale Gallanter is to be on lkl tonight.
martin II

I saw him live today on Fox!

[socaldiva]

I live in South Florida, I think posters know it's in America!

Are you a lawyer? Quote from a legal source that not quilty means not innocent! Until you can, I will put you on ignore!

What does your living in Florida have to do with anything? I never asked where you live. :confused:

Please feel free to put my on ignore :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[WarmNCozy]

What does your living in Florida have to do with anything? I never asked where you live. :confused:

Please feel free to put my on ignore :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

Let me remind you as I assume you forgot what you last said about my question "if you lived in America"!

Yes, I do. Why? Are you trying to infer something derogatory about those that don't? :no:

Perhaps it would serve you to read up. Not guilty doesn't not mean "innocent" :read:

[socaldiva]

Let me remind you as I assume you forgot what you last said about my question "if you lived in America"!

I didn't forget anything. Your answering where you live in reponse to asking me if I lived in America makes no sense. I didn't ask where you live.:shrug:

btw: I thought you said you were putting me on ignore.....

[WarmNCozy]

I didn't forget anything. Your answering where you live in reponse to asking me if I lived in America makes no sense. I didn't ask where you live.:shrug:

btw: I thought you said you were putting me on ignore.....

Again, you seem to forget ... let me post again my remarks once more:

I live in South Florida, I think posters know it's in America!

Are you a lawyer? Quote from a legal source that not quilty means not innocent! Until you can, I will put you on ignore!

I think what I meant was, I was waiting for your legal source and then I would put you on ignore because anything derogatory against OJ is just in your opinion only and not worth viewing!

So, do you have the legal source?

[socaldiva]

Again, you seem to forget ... let me post again my remarks once more:

I live in South Florida, I think posters know it's in America!

Are you a lawyer? Quote from a legal source that not quilty means not innocent! Until you can, I will put you on ignore!

I think what I meant was, I was waiting for your legal source and then I would put you on ignore because anything derogatory against OJ is just in your opinion only and not worth viewing!

So, do you have the legal source?

Again, you are posting an answer that doesn't make any sense & it doesn't matter how many times you post it, it still won't make sense.

I'm not about to tell you what I do for a profession. Based on your thinking, I guess you must be a lawyer, otherwise your information would be without merit. Aren't you the poster that posted today that everyone was entitled to an opinon? Did you really mean only those that agree with you?

You want me to quote a legal source & then you will put me on ignore?
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense either. Please feel free to put me on igonre NOW.

I'm not about to look for a legal source for you, you are welcome to find your own.

I suggest this effort at personal jabs stop & the thread get back on topic.

Has anyone heard how the book sales are doing?

[WarmNCozy]

Again, you are posting an answer that doesn't make any sense & it doesn't matter how many times you post it, it still won't make sense.

I'm not about to tell you what I do for a profession. Based on your thinking, I guess you must be a lawyer, otherwise your information would be without merit. Aren't you the poster that posted today that everyone was entitled to an opinon? Did you really mean only those that agree with you?

You want me to quote a legal source & then you will put me on ignore?
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense either. Please feel free to put me on igonre NOW.

I'm not about to look for a legal source for you, you are welcome to find your own.

I suggest this effort at personal jabs stop & the thread get back on topic.

Has anyone heard how the book sales are doing?

Unless you have a legal source for your accusation, I should ignore you and every other person should viewing this board!

I did not go off topic! You discredited me with the remark that I insulted people who were not Americans.

You implied that innocent until proven guilty and then when you are proven not guilty you are still a murderer.

Please explain the logic of this thinking to me, I'm bewildered!

[socaldiva]

Unless you have a legal source for your accusation, I should ignore you and every other person should viewing this board!

I did not go off topic! You discredited me with the remark that I insulted people who were not Americans.

You implied that innocent until proven guilty and then when you are proven not guilty you are still a murderer.

Please explain the logic of this thinking to me, I'm bewildered!

~sigh~

I know you are bewildered. Apparently you are confused also, as you are misrepresenting what was posted. Please stop bickering & get back on topic.

:seeya: :seeya:

Does anyone know how the book sales are going?

[Heyes]

~sigh~

I know you are bewildered. Apparently you are confused also, as you are misrepresenting what was posted. Please stop bickering & get back on topic.

:seeya: :seeya:

Does anyone know how the book sales are going?

#2 at amazon,
Awesome!
Congrats to Fred and Kim!!!!!
Greenspan is number 1

[socaldiva]

#2 at amazon,
Awesome!
Congrats to Fred and Kim!!!!!
Greenspan is number 1

Excellent news! Thanks for posting it. Congrats to Fred & Kim. I hope Fred gets the Rolex & wears it at the book signings. :tongue:

[weezer]

I live in South Florida, I think posters know it's in America!

Are you a lawyer? Quote from a legal source that not quilty means not innocent! Until you can, I will put you on ignore!

http://www.massbar.org/3815: "Not Guilty Does Not Mean Innocent
All too often when I listen to the radio or read the newspapers, I hear or see "at arraignment, the defendant pled innocent" or "the defendant was found innocent by the jury." The word "innocent" is being misused. "Innocent" cannot and should not be substituted for "not guilty."

Legal terms
In the field of law, words or phrases with specific legal meanings beyond their definitions in ordinary usage are called "words of art" or "terms of art." Here are some of those meanings, under U.S. law, for such terms in this article:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Innocence_Project: "↑ To be "innocent" of a crime means not to have committed it, as opposed to "guilty," which means that person did commit that criminal offense at that time and place. Because innocence/guilt is a binary matter of fact (that may depend on such elusive factors as what a person was thinking at a particular moment), in the real world it is often impossible even to ascertain which is true, much less to prove it legally. In the U.S., if that factual question is decided at a jury trial, the verdict is either "guilty" or "not guilty," and "not guilty" means "not proven guilty" -- it does NOT mean "innocent."
↑ To be "exonerated" (or "cleared") of an imputation of criminal activity means to have it removed as if it never existed. For example: If a person is suspected of having committed a certain criminal offense, to be "exonerated" means not to be suspected anymore. If a person is formally accused of a criminal offense (by having charges filed by a governmental agent, such as a district attorney, with a court), to be "exonerated" means to have that formal accusation withdrawn because it was factually wrong (NOT because there was some technical defect, such as being unable to adduce sufficient evidence to prove it, which is why a person may be acquitted (that is, found "not guilty") of a murder charge at a criminal trial and then be held liable, in a civil trial, to pay money damages for the killing). If a person has been convicted of a criminal offense, to be "exonerated" means not only to have the formal adjudication of guilt undone but to have the underlying accusation itself withdrawn for having been factually wrong, too.
↑ Merely being released from incarceration because the criminal conviction was reversed is not equivalent to either being "exonerated" or being "proved innocent": If a criminal conviction is invalidated, the usual result is that the person is still formally accused of the crime and, therefore, entitled to a new trial on those charges. The court in which the charges are pending may grant bail, and the person may then be released from custody until the charges are resolved, whether by a new trial or by having the charges dismissed (by the court) or withdrawn (by the prosecuting authority).

[weezer]

Innocent until proven guilty

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html:

"Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution
First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury."

[weezer]

~sigh~

I know you are bewildered. Apparently you are confused also, as you are misrepresenting what was posted. Please stop bickering & get back on topic.

:seeya: :seeya:

Does anyone know how the book sales are going?

I read somewhere yesterday that the book is going into a second printing. :beer:

[martin II]

http://www.massbar.org/3815: "Not Guilty Does Not Mean Innocent
All too often when I listen to the radio or read the newspapers, I hear or see "at arraignment, the defendant pled innocent" or "the defendant was found innocent by the jury." The word "innocent" is being misused. "Innocent" cannot and should not be substituted for "not guilty."

Legal terms
In the field of law, words or phrases with specific legal meanings beyond their definitions in ordinary usage are called "words of art" or "terms of art." Here are some of those meanings, under U.S. law, for such terms in this article:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Innocence_Project: "↑ To be "innocent" of a crime means not to have committed it, as opposed to "guilty," which means that person did commit that criminal offense at that time and place. Because innocence/guilt is a binary matter of fact (that may depend on such elusive factors as what a person was thinking at a particular moment), in the real world it is often impossible even to ascertain which is true, much less to prove it legally. In the U.S., if that factual question is decided at a jury trial, the verdict is either "guilty" or "not guilty," and "not guilty" means "not proven guilty" -- it does NOT mean "innocent."
↑ To be "exonerated" (or "cleared") of an imputation of criminal activity means to have it removed as if it never existed. For example: If a person is suspected of having committed a certain criminal offense, to be "exonerated" means not to be suspected anymore. If a person is formally accused of a criminal offense (by having charges filed by a governmental agent, such as a district attorney, with a court), to be "exonerated" means to have that formal accusation withdrawn because it was factually wrong (NOT because there was some technical defect, such as being unable to adduce sufficient evidence to prove it, which is why a person may be acquitted (that is, found "not guilty") of a murder charge at a criminal trial and then be held liable, in a civil trial, to pay money damages for the killing). If a person has been convicted of a criminal offense, to be "exonerated" means not only to have the formal adjudication of guilt undone but to have the underlying accusation itself withdrawn for having been factually wrong, too.
↑ Merely being released from incarceration because the criminal conviction was reversed is not equivalent to either being "exonerated" or being "proved innocent": If a criminal conviction is invalidated, the usual result is that the person is still formally accused of the crime and, therefore, entitled to a new trial on those charges. The court in which the charges are pending may grant bail, and the person may then be released from custody until the charges are resolved, whether by a new trial or by having the charges dismissed (by the court) or withdrawn (by the prosecuting authority).

i guess that being found liable does not mean one murdered anyone.
martin II

[Kayleighjo]

:no:

Now what would make a mild mannered man write that I wonder?

Do you want to make available what you said about his wife?

With pleasure! Let me start at the beginning:

Your mild mannered man got on this forum and told us that his wife has a "big trap that she needs to keep shut" (nice huh?) and he was called out on that.

He then posted:

"kay, you should keep your big trap shut. or maybe thats why you know all about this stuff".

I responded "considering that he refers to his wife as having a big trap one might assume that he's lacking a little in some necessary areas of his marriage that require some upkeeping from outside individuals if ya know what I mean".

But thanks for trying to defend him because you know what he did? You finally got him to show all of us that martinII is indeed the old rayraytwo that was permanently banned for his disgusting remarks!!

Do you realize that fgbweezer and socal? That martinII has now finally admitted to being rayraytwo? WeeeeHeee!

[weezer]

i guess that being found liable does not mean one murdered anyone.
martin II

"The nature of acts which constitute crimes and civil wrongs often overlap, as in OJ's case. The same act - killing the innocent - constitutes the crime of murder, for which the state could punish him, and the civil wrong, committed against relatives of hte victims, of "wrongful death" (I think that's what it's called). For this the relatives themselves sued him - and won."

[weezer]

What's the difference between a civil and a criminal conviction?


QUESTION:


O.J. Simpson is NOT guilty as judged by criminal court. Yet a civil court held him accountable. I see him as NOT a murderer. So, how is the civil court's determination different from the criminal? And is O.J. still NOT guilty of murder?


ANSWER:


You are not alone in being confused about how a person acquitted of murder in a criminal trial can be held liable for a victim's wrongful death in a civil trial.

The first step to understanding this seeming contradiction is to know that a criminal prosecution involves different laws, a different court system, and different burdens of proof. Specifically, the definition of first degree murder in the context of the O.J. case requires that the act be done deliberately and with a great deal of malice directed toward the victim. And to convict in the criminal court, the case against the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil case for wrongful death, on the other hand, you have to show only that the defendant was legally responsible for the death. But, to get punitive damages, as the plaintiffs did in the O.J. case, you have to show that the defendant acted recklessly. The burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence -- a much lesser burden than is required in a criminal case.

So, while a criminal jury might reasonably fail to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquit the accused, a civil jury might also reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she acted recklessly and should be held civilly accountable for the death.

Is the former football hero Orenthal James Simpson a murderer? A civil jury found it more likely than not that he caused the death of his wife and her friend. A criminal jury was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. committed first degree murder. Seen this way, there is no contradiction.

http://www.nolopress.com/article.cfm/catId/3900BEB2-2599-4E9F-B5F09F0DF3E33C7B/objectId/AF4E5033-8D1B-4B34-B0506F516F171C37/104/143/QNA/

[weezer]

i guess that being found liable does not mean one murdered anyone.
martin II

what part of this did you not understand: ". . .decided at a jury trial, the verdict is either "guilty" or "not guilty," and "not guilty" means "not proven guilty" -- it does NOT mean "innocent." ?

[Kate Sachel]

No, I did not infer anything other than in America a person is Innocent until proven Guilty! OJ was found NOT GUILTY, hence INNOCENT!

Maybe you should read up! I have! And he did not murder Nicole and Ron!

Warm,

You are incorrect. It is true that in our legal system a defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, being "innocent" is not a factor or an option in a criminal trial. A "not guilty" verdict does not conclude innocence but rather a finding that the evidence did not meet the required burden of proof to result in a conviction.

And yes, I do work in law.

Kate

[martin II]

what part of this did you not understand: ". . .decided at a jury trial, the verdict is either "guilty" or "not guilty," and "not guilty" means "not proven guilty" -- it does NOT mean "innocent." ?

I guess then that being found liable does not mean that one murdered anyone

martin II

[weezer]

I guess then that being found liable does not mean that one murdered anyone

martin II

and it doesn't mean he didn't but that he more likely than not DID!

[martin II]

and it doesn't mean he didn't but that he more likely than not DID!

so we can expect to not hear 'OJ MURDERED TWO PEOPLE"

since you believe in legal definitions

martin II

[weezer]

so we can expect to not hear 'OJ MURDERED TWO PEOPLE"

since you believe in legal definitions

martin II

WTH? you off your meds again? :tongue: how in the world did you draw that conclusion from what I posted?

[tazzybaby]

Tazzy
I think Yale Gallanter handeled himself well today in the news conferance.
It was a little long but he did not fall into the trap of giving up SOUND BITE comments when questioned by the press.
imo
martin II

Hi Martin,

I also think Galanter wasn't over the top as usual. He normally does make comments that IMO are more on the tabloid type side. IMO he has to act appropriately because these charges are serious. I believe he knows he has a big job ahead of him. At least he's not standing there saying...."there was no robbery, if there was a robbery I will go on the talk shows and call it crap".

[weezer]

Hi Martin,

I also think Galanter wasn't over the top as usual. He normally does make comments that IMO are more on the tabloid type side. IMO he has to act appropriately because these charges are serious. I believe he knows he has a big job ahead of him. At least he's not standing there saying...."there was no robbery, if there was a robbery I will go on the talk shows and call it crap".

don't be too sure -- he does keep insisting that orenthal is innocent! :tongue:

[tazzybaby]

For a watch? How sick is this?:(

Hi WarmNCozy,

What I think is sick is the fact that OJ is constantly saying he is broke but yet he has a rolex?! He used his kids to funnel money. That's sick. The Goldman's are simply collecting on a debt that is legally owed them by OJ.

[tazzybaby]

don't be too sure -- he does keep insisting that orenthal is innocent! :tongue:


LOL! Right!

Yes, I don't believe one word that comes out of Galanter's mouth. He has helped OJ avoid punishment that he deserved. That's a low life IMO.

I think it's funny that ANYONE would say that OJ is innocent of these charges? He hasn't denied that he went in there like he did. That's guilty.

And, how many times have we said that the NG's wouldn't believe it even if there was a tape?? Well, this time there's a tape and they still don't believe it and say that he was "set up". LOL No one could set him up to storm the room with armed storm troopers with OJ screaming to get against the wall and taking the phone from the guy. How could that be done? He causes his own downfalls.

[martin II]

Hi WarmNCozy,

What I think is sick is the fact that OJ is constantly saying he is broke but yet he has a rolex?! He used his kids to funnel money. That's sick. The Goldman's are simply collecting on a debt that is legally owed them by OJ.

tazzy
as fred was suppose to be on his way to lv to try to get the watch, oj was on a plane to Miami
martinii

[martin II]

LOL! Right!

Yes, I don't believe one word that comes out of Galanter's mouth. He has helped OJ avoid punishment that he deserved. That's a low life IMO.

I think it's funny that ANYONE would say that OJ is innocent of these charges? He hasn't denied that he went in there like he did. That's guilty.

And, how many times have we said that the NG's wouldn't believe it even if there was a tape?? Well, this time there's a tape and they still don't believe it and say that he was "set up". LOL No one could set him up to storm the room with armed storm troopers with OJ screaming to get against the wall and taking the phone from the guy. How could that be done? He causes his own downfalls.

tazzy
i don't think anyone here has said oj was innocent of anything in this case.
People that were in the room have said oj was set up.

martin II

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

I also think Galanter wasn't over the top as usual. He normally does make comments that IMO are more on the tabloid type side. IMO he has to act appropriately because these charges are serious. I believe he knows he has a big job ahead of him. At least he's not standing there saying...."there was no robbery, if there was a robbery I will go on the talk shows and call it crap".

i think other lawyers will be added to the defense by time the case starts.
I saw two very successful ones on tv last night that seemed to be interested.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy
as fred was suppose to be on his way to lv to try to get the watch, oj was on a plane to Miami
martinii


Hi Martin,

But..........without the watch

:cool:


The judge has already sided in favor of the Goldmans to collect on Simpson's gold Rolex Submariner watch, valued between $5,000 and $10,000, allowing attorneys for the family to retrieve the watch from Las Vegas and get it appraised.

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=6a8815a3-a1f4-4f08-9787-09639d89aafc&sid=fd-hot5-txt

[tazzybaby]

i think other lawyers will be added to the defense by time the case starts.
I saw two very successful ones on tv last night that seemed to be interested.
martin II

Yes, he will definately need more than just Galanter.

[weezer]

Yes, he will definately need more than just Galanter.

lol -- THANKS!

[WarmNCozy]

Hi Martin,

But..........without the watch

:cool:


The judge has already sided in favor of the Goldmans to collect on Simpson's gold Rolex Submariner watch, valued between $5,000 and $10,000, allowing attorneys for the family to retrieve the watch from Las Vegas and get it appraised.

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=6a8815a3-a1f4-4f08-9787-09639d89aafc&sid=fd-hot5-txt

What's next, his golf clubs?:mad:

[martin II]

What's next, his golf clubs?:mad:

i wonder how it was determined that oj has a real rolex watch. not from that picture on cnn i hope.
The $5.00 copies look the same.
martin II

[tv]

What's next, his golf clubs?:mad:Sure, why not?

[martin II]

What's next, his golf clubs?:mad:

kitchen cooking pots.

martin II

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

But..........without the watch

:cool:


The judge has already sided in favor of the Goldmans to collect on Simpson's gold Rolex Submariner watch, valued between $5,000 and $10,000, allowing attorneys for the family to retrieve the watch from Las Vegas and get it appraised.

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=6a8815a3-a1f4-4f08-9787-09639d89aafc&sid=fd-hot5-txt

where is the watch now"

martin II

[weezer]

where is the watch now"

martin II

maybe back in Vegas with the socks he DIDN'T have on! LOL --

anyone else notice he wasn't wearing socks? LOL -- I know, I know, it's probably a blow to the NG's (who keep insisting orenthal was too natty a dresser to have worn the BM's with his sweat suit) that orenthal didn't wear socks with his dress shoes and suit in Vegas yesterday. hmmmmm

[tazzybaby]

What's next, his golf clubs?:mad:

Your anger and disbelief at this is exactly how most G's feel at his arrogance and hiding of his assets (which is illegal by the way, especially if he didn't pay taxes on it). At least the Goldman's aren't breaking any laws.

What's next for OJ? Abuse, Murder, road rage, drug raid, pirating and armed "sting operation" (and these are only the things we know about).......I'm scared to think what could be next

:flamemad:

[WarmNCozy]

Your anger and disbelief at this is exactly how most G's feel at his arrogance and hiding of his assets (which is illegal by the way, especially if he didn't pay taxes on it). At least the Goldman's aren't breaking any laws.

What's next for OJ? Abuse, Murder, road rage, drug raid, pirating and armed "sting operation" (and these are only the things we know about).......I'm scared to think what could be next

:flamemad:

I'm assuming from your post that you are not fond of OJ?

[martin II]

maybe back in Vegas with the socks he DIDN'T have on! LOL --

anyone else notice he wasn't wearing socks? LOL -- I know, I know, it's probably a blow to the NG's (who keep insisting orenthal was too natty a dresser to have worn the BM's with his sweat suit) that orenthal didn't wear socks with his dress shoes and suit in Vegas yesterday. hmmmmm

weezer
sometimes i think there is really no hope.

martin II

[martin II]

maybe back in Vegas with the socks he DIDN'T have on! LOL --

anyone else notice he wasn't wearing socks? LOL -- I know, I know, it's probably a blow to the NG's (who keep insisting orenthal was too natty a dresser to have worn the BM's with his sweat suit) that orenthal didn't wear socks with his dress shoes and suit in Vegas yesterday. hmmmmm

Obviously you have never seen a man in a warm climite wear shoes without socks otherwise i don't believe you would have posted this nonsense.


martrin II

[weezer]

Obviously you have never seen a man in a warm climite wear shoes without socks otherwise i don't believe you would have posted this nonsense.


martrin II

LOL -- maybe I'm just not use to seeing a man wear dress shoes and suit without socks -- looked a little strange to me but I've read that he does like to leave the scene of a crime without his socks so there you have it! :tongue:

[martin II]

Your anger and disbelief at this is exactly how most G's feel at his arrogance and hiding of his assets (which is illegal by the way, especially if he didn't pay taxes on it). At least the Goldman's aren't breaking any laws.

What's next for OJ? Abuse, Murder, road rage, drug raid, pirating and armed "sting operation" (and these are only the things we know about).......I'm scared to think what could be next

:flamemad:

tazzy i understand how you feel about oj but that should not cause you to go over the top. gees

martin II

[weezer]

tazzy i understand how you feel about oj but that should not cause you to go over the top. gees

martin II

I didn't think the post was over the top. I think she expressed what many of us think: cheating, lying, stealing, murderering, armed robbery -- scarey to think what he could do next. imo

[martin II]

LOL -- maybe I'm just not use to seeing a man wear dress shoes and suit without socks -- looked a little strange to me but I've read that he does like to leave the scene of a crime without his socks so there you have it! :tongue:

loafers with suit or jacket and trousers without socks has been a fashion item for some time now. Specially in warm climites where fashion is important.
People that are 'OUT AND ABOUT' would know this.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

I didn't think the post was over the top. I think she expressed what many of us think: cheating, lying, stealing, murderering, armed robbery -- scarey to think what he could do next. imo

Weezer
In case you did not understand i was posting to tazzy. She is quite capable of answering post made to her.
:cool:
martin II

[weezer]

loafers with suit or jacket and trousers without socks has been a fashion item for some time now. Specially in warm climites where fashion is important.
People that are 'OUT AND ABOUT' would know this.
imo
martin II

ROFLMAO -- and you're into fashion are you? I live in a very warm climate, work with professionals of all ages and guess what -- they all remember to wear their socks with their suits! LOL -- you really do crack me up sometimes.

[weezer]

Weezer
In case you did not understand i was posting to tazzy. She is quite capable of answering post made to her.
:cool:
martin II

oh, I agree -- our tazzy is a bright girl and more than capable of answering for herself. I just wanted you to understand that you -- again -- were wrong. imo

[Heyes]

loafers with suit or jacket and trousers without socks has been a fashion item for some time now. Specially in warm climites where fashion is important.
People that are 'OUT AND ABOUT' would know this.
imo
martin II
People that were "OUT AND ABOUT" in the eighties. :rolleyes:
Mr. miami vice.
:biggrin:

[socaldiva]

People that were "OUT AND ABOUT" in the eighties. :rolleyes:
Mr. miami vice.
:biggrin:


:biggrin: :beer:

I live in Los Angeles: Big city, warm climate. I have yet to see a man wearing a suit without socks & I hope I never do. It looks stupid. :)

[martin II]

ROFLMAO -- and you're into fashion are you? I live in a very warm climate, work with professionals of all ages and guess what -- they all remember to wear their socks with their suits! LOL -- you really do crack me up sometimes.


Maby fashion is different where you are than some other places.
do all the men wear white SOCKS with loafers that you are referring to.
I have nothing to do with your inability to know this fact.

If you don't know you don't know.
martin II

[martin II]

oh, I agree -- our tazzy is a bright girl and more than capable of answering for herself. I just wanted you to understand that you -- again -- were wrong. imo

Help not requested or needed.

martin II

[weezer]

Maby fashion is different where you are than some other places.
do all the men wear white SOCKS with loafers that you are referring to.
I have nothing to do with your inability to know this fact.

If you don't know you don't know.
martin II

martin, martin, martin -- suits with dress shoes and no socks is not a fashion statement anywhere. :punch:

[WarmNCozy]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
maybe back in Vegas with the socks he DIDN'T have on! LOL --

anyone else notice he wasn't wearing socks? LOL -- I know, I know, it's probably a blow to the NG's (who keep insisting orenthal was too natty a dresser to have worn the BM's with his sweat suit) that orenthal didn't wear socks with his dress shoes and suit in Vegas yesterday. hmmmmm


Where have you been? Palm Beach started the trend in the late 70's. It's very much "the thing" in South Florida, and in the Hamptons!

[weezer]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
maybe back in Vegas with the socks he DIDN'T have on! LOL --

anyone else notice he wasn't wearing socks? LOL -- I know, I know, it's probably a blow to the NG's (who keep insisting orenthal was too natty a dresser to have worn the BM's with his sweat suit) that orenthal didn't wear socks with his dress shoes and suit in Vegas yesterday. hmmmmm


Where have you been? Palm Beach started the trend in the late 70's. It's very much "the thing" in South Florida, and in the Hamptons!

LOL -- LOL or as martin says: hahahaha

[WarmNCozy]

Your anger and disbelief at this is exactly how most G's feel at his arrogance and hiding of his assets (which is illegal by the way, especially if he didn't pay taxes on it). At least the Goldman's aren't breaking any laws.

What's next for OJ? Abuse, Murder, road rage, drug raid, pirating and armed "sting operation" (and these are only the things we know about).......I'm scared to think what could be next

:flamemad:

Oh, my God! With your description, I should be very worried after all I live in Florida. He might kill me on a golf course with his golf car!
http://bestsmileys.com/scared/8.gif

[weezer]

oh I don't think you need to be afraid of him -- unless, of course, you have something he wants: television cable, a place in traffic, memorabilia, a divorce, or maybe helping a friend out by dropping off a relative's glasses -- I guess you can get the idea. imo

[WarmNCozy]

Help not requested or needed.

martin II

Gee Martin,

fbgweezer thinks everything you say is wrong even when you are right. What gives with that!:shrug:

[martin II]

oh I don't think you need to be afraid of him -- unless, of course, you have something he wants: television cable, a place in traffic, memorabilia, a divorce, or maybe helping a friend out by dropping off a relative's glasses -- I guess you can get the idea. imo

still butting into other peoples conversations in your regular attck mode no less.:punch:

martin II

[martin II]

martin, martin, martin -- suits with dress shoes and no socks is not a fashion statement anywhere. :punch:

how would you know.
I see it everyday where i am and believe me there is plenty of fashion here.
More than you can imaging since you have said you rarely go outside of where you are.

martin II

[WarmNCozy]

oh I don't think you need to be afraid of him -- unless, of course, you have something he wants: television cable, a place in traffic, memorabilia, a divorce, or maybe helping a friend out by dropping off a relative's glasses -- I guess you can get the idea. imo
Very funny! I get the joke!

By the way, where do you live that fashion is not important?:shrug:

[socaldiva]

oh I don't think you need to be afraid of him -- unless, of course, you have something he wants: television cable, a place in traffic, memorabilia, a divorce, or maybe helping a friend out by dropping off a relative's glasses -- I guess you can get the idea. imo

Or if you happen to have some of his "****". He's quite the charmer isn't he?
When asked about his rage on the recent tape, a friend said "that's just OJ, he talks to his daughter that way too". I'm not the least bit surprised.

The book seems to be doing quite well & I don't think it's been officially released yet. I think it was Borders or Barnes & Noble that still show a release date of October.

[martin II]

Gee Martin,

fbgweezer thinks everything you say is wrong even when you are right. What gives with that!:shrug:

warmncozy

That may be because she believes that ALL truth is lodged ONLY in her pocket or that for some reason she had a god given right, for some reason, to be right ALL the time even when she is not. Or she just likes to argue.
imo

martin II

[WarmNCozy]

warmncozy

That may be because she believes that ALL truth is lodged ONLY in her pocket or that for some reason she had a god given right, for some reason, to be right ALL the time even when she is not. Or she just likes to argue.
imo

martin II

I think likes to argue is the correct take on her posts!;)

[socaldiva]

OFF TOPIC!!! Can you stop the bickering & personal remarks & return to the topic??????

[WarmNCozy]

i wonder how it was determined that oj has a real rolex watch. not from that picture on cnn i hope.
The $5.00 copies look the same.
martin II

I hope it is a fake and the Goldman's get the $5 version.

How ridiculous! Take the guy's watch?????????

[socaldiva]

i wonder how it was determined that oj has a real rolex watch. not from that picture on cnn i hope.
The $5.00 copies look the same.
martin II

Is Orenthal accustomed to wearing knock offs? Somehow that fits his personality. :tongue:

[WarmNCozy]

OJ has millions of friends! I'm sure one of those might be a jeweler and just give him another one along with a fake!

[weezer]

warmncozy

That may be because she believes that ALL truth is lodged ONLY in her pocket or that for some reason she had a god given right, for some reason, to be right ALL the time even when she is not. Or she just likes to argue.
imo

martin II

let me help you out here -- it isn't because I like to argue. ;)

[socaldiva]

OJ has millions of friends! I'm sure one of those might be a jeweler and just give him another one along with a fake!

"millions of friends"? I don't think so. I hope he gets another Rolex & Fred snatches that one too! :D

[weezer]

Very funny! I get the joke!

By the way, where do you live that fashion is not important?:shrug:

LOL -- not in God's waiting room, south florida. LOL

[weezer]

OJ has millions of friends! I'm sure one of those might be a jeweler and just give him another one along with a fake!

LOL -- yes but they are likely to steal it back from him. . . .and then he has to steal it at gun point. . . . and then they have to call the police. . . .

[WarmNCozy]

let me help you out here -- it isn't because I like to argue. ;)

Really?!?!?!?!?

Do you have a subscription to Vogue, W, Town & Country, Vanity Fair? Obviously not from the sockless Simpson! He is a fashion plate!

[socaldiva]

LOL -- yes but they are likely to steal it back from him. . . .and then he has to steal it at gun point. . . . and then they have to call the police. . . .

:beer: :beer: :biggrin:

[WarmNCozy]

LOL -- yes but they are likely to steal it back from him. . . .and then he has to steal it at gun point. . . . and then they have to call the police. . . .
NOPE! He'll be given another one from people who really like him!

[WarmNCozy]

LOL -- not in God's waiting room, south florida. LOL

God's waiting room?!?!?!? Very interesting! I'm beginning to get a picture of weezer from that statement!

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Do you have a subscription to Vogue, W, Town & Country, Vanity Fair? Obviously not from the sockless Simpson! He is a fashion plate!


Orenthal is gracing those magazines? I don't think so. :tongue:

Orental is fat, old & looks funky to me :shrug:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I'm beginning to get a picture of weezer from that statement!

Can't you post without the personal commentary on fellow posters??? :no: It's really not appropriate.

[weezer]

Orenthal is gracing those magazines? I don't think so. :tongue:

Orental is fat, old & looks funky to me :shrug:

I'm looking at the picture of him with his shorts and fanny pack! LOL

[socaldiva]

I'm looking at the picture of him with his shorts and fanny pack! LOL

Is he wearing that funky visor as well? Such a fashion plate. hahahahaha

[weezer]

Is he wearing that funky visor as well? Such a fashion plate. hahahahaha

that's the one! LOL -- I look at this picture everytime these guys start talking about what a nappy dresser orenthal is and think: riiiiiiiight!

[socaldiva]

that's the one! LOL -- I look at this picture everytime these guys start talking about what a nappy dresser orenthal is and think: riiiiiiiight!

Yeah, he had that visor on the other night when he was released from the pokey. IIRC, he was wearing it with a suit! Woo Hoo!

[martin II]

I'm looking at the picture of him with his shorts and fanny pack! LOL

wishing right.
martin II

[I'mSun]

Yeah, he had that visor on the other night when he was released from the pokey. IIRC, he was wearing it with a suit! Woo Hoo!I think that visor helps hold his head together!!

[socaldiva]

I think that visor helps hold his head together!!


Could be. Maybe he needs a new one :D

[Heyes]

I'm looking at the picture of him with his shorts and fanny pack! LOL


Fanny pack????
BWA ha ha ha ha ha


tears I got tears.

[TobyTiger]

Toby

oj was found Liable in the civilt trial . Guilty was not a consideration at all.
martin II

Correct...guilty is used in a criminal court while liable is used in civil litigation.

[Kate Sachel]

I hope it is a fake and the Goldman's get the $5 version.

How ridiculous! Take the guy's watch?????????

Yes, I can see where one might think that handing over a watch is a hefty price to pay for butchering a young man.

Kate

[Kayleighjo]

I think likes to argue is the correct take on her posts!;)

Speaking of ... I've noticed that trend quite a bit in your posts too.

But then I just adore the folks who rely on one website to form an opinion.

:punch: :punch:

[Kayleighjo]

No, I did not infer anything other than in America a person is Innocent until proven Guilty! OJ was found NOT GUILTY, hence INNOCENT!

Maybe you should read up! I have! And he did not murder Nicole and Ron!

You read up did you? Obviously not since you were dead wrong.

[martin II]

did anyone see Yale Gallanter on LKL last night?? I missed it.

martin II

[tv]

did anyone see Yale Gallanter on LKL last night?? I missed it.

martin IINot me. I only saw him on Greta.

[martin II]

Not me. I only saw him on Greta.

during the criminal trial Greta was the best in covering the trial as she seem to be very fair to oj as compared to NG etc.
Seems like she has changed a lot since joining FOX and not just on OJ issues.
martin II

[tv]

during the criminal trial Greta was the best in covering the trial as she seem to be very fair to oj as compared to NG etc.
Seems like she has changed a lot since joining FOX and not just on OJ issues.
martin III mostly watched Greta and Geraldo during the criminal trial. I was watching Greta when the verdict came in and she agreed with it as I recall. I think she's still very fair to OJ Simpson.

[socaldiva]

did anyone see Yale Gallanter on LKL last night?? I missed it.

martin II

I thought Dan Rather was on LKL last night :shrug:

[weezer]

did anyone see Yale Gallanter on LKL last night?? I missed it.

martin II

I watched him. He didn't have much to say. The one thing I found interesting was when LKL asked him if orenthal knew the incident was being recorded, he declined to answer. Wouldn't say yes or no -- only that he knew the answer. I guess now we're going to hear that orenthal planned that as part of his 'sting'. LOL

[tv]

I watched him. He didn't have much to say. The one thing I found interesting was when LKL asked him if orenthal knew the incident was being recorded, he declined to answer. Wouldn't say yes or no -- only that he knew the answer. I guess now we're going to hear that orenthal planned that as part of his 'sting'. LOLHe wouldn't tell Greta either. I'm sure it's going to be important to his defense. I'm sure Simpson will take no responsibilty as usual.

[martin II]

He wouldn't tell Greta either. I'm sure it's going to be important to his defense. I'm sure Simpson will take no responsibilty as usual.

It's a good sign that Yale did not play the media game of talking about important issues on tv. I still believe additional lawyers will be brough to the case.

This will be difficult for oj. Too much HATE directed at him. But we will see how it turns out.
Oj still has friends.
martin II

[martin II]

I watched him. He didn't have much to say. The one thing I found interesting was when LKL asked him if orenthal knew the incident was being recorded, he declined to answer. Wouldn't say yes or no -- only that he knew the answer. I guess now we're going to hear that orenthal planned that as part of his 'sting'. LOL

i guess you did not see the tv report where the AP recinded "STING" as a direct quote from OJ. They took the quotes away.

imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*This will be difficult for oj. Too much HATE directed at him.

Maybe he should clean up his act & live an honorable life. If he kept his bobble head out of the news, there wouldn't be anything new to hate him for.

[martin II]

FLASH: GREENSPAN SELLS 128,855 COPIES OF 'TURBULENCE' IN FIRST WEEK, PUBLISHING SOURCES TELL DRUDGE; TOPS OJ 'DID IT' 32,844... CLINTON 'GIVING' 19,242 IN 3RD PLACE FOR WEEK [100,826 SINCE RELEASE]... TOOBIN 'COURT ' SCANS 18,527... JENNY MCCARTHY 'MOTHER' 18,259... INGRAHAM 'POWER TO PEOPLE' 15,211 [34,496]... MORE...

Drudge report
If true.

32,844 X .17 = $5,583.48

[weezer]

FLASH: GREENSPAN SELLS 128,855 COPIES OF 'TURBULENCE' IN FIRST WEEK, PUBLISHING SOURCES TELL DRUDGE; TOPS OJ 'DID IT' 32,844... CLINTON 'GIVING' 19,242 IN 3RD PLACE FOR WEEK [100,826 SINCE RELEASE]... TOOBIN 'COURT ' SCANS 18,527... JENNY MCCARTHY 'MOTHER' 18,259... INGRAHAM 'POWER TO PEOPLE' 15,211 [34,496]... MORE...

Drudge report
If true.

32,844 X .17 = $5,583.48

cool -- orenthal can look forward to years and years of having Mr. Goldman watch his every move. ;)

[martin II]

cool -- orenthal can look forward to years and years of having Mr. Goldman watch his every move. ;)

it is my opinion that when fred goldman got the rights to this book in the bankruptcy case he did expect that a sizeable amount of money would flow to him from the sale. I don't think it would please him or his lawyers that he would have to continue this for several more years.

if the drudge report numbers of the sales is correct i am surprised that the numbers are so low.
martin II

[socaldiva]

it is my opinion that when fred goldman got the rights to this book in the bankruptcy case he did expect that a sizeable amount of money would flow to him from the sale. I don't think it would please him or his lawyers that he would have to continue this for several more years.

if the drudge report numbers of the sales is correct i am surprised that the numbers are so low.
martin II

It's also your opinion that it's about money. I don't know how it is that you claim to know what Goldman thinks :shrug:

[weezer]

FLASH: GREENSPAN SELLS 128,855 COPIES OF 'TURBULENCE' IN FIRST WEEK, PUBLISHING SOURCES TELL DRUDGE; TOPS OJ 'DID IT' 32,844... CLINTON 'GIVING' 19,242 IN 3RD PLACE FOR WEEK [100,826 SINCE RELEASE]... TOOBIN 'COURT ' SCANS 18,527... JENNY MCCARTHY 'MOTHER' 18,259... INGRAHAM 'POWER TO PEOPLE' 15,211 [34,496]... MORE...

Drudge report
If true.

32,844 X .17 = $5,583.48

FLASH

it's still listed as number 8 at Amazon and number 3 on the New York list -- doesn't sound too shabby to me. imo

BTW, it's listed in the NON-FICTION list. LOL

[socaldiva]

FLASH

it's still listed as number 8 at Amazon and number 3 on the New York list -- doesn't sound too shabby to me. imo

BTW, it's listed in the NON-FICTION list. LOL


Doesn't sound shabby to me either. I still don't think it's been fully released. Last time I was in Borders, they showed an October release date.

[Heyes]

Doesn't sound shabby to me either. I still don't think it's been fully released. Last time I was in Borders, they showed an October release date.


I just laugh when I see simpson supporters claiming how lousy the book sales are, day after day they run to amazon and check the numbers.
How many books are out there for sale? 10's of thousands and yet Mr Goldmans book,(the killers confession) ranks highly. I just finished it. I gotta tell you it really shows what kind of mental case this simpson charactor really is. I can't tell you how hard he tries to convey how he had to keep Nicole in line, to do the right thing. He is such a saint. In his opinion he was forced to work overtime with Nicole to make her be the "Good Girl". What rubbish!
The chapter about charlie, IMO, is to cover up the person who got rid of his bloody clothes that night, (arnell???) at least that's what I think. How else would he explain the clothes in the washer and then poof...gone. Who was there??? Arnell that's who. I wouldn't believe it except she has proved that she'll do anything for her moneybag daddy. He had to cover that up so he had to make up Charlie. IMO!

[weezer]

I just laugh when I see simpson supporters claiming how lousy the book sales are, day after day they run to amazon and check the numbers.
How many books are out there for sale? 10's of thousands and yet Mr Goldmans book,(the killers confession) ranks highly. I just finished it. I gotta tell you it really shows what kind of mental case this simpson charactor really is. I can't tell you how hard he tries to convey how he had to keep Nicole in line, to do the right thing. He is such a saint. In his opinion he was forced to work overtime with Nicole to make her be the "Good Girl". What rubbish!
The chapter about charlie, IMO, is to cover up the person who got rid of his bloody clothes that night, (arnell???) at least that's what I think. How else would he explain the clothes in the washer and then poof...gone. Who was there??? Arnell that's who. I wouldn't believe it except she has proved that she'll do anything for her moneybag daddy. He had to cover that up so he had to make up Charlie. IMO!

Dang! I wish my book would get here!!!! Thanks for your remarks --

[Heyes]

Dang! I wish my book would get here!!!! Thanks for your remarks --
I hope you get it soon! I can't wait to hear your take on it.
This killer really tries to paint himself soooo purdy! lol lol

[weezer]

I hope you get it soon! I can't wait to hear your take on it.
This killer really tries to paint himself soooo purdy! lol lol

I watched the Star Jones interview with the ghostwriter today. He says there were tapes but that after the book was written, one of the attorneys came to his home and the tapes were shredded. Star kind of kidded that she couldn't believe he hadn't copied them. There is no doubt that the ghostwriter absolutely believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole.

[Suzee10]

I watched the Star Jones interview with the ghostwriter today. He says there were tapes but that after the book was written, one of the attorneys came to his home and the tapes were shredded. Star kind of kidded that she couldn't believe he hadn't copied them. There is no doubt that the ghostwriter absolutely believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole.

I saw this today too Weezer. Yes he does believe he is guilty and he told simpson so. He said first simpson went off but finally did say he respected him for telling him what he thought. This was a confession and this guy and most everyone thinks so. You know Weezer I know everyone would feel better if he would only admit he did it.

[martin II]

I watched the Star Jones interview with the ghostwriter today. He says there were tapes but that after the book was written, one of the attorneys came to his home and the tapes were shredded. Star kind of kidded that she couldn't believe he hadn't copied them. There is no doubt that the ghostwriter absolutely believes orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole.

This is this same guy that gave testimony to support m clark's falty timeline.
HAHAHA
MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

This is this same guy that gave testimony to support m clark's falty timeline.
HAHAHA
MARTIN ii

I doubt that anyone here could give a precise time as to what time they heard a neighborhood dog bark. At the time no one knew it would be part of a puzzle piece to a double murder. Do you take copious notes when a dog barks in your neighborhood?


HAHAHAHA

[weezer]

I saw this today too Weezer. Yes he does believe he is guilty and he told simpson so. He said first simpson went off but finally did say he respected him for telling him what he thought. This was a confession and this guy and most everyone thinks so. You know Weezer I know everyone would feel better if he would only admit he did it.

I'm afraid that his confession book is as close as we're going to come but it works for me! :beer:

[Suzee10]

I'm afraid that his confession book is as close as we're going to come but it works for me! :beer:



It does for me too weezer. No person that was innocent would have ever done a book of this sort. This was his confession.

[Suzee10]

fbg
I see you want to talk about his dad dads gayness again.

I think oj was a stud type of guy that was not satrified with kissing one woman at a time. I consider it too much work to keep up with more than one but i guess he had the strength.

Maby according to your proposed idea, many men that cheat had a Gay dad.
martin ii

Maybe simpson was trying toooooo hard with the women, maybe he had something to hide. They say the apple does not fall too far from the tree.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy i understand how you feel about oj but that should not cause you to go over the top. gees

martin II

LOL! That was not over the top. And, as I've said before, weezer and I think along the same lines and I have no problem with her ever posting for me. She knows what I mean by my posts. (I've been out lately and just now got back to the boards)

I posted the angry icon because the things he does are illegal and he is a voliate and violent person. It's odd to see people defend him as though what he does is not really a big deal. Or what other people would do. Maybe one instance by itself. But he has many accumulative things to show how volatile and violent he is. That is a pattern. Even though he has been in so much trouble, he still can't control it. But, most knew that at the trial when his history of violence was exposed.

:shrug:

[tazzybaby]

Oh, my God! With your description, I should be very worried after all I live in Florida. He might kill me on a golf course with his golf car!
http://bestsmileys.com/scared/8.gif

I'm thinking you're right! I wouldn't upset him in any way. As long as things are going his way he seems to be okay. So, just always give him what he wants! Especially since my description was right on!

:cool:

[weezer]

LOL! That was not over the top. And, as I've said before, weezer and I think along the same lines and I have no problem with her ever posting for me. She knows what I mean by my posts. (I've been out lately and just now got back to the boards)

I posted the angry icon because the things he does are illegal and he is a voliate and violent person. It's odd to see people defend him as though what he does is not really a big deal. Or what other people would do. Maybe one instance by itself. But he has many accumulative things to show how volatile and violent he is. That is a pattern. Even though he has been in so much trouble, he still can't control it. But, most knew that at the trial when his history of violence was exposed.

:shrug:

Right on target! :beer:

[WarmNCozy]

I'm thinking you're right! I wouldn't upset him in any way. As long as things are going his way he seems to be okay. So, just always give him what he wants! Especially since my description was right on!

:cool:

I was being facetious, tazz! I'm not in the least bit concerned that this man is a danger to anyone except his stupid mouth!

[weezer]

If I Did It, OJ Simpson's hypothetical account of his ex-wife's slaying, has hit No. 2 on the New York Times best-sellers list for non-fiction, topping former US President Bill Clinton's book Giving.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4221254a1860.html

[WarmNCozy]

If I Did It, OJ Simpson's hypothetical account of his ex-wife's slaying, has hit No. 2 on the New York Times best-sellers list for non-fiction, topping former US President Bill Clinton's book Giving.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4221254a1860.html

GREAT! The Goldman's are getting satisfaction, YES????

[martin II]

If I Did It, OJ Simpson's hypothetical account of his ex-wife's slaying, has hit No. 2 on the New York Times best-sellers list for non-fiction, topping former US President Bill Clinton's book Giving.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4221254a1860.html

Good for fred. He needs to sell big time numbers to make money at .17 per book and i hope he does.

I was in the village today and stopped by B&N. The was a stack of books on the table but the store cashier said it was not selling that well at that store.

I believe there is something wrong with the book buyers when a little book by fred goldman can hold a higher rating than a book on a serious world issue as presented by U.S. President Bill Clinton.
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I believe there is something wrong with the book buyers when a little book by fred goldman can hold a higher rating than a book on a serious world issue as presented by U.S. President Bill Clinton.


Somehow I doubt that you would make this same statement if the title still belonged to Orenthal. ;)

[martin II]

GREAT! The Goldman's are getting satisfaction, YES????

warmncozy

On the oprah show oprah asked fred when will he get satisfaction now that he has the book and will get money from the sale. Fred said they will never get satisfaction. Kim then told oprah, on air , that she was highly offended by opra's question. At the end of the program Oprah made a comment to the audiance to the effect that if she had offended Kim, it was not her intention, That she was only asking to undersatnd when will fred have satisfaction for his efforts. I think there a lot of things that kim does not understand
about being a invited guest on a talk show.imo

martin II

[socaldiva]

warmncozy

On the oprah show oprah asked fred when will he get satisfaction now that he has the book and will get money from the sale. Fred said they will never get satisfaction. Kim then told oprah, on air , that she was highly offended by opra's question. At the end of the program Oprah made a comment to the audiance to the effect that if she had offended Kim, it was not her intention, That she was only asking to undersatnd when will fred have satisfaction for his efforts. I think there a lot of things that kim does not understand
about being a invited guest on a talk show.imo

martin II

I don't think the word was "satisfaction", but how can anyone think that money would heal the loss of a loved one? They just took something away from Ron's killer & wanted his words published so the world can see what a monster he is.

Rather than saying "kim does not understand about being an invited guest on a talk show", I'd say that Oprah has no frame of reference for what it might be like to lose a Son or a Brother. She's never had children & if she's got siblings, they are half siblings that she wasn't raised with.

[WarmNCozy]

What satisfaction can anyone get from any of this! An eye for an eye? It doesn't heal! OJ's book was about loving Nicole, the one chapter which was a hypothetical was to peak interest to buy the book to see what he had to say! He said nothing! It was to give OJ an income! He must be so $ needy now! Before this tragedy, OJ Simpson was a somebody! Accomplished greatness! Was charitable and kind! He still is that person!

I still stick by the Wagner scenario because it is the only thing that makes sense to me!

OJ did not kill Nicole and Ron! He wasn't that crazy or vicious! And still isn't!

[Suzee10]

I watched him. He didn't have much to say. The one thing I found interesting was when LKL asked him if orenthal knew the incident was being recorded, he declined to answer. Wouldn't say yes or no -- only that he knew the answer. I guess now we're going to hear that orenthal planned that as part of his 'sting'. LOL

simpson said he planned "the sting". He is responsible and he should go to jail.

[WarmNCozy]

simpson said he planned "the sting". He is responsible and he should go to jail.

And if that is true, he shall!

[Suzee10]

I don't think the word was "satisfaction", but how can anyone think that money would heal the loss of a loved one? They just took something away from Ron's killer & wanted his words published so the world can see what a monster he is.

Rather than saying "kim does not understand about being an invited guest on a talk show", I'd say that Oprah has no frame of reference for what it might be like to lose a Son or a Brother. She's never had children & if she's got siblings, they are half siblings that she wasn't raised with.


Hi Soxaldiva,

IMO Oprah, who I think is so overated, stepped over the line when she asked this question. Kim and Fred have been on many, many talk shows where the hosts had more manners and knew how to treat a guest.

[martin II]

What satisfaction can anyone get from any of this! An eye for an eye? It doesn't heal! OJ's book was about loving Nicole, the one chapter which was a hypothetical was to peak interest to buy the book to see what he had to say! He said nothing! It was to give OJ an income! He must be so $ needy now! Before this tragedy, OJ Simpson was a somebody! Accomplished greatness! Was charitable and kind! He still is that person!

I still stick by the Wagner scenario because it is the only thing that makes sense to me!

OJ did not kill Nicole and Ron! He wasn't that crazy or vicious! And still isn't!

warmncozy

no one wants to discuss wagner in detail. Many say it is nonsense but refuse to discuss it in detail to see.imo:read:
martin II

[martin II]

Hi Soxaldiva,

IMO Oprah, who I think is so overated, stepped over the line when she asked this question. Kim and Fred have been on many, many talk shows where the hosts had more manners and knew how to treat a guest.

After the criminal trial fred said he wanted justice,. he got that in the civil trial but now wants money honey.

Many people have asked what will be satisfaction/peace for fred so it was not out of line for Oprah to ask that quesiton as some people would like to see a end to this act and believe that fred may be trying to turn it into some kind on "get oj" mini industry.

I think there are millions of women/men around the world that would dissagree with you on your statement that Oprah is overated. I really do.

hahaha
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*Many people have asked what will be satisfaction/peace for fred so it was not out of line for Oprah to ask that quesiton as some people would like to see a end to this act

I think it's a rather stupid question. How would a Father ever find "peace or satisfaction" relative to their Son's murder? Who cares if Oprah or anyone else "wants to see an end to this act". There is no end to grieving for a lost child :rolleyes:

[weezer]

After the criminal trial fred said he wanted justice,. he got that in the civil trial but now wants money honey.

Many people have asked what will be satisfaction/peace for fred so it was not out of line for Oprah to ask that quesiton as some people would like to see a end to this act and believe that fred may be trying to turn it into some kind on "get oj" mini industry.

I think there are millions of women/men around the world that would dissagree with you on your statement that Oprah is overated. I really do.

hahaha
imo
martin II

the civil trial's 'justice' was a monetary punishment for orenthal -- one he has never honored and one that he blatantly works to avoid.

you seem to be a minority in not understanding that there is no satisfaction/peace for grief -- especially when the person you believe butchered your loved one continues to act like orenthal does. Do you honestly believe that the grief and pain of the families is an 'act'?

I think there are millions around the world that would agree with the statement that oprah is overrated -- I really do.

hahaha

imo