Goldmans Sue

[socaldiva]

I will take the cowboys

Bengels vs steelers- toss up. But i am a steeler fan
MARTIN ii

This banter has NOTHING to do with this forum. This is the stuff PM's are for.

[2L8 4A D8]

I read somewhere in my surfing that after the death of the defendant, the plaintiff has 1 yr in which to file a claim against the estate. I don't remember if this was CA law, FL law or some other state (I viewed so many). Do you know if this would apply to this particular judgment?

I am not sure if I understand your question. IIRC, Creditors have one year to file a claim against someone's Estate. The Goldman's and The Brown's are not Creditors. As has been discussed, OJ's heirs will inherit the Judgment through his Estate. At that time, it will then be up to The Goldman's or The Brown's to enforce the Judgment against OJ's heirs to get the Judgment paid. That's where it has come up, "Will Fred? Won't Fred?"

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

That is alright Deputy. I just want you to know that I have a lot of practice at the bars and have my Just Drunk degree.:)
:lol: Cute.

I could never root for a team that has T.O. on its roster. Since both Philly and Dallas have secured a place in the playoffs, I've got to be cheering loudly for the team that said "No way will we put up with T.O. and his mouth". Pgh's season will end tomorrow, but I still love my Steelers.

Sorry socal. Now let's get back on topic.

[2L8 4A D8]

I do not believe that with the new bankruptcy laws, you can walk away from credit card debt.

Prior to the new Bankruptcy Laws, credit card debt was dischargeable. However, that's why the Laws were changed. Too many people were running up massive credit card debt and then would file Bankruptcy to get rid of it. Not anymore. Ain't going to happen!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

I am not sure if I understand your question. IIRC, Creditors have one year to file a claim against someone's Estate. The Goldman's and The Brown's are not Creditors. As has been discussed, OJ's heirs will inherit the Judgment through his Estate. At that time, it will then be up to The Goldman's or The Brown's to enforce the Judgment against OJ's heirs to get the Judgment paid. That's where it has come up, "Will Fred? Won't Fred?"

JMO and MOO!!
Wouldn't they be considered creditors of the Estate? The judgment was entered against a living O.J. and upon his death, his will would have to go through probate. At that time, anyone wishing to file a claim against his estate would have to step forward. I don't think a judgment against the estate would be automatically entered.

I've read so many different articles that I may be confusing probate with bankruptcy.

[2L8 4A D8]

<snipped>

I haven't heard anywhere that OJ has filed bankruptcy and I'm not suggesting he has. I only have related what I found out about the laws and how they may or may not apply to a civil judgment.

ALL ~ as OJNUT and Martin like to say:

OJ has not filed Bankruptcy, trust me! OJ is an idiot, but he is not stupid! I firmly believe that if OJ thought that he could ever get the Judgment off of his back through Bankruptcy, he would have filed Bankruptcy the day after the Judgment was rendered against him ~ post haste!

As has been discussed, filing BANRUPTCY will not and never will absolve anyone who has a CIVIL JUDGMENT filed against them. Period! As I have previously stated, it is an anvil around your neck forever and ever (with interest accruing daily) ~ until it is paid off!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Wouldn't they be considered creditors of the Estate? The judgment was entered against a living O.J. and upon his death, his will would have to go through probate. At that time, anyone wishing to file a claim against his estate would have to step forward. I don't think a judgment against the estate would be automatically entered.

I've read so many different articles that I may be confusing probate with bankruptcy.

I don't know what anyone is talking about anymore. I should have started a separate Thread for my question because it really doesn't relate to "Goldmans Sue."

Probate, Trusts and Bankruptcy are three different things. I don't care what WA or Martin say. I will believe Diva's Brother over them anyway, any day!

No. Again, just because OJ dies doesn't mean that the Judgment will go "poof!" Nobody, but nobody would be that lucky, OJ included. I am sure that it is nationwide because if it wasn't, everybody would be living in a State that does not honor Judgments. To me, it's insane to think that one State would honor a Judgment, but another State wouldn't. It's crazy and I will never believe it!

Again, the Judgment is not an Asset; it is not a Creditor ~ it is a Liability and will pass from heirs, to heirs, to heirs ~ until it is paid off!

Just trying to keep the record straight, if that's possible. Nothing against you personally!

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

Prior to the new Bankruptcy Laws, credit card debt was dischargeable. However, that's why the Laws were changed. Too many people were running up massive credit card debt and then would file Bankruptcy to get rid of it. Not anymore. Ain't going to happen!

JMO and MOO!!

So, looks like orenthal's 'legacy' for his heirs is that they will have to pay his Dish Network (is this the stolen cable?) and American Express (maybe johnnie wanted his money up front?).

[jotun]

All:
Sassylassy posted a 9 page complaint by Goldigger on topic.You all simply ignored it.

Now this thread has gone into a tangent.
2 pages of IRREVELENT posts.

O.J. has NEVER filed for bankruptcy!!!!!

MOOT!!!!!!

jotun

[jotun]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1219061oj1.html :read:

the 9 pg complaint filed by Frederic Goldman.

Sassy:

Thank you!
For a most interesting totally on topic link.Seems some here don't want to acknowledge this.[Reason for the irrevelent tangent imo]

To all who didn't want to believe old Fred would go after the kids assets.
This proves you WRONG.

jotun

[2L8 4A D8]

So, looks like orenthal's 'legacy' for his heirs is that they will have to pay his Dish Network (is this the stolen cable?) and American Express (maybe johnnie wanted his money up front?).

They would be considered Creditors and would have one year to file a claim for payment against OJ's Estate. If the cable company received a Judgment against OJ, then it would also become a Liability to his heirs to ultimately pay off!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Sassy:

Thank you!
For a most interesting totally on topic link.Seems some here don't want to acknowledge this.[Reason for the irrevelent tangent imo]

To all who didn't want to believe old Fred would go after the kids assets.
This proves you WRONG.

jotun

No, you're wrong! The title of this Thread is Goldmans Sue. Sue for what? Sue for the Judgment that's what! And that's is what we are talking about is the Judgment and what happens to it when OJ dies! Don't like it? Then just pass over the posts that you feel are irrelevant until you come to one that you don't and then respond to it with your ridiculous and assinine posts! Duh! Pretty simple IMO!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

Sassy:

Thank you!
For a most interesting totally on topic link.Seems some here don't want to acknowledge this.[Reason for the irrevelent tangent imo]

To all who didn't want to believe old Fred would go after the kids assets.
This proves you WRONG.

jotun
Is there a reason most of your posts are either sarcastic or downright nasty?

[deputydi]

They would be considered Creditors and would have one year to file a claim for payment against OJ's Estate. If the cable company received a Judgment against OJ, then it would also become a Liability to his heirs to ultimately pay off!

JMO and MOO!!
I understand most of what you are saying (honest -- I'm trying really hard).

Are you saying that if OJ leaves an estate valued at $10mil and Fred's outstanding judgment is $20mil the kids would have to liquidate ALL of OJ's assets in order to pay half of what is left on the judgment and would still be responsible for the remaining half? Please be patient with me :confused: but that hardly seems fair.

[weezer]

I understand most of what you are saying (honest -- I'm trying really hard).

Are you saying that if OJ leaves an estate valued at $10mil and Fred's outstanding judgment is $20mil the kids would have to liquidate ALL of OJ's assets in order to pay half of what is left on the judgment and would still be responsible for the remaining half? Please be patient with me :confused: but that hardly seems fair.

I've been on both ends of this -- it is my belief that once all assets of the deceased are liquidated and those monies disbursed to satisfy outstanding debts, then the judgment would end. Heirs to the estate do not assume his 'bills' -- the estate is responsible in as much as what can be sold/disbursed. The heirs receive whatever assets/monies are left after all outstanding debts are satisfied to whatever extent the assets allow before being depleted. IMO

[deputydi]

I've been on both ends of this -- it is my belief that once all assets of the deceased are liquidated and those monies disbursed to satisfy outstanding debts, then the judgment would end. Heirs to the estate do not assume his 'bills' -- the estate is responsible in as much as what can be sold/disbursed. The heirs receive whatever assets/monies are left after all outstanding debts are satisfied to whatever extent the assets allow before being depleted. IMO
Thanks. That makes more sense to me. I just couldn't understand how this judgment could pass on in perpetuity (sp?).

[martin II]

Thanks. That makes more sense to me. I just couldn't understand how this judgment could pass on in perpetuity (sp?).

I think that it is the trustee that decides who is intitled to get how much or nothing.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

I've been on both ends of this -- it is my belief that once all assets of the deceased are liquidated and those monies disbursed to satisfy outstanding debts, then the judgment would end. Heirs to the estate do not assume his 'bills' -- the estate is responsible in as much as what can be sold/disbursed. The heirs receive whatever assets/monies are left after all outstanding debts are satisfied to whatever extent the assets allow before being depleted. IMO

Again, FBG, you're talking about assets. The Judgment is not an asset. It is a liability and will NEVER end as you state, until it is completely, down to the penny, paid off.

All of the Creditors will be paid off first, through the assets of OJ's Estate. After that, if there are no assets left in OJ's Estate to even remotely cover the Judgment, the heirs are still liable for full payment of the Judgment. As I have previously stated, if OJ's heirs decide not to pay a penny of the Judgment just like OJ did, the Judgment just keeps accruing interest daily and will keep on reverting to his heirs' Estate(s), their heirs' Estate(s), their heirs' Estate(s) ~ up to and including infinity.

Since OJ has refused to pay the Judgment, he has placed an enormous anvil around the necks of all of his heirs, their heirs and their heirs. Such a GR8 guy and Father too, right?

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Sassy:

Thank you!
For a most interesting totally on topic link.Seems some here don't want to acknowledge this.[Reason for the irrevelent tangent imo]

To all who didn't want to believe old Fred would go after the kids assets.
This proves you WRONG.

jotun

jotun

considering what the suite ask for., i would agree.

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

I understand most of what you are saying (honest -- I'm trying really hard).

Are you saying that if OJ leaves an estate valued at $10mil and Fred's outstanding judgment is $20mil the kids would have to liquidate ALL of OJ's assets in order to pay half of what is left on the judgment and would still be responsible for the remaining half? Please be patient with me :confused: but that hardly seems fair.

As you well know, nothing in life is fair. The heirs only have OJ to blame for their predicament and OJ's refusal to not pay off the Judgment while he was alive. OJ has/had a better chance of paying off the Judgment as much as he could than his heirs do/did. Unless, of course, they wake up one day and win the Lotto for $500,000,000 or become Rock Stars or become Box Office Big Bucks Mega Stars!

The Judgment was for $33,500,000 divided equally between the Brown's and the Goldman's, or $16,750,000 each (accruing interest daily). We are assuming that the Brown's won't sue the heirs of OJ's Estate for their half of the Judgment, but it will still be considered an outstanding Liability against the heirs. It will remain to be seen if Fred will sue the heirs for his half. I am pretty sure that he will, but I am just speculating as we all are.

I hope this helps!

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

*Snipped*Again, FBG, you're talking about assets. The Judgment is not an asset. It is a liability and will NEVER end as you state, until it is completely, down to the penny, paid off.

I'm only referring to assets with regard to liquidating to satisfy debts (liabilities) against the estate. If what you say, then I can expect ken lay's heirs to personally pay me back? I don't think so.

[sassylassy]

Sassy:

Thank you!
For a most interesting totally on topic link.Seems some here don't want to acknowledge this.[Reason for the irrevelent tangent imo]

jotun


:beer:thanks Jotun- :beer:

[deputydi]

Again, FBG, you're talking about assets. The Judgment is not an asset. It is a liability and will NEVER end as you state, until it is completely, down to the penny, paid off.

All of the Creditors will be paid off first, through the assets of OJ's Estate. After that, if there are no assets left in OJ's Estate to even remotely cover the Judgment, the heirs are still liable for full payment of the Judgment. As I have previously stated, if OJ's heirs decide not to pay a penny of the Judgment just like OJ did, the Judgment just keeps accruing interest daily and will keep on reverting to his heirs' Estate(s), their heirs' Estate(s), their heirs' Estate(s) ~ up to and including infinity.

Since OJ has refused to pay the Judgment, he has placed an enormous anvil around the necks of all of his heirs, their heirs and their heirs. Such a GR8 guy and Father too, right?

JMO and MOO!!
When links aren't provided, I try to do my own research. I do this routinely because I believe very little of what I read on a message board. I have been looking (unsuccessfully) for verification of what you are saying about these never-ending judgments. As Judge Judy says "If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true". This concept you are talking about makes no sense to me whatsoever. Since I can't find a link to support it, would you please supply one?

I am an accountant, not a lawyer. It is quite possible that in the legal world the terms debtor and the way you are interpreting a "liability" are different. Someone who owes you money is a debtor (that would be OJ) and that debt is a liability on your balance sheet. The liability decreases as payments are made and the balance is carried until the debt is satisfied. If the debtor (OJ) dies prior to the liability being satisfied, you can file a claim against the estate and possibly get a percentage of what you are owed when the assets are divided among the creditors (the Browns, the Goldmans and everyone else to whom money is owed). Once this distribution is made, that's it. You have to take what you can get -- you can't go after his children, his grandchildren or greatgrandchildren individually for the balance of the debt. It is possible that it works differently when a civil judgment is owed but I doubt it.

[martin II]

When links aren't provided, I try to do my own research. I do this routinely because I believe very little of what I read on a message board. I have been looking (unsuccessfully) for verification of what you are saying about these never-ending judgments. As Judge Judy says "If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true". This concept you are talking about makes no sense to me whatsoever. Since I can't find a link to support it, would you please supply one?

I am an accountant, not a lawyer. It is quite possible that in the legal world the terms debtor and the way you are interpreting a "liability" are different. Someone who owes you money is a debtor (that would be OJ) and that debt is a liability on your balance sheet. The liability decreases as payments are made and the balance is carried until the debt is satisfied. If the debtor (OJ) dies prior to the liability being satisfied, you can file a claim against the estate and possibly get a percentage of what you are owed when the assets are divided among the creditors (the Browns, the Goldmans and everyone else to whom money is owed). Once this distribution is made, that's it. You have to take what you can get -- you can't go after his children, his grandchildren or greatgrandchildren individually for the balance of the debt. It is possible that it works differently when a civil judgment is owed but I doubt it.

deputy

Thanks

one more question. It is the trustee that decides which debts has priority over others and this may mean that there may not be EQUAL distribution of the assets. How this decision is made i have no idea.
martin II

[deputydi]

deputy

Thanks

one more question. It is the trustee that decides which debts has priority over others and this may mean that there may not be EQUAL distribution of the assets. How this decision is made i have no idea.
martin II
As I said, I am not an attorney. It is my understanding that it is the duty of the Executor (when there is a will) and if no will has been executed, an Administrator will be appointed to distribute the assets. When the debt of an estate exceeds the assets, I am not sure how the distribution is decided. I would imagine an attorney would have to step in but it could be at the sole discretion of the Executor. I also believe that (like in a bankruptcy) there are some debts that come right off the top -- like Fed and State taxes -- but, again, I don't know this for certain.

[weezer]

I had WorldCom and Enron stock. There were judgments against both. Settlement on those judgments are by percentage. This means that pay-offs start with the largest debt and works its way down. I was a little fish in a big pond so I don't expect to receive any of my money back.

I think the larger question is whether orenthal's Homestead exemption protects his home from being sold to satisfy his debts after his death. In Texas, having a Homestead Exemption keeps creditors from seizing your property to satisfy debts. However, when my folks died, their home had to be sold and the money used to pay expenses. I just don't know if Florida's Homestead Law is the same. orenthal must believe his home is protected since he said he used the book money to pay off his mortgage.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I am an accountant, not a lawyer.
In addition to my brother that is a lawyer, another brother is an accountant. Too darn bad they don't post here. :D

[2L8 4A D8]

*Snipped*

I'm only referring to assets with regard to liquidating to satisfy debts (liabilities) against the estate. If what you say, then I can expect ken lay's heirs to personally pay me back? I don't think so.

I have tried to be helpful. You may think what you want. You obviously don't agree with anything that I have said.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

When links aren't provided, I try to do my own research. I do this routinely because I believe very little of what I read on a message board. I have been looking (unsuccessfully) for verification of what you are saying about these never-ending judgments. As Judge Judy says "If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true". This concept you are talking about makes no sense to me whatsoever. Since I can't find a link to support it, would you please supply one?

I am an accountant, not a lawyer. It is quite possible that in the legal world the terms debtor and the way you are interpreting a "liability" are different. Someone who owes you money is a debtor (that would be OJ) and that debt is a liability on your balance sheet. The liability decreases as payments are made and the balance is carried until the debt is satisfied. If the debtor (OJ) dies prior to the liability being satisfied, you can file a claim against the estate and possibly get a percentage of what you are owed when the assets are divided among the creditors (the Browns, the Goldmans and everyone else to whom money is owed). Once this distribution is made, that's it. You have to take what you can get -- you can't go after his children, his grandchildren or greatgrandchildren individually for the balance of the debt. It is possible that it works differently when a civil judgment is owed but I doubt it.

All of my information comes from job experience and the department that I worked in. Maybe the procedures for Civil Judgments have changed since 2001, but I very much doubt it! I have just tried to be helpful.

One more time and the last time: In a Civil Judgment, OJ is not a Debtor and the Brown's/Goldman's are not Creditors. OJ is the Defendant and the Brown's/Goldman's are the Plaintiffs. The Jury found in favor of the Plaintiffs and a Judgment was rendered against the Defendant.

Now, if OJ borrowed money from the Brown's/Goldman's and never repaid it, then OJ would be the Debtor and the Brown's/Goldman's would be the Creditors and would have one year to file a claim against OJ's Estate to get paid. Depending on the assets left in the Estate and the pecking order of who gets paid first, the Brown's/Goldman's might not get paid anything for their Creditor claims.

As I have previously stated ~ wouldn't it be a wonderful, wonderful World if you could have a Civil Judgment(s) against you and just because you die, all of your Judgment(s) go "poof", just like that, just like they didn't exist and your heirs are now off "scott free" and the Plaintiff(s) who hold all of the Judgment(s) are just "out of luck!" Does that really make sense to you? It doesn't to me and I will never believe it!

I am sorry this is so long, but there's no other way to explain it. If you do find a link that will show that I am incorrect, then please post it. Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

deputy

Thanks

one more question. It is the trustee that decides which debts has priority over others and this may mean that there may not be EQUAL distribution of the assets. How this decision is made i have no idea.
martin II

Trustee? This is NOT a Bankruptcy matter. It is an Estate matter, with Heirs and Executors/Executrixs. Let us all know when you are going to "finally get it!" Geez! GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

I had WorldCom and Enron stock. There were judgments against both. Settlement on those judgments are by percentage. This means that pay-offs start with the largest debt and works its way down. I was a little fish in a big pond so I don't expect to receive any of my money back.

I think the larger question is whether orenthal's Homestead exemption protects his home from being sold to satisfy his debts after his death. In Texas, having a Homestead Exemption keeps creditors from seizing your property to satisfy debts. However, when my folks died, their home had to be sold and the money used to pay expenses. I just don't know if Florida's Homestead Law is the same. orenthal must believe his home is protected since he said he used the book money to pay off his mortgage.

Yes, OJ's Homestead Exemption protects his home in Florida. IIRC, that is why he moved to Florida. If he would have bought another home in California, the Brown's and the Goldman's could put an Abstract of Judgment (lien) on the new house. That means if OJ ever tried to refinance it or sell it, the Brown's and the Goldman's would get all of the proceeds, split equally, of course. I guess no one can touch his house in Florida and that is why he moved there.

My poor Nana was forced to go on MediCal when she ended up in a nursing home and she ran out of money to pay the bills. When that happens, MediCal then puts a lien on your home. When she died, the house had to be sold to pay MediCal and whatever proceeds were left was divided between her 4 children. Her kids didn't want to sell the house. They wanted to keep it in the Family, but all 4 of them didn't have the money to pay off MediCal, so they had to sell it. Whenever I am in the area, I drive by my Nana's house and it makes me cry. She (and my Popa until he died) lived in that house for over 60 years!

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

I don't understand why people are so upset that OJ moved to Florida, even if his primary goal was not to pay the judgement. I have hard time believing that any us, regardless of being G or NG would pay off a civil suit judgement before we would ensure the security of our children.

Another very real problem, IMO, is that while the Goldmans want to make sure the public knows that Simpson has paid very little of the judgement, they also want to make it clear that anyone who gives Simpson the chance to make a lot of money will be smeared as well.

I don't think Simpson would pay the judgement even it was $100.00 and I don't think the Godmans would believe a billion million dollar judgement paid off will ever be enough.

I think DeputyDi has it, it is a cat and mouse game being played by Simpson and the Goldmans and IMO, there will be no winners, only losers. IMO.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally Posted by limakey

I don't understand why people are so upset that OJ moved to Florida, even if his primary goal was not to pay the judgement. I have hard time believing that any us, regardless of being G or NG would pay off a civil suit judgement before we would ensure the security of our children.

Just because OJ moved to Florida doesn't absolve him of the Judgment. Yeah, OJ sure did ensure the security of his kids. After he dies, THEY will be responsible for the payment of HIS Judgment ~ and their heirs, and their heirs, and their heirs ~ to infinity!

<snipped>

I don't think Simpson would pay the judgement even it was $100.00 and I don't think the Godmans would believe a billion million dollar judgement paid off will ever be enough.

OJ should have thought about that when he murdered Nicole and Ron. If OJ murdered your son or daughter, would a billion dollar judgment ever be a enough to you? I doubt it! So, you are no better than Fred Goldman IMO!

<snipped>

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

<snip>As I have previously stated ~ wouldn't it be a wonderful, wonderful World if you could have a Civil Judgment(s) against you and just because you die, all of your Judgment(s) go "poof", just like that, just like they didn't exist and your heirs are now off "scott free" and the Plaintiff(s) who hold all of the Judgment(s) are just "out of luck!" Does that really make sense to you? It doesn't to me and I will never believe it!

I am sorry this is so long, but there's no other way to explain it. If you do find a link that will show that I am incorrect, then please post it. Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!
I give up. I'll keep looking because it makes no sense to me that OJs greatgrandchildren can be held personally responsible for this debt (and no matter what you believe it is called, it is still a DEBT owed) 20 or 30 years from now.

[martin II]

I give up. I'll keep looking because it makes no sense to me that OJs greatgrandchildren can be held personally responsible for this debt (and no matter what you believe it is called, it is still a DEBT owed) 20 or 30 years from now.

deputy
In contracts there is always and beginning and a END to every agreement/contract.
martin II

[deputydi]

deputy
In contracts there is always and beginning and a END to every agreement/contract.
martin II
. . . AND judgments. It is my firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies and his will is probated. Until I can find something that says otherwise, I will hold to that belief.

Also, 2L8 has been insisting that the judgment is a liability and not a debt (there really is no difference), the term "judgment debtor" is used consistently.

[martin II]

. . . AND judgments. It is my firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies and his will is probated. Until I can find something that says otherwise, I will hold to that belief.

Also, 2L8 has been insisting that the judgment is a liability and not a debt (there really is no difference), the term "judgment debtor" is used consistently.

deputy
correct.

for the person holding the judgement, the judgement can be seen as a asset on the assets side of his balance sheet (if collectable) for the debitor it is a liability (debt) on the libiilty side of his balalce sheet.
martin II

[martin II]

I had WorldCom and Enron stock. There were judgments against both. Settlement on those judgments are by percentage. This means that pay-offs start with the largest debt and works its way down. I was a little fish in a big pond so I don't expect to receive any of my money back.

I think the larger question is whether orenthal's Homestead exemption protects his home from being sold to satisfy his debts after his death. In Texas, having a Homestead Exemption keeps creditors from seizing your property to satisfy debts. However, when my folks died, their home had to be sold and the money used to pay expenses. I just don't know if Florida's Homestead Law is the same. orenthal must believe his home is protected since he said he used the book money to pay off his mortgage.

enron
The effort to take skillings money is on befalf of stockholders/employees. Right? or does this include outside stockholders.

martin II

[deputydi]

I know this isn't from CA but it's all I can find at the moment. I'm still looking. Please read #4 -- it clearly says a Judgment Debt is treated the same as any other debt on the estate.

28-20-06. Judgments - Collection from property of decedent. If judgment has been
rendered against a person who thereafter dies:
1. The judgment may be enforced by execution against any real property of the
decedent upon which it had become a lien prior to the decedent's death, but no such
execution may issue until after the expiration of one year from the death of the
judgment debtor;
2. If execution was actually levied prior to the decedent's death upon personal property,
such property may be sold to satisfy the execution, and the officer making the sale
shall account to the personal representative for any surplus remaining in the officer's
hands;
3. If the judgment is for the recovery of real or personal property or for the enforcement
of a lien thereon, execution may issue for the enforcement of such judgment; and
4. If the judgment is for the recovery of money, it may be presented as any other claim
against the estate of the decedent.
http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t28c20.pdf

[martin II]

florida homestead info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_exemption_in_Florida

martin II

[martin II]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_exemption_in_Florida



Exceptions for certain creditors
Three types of creditors can still force the sale of a homestead to collect debts owed to them. These are:

The State of Florida and its counties or municipalities, to collect past due property taxes;
Parties to whom the property was specifically pledged as credit for a mortgage;
Mechanics who are owed money for work performed in repairing or improving the property.
Because the homestead exemption is state law, it can also be over-ridden by the United States federal government, to satisfy federal income tax debts for example, although this has rarely occurred.

martin II

[martin II]

GENERAL INFORMAITON AND OPINIONS.
OJ SIMPSON

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns220.htm



Bankruptcy

Simpson could declare bankruptcy, which would exempt him from having to post the bond and might stave off his creditors. But some experts say the strategy might not wipe out the $8.5 million in compensatory damages. Although such damages often are excused by a bankruptcy, some experts say that probably wouldn't apply in a case in which the jury found that the defendant acted maliciously.

And even if the compensatory damages were forgiven by a bankruptcy action, Simpson still would have to pay the $25 million in punitive damages.

Moreover, a bankruptcy would force Simpson to subject all his holdings and income to the scrutiny of a federal judge, severely limiting other moves he may want to make.

"The power of a federal bankruptcy judge is much stronger than that of a state judge and extends to the entire nation . . . a far more serious proceeding than a state court proceeding," says Richard Share, a Los Angeles lawyer specializing in collections.

Exile

Simpson could flee the country. Places likes Switzerland and Gibraltar don't recognize civil judgments from other nations. Simpson could invest there and protect himself against any seizure.

Even if he picks a country that does recognize a U.S. judgment, "It's virtually impossible to find out what assets a person has in any foreign country," civil lawyer Art Rutledge says.

The families are entitled to take up to 25% of Simpson's future earnings. Although a civil creditor legally can pursue the collection process in most foreign nations, it can take years. And once a business employing Simpson gets the garnishment order, Simpson could shift his work to a different company based in a different country without even having to move.

The families then would have to start the collection process over again.

Simpson could move to Texas or Florida, where 100% of a home's value is protected against a civil judgment. Terrell says Simpson's sister, Shirley Baker, is begging him to leave southern California.

For that matter, a civil court can't touch any home anywhere in the nation if it's liened to another creditor. That's the situation with Simpson's Rockingham estate. It is valued at $3.7 million by Simpson, and $2.3 million is mortgaged to a bank. Some analysts believe he may simply walk away and let the banks foreclose.

Children's trusts

Simpson could put assets in trust for his children. Technically, the plaintiffs could invade that fund, but few expect they would. "There's going to be public scorn if they do that," jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn says. "They'll win the battle but lose the war . . . in the court of public opinion."

In effect, Simpson could end up paying himself. He was ordered to pay $12.5 million in punitive damages to the Goldmans and $12.5 million to Nicole's heirs, the two children who live with him.

Although Lou Brown, Nicole's father, is executor of the estate, the money almost certainly will be held in trust by an independent guardian appointed by the court. And as the children's primary custodian, Simpson could use some of that money to cover the family's living expenses. Usually that is done on a prorated basis, meaning Simpson could pay two-thirds of the household bills from the children's trusts.

Grandparents Lou Brown and his wife, Juditha, have vowed to continue fighting for custody of the children. The judge who awarded Simpson custody in December indicated that the civil verdict, however it turned out, would not make her change her mind.

The kids are entitled to live in the style to which they are accustomed, guardianship lawyer Susan Cooley says. That means private school tuition (theoretically, even a Swiss boarding school), designer clothing and vacations on the ski slopes in the Alps.

Simpson could enjoy benefits from the children's money until they turn 18 and take over their own trusts. Sydney, 11, turns 18 in 2003, and Justin, 8, turns 18 in 2006.

Moreover, in just over five years, Simpson's $4.1 million in pension and retirement incomes kick in. And few analysts say the families can touch that money.

Simpson does surrender some equity rights for a long time. He can keep only $75,000 in home equity for himself and $1,900 in car equity. His limit on art and jewelry is $5,000. But his Rockingham estate houses the children and his $64,000 Chevy Suburban transports the children. Theoretically, he could turn over the jewelry and art to the children.

The families then could face a legal challenge to take those. More important is this question: Would they really take such things from the children?

Pay up

None of this is to suggest that Simpson will do anything to hide his assets. He could decide to avoid the hassle and simply agree to a 25% wage garnishment. He'll still have 75% of his earnings, plus the retirement money.

The families would have 20 years to collect their debt, so Simpson, 49, could live with this arrangement until he's almost 70.

By Richard Price and Gale Holland, USA TODAY

[socaldiva]

*snip*
But his Rockingham estate houses the children and his $64,000 Chevy Suburban transports the children.


The article is from 1997 & was speculative.I don't know why you felt the need to post this lengthy article. The link would have sufficed.

[2L8 4A D8]

I know this isn't from CA but it's all I can find at the moment. I'm still looking. Please read #4 -- it clearly says a Judgment Debt is treated the same as any other debt on the estate.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t28c20.pdf

Well, #4 pretty much puts the kabosh on your "firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies!"

Originally Posted by deputydi
. . . AND judgments. It is my firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies and his will is probated. Until I can find something that says otherwise, I will hold to that belief.

<snipped>

I will continue to believe that the Brown's/Goldman's are NOT Judgment Creditors. Court Judgments are NOT Creditor debt, such as: credit card debt; car loan debt; furniture store debt; personal loan debt, etc., etc. Until I see it with my own eyes (through a link), I will also "hold to that belief."

I also think that your post dated 12-29-06 at 4:22 p.m. is pretty much moot! Thus, we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

The article is from 1997 & was speculative.I don't know why you felt the need to post this lengthy article. The link would have sufficed.

As usual, the lights are on, but nobody's home! LOL! He's like a small child, "Look at me? Look what I found!" GMAB! Just consider the source!

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

enron
The effort to take skillings money is on befalf of stockholders/employees. Right? or does this include outside stockholders.

martin II

skilling and lay were both found guilty. The recovery of monies is on behalf of everyone that held stock as well as creditors -- not just employees.

[weezer]

*Snipped*Yes, OJ's Homestead Exemption protects his home in Florida. IIRC, that is why he moved to Florida. If he would have bought another home in California, the Brown's and the Goldman's could put an Abstract of Judgment (lien) on the new house. That means if OJ ever tried to refinance it or sell it, the Brown's and the Goldman's would get all of the proceeds, split equally, of course. I guess no one can touch his house in Florida and that is why he moved there.


I understand that his home is protected now -- my question was whether or not it would still be protected at his death.

http://floridaassetprotection.blogs.com/alperlaw/creditor_rights/index.html
How Long Does A Judgment Last?
I received a call from a doctor who had his checking account garnished by a creditor who obtained a judgment over 10 years ago. The caller had found by his own research that judgement liens expire in 10 years, and he asked how the creditor could apply his judgement which is now over 10 years old to garnish a bank account.

The caller confused judgments and judgment liens. A judgment lien is the recording of a certified judgment with the Florida registry. The recording gives the judgment holder priority over judgments subsequently recorded. Any proceeds from the forced sale of debtor’s property subject to the judgment will go to pay priority judgment liens first, and money left over, if any, is applied to the junior liens. Property such as homestead is not subject to judgment liens. After 10 years the first recorded judgment lien loses its priority standing

Judgments which are not recorded as liens, or are recorded as junior liens, are still valid judgments which can be executed against the debtor’s property. A judgment creditor may garnish the debtor’s bank accounts even if the creditor has not recorded its judgment or has recorded in second place. Florida Statute 55.081 states that judgments are good for 20 years. Therefore, 10 years after this caller’s creditor had obtained a judgment and recorded the judgment the creditor may have lost the priority of his recorded lien, but the judgment was still in effect and could be used to obtain a writ of garnishment.
posted by Jonathan Alper, asset protection and bankruptcy attorney, Orlando, Florida

[weezer]

I have tried to be helpful. You may think what you want. You obviously don't agree with anything that I have said.

JMO and MOO!!

I appreciate the help and sorry if I came across otherwise. I don't disagree with what you have said -- I am simply trying to have it make sense to me and my own personal experiences and limited knowledge.

[weezer]

*Snipped*. . .If he would have bought another home in California, the Brown's and the Goldman's could put an Abstract of Judgment (lien) on the new house. That means if OJ ever tried to refinance it or sell it, the Brown's and the Goldman's would get all of the proceeds, split equally, of course.

http://www.alperlaw.com/constitutional_protection.html
"What makes Florida’s homestead protection such a powerful asset protection tool is its unlimited monetary protection. A Florida resident can invest millions of dollars in large estate homes and farms and protect the full value of these luxury residences under Florida’s homestead law. Under a Florida Supreme Court ruling, a person can transfer unprotected, non-exempt assets to his homestead at any time by either buying a new home or reducing the principal balance of an existing mortgage and protect this money under the homestead umbrella, even if the asset transfer was clearly designed to hide money from creditor claims."

[martin II]

skilling and lay were both found guilty. The recovery of monies is on behalf of everyone that held stock as well as creditors -- not just employees.


fbg
maby you will be lucky.

a sister company sold many of the worldcom very large generators at liquidatioion sale. They were some of the largest i had even seen.
martin II

[martin II]

*Snipped*

http://www.alperlaw.com/constitutional_protection.html
"What makes Florida’s homestead protection such a powerful asset protection tool is its unlimited monetary protection. A Florida resident can invest millions of dollars in large estate homes and farms and protect the full value of these luxury residences under Florida’s homestead law. Under a Florida Supreme Court ruling, a person can transfer unprotected, non-exempt assets to his homestead at any time by either buying a new home or reducing the principal balance of an existing mortgage and protect this money under the homestead umbrella, even if the asset transfer was clearly designed to hide money from creditor claims."


this sounds very reasonable

maby oj read that last sentance.
martin II

[Results]

This is a quote from FW and the reason I am using her quote it shows you where the forum for Roxanne is, "The aunt of Roxanne Paltauf an Austin teenager missing since July is posting as aperry58 on the "Missing/Found" forum in the Missing Children's section. Renee's family has been helping them and I am certain they could use whatever support is possible for all of you."

Roxanne's Mother has informed us that Roxanne's Birthday is January 3rd and she would be turning 19 years old. If at all possible please go to the thread and wish Roxanne a Happy Birthday. Roxanne's Mothers post was heart breaking to read. Lets show her what the Crime Library Family is all about please post Happy Birthday January 3rd! Thanks! Please pass the word around. Thank you and sorry to get off topic here. Sincerely, Results

[weezer]

this sounds very reasonable

maby oj read that last sentance.
martin II

LOL -- you think? I have a hard time picturing that! LOL

[2L8 4A D8]

*Snipped*

I understand that his home is protected now -- my question was whether or not it would still be protected at his death.

<snipped>

Again, I am only familiar with California Probate Laws and Procedures. I would venture to say "yes" that OJ's home would still be proctected at his death, but I could be wrong.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

*Snipped*

http://www.alperlaw.com/constitutional_protection.html
"What makes Florida’s homestead protection such a powerful asset protection tool is its unlimited monetary protection. A Florida resident can invest millions of dollars in large estate homes and farms and protect the full value of these luxury residences under Florida’s homestead law. Under a Florida Supreme Court ruling, a person can transfer unprotected, non-exempt assets to his homestead at any time by either buying a new home or reducing the principal balance of an existing mortgage and protect this money under the homestead umbrella, even if the asset transfer was clearly designed to hide money from creditor claims."

This sounds reasonable, for assets and Creditor's Claims. However, the Brown/Goldman Judgment is NOT a Creditor's Claim, so it wouldn't even enter into the picture of what the above link states.

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

LOL -- you think? I have a hard time picturing that! LOL



If true then i guess he would have to have a gost READER for the book.
martin II

[William Anthony]

This sounds reasonable, for assets and Creditor's Claims. However, the Brown/Goldman Judgment is NOT a Creditor's Claim, so it wouldn't even enter into the picture of what the above link states.

JMO and MOO!!

If I may, the judgment is a creditor claim. A creditor is someone to whom a debt is owed. If they were not creditors, they had no claim for money or real estate.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

I understand that his home is protected now -- my question was whether or not it would still be protected at his death.

http://floridaassetprotection.blogs.com/alperlaw/creditor_rights/index.html
How Long Does A Judgment Last?
I received a call from a doctor who had his checking account garnished by a creditor who obtained a judgment over 10 years ago. The caller had found by his own research that judgement liens expire in 10 years, and he asked how the creditor could apply his judgement which is now over 10 years old to garnish a bank account.

The caller confused judgments and judgment liens. A judgment lien is the recording of a certified judgment with the Florida registry. The recording gives the judgment holder priority over judgments subsequently recorded. Any proceeds from the forced sale of debtor’s property subject to the judgment will go to pay priority judgment liens first, and money left over, if any, is applied to the junior liens. Property such as homestead is not subject to judgment liens. After 10 years the first recorded judgment lien loses its priority standing

Judgments which are not recorded as liens, or are recorded as junior liens, are still valid judgments which can be executed against the debtor’s property. A judgment creditor may garnish the debtor’s bank accounts even if the creditor has not recorded its judgment or has recorded in second place. Florida Statute 55.081 states that judgments are good for 20 years. Therefore, 10 years after this caller’s creditor had obtained a judgment and recorded the judgment the creditor may have lost the priority of his recorded lien, but the judgment was still in effect and could be used to obtain a writ of garnishment.
posted by Jonathan Alper, asset protection and bankruptcy attorney, Orlando, Florida

The recording of the jugment would be, imo, called perfection. However, this sill leaves open the establishment of a trust and how the trust would protect the assests contained in the trust .

[William Anthony]

Well, #4 pretty much puts the kabosh on your "firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies!"



I will continue to believe that the Brown's/Goldman's are NOT Judgment Creditors. Court Judgments are NOT Creditor debt, such as: credit card debt; car loan debt; furniture store debt; personal loan debt, etc., etc. Until I see it with my own eyes (through a link), I will also "hold to that belief."

I also think that your post dated 12-29-06 at 4:22 p.m. is pretty much moot! Thus, we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter!

JMO and MOO!!

If I may, there seems to be a mixing of Bankruptcy law and the Florida Statutes.

[William Anthony]

This banter has NOTHING to do with this forum. This is the stuff PM's are for.

Diva,

Please, pardon our momentary digression?

[William Anthony]

Prior to the new Bankruptcy Laws, credit card debt was dischargeable. However, that's why the Laws were changed. Too many people were running up massive credit card debt and then would file Bankruptcy to get rid of it. Not anymore. Ain't going to happen!

JMO and MOO!!

I beg to differ, it all depends on what is called a means calculation as to whether they will be paid or not, although this is O/T, imo.

[William Anthony]

ALL ~ as OJNUT and Martin like to say:

OJ has not filed Bankruptcy, trust me! OJ is an idiot, but he is not stupid! I firmly believe that if OJ thought that he could ever get the Judgment off of his back through Bankruptcy, he would have filed Bankruptcy the day after the Judgment was rendered against him ~ post haste!

As has been discussed, filing BANRUPTCY will not and never will absolve anyone who has a CIVIL JUDGMENT filed against them. Period! As I have previously stated, it is an anvil around your neck forever and ever (with interest accruing daily) ~ until it is paid off!

JMO and MOO!!

I woulld like to disagree in that, if a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is filled and the trustee determines there are no assets and the court orders the bankruptcy discharged under those terms, then the judgment is moot.

[martin II]

if Fred Goldman's status is NOT that of a judgment creditor then what is his status?
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

I woulld like to disagree in that, if a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is filled and the trustee determines there are no assets and the court orders the bankruptcy discharged under those terms, then the judgment is moot.

Sorry, I disagree. No Court Judgment(s) can ever be erased by a Bankruptcy. If that were the case, what part of "OJ would have filed Bankruptcy, post haste, to absolve himself of the Civil Judgment" don't you get?

I also don't think that people who unfortunately have a catastrophic illness and no insurance can get rid of the debt through Bankruptcy. Haven't you heard of people losing everything they have just because of a catastrophic illness? Even if they have insurance, depending on the policy, some pay 100%, some pay 90% and some pay 80%. If you have medical bills over one million dollars, your 10% and 20% could wipe you out and sometimes it does. You read about it all of the time!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

Well, #4 pretty much puts the kabosh on your "firm belief that this debt will end when OJ dies!"
Please tell me HOW??? Number 4 very clearly states that a judgment is treated like any other claim against an estate. Where on earth does that "put the kabosh" on what I have been saying? Where on earth does it say that this liability is passed on in petpetuity?

I have spent considerable time looking for links to confirm your belief and have come up totally empty handed. Do you think ALL debts transfer personally to a decedent's children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren until they are paid in full? Of course not! If this judgment is to be treated as any other debt in probate, it will end when the estate has been settled.

It is beginning to seem to me that you are so hellbent on being right that you are ignoring all reasonable discussion.

I didn't go back to read my post of 12/29 so I have no idea what the "moot" point is.

I gave you and socal kudos for making sense in some posts earlier. I found links supporting what you were saying then. I can find nothing to support this "belief". If that's all it is, your "belief" is wrong.

[martin II]

Please tell me HOW??? Number 4 very clearly states that a judgment is treated like any other claim against an estate. Where on earth does that "put the kabosh" on what I have been saying? Where on earth does it say that this liability is passed on in petpetuity?

I have spent considerable time looking for links to confirm your belief and have come up totally empty handed. Do you think ALL debts transfer personally to a decedent's children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren until they are paid in full? Of course not! If this judgment is to be treated as any other debt in probate, it will end when the estate has been settled.

It is beginning to seem to me that you are so hellbent on being right that you are ignoring all reasonable discussion.

I didn't go back to read my post of 12/29 so I have no idea what the "moot" point is.

I gave you and socal kudos for making sense in some posts earlier. I found links supporting what you were saying then. I can find nothing to support this "belief". If that's all it is, your "belief" is wrong.

deputy di
i do thank you for your efforts to bring clearity and real facts to this issue.

Usually when a idea goes against everything you already know to be fact, the idea is most likely wrong. imo
martin II

[deputydi]

if Fred Goldman's status is NOT that of a judgment creditor then what is his status?
martin II
I'm going to direct this post to you because I think you will read it. I don't think 2L8 will and, if she does, she will find some reason to tell me it's wrong.
A judgment is an order entered by a judge at the
end of a lawsuit. A creditor who obtains a judgment
against you is called a judgment creditor.
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/177A008349924EDF85256B29004BD514/$FILE/12-%20Debtors%20Rights%20in%20Florida%20(Eng).pdf?Ope nElement

This is from an online pamphlet called "Debtor's Rights in Florida". Can this definition BE ANY CLEARER?

[martin II]

I'm going to direct this post to you because I think you will read it. I don't think 2L8 will and, if she does, she will find some reason to tell me it's wrong.

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/177A008349924EDF85256B29004BD514/$FILE/12-%20Debtors%20Rights%20in%20Florida%20(Eng).pdf?Ope nElement

This is from an online pamphlet called "Debtor's Rights in Florida". Can this definition BE ANY CLEARER?

deputy

it has been clear to me from the beginning. It could not be made more clearer
after your post.imo
martin II

[martin II]

I don't understand why people are so upset that OJ moved to Florida, even if his primary goal was not to pay the judgement. I have hard time believing that any us, regardless of being G or NG would pay off a civil suit judgement before we would ensure the security of our children.

Another very real problem, IMO, is that while the Goldmans want to make sure the public knows that Simpson has paid very little of the judgement, they also want to make it clear that anyone who gives Simpson the chance to make a lot of money will be smeared as well.

I don't think Simpson would pay the judgement even it was $100.00 and I don't think the Godmans would believe a billion million dollar judgement paid off will ever be enough.

I think DeputyDi has it, it is a cat and mouse game being played by Simpson and the Goldmans and IMO, there will be no winners, only losers. IMO.


limakey
i have said this before. freds attack on oj has influenced corporate america to black ball oj from any meaningful employment or business. yet he requested and received one of the largest civil judgements in the history of america.
i see no way that oj can work or do anything to secure the level of income necessary to pay off a $38,000,000 judgement to him.

fred has helped to make it impossible for oj to pay him even if he wanted to do so. Yet fred *****es that 'OJ HAS NOT PAID ME"
MARTIN ii

[2L8 4A D8]

Please tell me HOW??? Number 4 very clearly states that a judgment is treated like any other claim against an estate. Where on earth does that "put the kabosh" on what I have been saying? Where on earth does it say that this liability is passed on in petpetuity?

I have spent considerable time looking for links to confirm your belief and have come up totally empty handed. Do you think ALL debts transfer personally to a decedent's children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren until they are paid in full? Of course not! If this judgment is to be treated as any other debt in probate, it will end when the estate has been settled.

It is beginning to seem to me that you are so hellbent on being right that you are ignoring all reasonable discussion.

I didn't go back to read my post of 12/29 so I have no idea what the "moot" point is.

I gave you and socal kudos for making sense in some posts earlier. I found links supporting what you were saying then. I can find nothing to support this "belief". If that's all it is, your "belief" is wrong.

I am not going to get into a pizzing contest over this with you. I tried to help, you don't believe me. What gives you the right to tell me that my "belief" is wrong and your's isn't? That's why I end all my posts with JMO and MOO because of posters like yourself and the NG's!

You don't want to have a reasonable discussion. You have already made up your mind that I am wrong. It's either your way, or the highway! I will not discuss this with you any further. You can post ad nauseum for all that I care!

I am just sorry now that I even brought up the question of what happens to the Judgment after OJ dies!

End of Story. Buh Bye!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

I am not going to get into a pizzing contest over this with you. I tried to help, you don't believe me. What gives you the right to tell me that my "belief" is wrong and your's isn't? That's why I end all my posts with JMO and MOO because of posters like yourself and the NG's!

You don't want to have a reasonable discussion. You have already made up your mind that I am wrong. It's either your way, or the highway! I will not discuss this with you any further. You can post ad nauseum for all that I care!

I am just sorry now that I even brought up the question of what happens to the Judgment after OJ dies!

End of Story. Buh Bye!

JMO and MOO!!
I have provided links to back up what I'm saying -- what have you provided to substantiate your "beliefs"? I am trying to have a reasonable discussion, but it's kind of hard when you refuse to believe any of the links and steadfastly maintain you are right despite evidence to the contrary.

[martin II]

deputy
the law dictionery agree with your post 100%



http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1058&bold=


judgment creditor
n. the winning plaintiff in a lawsuit to whom the court decides the defendant owes money. A judgment creditor can use various means to collect the judgment. The judgment is good for a specified number of years and then may be renewed by a filed request. If the defendant debtor files for bankruptcy, the judgment creditor will have priority (the right to share in assets) ahead of general creditors who are not secured by mortgages or deeds of trust and do not have judgments. However, if the bankrupt person has no assets, this becomes an empty advantage.
See also: creditor's rights judgment prevailing party
martin II

[deputydi]

deputy
the law dictionery agree with your post 100%



http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1058&bold=


judgment creditor
n. the winning plaintiff in a lawsuit to whom the court decides the defendant owes money. A judgment creditor can use various means to collect the judgment. The judgment is good for a specified number of years and then may be renewed by a filed request. If the defendant debtor files for bankruptcy, the judgment creditor will have priority (the right to share in assets) ahead of general creditors who are not secured by mortgages or deeds of trust and do not have judgments. However, if the bankrupt person has no assets, this becomes an empty advantage.
See also: creditor's rights judgment prevailing party
martin II
Thanks. I really don't understand posters who are so desperate to be "right" they simply ignore everything else. 2L8 is just being hardheaded. I don't really believe she is that dense -- just determined that she is NOT WRONG and it doesn't seem to matter to her that she has been provided proof that she is.

[limakey]

Here is my take on this:

IMO, Simpson will ensure that when he dies, the judgement will die with him. He has made it clear why he will not pay the judgement, I'm sure he has asked the questions on how to ensure that his children will not have to pay that judgement either.

And while we all talk about the money Simpson has earned since the civil trial, people forget that there are quite a few people and/or agencies that are ahead of the Goldmans' and Browns' because that is what the law says.

Hey, lawyers gotta make sure they get their chunk of change as well. The IRS/Taxman plays second to no one--including the victim and or victim's family.

[2L8 4A D8]

You can go with what you "believe" & I'll go with what my brother said, even though he was answering in a general sense. I can't imagine that Fred didn't create a will & cover his bases in that regard. Fred isn't stupid, nor were his lawyers.

Be damned what your Brother said Diva! Since you and I didn't post any links, we don't know what we are talking about and neither does your Brother, even though he has been an attorney for over 30 years! Again, just consider the sources! It's the only way to get through this Board and Threads with your sanity intact!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

Sorry, I disagree. No Court Judgment(s) can ever be erased by a Bankruptcy. If that were the case, what part of "OJ would have filed Bankruptcy, post haste, to absolve himself of the Civil Judgment" don't you get?

I also don't think that people who unfortunately have a catastrophic illness and no insurance can get rid of the debt through Bankruptcy. Haven't you heard of people losing everything they have just because of a catastrophic illness? Even if they have insurance, depending on the policy, some pay 100%, some pay 90% and some pay 80%. If you have medical bills over one million dollars, your 10% and 20% could wipe you out and sometimes it does. You read about it all of the time!

JMO and MOO!!

You do not need to apologize for disagreeing. However, as I stated in a Chapter 7 case, where it is determined that there are no assets, and the case is ultimately discharged by court order and closed without a right to reopen, all debts, regardless of the type are wiped out. In asset cases the trustee has to make a report of distribution and final report of distribution, stating the creditors and the percentage of the debt each creditor was/will be paid. I would assume in the cases you are talking about that there were assets found, which enabled a full or partial distribution.

[martin II]

You do not need to apologize for disagreeing. However, as I stated in a Chapter 7 case, where it is determined that there are no assets, and the case is ultimately discharged by court order and closed without a right to reopen, all debts, regardless of the type are wiped out. In asset cases the trustee has to make a report of distribution and final report of distribution, stating the creditors and the percentage of the debt each creditor was/will be paid. I would assume in the cases you are talking about that there were assets found, which enabled a full or partial distribution.

william
Rather than spend time apologizing this poster may need to simply post a link to some authority on the subject of judment creditor for all to see if she is right or wrong.

just one link would do it.
imo jmo
martin II

[martin II]

Here is my take on this:

IMO, Simpson will ensure that when he dies, the judgement will die with him. He has made it clear why he will not pay the judgement, I'm sure he has asked the questions on how to ensure that his children will not have to pay that judgement either.

And while we all talk about the money Simpson has earned since the civil trial, people forget that there are quite a few people and/or agencies that are ahead of the Goldmans' and Browns' because that is what the law says.

Hey, lawyers gotta make sure they get their chunk of change as well. The IRS/Taxman plays second to no one--including the victim and or victim's family.

There are just too many off shore bank account setups available for any lawyer not to take advantage of if he is preventing his clients assets from attack. some within 2-3 hours of miami.

martin II

[William Anthony]

william
Rather than spend time apologizing this poster may need to simply post a link to some authority on the subject of judment creditor for all to see if she is right or wrong.

just one link would do it.
imo jmo
martin II

Machismo Martin,

I have vowed that this new year will not find me in the sorted debates of the past year, and will attempt to follow the leads of Lovely Limakey, Classy
Sassy, and Kenetic Kate.

[martin II]

Machismo Martin,

I have vowed that this new year will not find me in the sorted debates of the past year, and will attempt to follow the leads of Lovely Limakey, Classy
Sassy, and Kenetic Kate.

wiliam

check you pm

martin II

[deputydi]

Be damned what your Brother said Diva! Since you and I didn't post any links, we don't know what we are talking about and neither does your Brother, even though he has been an attorney for over 30 years! Again, just consider the sources! It's the only way to get through this Board and Threads with your sanity intact!

JMO and MOO!!
I believe socal's posts about what may happen when FRED dies, but we have been discussing what happens to the judgment when OJ dies. Whole different ball of wax.

[2L8 4A D8]

I just got off the phone with my oldest brother. He obtained his law degree about 30 yrs ago (he's 23 yrs older than me)& specialized in real estate & corporate law. He said that if Orenthal died, the judgement would go against his estate & if Fred Goldman died, the judgement that was awarded would become part of his estate. He basically said there is no time limit on a judgement.

I believe socal's posts about what may happen when FRED dies, but we have been discussing what happens to the judgment when OJ dies. Whole different ball of wax.

IMO, SD's post looks like her Brother pretty much stated what happens to the Judgment when Fred dies and what happens to the Judgment when OJ dies.

[deputydi]

IMO, SD's post looks like her Brother pretty much stated what happens to the Judgment when Fred dies and what happens to the Judgment when OJ dies.
Isn't that EXACTLY what I've been saying? One more time -- the judgment would be levied against OJ's ESTATE. What part of that is in dispute? You keep insisting that the judgment would remain (if not paid in full) as part of Arnelle's estate, Justin's estate, Sidney's estate, etc, etc, etc. It would NOT. If there are not enough assets in OJs estate to cover the full amount of the judgment, Fred CANNOT hold ANY OF OJ's CHILDREN PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for the balance. Got it now?

[2L8 4A D8]

I just got off the phone with my oldest brother. He obtained his law degree about 30 yrs ago (he's 23 yrs older than me)& specialized in real estate & corporate law. He said that if Orenthal died, the judgement would go against his estate & if Fred Goldman died, the judgement that was awarded would become part of his estate. He basically said there is no time limit on a judgement.

Isn't that EXACTLY what I've been saying? One more time -- the judgment would be levied against OJ's ESTATE. What part of that is in dispute? You keep insisting that the judgment would remain (if not paid in full) as part of Arnelle's estate, Justin's estate, Sidney's estate, etc, etc, etc. It would NOT. If there are not enough assets in OJs estate to cover the full amount of the judgment, Fred CANNOT hold ANY OF OJ's CHILDREN PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for the balance. Got it now?

No. I believe SD's Brother. He's an attorney and you're not. End of Story!

JMO and MOO!!

[jotun]

There are just too many off shore bank account setups available for any lawyer not to take advantage of if he is preventing his clients assets from attack. some within 2-3 hours of miami.

martin II

Martin-All

Would assume O.J.has protected his assets for himself and his children in the event of his death.

O.J. has sucessfully kept his money out of the Goldman's hands for almost 10 years. Mrs.Rufo sent her lawyer to the hotel where O.J. was signing helmets and jerseys.She got nothing.

O.J. has a lawyer and golfing buddies who are lawyers.

Just heard on tv,that a judge has issued a restraining order for O.J. not to transfer any more money.
And anyone who owes O.J. any money to turn it over to Golddigger instead.

But Yale said last month that O.J. has been paid in full.And his name is NOT on any contract.

jotun

[deputydi]

No. I believe SD's Brother. He's an attorney and you're not. End of Story!

JMO and MOO!!
What in heaven's name is wrong with you? Please point out where any part of socal's post supports what you are trying your best to make me believe. Either you can't read or you're too dense to understand the written word. I am NOT disputing what socal's brother said -- I totally agree with it. You have no idea what you're talking about and are just trying to be obtuse. Well, guess what -- you've succeeded. THE END.

[martin II]

Martin-All

Would assume O.J.has protected his assets for himself and his children in the event of his death.

O.J. has sucessfully kept his money out of the Goldman's hands for almost 10 years. Mrs.Rufo sent her lawyer to the hotel where O.J. was signing helmets and jerseys.She got nothing.

O.J. has a lawyer and golfing buddies who are lawyers.

Just heard on tv,that a judge has issued a restraining order for O.J. not to transfer any more money.
And anyone who owes O.J. any money to turn it over to Golddigger instead.

But Yale said last month that O.J. has been paid in full.And his name is NOT on any contract.

jotun


jotun
i guess you mean money from the book.
what jurisdiction was the order made in?

how could oj transfer money from a company that he is not a principal in?
(childrens company) he can only receive money and he has said all if gone poof.

"anybody that owes oj money"?? how can a judge order "anybody" that owes oj money without diecting a specific company/person to do so. imo
martin II

[limakey]

DeputyDi,

Another thing to consider about the money Simpson has "earned". I would assume the IRS would be all over him, auditing him left and right to see if they could nail him for tax evasion.

[martin II]

DeputyDi,

Another thing to consider about the money Simpson has "earned". I would assume the IRS would be all over him, auditing him left and right to see if they could nail him for tax evasion.

limakey
Money earned from selling autographs at those shows is knida hard to follow even for the irs. I am sure he records some of it as income and pays taxes but maby not all of it. If the childrens company paid him in money for the rights to the story, he will have to pay taxes on that income. imo jmo
martin II

[Suzee10]

OJ SIMPSONS ASSETS FROZEN.... to read on click on the link below
(If the link doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL in your web
browser)

URL to article:
http://contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/oj%20simpsons%20assets%20frozen_1017937


Suzee10:beer:

[sassylassy]

--snip--

*Would assume O.J.has protected his assets for himself and his children in the event of his death.

**Just heard on tv,that a judge has issued a restraining order for O.J. not to transfer any more money.
And anyone who owes O.J. any money to turn it over to Golddigger instead.

But Yale said last month that O.J. has been paid in full.And his name is NOT on any contract.

jotun

*I do agree w/ u jotun -O.J.has protected his assets-thus far-

**it will be interesting to see how this plays out---

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070105/2/11yvh.html

[sassylassy]

wiliam

check you pm

martin II

and martin ples check yours :seeya:

[socaldiva]

Great news! I didn't see a date on the article, but I'm assuming it's new as Nancy Grace is going to be discussing this topic on her show tonight. Fabulous :D

[sassylassy]

OJ SIMPSONS ASSETS FROZEN.... to read on click on the link below
(If the link doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL in your web
browser)

URL to article:
http://contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/oj%20simpsons%20assets%20frozen_1017937


Suzee10:beer:


Hi Suzee

I am not sure if noticed- but there an active 5 pg thread- discussing the goldman lawsuit :read: you can join in on the discussion there if you like.
:seeya:

[Suzee10]

Hi Suzee

I am not sure if noticed- but there an active 5 pg thread- discussing the goldman lawsuit :read: you can join in on the discussion there if you like.
:seeya:


Thanks Sassy I would have loved to join in but I was so busy today I just had time to stop buy and pass on the great news. I hope Goldman never lets simpson off the hook.

[Kate Sachel]

You do not need to apologize for disagreeing. However, as I stated in a Chapter 7 case, where it is determined that there are no assets, and the case is ultimately discharged by court order and closed without a right to reopen, all debts, regardless of the type are wiped out. In asset cases the trustee has to make a report of distribution and final report of distribution, stating the creditors and the percentage of the debt each creditor was/will be paid. I would assume in the cases you are talking about that there were assets found, which enabled a full or partial distribution.

Actually in a Chapter 7 case, regardless of the presence of assets, there are several types of debt that are not eligible for discharge. Examples of such debts that are exempted from discharge are student loan obligations, child support obligations, taxes and tax liens, and alimony.

Civil judgments can indeed be discharged, but it not an "automatic". In a wrongful death judgment the bankruptcy court will discharge negligence damages but generally any damages in a civil judgment that are the result of gross negligence, recklessness, or malice will generally be deemed non-dischargeable if the creditor objects.

Because OJ's Simpson's judgment came from a verdict of " ... with malice aforethought ..." his judgment would more than likely be deemed non-dischargeable, since we obviusly know that Fred Goldman as a creditor would object.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Actually in a Chapter 7 case, regardless of the presence of assets, there are several types of debt that are not eligible for discharge. Examples of such debts that are exempted from discharge are student loan obligations, child support obligations, taxes and tax liens, and alimony.

Civil judgments can indeed be discharged, but it not an "automatic". In a wrongful death judgment the bankruptcy court will discharge negligence damages but generally any damages in a civil judgment that are the result of gross negligence, recklessness, or malice will generally be deemed non-dischargeable if the creditor objects.

Because OJ's Simpson's judgment came from a verdict of " ... with malice aforethought ..." his judgment would more than likely be deemed non-dischargeable, since we obviusly know that Fred Goldman as a creditor would object.

Kate


Kinetic Kate, until I find something more appropriate

I would like to disagree, in a Chapter7 bankruptcy that has been closed as a no asset case and the court has ordered the case closed as such, and then those debts are dischargeable, unless there has been some type of prior agreement between the creditor and debtor. Here is a link that I found on the subject. If the debtor has no assets and no means of repaying the debt, then the notion of bankruptcy would be moot. Of course, there are legal conditions to be met. Here is the link.

http://www.credit-card-faq.com/bankruptcy/non-rechargable-debt.htm

[martin II]

*I do agree w/ u jotun -O.J.has protected his assets-thus far-

**it will be interesting to see how this plays out---

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070105/2/11yvh.html


general information on

martin II

In the widely publicized 1996 case of O.J. Simpson, although a losing defendant in a lawsuit, he still got to keep $25,000 a month in spending money. Despite the fact that he lost all assets held in his own name, he was able to keep all income from money he had placed in trust years before the lawsuits were filed.



http://www.ptshamrock.com/apot.html

[Kate Sachel]

Kinetic Kate, until I find something more appropriate

I would like to disagree, in a Chapter7 bankruptcy that has been closed as a no asset case and the court has ordered the case closed as such, and then those debts are dischargeable, unless there has been some type of prior agreement between the creditor and debtor. Here is a link that I found on the subject. If the debtor has no assets and no means of repaying the debt, then the notion of bankruptcy would be moot. Of course, there are legal conditions to be met. Here is the link.

http://www.credit-card-faq.com/bankruptcy/non-rechargable-debt.htm

Good Morning,

Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases will never discharge the obligations that I mentioned.

For example, section 523(a)(8) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code was amended in 1998 to exempt student loan debt from discharge in bankruptcy, regardless of the amount of time the loan has been in repayment. Prior to this amendment, a student loan debt had to be in repayment for a minimum period of seven years in order for the obligation to be forgiven.

In order to discharge a student loan debt, the debtor would have to initiate a seperate lawsuit, referred to as an Adversary Proceeding, against the creditor in which financial discovery would take place and a judge would determine whether or not meeting the student loan obligation would cause the debtor undue financial hardship.

In the absence of an Adversary brought forth by the debtor however, a student loan debt is automatically non-dischargeable regardless of the bankruptcy chapter filed or the assets available from the estate.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Good Morning,

Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases will never discharge the obligations that I mentioned.

For example, section 523(a)(8) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code was amended in 1998 to exempt student loan debt from discharge in bankruptcy, regardless of the amount of time the loan has been in repayment. Prior to this amendment, a student loan debt had to be in repayment for a minimum period of seven years in order for the obligation to be forgiven.

In order to discharge a student loan debt, the debtor would have to initiate a seperate lawsuit, referred to as an Adversary Proceeding, against the creditor in which financial discovery would take place and a judge would determine whether or not meeting the student loan obligation would cause the debtor undue financial hardship.

In the absence of an Adversary brought forth by the debtor however, a student loan debt is automatically non-dischargeable regardless of the bankruptcy chapter filed or the assets available from the estate.

Kate

Good morning Kinetic Kate,

I think we have said the same thing. In other words, there are circumstances that may allow the discharge of the debts. I did not say, or. at least mean to say that the debts were automatically dischargeable. What I was referring to was the claim that they can never be discharged. We may have a difference of opinion as to what an adversary proceeding is. The adversary proceeding takes place in the Bankruptcy Court, imho. If it did not it would constitute a possible conflict between the rulings of two different courts.

[Kate Sachel]

Good morning Kinetic Kate,

I think we have said the same thing. In other words, there are circumstances that may allow the discharge of the debts. I did not say, or. at least mean to say that the debts were automatically dischargeable. What I was referring to was the claim that they can never be discharged. We may have a difference of opinion as to what an adversary proceeding is. The adversary proceeding takes place in the Bankruptcy Court, imho. If it did not it would constitute a possible conflict between the rulings of two different courts.

The Adversay does take place in the bankruptcy court because it must be filed in conjunction with an active bankruptcy case. However, it is a completely separate filing from the bankruptcy filing itself, with separate case numbers and procedures.

Therefore, it is still correct to say that a bankruptcy filing in itself will never discharge the obligations that I mentioned.

Kate

[William Anthony]

The Adversay does take place in the bankruptcy court because it must be filed in conjunction with an active bankruptcy case. However, it is a completely separate filing from the bankruptcy filing itself, with separate case numbers and procedures.

Therefore, it is still correct to say that a bankruptcy filing in itself will never discharge the obligations that I mentioned.

Kate

KInetic Kate,

I must again disagree, given your agreement that it does take place in a Bankruptcy Court, which rules on bankruptcy matters, and the bankruptcy begins with the filing of a petition and subsequent assignment of a bankruptcy trustee, which in all likelihood, the proceeding would be against the determination of the trustee, over which the bankruptcy court/judge, has jurisdiction and original jurisdiction over the petition, the proceeding, while having separate numbers and filing, still is part of the bankruptcy, and, as such, can be discharged by the bankruptcy court, who files an order of discharge in bankruptcy cases. I do not believe that I stated the filing of a petition would automatically discharge a debt, and, therefore, I agree with your last sentence. I was referring to the discharge and the conditions under which the discharge is granted and/or denied.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
In the widely publicized 1996 case of O.J. Simpson, although a losing defendant in a lawsuit, he still got to keep $25,000 a month in spending money.

OMG this information is so old. What on earth is your point??

p.s. Orenthal now claims that he only gets about $1,700.00 a month now IIRC. Seems he overspent on the principal. :rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

OMG this information is so old. What on earth is your point??

p.s. Orenthal now claims that he only gets about $1,700.00 a month now IIRC. Seems he overspent on the principal. :rolleyes:

:beer: That's what I heard too, Diva. That OJ is now having to dip into the principal in order to live. Too bad. So sad!

Hey OJ, keep on living beyond your means and pretty soon, before you know it, it's all going to be gone and you will have to "get a job" like all the NG's expected Nicole to do with young children at home! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
you will have to "get a job" like all the NG's (expected Nicole to do with young children at home!

And it's especially pathetic coming from those who's only "job" seems to be posting on this board. :rolleyes:

[deputydi]

<SNIP>Hey OJ, keep on living beyond your means and pretty soon, before you know it, it's all going to be gone and you will have to "get a job" like all the NG's expected Nicole to do with young children at home! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!
If OJ is forced to get a menial job in order to survive, that might be sweet justice but your comment about Nicole seems a little insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills. Nicole's children were not babies and I'm sure she would have done what she had to do if she been given the opportunity. There is no shame in working for a living whether by choice or by necessity.:no:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
your comment about Nicole seems a little insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills.

I didn't take it as the least bit insulting. There's nothing wrong with a mom wanting to stay home with her school age children. :shrug:

[deputydi]

I didn't take it as the least bit insulting. There's nothing wrong with a mom wanting to stay home with her school age children. :shrug:
There's nothing wrong with wanting to stay home, and I bet most of the working mothers WANT to stay home with their children. Unfortunately, circumstances don't always allow for it. 2l8's post seemed kind of a slam to anyone who even suggested a mother with young children might have to work.

My daughter is a single mom of two and gets NO child support from her dead beat ex-husband. She didn't get anything close to a half million in her divorce settlement and had to go to work ASAP in order to pay the bills. It hasn't been easy and she didn't get the luxury of staying home with her second child (she did with the first until he was 10). When her second was born, the marriage had already started falling apart and they separated once before the baby was born and, after a brief reconciliation, they separated and divorced when he was 3 mths old. Her only education/training was 1 year of college and was prepared to do nothing. It hasn't been easy, but she's making it.

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for Nicole's situation, and I'm sure she would have liked to stay at home with her children. My only point is that sometimes it isn't possible. Sometimes the responsible adult needs to pull herself/himself up by the bootstraps and get out there and pound the pavement. You do what you have to do.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I do have a certain amount of sympathy for Nicole's situation, and I'm sure she would have liked to stay at home with her children. My only point is that sometimes it isn't possible. Sometimes the responsible adult needs to pull herself/himself up by the bootstraps and get out there and pound the pavement. You do what you have to do.

I understand fully what you are saying, but I still don't think 2L8 was slamming anyone in that regard. IMO some think they "need" to work, but truly are working to keep up with "extras" & a certain lifestyle. Clearly with some, there is no choice.

In this case, OJ seems to have married Nicole young & precluded her from getting an education or career. I think it's part of the abuse cycle. If you are independent & self supporting, you are far more likely to leave....if you are battered & supressed you are less likely to be able to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps". JMO

[deputydi]

I understand fully what you are saying, but I still don't think 2L8 was slamming anyone in that regard. IMO some think they "need" to work, but truly are working to keep up with "extras" & a certain lifestyle. Clearly with some, there is no choice.

In this case, OJ seems to have married Nicole young & precluded her from getting an education or career. I think it's part of the abuse cycle. If you are independent & self supporting, you are far more likely to leave....if you are battered & supressed you are less likely to be able to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps". JMO
Thanks. Maybe I took her remark a little too personally. I completely agree with this being part of the abuse cycle. Although my dtr wasn't physically abused, over the 13 years they were married he eroded her self esteem to the point where she believed she was dumb and worthless. Nothing could have been farther from the truth and she is slowly beginning to believe in herself again. This is why she has refused to go to court and enforce the support order. She likes knowing she can do it on her own. I don't agree with this mindset, but I don't argue with her.

It had to have been mindboggling for Nicole to leave a beautiful mansion and a star studded lifestyle and find herself "making do" on a limited income. I believe it might have taken some time, but she would have eventually found her independent side. Nicole didn't impress me as some blonde "bimbo" or a clingy, needy individual. If she had been given a chance at life, I think she would have developed into an amazing woman. That's what I want to believe anyway.

[2L8 4A D8]

:beer: That's what I heard too, Diva. That OJ is now having to dip into the principal in order to live. Too bad. So sad!

Hey OJ, keep on living beyond your means and pretty soon, before you know it, it's all going to be gone and you will have to "get a job" like all the NG's expected Nicole to do with young children at home! Boo Hoo!

JMO and MOO!!

If OJ is forced to get a menial job in order to survive, that might be sweet justice but your comment about Nicole seems a little insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills. Nicole's children were not babies and I'm sure she would have done what she had to do if she been given the opportunity. There is no shame in working for a living whether by choice or by necessity.:no:

What part of my post didn't you understand? Obviously, the part that I said, "get a job" like all the NG's (Not Guilties) expected Nicole to do with young children at home!" How is that "insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills?" It doesn't and you need to reread my post! Nicole didn't want to work; she wanted to be home with her kids and that's her perrogative and I agree with her perrogative. I am sorry that you don't. And where does it say that "young children" equate to "babies?"

You are not even reading my posts correctly. You also need to do a Search of Martin's posts. If anybody is insulting Nicole, it is he. He's the one who posted that since Nicole got a $300,000/$400,000 divorce settlement that she should have been happy with that. And, if she wasn't, then she should have gone out and got a job like so many other single/divorced women do! I don't agree, sorry!

I think that you need to put me on Ignore and then push yourself away from the computer. That's what I am going to do if I receive another post from you ~ CLICK!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

What part of my post didn't you understand? Obviously, the part that I said, "get a job" like all the NG's (Not Guilties) expected Nicole to do with young children at home!" How is that "insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills?" It doesn't and you need to reread my post! Nicole didn't want to work; she wanted to be home with her kids and that's her perrogative and I agree with her perrogative. I am sorry that you don't. And where does it say that "young children" equate to "babies?"

You are not even reading my posts correctly. You also need to do a Search of Martin's posts. If anybody is insulting Nicole, it is he. He's the one who posted that since Nicole got a $300,000/$400,000 divorce settlement that she should have been happy with that. And, if she wasn't, then she should have gone out and got a job like so many other single/divorced women do! I don't agree, sorry!

I think that you need to put me on Ignore and then push yourself away from the computer. That's what I am going to do if I receive another post from you ~ CLICK!

JMO and MOO!!
Is it your nature to be so nasty? I just meant that your post sounded like it would have been unheard of to expect a mother with young children at home to get a job. If I misunderstood your meaning I am sorry. My point about them not being babies was the children were in school and were of an age where they didn't need constant care. Calm down and stop taking everything posted to you as an insult.

I don't have time to post on the board 24/7 like you do and I don't want to spend my time in a pointless argument with you or anyone else.

[2L8 4A D8]

I understand fully what you are saying, but I still don't think 2L8 was slamming anyone in that regard. IMO some think they "need" to work, but truly are working to keep up with "extras" & a certain lifestyle. Clearly with some, there is no choice.

In this case, OJ seems to have married Nicole young & precluded her from getting an education or career. I think it's part of the abuse cycle. If you are independent & self supporting, you are far more likely to leave....if you are battered & supressed you are less likely to be able to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps". JMO

Thanks. Maybe I took her remark a little too personally.

<snipped>

Is it your nature to be so nasty? I just meant that your post sounded like it would have been unheard of to expect a mother with young children at home to get a job. If I misunderstood your meaning I am sorry. My point about them not being babies was the children were in school and were of an age where they didn't need constant care. Calm down and stop taking everything posted to you as an insult.

I don't have time to post on the board 24/7 like you do and I don't want to spend my time in a pointless argument with you or anyone else.

Who's nasty? Who's dense? Who started it? Not me! Oh now, "If I misunderstood your meaning, I am sorry!" Then you continue to bash me! How can I "calm down and stop taking everything posted to me as an insult?" You have done nothing but insult me since you (unfortunately) wondered in here a few months ago! If you don't want to spend your time in pointless arguments, then don't start arguments with posters! Duh!

William Anthony = 14.04 posts per day
Martin II = 13.60 posts per day
2L8 4A D8 = 11.42 posts per day

Yeah, I certainly spend 24/7 on these Boards! :rolleyes: CLICK!!!!!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

<snip>
William Anthony = 14.04 posts per day
Martin II = 13.60 posts per day
2L8 4A D8 = 11.42 posts per day
<snip>
deputydi = 3.32 posts per day

If you don't already have me on ignore, I'd like to offer a truce. You know, we really are on the same side and there is no reason for either of us to be hostile to the other. I don't happen to agree with every single thing the G's post and I don't disagree with everything the NG's post. I consider myself an independent thinker and nothing is all black or all white. If I question or disagree with something you say, please don't take it personally. It is my nature to look at all sides of an issue. I will try my best to do the same.

I took personal offense (because of my dtr) to your comment about "working mothers". It is very possible -- even likely -- that you didn't mean it the way it read (to me).

Now, can we start over?

[limakey]

DeputyDi,

IMO, I think the worst thing that has ever happened to the American Family is the "No Fault Divorce". While I truly believe that no person should stay in an abusive marriage or stay in a marriage where they are truly unhappy, I think if there consequences to their behavior during the marriage, it might help to lessen the bitterness, the anger and hopefully keep the focus on the children. In my experience, I have always given the advice that before you say something or do something you regret, try to remember that at one time you loved this person and if you try to remember that your children were a product of that love, then your children will feel much more secure.

Also, IMO, I believe many woman truly believe that as the laws are written, their ex's "have to" keep their children in a lifestyle for which they have become accoustomed to, however, that hardly ever happens.

If you think about it, judge's in these type of cases have to do the same as a civil jury---they have to decided what this woman is capable of doing and how much money can she earn in the future. I still don't know how woman can earn thousands and thousands of dollars less their ex but still have to pay a 40% to the ex's 60%'s.

[martin II]

If OJ is forced to get a menial job in order to survive, that might be sweet justice but your comment about Nicole seems a little insulting to the millions of women who have to work in order to pay the bills. Nicole's children were not babies and I'm sure she would have done what she had to do if she been given the opportunity. There is no shame in working for a living whether by choice or by necessity.:no:

deputy

Your post reflects my opinion exactly. Nicole may have been used to a life of ease but when she got her divoice she had to know that the free flow on money from oj would stop. Now if it is true that she was receiving $10,000 per month child support from oj had a condo, two cars and support from her family and friends , i find it strange that she could not make ends meet. How may single mothers have this kind of cushion at divoice?

There are many mothers with 2-3 children on welfare that somehow make ends meet.

If oj did give her one of the condos for rental income and she decided to sell it then that is another decision she made and if this is what caused the IRS situation then oj had no reason to support this scam. imo jmo
martin II

[William Anthony]

Who's nasty? Who's dense? Who started it? Not me! Oh now, "If I misunderstood your meaning, I am sorry!" Then you continue to bash me! How can I "calm down and stop taking everything posted to me as an insult?" You have done nothing but insult me since you (unfortunately) wondered in here a few months ago! If you don't want to spend your time in pointless arguments, then don't start arguments with posters! Duh!

William Anthony = 14.04 posts per day
Martin II = 13.60 posts per day
2L8 4A D8 = 11.42 posts per day

Yeah, I certainly spend 24/7 on these Boards! :rolleyes: CLICK!!!!!

JMO and MOO!!

Dear Diva,

I do not have a nickle in this dime, so, please refrain from using my name.

[deputydi]

DeputyDi,

IMO, I think the worst thing that has ever happened to the American Family is the "No Fault Divorce". While I truly believe that no person should stay in an abusive marriage or stay in a marriage where they are truly unhappy, I think if there consequences to their behavior during the marriage, it might help to lessen the bitterness, the anger and hopefully keep the focus on the children. In my experience, I have always given the advice that before you say something or do something you regret, try to remember that at one time you loved this person and if you try to remember that your children were a product of that love, then your children will feel much more secure.

Also, IMO, I believe many woman truly believe that as the laws are written, their ex's "have to" keep their children in a lifestyle for which they have become accoustomed to, however, that hardly ever happens.

If you think about it, judge's in these type of cases have to do the same as a civil jury---they have to decided what this woman is capable of doing and how much money can she earn in the future. I still don't know how woman can earn thousands and thousands of dollars less their ex but still have to pay a 40% to the ex's 60%'s.
No fault divorce does make it easier for a couple to split (not a good thing) but it lessens the stigma and bitterness of having to assign blame to one or the other (good thing). As with many other issues there are pros and cons. Divorce is a painful process for the adults, but it is heartbreaking when children are involved and feel the need to take sides. The kids need to understand that mom and dad may no longer love each other but they will never stop loving them.

I don't know what Nicole's child support order was, but I am pretty sure it wasn't going to afford the kind of lifestyle Justin and Sydney were used to. In my eyes, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes access to huge sums of money creates an attitude of "the world owes me". Nicole never had the kind of earning power OJ had but it seems to me that she walked away with enough to start a new life for herself. I think she eventually would have but they had only been divorced for about two years and OJ was still in her life (somewhat) even after the divorce. It takes longer than two years to get over a 17 year marriage. Unfortunately, she never got the chance to see what she could be.

[sassylassy]

In this case, OJ seems to have married Nicole young & precluded her from getting an education or career. I think it's part of the abuse cycle. If you are independent & self supporting, you are far more likely to leave....if you are battered & supressed you are less likely to be able to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps". JMO


actually thats incorrect-

ojs helped Nicole start up her own Interior design business-oj hired & paid Nicole to renovate their home. OJ also encouraged his friends such as Marcus Allen to hire Nicole. I read this in both fayes book & sheila wards.

[martin II]

actually thats incorrect-

ojs helped Nicole start up her own Interior design business-oj hired & paid Nicole to renovate their home. OJ also encouraged his friends such as Marcus Allen to hire Nicole. I read this in both fayes book & sheila wards.


It seems that he was trying to motivate her to do something on her own. Sounds great to me.

I am wondering if what it is reported she did with Marcus Allen could be called Interior Decorating?

martin II

[weezer]

It seems that he was trying to motivate her to do something on her own. Sounds great to me.

I am wondering if what it is reported she did with Marcus Allen could be called Interior Decorating?

martin II

good ole martin -- always first in line to bash the victims. IMO

[sassylassy]

It seems that he was trying to motivate her to do something on her own. Sounds great to me.

I am wondering if what it is reported she did with Marcus Allen could be called Interior Decorating?

martin II

according to the book- when Nicole remodeled Marcus Allens condo she was not involved w him romantically.

from all accounts I have heard -Nicole was faithful to OJS during their marriage.

[martin II]

good ole martin -- always first in line to bash the victims. IMO

not bashing. Teling the truth. Good old weezer likes to look the other way when the truth is told.
martin II

[weezer]

not bashing. Teling the truth. Good old weezer likes to look the other way when the truth is told.
martin II

Does this mean you are stating your post as a fact? If so, you need to supply a link since I've never read/seen anything that made that statement.

[martin II]

Does this mean you are stating your post as a fact? If so, you need to supply a link since I've never read/seen anything that made that statement.

See fays book and coras testimnony.

martin II

[weezer]

See fays book and coras testimnony.

martin II

so are you saying that everything faye wrote is the truth?

there was nothing in cora's testimony about Nicole being romantically involved with marcus allen while she was with orenthal.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by martin II
It seems that he was trying to motivate her to do something on her own. Sounds great to me.

I am wondering if what it is reported she did with Marcus Allen could be called Interior Decorating?

martin II

That is my post. Now what is it that you are demanding a link to.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II
It seems that he was trying to motivate her to do something on her own. Sounds great to me.

I am wondering if what it is reported she did with Marcus Allen could be called Interior Decorating?

martin II

That is my post. Now what is it that you are demanding a link to.
martin II

and your other post: "not bashing. Teling the truth. Good old weezer likes to look the other way when the truth is told.martin II"

which mean you were making your statement as a fact/truth. Now, you need to post the link to support your 'truth.'

[martin II]

so are you saying that everything faye wrote is the truth?

there was nothing in cora's testimony about Nicole being romantically involved with marcus allen while she was with orenthal.

i see you are trying to change my post again.

I never said she was involved with M Allen while she was married. That came later. imo

martin II

[martin II]

and your other post: "not bashing. Teling the truth. Good old weezer likes to look the other way when the truth is told.martin II"

which mean you were making your statement as a fact/truth. Now, you need to post the link to support your 'truth.'

fay stated that oj helped nicole start a interior decorating company and asked m allen to let he decorate his home. true according to faye and maby M.A.

Then i asked a question

So what link or proof are you asking for. Read faye book and coras testinmony.

martin II

[weezer]

fay stated that oj helped nicole start a interior decorating company and asked m allen to let he decorate his home. true according to faye and maby M.A.

Then i asked a question

So what link or proof are you asking for. Read faye book and coras testinmony.

martin II

so, the part about orenthal helping Nicole start a company is true and your question was bashing?

[martin II]

so, the part about orenthal helping Nicole start a company is true and your question was bashing?

no
according to fays book oj helped nicole start her company.

My question was just that.

martin II

[weezer]

no
according to fays book oj helped nicole start her company.

My question was just that.

martin II

so this wasn't bashing Nicole?

"I am wondering if what it is reported she did with Marcus Allen could be called Interior Decorating? martin II"

[martin II]

so this wasn't bashing Nicole?

"I am wondering if what it is reported she did with Marcus Allen could be called Interior Decorating? martin II"

nope.

MARTIN II

[weezer]

nope.

MARTIN II

oh -- what would you call it? Some more of your 'truth'?

Hey, I saw on the other thread where you called socaldiva a 'strawberry'. what is a 'strawberry'? Can I find it if I look up slang words?

[martin II]

oh -- what would you call it? Some more of your 'truth'?

Hey, I saw on the other thread where you called socaldiva a 'strawberry'. what is a 'strawberry'? Can I find it if I look up slang words?

hey

You have not see any such thing.

martin II

[martin II]

oh -- what would you call it? Some more of your 'truth'?

Hey, I saw on the other thread where you called socaldiva a 'strawberry'. what is a 'strawberry'? Can I find it if I look up slang words?

i call it a question
martinII

[martin II]

hey

You have not see any such thing.

martin II

should be seen not see.
martin II

[weezer]

hey

You have not see any such thing.

martin II

Really?

" #2257 Today, 02:10 PM
martin II
Super Member Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,506

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony
Dear Diva,

I can only imagine that he had tolerated far too too too much prior to that .

william
when i put a strawberry on ignore i just ignore their post.

martin II"

[martin II]

Really?

" #2257 Today, 02:10 PM
martin II
Super Member Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,506

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony
Dear Diva,

I can only imagine that he had tolerated far too too too much prior to that .

william
when i put a strawberry on ignore i just ignore their post.

martin II"

I have 3 people on ignore. You are streatching and twisting again.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

william

when i put a strawberry on ignore i just ignore their post.

martin II



<snipped>

Hey, I saw on the other thread where you called socaldiva a 'strawberry'. what is a 'strawberry'? Can I find it if I look up slang words?

hey

You have not see any such thing.

martin II

It looks like Weezer has seen such a thing! Looks like Wise*** William has taught you well, Netta! :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Really?

" #2257 Today, 02:10 PM
martin II
Super Member Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,506

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Anthony
Dear Diva,

I can only imagine that he had tolerated far too too too much prior to that .

william
when i put a strawberry on ignore i just ignore their post.

martin II"


wezer

Many times you seem to try to spin a negative conotation to my post. It seems just for the sake of argument. Generally speaking rather than read negative post to me from some G posters i just put them on ignore. I am considering doing the same for you.

martin II

[weezer]

wezer

Many times you seem to try to spin a negative conotation to my post. It seems just for the sake of argument. Generally speaking rather than read negative post to me from some G posters i just put them on ignore. I am considering doing the same for you.

martin II

go for it!

[martin II]

go for it!

wezer

When i make a post that you may not agree with, many times you then post to me with 'So you are saying" and then you change what i have posted from what i said to what you want to accuse me of saying.imo Whats up with that?
martin II

[weezer]

wezer

When i make a post that you may not agree with, many times you then post to me with 'So you are saying" and then you change what i have posted from what i said to what you want to accuse me of saying.imo Whats up with that?
martin II

it's not a matter of your posts that I don't agree with -- it's your continued bashing of the victims that I respond to. There is nothing that either Nicole or Ron did or did not do that is responsible for their murders. orenthal was an obsessed and out of control ex.

I do not 'streatch' (:rolleyes:) or 'twist' your posts -- you are not always clear in your posts and I sometimes have to request clarification. When I requests links, it is to read the evidence for myself. IMO

[martin II]

it's not a matter of your posts that I don't agree with -- it's your continued bashing of the victims that I respond to. There is nothing that either Nicole or Ron did or did not do that is responsible for their murders. orenthal was an obsessed and out of control ex.

I do not 'streatch' (:rolleyes:) or 'twist' your posts -- you are not always clear in your posts and I sometimes have to request clarification. When I requests links, it is to read the evidence for myself. IMO

weezer
if you have a interest in knowing the victims then it is necessary to know something about their lifestyle just as it is important to know something about the defendant lifestyle.

When truths are discussed about the victims it is NOT BASHING.
martin II

[martin II]

it's not a matter of your posts that I don't agree with -- it's your continued bashing of the victims that I respond to. There is nothing that either Nicole or Ron did or did not do that is responsible for their murders. orenthal was an obsessed and out of control ex.

I do not 'streatch' (:rolleyes:) or 'twist' your posts -- you are not always clear in your posts and I sometimes have to request clarification. When I requests links, it is to read the evidence for myself. IMO

then ask me to re-post. Dont ask me a quesiton about something i did not say.
martin II

[weezer]

then ask me to re-post. Dont ask me a quesiton about something i did not say.
martin II

ahhh - if only it was that easy. You have a tendency to mis-state/fabricate evidence and/or statements so if you could simply post the links as requested, that would help. In fact, I believe the rules say that if you post anything as fact that you are to provide a link.

you do bash the victims and/or victims families at every opportunity. I've never understood why you felt the need to do that; i.e., ""I am wondering if what it is reported she did with Marcus Allen could be called Interior Decorating? martin II".

IMO

[martin II]

ahhh - if only it was that easy. You have a tendency to mis-state/fabricate evidence and/or statements so if you could simply post the links as requested, that would help. In fact, I believe the rules say that if you post anything as fact that you are to provide a link.

you do bash the victims and/or victims families at every opportunity. I've never understood why you felt the need to do that; i.e., ""I am wondering if what it is reported she did with Marcus Allen could be called Interior Decorating? martin II".

IMO

weezer

Would you have peferred i quote what Cora and maby faye said she did with M A?

When i post something as fact i usually do give links. If i have failed to do so every time and it causes you some problems. I apologize.

Are saying that Nicole and M Allen did not have a affair??

martin II

[weezer]

I've told you before that I give cora's and faye's testimony as much credibility as you give Fuhrman's -- None. I do not quote them or reference them in any of my posts because of that.

I'm not sure about when you post facts with links, because that is usually not your MO. You bash and trash by innuendo and outright fabrications -- then tuck tail and run when asked to substantiate your post by a link to a credible source.

I do not know if Nicole and MA had an affair. The one other person alive who would know (MA) says they did not. I can only assume he would be the one person who would know best.

IMO

[martin II]

I've told you before that I give cora's and faye's testimony as much credibility as you give Fuhrman's -- None. I do not quote them or reference them in any of my posts because of that.

I'm not sure about when you post facts with links, because that is usually not your MO. You bash and trash by innuendo and outright fabrications -- then tuck tail and run when asked to substantiate your post by a link to a credible source.

I do not know if Nicole and MA had an affair. The one other person alive who would know (MA) says they did not. I can only assume he would be the one person who would know best.

IMO

wezer
i consider cora to have been nicoles best and closest friend. I also consider that faye was close to nicole and would have been in a position to know some things about nicoles life although she did expose a lot of details about nicoles lifestyle.

I especially believe cora as nicole wrote her a letter talking about very personal issues and she and nicole children were very close. Nicole also gave cora a key to her condo.

If you don't like their comments about nicole and refuse to believe them, that is your choice to make.imo
martin II

[martin II]

i think we are OT

MartinII:seeya:

[weezer]

*Snipped*wezer
i consider cora to have been nicoles best and closest friend. I also consider that faye was close to nicole and would have been in a position to know some things about nicoles life although she did expose a lot of details about nicoles lifestyle.

Then you also believe this from her deposition: "See, what happened is Nicole is so afraid of OJ.'s voice. OJ. when...he's upset, I mean, he is really -he's got a very bad temper. And, in fact, Nicole said to OJ., 'If you really went this marriage to work out you're gonna have to go to therapy to control your anger.' And OJ. said, 'Yeah, I'm going to. I'm working on it, I'm working on it."

and this: "Q: So would it be fair to say that as of June of 1994, you were aware that Nicole Simpson was afraid-physically afraid of OJ. Simpson?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

BY MR. BREWER:

Q: Is that a fair statement?

A: Well, you know, when she said, "I'm afraid"-not afraid. You know, "I'm afraid of OJ.," yes, physically afraid, yes."

[weezer]

*Snipped* I especially believe cora as nicole wrote her a letter talking about very personal issues and she and nicole children were very close. Nicole also gave cora a key to her condo.

are you talking about the unauthenticated letter that has been speculated to have been written by Nicole?

[martin II]

*Snipped*

Then you also believe this from her deposition: "See, what happened is Nicole is so afraid of OJ.'s voice. OJ. when...he's upset, I mean, he is really -he's got a very bad temper. And, in fact, Nicole said to OJ., 'If you really went this marriage to work out you're gonna have to go to therapy to control your anger.' And OJ. said, 'Yeah, I'm going to. I'm working on it, I'm working on it."

and this: "Q: So would it be fair to say that as of June of 1994, you were aware that Nicole Simpson was afraid-physically afraid of OJ. Simpson?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

BY MR. BREWER:

Q: Is that a fair statement?

A: Well, you know, when she said, "I'm afraid"-not afraid. You know, "I'm afraid of OJ.," yes, physically afraid, yes."


In the same testimony cora testified that Nicole had received threatening phone calls and had asked oj to keep a eye one her for her safety.
Also about drug use.
martin II

[weezer]

Cora's deposition:

Q: So as of the time of her death, the only person that she had ever told you about or that you had knowledge of that had caused her physical harm was OJ. Simpson. Is that true?

A: True.

Q: Has Nicole Brown Simpson ever told you that she was afraid of anyone else other than OJ. Simpson?

A: She was afraid of anyone?

Q: Yes.

A: No.

Q: Did she ever identify a person by name and indicated to you that she was afraid of that person?

A: No.

Q: The only person in the universe that Nicole Brown Simpson has ever identified to you as a person that she was afraid of was OJ. Simpson. Is that true?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE WITNESS: True.

BY MR. BREWER:

Q: And as of June of l994, that would also be true. Correct?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE WITNESS: True.

[weezer]

Cora's deposition:
"A: They were doing drugs. They were doing cocaine. I mean, not drugs, but Faye was doing cocaine. And they were going out a lot. They were bar-hopping, they were going to different clubs, so at that time I didn't know what they were doing."

and

"Q: Did you ever see Keith do any drugs?
A: No, I didn't see, but Nicole-they -they were doing drugs on Gretna Green.
Q: Nicole and Keith were doing drugs together?
A: That I don't know."

and

"Q: Did Nicole ever say that she did drugs with Faye?
A: No. "

and

"And that-that's Nicole. Nicole wasn't really into those things. And I think because with the drugs and this thing and alcohol, I don't know what happened to Nicole . . . And I feel that led"-that that led her to her death." Do you remember saying that?
A: Yes."

My question to you is where does cora say Nicole was doing drugs?

[martin II]

Cora's deposition:
"A: They were doing drugs. They were doing cocaine. I mean, not drugs, but Faye was doing cocaine. And they were going out a lot. They were bar-hopping, they were going to different clubs, so at that time I didn't know what they were doing."

and

"Q: Did you ever see Keith do any drugs?
A: No, I didn't see, but Nicole-they -they were doing drugs on Gretna Green.
Q: Nicole and Keith were doing drugs together?
A: That I don't know."

and

"Q: Did Nicole ever say that she did drugs with Faye?
A: No. "

and

"And that-that's Nicole. Nicole wasn't really into those things. And I think because with the drugs and this thing and alcohol, I don't know what happened to Nicole . . . And I feel that led"-that that led her to her death." Do you remember saying that?
A: Yes."

My question to you is where does cora say Nicole was doing drugs?


Cora talking about what Candis and nicole told her.

coras testimony


A: Yes.

Q: Who told you that? .

A: She told me.

Q: What did she tell you?

A: Well, she said to me that that's how she tries to lose weight, and- and even Nicole told me that, you know, she had her days when she was really coked out.

Q: How many times did Nicole tell you this?

A: Several times. Many times.

Q: Was Candice Garvey a good friend-

A: No.

Q: -of Nicole?

A: No.

Q: How many times per week would you say that Candice Garvey saw Nicole in the spring of 1994?

A: How many weeks?

Q: How many times a week?

A: Oh, zero. I mean...

Q: They weren't good friends at all, were they?

A: No.



http://walraven.org/simpson/cf_depo2.html

[weezer]

so you're not taking cora at her word that as Nicole's 'best' friend she had no first hand knowledge of Nicole doing drugs but you're now going to post hearsay testimony of someone that was not a friend and had not seen (to cora's knowledge) Nicole in the last year of her life? LOL

[martin II]

so you're not taking cora at her word that as Nicole's 'best' friend she had no first hand knowledge of Nicole doing drugs but you're now going to post hearsay testimony of someone that was not a friend and had not seen (to cora's knowledge) Nicole in the last year of her life? LOL

WEEZER

You and i don't know exactly what these people did or did not do. Every charge that oj did coke was mostly from other people the same for all the rest. It is all third party comments. I don't hold anything against either one if they did drugs as that was their choice.

I thought cora and nicole were regular jogging partners and customers at starbucks around that community. so i am not aware that cora had not seen nicole in a year.Maby you can give me a link to that. If cora was not a friend of nicoles why did nicole give her a key to her condo? Why was cora at the recital with her husband taking pictures of the browns,oj and the children?

martin II

[weezer]

here's the problem we have: no where in my post do I say cora had not seen Nicole in a year.

Nicole did not have drugs in her system at the time of her murder. Ron did not have drugs in his system at the time of his murder. orenthal had drugs in his system at the time of his arrest. So, yes, we do pretty much know who was doing drugs at the time orenthal murdered Nicole and Ron.

IIRC, Evidence is that cora and Nicole were regular jogging partners and testimony is that cora did have a key to Nicole's condo. In fact, it was cora's key that was used to identify Nicole's stolen key that was found with orenthal's possessions.

[martin II]

You say you give Cora no credibility BUT you post her testimony to try to support what you think
martin II

[weezer]

You say you give Cora no credibility BUT you post her testimony to try to support what you think
martin II

You posted cora's testimony to support your post -- I read it and quoted it and asked you where in that testimony does it say what you said it did. It didn't.

[martin II]

here's the problem we have: no where in my post do I say cora had not seen Nicole in a year.

Nicole did not have drugs in her system at the time of her murder. Ron did not have drugs in his system at the time of his murder. orenthal had drugs in his system at the time of his arrest. So, yes, we do pretty much know who was doing drugs at the time orenthal murdered Nicole and Ron.

IIRC, Evidence is that cora and Nicole were regular jogging partners and testimony is that cora did have a key to Nicole's condo. In fact, it was cora's key that was used to identify Nicole's stolen key that was found with orenthal's possessions.

weezer

what does oj having TRACES OF MARIJUANA in his blood have to do with who killed nicole and ron.

The fact that nicole and ron did not have drugs in their system at the time of their death means what. That they never did drugs?

Of all the people in nicoles friendship[ circle i have reason to believe that Cora was he closest and most trusted friend. I also think that she seems to be the one most concerned about nicole.

I also do remember that it was reported that just prior to the IRS letter that
some of nicoles friends had "GONE OVER" to oj and nicole had called him making a hugh accusation that he was stealing her friends.. One issue was Faye attending some affair that oj was involved in. Oj tried to tell Nicole that he did not invite faye that she kinda invited herself . Nicole didn't believe it
and the argument on this issue continued. The IRS letter came around the time of thie argument.

martin II

[martin II]

You posted cora's testimony to support your post -- I read it and quoted it and asked you where in that testimony does it say what you said it did. It didn't.

weezer

You posted cora's testimony on your own to show that she said Nicole was afraid of oj. So you believe her when her words support your theories but reject her testimony when she tells the truth about her friend nicole.

Cora also testified that when Nicole was getting phone calls from some stalker she had told oj about them and asked him to watch out for her.
I am not sure how she thought oj was to do this but she did ask.

martin II

[martin II]

so you're not taking cora at her word that as Nicole's 'best' friend she had no first hand knowledge of Nicole doing drugs but you're now going to post hearsay testimony of someone that was not a friend and had not seen (to cora's knowledge) Nicole in the last year of her life? LOL

cora stated what Nicole told her.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

KInetic Kate,

I must again disagree, given your agreement that it does take place in a Bankruptcy Court, which rules on bankruptcy matters, and the bankruptcy begins with the filing of a petition and subsequent assignment of a bankruptcy trustee, which in all likelihood, the proceeding would be against the determination of the trustee, over which the bankruptcy court/judge, has jurisdiction and original jurisdiction over the petition, the proceeding, while having separate numbers and filing, still is part of the bankruptcy, and, as such, can be discharged by the bankruptcy court, who files an order of discharge in bankruptcy cases. I do not believe that I stated the filing of a petition would automatically discharge a debt, and, therefore, I agree with your last sentence. I was referring to the discharge and the conditions under which the discharge is granted and/or denied.

Good Morning William,

You stated "...in a Chapter7 bankruptcy that has been closed as a no asset case and the court has ordered the case closed as such, then those debts are dischargeable, unless there has been some type of prior agreement between the creditor and debtor..."

You mentioned nothing of an adversarial proceeding in your postings, which is required by law to discharge the obligations that I mentioned. Therefore, it seems that you did imply that the simple filing of a no asset bankruptcy would discharge all debts.

A general discharge in a bankruptcy case is a separate ruling than a discharge issued through the filing of an adversary and while the adversary must be filed in conjuction with a bankruptcy it remains a very seperate issue. It is a lawsuit of it's own, and the debtor is subject to depositions, and discovery of all finances/medical conditions, ect. A judge may order the debt in question discharged through the proceeding, but the creditor may then appeal that ruling with the Circuit Court of Appeals. In some cases, it could travel all the way to the Supreme Court.

This is getting so far off topic, but I would be more than happy to discuss further through the usage of PMs.

I trust that your weekend was good, and look forward to further correspondence.

Kate

[weezer]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=martin II;8797428]what does oj having TRACES OF MARIJUANA in his blood have to do with who killed nicole and ron.

I don't know what it does or does not have to do with the murders -- you continue to post that Nicole was doing drugs at the time of her death, I am simply showing you evidence that she was not.

The fact that nicole and ron did not have drugs in their system at the time of their death means what. That they never did drugs?

The fact that Nicole and Ron did not have drugs in their systems and orenthal did means that your allegations that she was doing drugs is false.

Of all the people in nicoles friendship[ circle i have reason to believe that Cora was he closest and most trusted friend. I also think that she seems to be the one most concerned about nicole.
Did you read her testimony? Nicole did not confide in her 'best' friend about the abuse and other personal things? I don't think so. Besides, 'best' friend cora was using Nicole to hide her affair with the grocery boy and it was Nicole who told her to stop, that she would not cover for her. IMO, their friendship was not that of 'best' friends.

I also do remember that it was reported that just prior to the IRS letter that
some of nicoles friends had "GONE OVER" to oj and nicole had called him making a hugh accusation that he was stealing her friends.. One issue was Faye attending some affair that oj was involved in. Oj tried to tell Nicole that he did not invite faye that she kinda invited herself .
I personally believe orenthal was playing a game with Nicole as far as the circle of friends went. Testimony was that Nicole was disappointed that certain 'friends' had not remained friends with her after the divorce. And, then there was the circumstance of orenthal taking kato to rockingham.

The IRS letter came around the time of thie argument.
The IRS letter came days after Nicole broke off any reconciliation with orenthal.

[martin II]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=martin II;8797428]what does oj having TRACES OF MARIJUANA in his blood have to do with who killed nicole and ron.

I don't know what it does or does not have to do with the murders -- you continue to post that Nicole was doing drugs at the time of her death, I am simply showing you evidence that she was not.

The fact that nicole and ron did not have drugs in their system at the time of their death means what. That they never did drugs?

The fact that Nicole and Ron did not have drugs in their systems and orenthal did means that your allegations that she was doing drugs is false.

Of all the people in nicoles friendship[ circle i have reason to believe that Cora was he closest and most trusted friend. I also think that she seems to be the one most concerned about nicole.
Did you read her testimony? Nicole did not confide in her 'best' friend about the abuse and other personal things? I don't think so. Besides, 'best' friend cora was using Nicole to hide her affair with the grocery boy and it was Nicole who told her to stop, that she would not cover for her. IMO, their friendship was not that of 'best' friends.

I also do remember that it was reported that just prior to the IRS letter that
some of nicoles friends had "GONE OVER" to oj and nicole had called him making a hugh accusation that he was stealing her friends.. One issue was Faye attending some affair that oj was involved in. Oj tried to tell Nicole that he did not invite faye that she kinda invited herself .
I personally believe orenthal was playing a game with Nicole as far as the circle of friends went. Testimony was that Nicole was disappointed that certain 'friends' had not remained friends with her after the divorce. And, then there was the circumstance of orenthal taking kato to rockingham.

The IRS letter came around the time of thie argument.
The IRS letter came days after Nicole broke off any reconciliation with orenthal.


weezer
I don't think i have ever said that nicole was doing drugs AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH. I have said that she did do drugs at other times previous to that and that it was reported that she stopped when she got pregnant. Cora give testrimnony to other times but not a date or time.

Nicole and cora jogged togeather 2-3 times a week. Had lunch regulary during the week. talked on the phone almost daily, Coras anf nicoles children played togeather and visited each other. Nciole and Cora took terns driving the children to school and nicole gave Cora a key to her condo in case og emergency. Cora was expecting and waiting on a call from Nicole on the night
of 6/12. This is what leads me to believe that cora was nicoles best friend.

Who do you believe nicole considered her best friend if not Cora?
martin II

If you don't belive that Cora was considered nicoles best friend, Then who do you believe was nicoles 'BEST" friend.

[martin II]

weezer
i found this link for you




One of the men Brown Simpson dated after her divorce was one of O.J.'s rivals, Marcus Allen, running back for the Kansas City Chiefs.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Brown-Simpson.htm

[martin II]

jotun

Here is another claim about what nicole received in the divoice settlement.
I think the resturants sold Honey Backed Hams
martin II



http://www.skolnicksreport.com/jminus.html
Several months before the double-murder for which he was accused, O.J. Simpson reported to the police that five orientals [apparently Yakuza] tried to murder him by operating five cars that tried to run him off the road. OJ owned a chain of restaurants part of which was given to his ex-wife Nicole as part of a bitter divorce settlement. The businesses had brought in as silent partners Los Angeles police brass who reportedly arranged to launder the funds from a huge dope traffic supervised by the Yakuza. There were apparent quarrels among the "partners". To associates of his in other businesses, OJ complained of his growing problems with the businesses which he, in part, turned over to Nicole. According to those business associates [who we interviewed], OJ said he is going to have to "do something" to end the problems.

[weezer]

weezer
i found this link for you




One of the men Brown Simpson dated after her divorce was one of O.J.'s rivals, Marcus Allen, running back for the Kansas City Chiefs.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Brown-Simpson.htm


:confused: :shrug:

[weezer]

jotun

Here is another claim about what nicole received in the divoice settlement.
I think the resturants sold Honey Backed Hams
martin II



http://www.skolnicksreport.com/jminus.html
Several months before the double-murder for which he was accused, O.J. Simpson reported to the police that five orientals [apparently Yakuza] tried to murder him by operating five cars that tried to run him off the road. OJ owned a chain of restaurants part of which was given to his ex-wife Nicole as part of a bitter divorce settlement. The businesses had brought in as silent partners Los Angeles police brass who reportedly arranged to launder the funds from a huge dope traffic supervised by the Yakuza. There were apparent quarrels among the "partners". To associates of his in other businesses, OJ complained of his growing problems with the businesses which he, in part, turned over to Nicole. According to those business associates [who we interviewed], OJ said he is going to have to "do something" to end the problems.

LOL -- thanks I needed that giggle!

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8797566]:confused: :shrug:[/QUOTE


You have stated that you had no information about nicoles affair with MA.
I gave this as proof of what is generally known to be the truth on this issue.
martin II

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8797566]:confused: :shrug:[/QUOTE


You have stated that you had no information about nicoles affair with MA.
I gave this as proof of what is generally known to be the truth on this issue.
martin II

I didn't say I had no information. You asked if I thought it happened based on cora's and faye's statements. I said I didn't know and that the only living person (Marcus Allen) who would have firsthand knowledge says it did not happen. IIRC, there has never been evidence -- other than hearsay -- that there was an affair.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;8797574]

I didn't say I had no information. You asked if I thought it happened based on cora's and faye's statements. I said I didn't know and that the only living person (Marcus Allen) who would have firsthand knowledge says it did not happen. IIRC, there has never been evidence -- other than hearsay -- that there was an affair.

I think it is common knowledge that there was a affair based on more than one of nicoles friends testimony.

At any rate i gave you the link.
MARTIN II

[Suzee10]

Fred is after the money again.
I guess we will have to wait and see how this plays out.
martin II


I hope Fred G. never gives up his fight of making simpson accountable for his actions. More power to him.

[socaldiva]

I hope Fred G. never gives up his fight of making simpson accountable for his actions. More power to him.

Same here & I admire his strength & determination.

[Suzee10]

Same here & I admire his strength & determination.


Absolutely!!!
:beer:

[Paul Richardson]

Totally agree--more power to Fred--he needs to constantly harass and go after Simpson in any legal way possible---Hopefully Simpson will have to pay up something--Simpson committed one of the most heinous murders in criminal history and I'm sure his kids realize that now also--They must be scared to death of him--and -I'm Still waiting for Simpson to do a "Bing Crosby", that is, drop dead of a heart attack on the golf course--hopefully it will happen in the near future

[2L8 4A D8]

Totally agree--more power to Fred--he needs to constantly harass and go after Simpson in any legal way possible---Hopefully Simpson will have to pay up something--Simpson committed one of the most heinous murders in criminal history and I'm sure his kids realize that now also--They must be scared to death of him--and -I'm Still waiting for Simpson to do a "Bing Crosby", that is, drop dead of a heart attack on the golf course--hopefully it will happen in the near future

Welcome to the Board and Thank You for your Post! My sentiments exactly!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Totally agree--more power to Fred--he needs to constantly harass and go after Simpson in any legal way possible---Hopefully Simpson will have to pay up something--Simpson committed one of the most heinous murders in criminal history and I'm sure his kids realize that now also--They must be scared to death of him--and -I'm Still waiting for Simpson to do a "Bing Crosby", that is, drop dead of a heart attack on the golf course--hopefully it will happen in the near future

PR
oh
so does this mean that you are hoping for the death of another human being??? or to put it another way one of gods children??
martin II

[weezer]

gosh I hope not -- I hate to think that he was doing something he enjoyed when it happened! IMO MOO

[limakey]

Hey G's,

If it is possible, just remember how Nicole felt in her divorce case. She proclaimed because of her age and Simpson's schedule, she said she was unable to attend college. I believe she said she had a total of two weeks of actually working? At least her daughter will never be in the same position her mother was in.

I am not surprised at all that where this money went hasn't been published. It would be very easy to find out where this money went and lets face it, the media would love to prove that Simpson even lies about spending the money. IRS records are not top secret, the cost of Sydney's college studies is not top secret, the cost of maintaining his home is not top secret.

Another issue, is the Goldmans' have received money from the judgement, I don't believe any amount has ever been made public. I believe they destroyed many of the items that would have made much more money had they brokered them.

I still stand my post, the Goldmans' do not want the judgement paid off in full. The money is way, way behind the their motive, IMO. Their motive is to keep Ron's name in the media and I can't blame them for that.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I believe she said she had a total of two weeks of actually working? At least her daughter will never be in the same position her mother was in.

Sydney won't be in that position because OJ isn't threatened by the idea of HER having an education or career & I doubt he would want to support her her whole life. Once again, it's about what's good for OJ. IMO

[socaldiva]

Totally agree--more power to Fred--he needs to constantly harass and go after Simpson in any legal way possible---Hopefully Simpson will have to pay up something--Simpson committed one of the most heinous murders in criminal history and I'm sure his kids realize that now also--They must be scared to death of him--and -I'm Still waiting for Simpson to do a "Bing Crosby", that is, drop dead of a heart attack on the golf course--hopefully it will happen in the near future

How did I miss this gem of a post? Love it! :beer:

[limakey]

S-Diva,

I'm sure that OJ Simpson is not the only parent in the world who does look forward to a time when their children have left home and are able to support their own lifestyle. I'm sure that Simpson is not the only father who feels that an education is often the first step in being self supporting.

I could be wrong.....but I don't think so! (I have been watching to many "Monk" reruns!:D)

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I'm sure that Simpson is not the only father who feels that an education is often the first step in being self supporting.


I know you like to think he's a good parent, but I disagree fully. I think he's only put them in college so that he isn't burdened with them later & he thinks it looks good in the public eye. He's very transparent.

[limakey]

S-Cal,

My point is, what does Simpson's motives matter if Sydney and Justin get a college education and become self supporting?

There is nothing Simpson can do that will ever change some people's mind about him. His motives will always be questioned, IMO.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
My point is, what does Simpson's motives matter if Sydney and Justin get a college education and become self supporting?


I hope they earn enough to finance the therapy they will surely need from having grown up around that man.

My point was that you posted something along the lines that the children will be self supporting, unlike Nicole. OJ didn't back Nicole doing anything along those lines, so you can't compare the two.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by Paul Richardson
Totally agree--more power to Fred--he needs to constantly harass and go after Simpson in any legal way possible---Hopefully Simpson will have to pay up something--Simpson committed one of the most heinous murders in criminal history and I'm sure his kids realize that now also--They must be scared to death of him--and -I'm Still waiting for Simpson to do a "Bing Crosby", that is, drop dead of a heart attack on the golf course--hopefully it will happen in the near future

How did I miss this gem of a post? Love it! :beer:

Considering all the murders committed in the annals of history, I think you both give the killer(s) too much credit.

[socaldiva]

Considering all the murders committed in the annals of history, I think you both give the killer(s) too much credit.

That's your opinion. I don't give Simpson "credit" for anything.

[William Anthony]

That's your opinion. I don't give Simpson "credit" for anything.

Then I apologize, if you did not mean that he committed one of the most henious crimes in criminal history.

[Suzee10]

PR
oh
so does this mean that you are hoping for the death of another human being??? or to put it another way one of gods children??
martin II


You can hardly consider simpson a "human being", a human could not do the things he did to Nicole and Ron, only an animal could do such horrible things to someone. And as for being one of God's children, please!

[limakey]

S-Diva,

The Browns had tons of money since the trial to prove Simpson was an unfit father, they failed horribly. They could have used tons of air time to dissect each and every parental choice Simpson made, and yet they haven't. As much as you hate it, Simpson has done right by his children since their mother's death. I know, it just eats at you and the Goldmans but he done right by his children. It just frost your cookies that Simpson has been able to provide a home and an education for his children.

If Fred Goldman wanted the judgement paid off, he would have not protested the book and the interview and neither would the Browns. The judgement would have been paid off in less then a year. The Goldmans have made the choice to drag this out and IMO, they will only lose in the end. The Goldmans can "hunt" down Simpson and his children for the rest of their lives, and they still will never ever allow the judgement to be paid off. IMO.

In a sick way, I get the feeling that many G's would love nothing better for Sydney and Justin to fail in life. That they should be forced to pay for the sins of their father. That is very, very sad.

[William Anthony]

You can hardly consider simpson a "human being", a human could not do the things he did to Nicole and Ron, only an animal could do such horrible things to someone. And as for being one of God's children, please!

I would suppose that you espouse those same sentiments for those who murdered, in Mississippi, the three civil rights workers.

[janetlynn]

OJ will never pay one cent to anyone!:chicken:

[Suzee10]

I would suppose that you espouse those same sentiments for those who murdered, in Mississippi, the three civil rights workers.


What are talking about? I hardly see how one has anything to do with the other but since you brought it up I feel the very same way concerning the three civil rights workers. Nothing but animals could have murdered those poor kids. Violence in any form is inappropriate and disgusting.

[2L8 4A D8]

What are talking about? I hardly see how one has anything to do with the other but since you brought it up I feel the very same way concerning the three civil rights workers. Nothing but animals could have murdered those poor kids. Violence in any form is inappropriate and disgusting.

Hi Suzee! Good to see you posting! Remember good 'ol Talisman29? Well, he's baaaaack! ------------------> :chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

OJ will never pay one cent to anyone!:chicken:

janetlynn

You got any suggesiton as to how he would pay of a $33,000,000 judgement.
martin II

[William Anthony]

What are talking about? I hardly see how one has anything to do with the other but since you brought it up I feel the very same way concerning the three civil rights workers. Nothing but animals could have murdered those poor kids. Violence in any form is inappropriate and disgusting.

Thank you and I would agree, but considering the numerous, reprehensible and heinous murders that have been committed to include serial murderers, I believe that giving Simpson credit for one of the most heinous murders in history may be a little too extreme. I will agree that whoever committed the murders committed a heinous act.

[William Anthony]

Hi Suzee! Good to see you posting! Remember good 'ol Talisman29? Well, he's baaaaack! ------------------> :chicken: :chicken: :

JMO and MOO!!


:seeya: I will Consider the source.

[Martyrdom]

Thank you and I would agree, but considering the numerous, reprehensible and heinous murders that have been committed to include serial murderers, I believe that giving Simpson credit for one of the most heinous murders in history may be a little too extreme. I will agree that whoever committed the murders committed a heinous act.


I'd say one of the most heinous given the fact that her head was almost chopped off on her front steps where those poor little kiddies woulda found it if the other people hadn't.

[William Anthony]

I'd say one of the most heinous given the fact that her head was almost chopped off on her front steps where those poor little kiddies woulda found it if the other people hadn't.

There is much truth in your post, although when the media posts gruesome pictures of many murders and speak of facts, concerning those and other murders, I still do not think that, although it is heinous, it is one of the most heinous in the annals of American history. I was actually speaking to the murders themselves, as to how they were committed. I can only imagine how the loved ones of some of the other murders, including the families of those murdered by Jeffery Dalhmier (sp) must have felt.

[tazzybaby]

S-Diva,

The Browns had tons of money since the trial to prove Simpson was an unfit father, they failed horribly. They could have used tons of air time to dissect each and every parental choice Simpson made, and yet they haven't. As much as you hate it, Simpson has done right by his children since their mother's death. I know, it just eats at you and the Goldmans but he done right by his children. It just frost your cookies that Simpson has been able to provide a home and an education for his children.

If Fred Goldman wanted the judgement paid off, he would have not protested the book and the interview and neither would the Browns. The judgement would have been paid off in less then a year. The Goldmans have made the choice to drag this out and IMO, they will only lose in the end. The Goldmans can "hunt" down Simpson and his children for the rest of their lives, and they still will never ever allow the judgement to be paid off. IMO.

In a sick way, I get the feeling that many G's would love nothing better for Sydney and Justin to fail in life. That they should be forced to pay for the sins of their father. That is very, very sad.

Hi Limakey,

You have it all wrong...

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr99/oj.html

Sills also said Stock wrongly required the Browns, who kept the children during Simpson's criminal trial, to prove the children would be harmed by remaining with Simpson. Instead, Simpson must prove his fitness as a parent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/02/25/national/main36538.shtml

Simpson didn't "win" custody. The Browns could have taken custody of the kids. They weren't given a fair chance in the beginning. They came to an agreement after the KIDS begged their grandparents to stay with Simpson and to let them move to Florida. The grandparents and Simpson ended up making an agreement to the custody after they talked to their grandparents.


But he said he regrets that the case dragged on for so long before an agreement was reached for him to have custody and take the children with him to Florida.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=04-19-02&storyID=11487


Simpson is NOT a good parent. He has done many things that make him a bad parent. You are simply wrong. This last book deal was the lowest of all. That's not a good parent.

Not one guilty would like to Sydney or Justin fail. What a thing for you to say. That's what's really sad.

[William Anthony]

Hi Limakey,

You have it all wrong...

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr99/oj.html

Sills also said Stock wrongly required the Browns, who kept the children during Simpson's criminal trial, to prove the children would be harmed by remaining with Simpson. Instead, Simpson must prove his fitness as a parent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/02/25/national/main36538.shtml

Simpson didn't "win" custody. The Browns could have taken custody of the kids. They weren't given a fair chance in the beginning. They came to an agreement after the KIDS begged their grandparents to stay with Simpson and to let them move to Florida. The grandparents and Simpson ended up making an agreement to the custody after they talked to their grandparents.


But he said he regrets that the case dragged on for so long before an agreement was reached for him to have custody and take the children with him to Florida.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=04-19-02&storyID=11487


Simpson is NOT a good parent. He has done many things that make him a bad parent. You are simply wrong. This last book deal was the lowest of all. That's not a good parent.

Not one guilty would like to Sydney or Justin fail. What a thing for you to say. That's what's really sad.

Terrific TBaby

I know that in the State in which I reside, which is not California, the paramount consideration is the best interest of the children. The children's decision should be given great deference, imho, under those circumstances.

[martin II]

Hi Limakey,

You have it all wrong...

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr99/oj.html

Sills also said Stock wrongly required the Browns, who kept the children during Simpson's criminal trial, to prove the children would be harmed by remaining with Simpson. Instead, Simpson must prove his fitness as a parent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/02/25/national/main36538.shtml

Simpson didn't "win" custody. The Browns could have taken custody of the kids. They weren't given a fair chance in the beginning. They came to an agreement after the KIDS begged their grandparents to stay with Simpson and to let them move to Florida. The grandparents and Simpson ended up making an agreement to the custody after they talked to their grandparents.


But he said he regrets that the case dragged on for so long before an agreement was reached for him to have custody and take the children with him to Florida.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=04-19-02&storyID=11487*


Simpson is NOT a good parent. He has done many things that make him a bad parent. You are simply wrong. This last book deal was the lowest of all. That's not a good parent.

Not one guilty would like to Sydney or Justin fail. What a thing for you to say. That's what's really sad.


tazzy hi

you know that the court appointed social worker notified the court that the browns house was not a positive place for the kids to be raised in. He noted the attitude of denise as one of the reason he belived the browns house as too negative for the kids to be raised properly. I don't have the link but it had something to do with the kids hearing denise use some negative racial type words. At any rate the kids refused to live with the,m and wanted to go with their loving dad.

I understand that you believe oj killed nicole but i tihnk you are streatching facts quite a bit when you say he has not been a good parent to those kids.
i know of no facts about their lives in the last 11 years that would lead one to make that statement. A least it does seem that the kids themselves
do not agree with your assessment of oj's parenting skills. The do seem to well adjusted kids and have love for their dad and until they come out and say something different i will continue to believe oj has and is being a good parent to his kids. After all you don't know anything about their lives.
martin II

[martin II]

Terrific TBaby

I know that in the State in which I reside, which is not California, the paramount consideration is the best interest of the children. The children's decision should be given great deference, imho, under those circumstances.

william
that is the major consideraiton in most states.
1. The social worker decided that the atmosphers in the browns house was not condusive for the welfare of the children.
2. The children wanted to live with their dad.

closed issue.
martin II

[William Anthony]

william
that is the major consideraiton in most states.
1. The social worker decided that the atmosphers in the browns house was not condusive for the welfare of the children.
2. The children wanted to live with their dad.

closed issue.
martin II

I have another issue with the ruling of the appellate court in that the evidence from the murder trial should not have been excluded. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that Simpson was acquitted on the basis of justifiable homicide, i.e. the murders were committed in self defense. Would the custody suit then necessitate including evidence of that trial? I think it would be a burden to the court.

[martin II]

I have another issue with the ruling of the appellate court in that the evidence from the murder trial should not have been excluded. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that Simpson was acquitted on the basis of justifiable homicide, i.e. the murders were committed in self defense. Would the custody suit then necessitate including evidence of that trial? I think it would be a burden to the court.

william

i agree

It appears to me that during that period when the case was live, it seemed that it was get oj time and some of the judges played the game.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Terrific TBaby

I know that in the State in which I reside, which is not California, the paramount consideration is the best interest of the children. The children's decision should be given great deference, imho, under those circumstances.

Most children want to be with their biological parent even if they are not good parents. The grandparents finally relented because of the children wanting to be with OJ. They love their grandchildren. Sometimes that decision shouldn't be placed with the children. And, I believe that's how the Brown's were looking at it until the children plead with them to let them go to Florida.

But, this was definately not a case of the Brown's not being able to prove Simpson unfit. I believe with a final trial they would have won. I also believe that OJ wanted them to tell Juditha and Lou that they wanted to be with OJ. I also believe he put them up to it. However, I do believe they wanted to live with OJ.

[William Anthony]

Most children want to be with their biological parent even if they are not good parents. The grandparents finally relented because of the children wanting to be with OJ. They love their grandchildren. Sometimes that decision shouldn't be placed with the children. And, I believe that's how the Brown's were looking at it until the children plead with them to let them go to Florida.

But, this was definately not a case of the Brown's not being able to prove Simpson unfit. I believe with a final trial they would have won. I also believe that OJ wanted them to tell Juditha and Lou that they wanted to be with OJ. I also believe he put them up to it. However, I do believe they wanted to live with OJ.

I am not disagreeing with you, even though, I believe that the evidence may not have proved Simpson unfit, that most children want to be with their parents even if they are not good parents. What concerns me and maybe the Browns realized this was the psychological damage that may have been done to the children.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

you know that the court appointed social worker notified the court that the browns house was not a positive place for the kids to be raised in. He noted the attitude of denise as one of the reason he belived the browns house as too negative for the kids to be raised properly. I don't have the link but it had something to do with the kids hearing denise use some negative racial type words. At any rate the kids refused to live with the,m and wanted to go with their loving dad.

I understand that you believe oj killed nicole but i tihnk you are streatching facts quite a bit when you say he has not been a good parent to those kids.
i know of no facts about their lives in the last 11 years that would lead one to make that statement. A least it does seem that the kids themselves
do not agree with your assessment of oj's parenting skills. The do seem to well adjusted kids and have love for their dad and until they come out and say something different i will continue to believe oj has and is being a good parent to his kids. After all you don't know anything about their lives.
martin II

Martin,

Your first paragraph speaks of the early ruling. The one that was over turned and found to be unfair. Please read the links and you will understand. It was less of a positive place in Simpson's care since he murdered their mother. That's why the final ruling was that the Brown's could introduce that evidence. The kids didn't REFUSE to live with them. They WANTED to live with their father. A very natural desire.

A good parent would not try to profit off of their own child's mothers murder. A good parent would never make jokes about their child's mothers murder. A good parent would not use their children as a reason to profit off of their mothers murder. A good parent would not go on TV and tell the world that he is mad at the other parent for leaving him to deal with a female teenager. I can go on and on. I do know some things about their lives because their father is still trying to be in the public eye. He has nothing but negative publicity. But, he doesn't care because he'll do anything to make some money. OJ is not a good parent. IMO

[tazzybaby]

I am not disagreeing with you, even though, I believe that the evidence may not have proved Simpson unfit, that most children want to be with their parents even if they are not good parents. What concerns me and maybe the Browns realized this was the psychological damage that may have been done to the children.

Hi William,

I do agree (except the Simpson proven unfit part..lol). I believe that from the beginning they had the children's best interest at heart.

[martin II]

Most children want to be with their biological parent even if they are not good parents. The grandparents finally relented because of the children wanting to be with OJ. They love their grandchildren. Sometimes that decision shouldn't be placed with the children. And, I believe that's how the Brown's were looking at it until the children plead with them to let them go to Florida.

But, this was definately not a case of the Brown's not being able to prove Simpson unfit. I believe with a final trial they would have won. I also believe that OJ wanted them to tell Juditha and Lou that they wanted to be with OJ. I also believe he put them up to it. However, I do believe they wanted to live with OJ.

tazzy i think the kids reported denise's foul mouth and her anti oj rants in front of the kids in the house to the social worker. The social worker interviewed everyone living in the browns house and made his report to the judge. The browns settled because they felt that the report was NOT in their favor. AS it turns out his report was definately not favorable so they would have lost in court.

The browns did not want the kids to go to oj mainly because they did not want the $10,000 monthly support payments to stop.That is what they were fighting for. They had no alternatrive when the kids told them that they did not want to live with them.
Even today Sdyne does not go there when she is on vacation in los angeles and the browns have not been to see the kids in florida since they moved there.

martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy i think the kids reported denise's foul mouth and her anti oj rants in front of the kids in the house to the social worker. The social worker interviewed everyone living in the browns house and made his report to the judge. The browns settled because they felt that the report was NOT in their favor. AS it turns out his report was definately not favorable so they would have lost in court.

The browns did not want the kids to go to oj mainly because they did not want the $10,000 monthly support payments to stop.That is what they were fighting for. They had no alternatrive when the kids told them that they did not want to live with them.
Even today Sdyne does not go there when she is on vacation in los angeles and the browns have not been to see the kids in florida since they moved there.

martin II

Please post some links to back up what you are saying. That's just a lot of bashing going on.

The social worker said that even if OJ murdered his wife they should still go with him. What?! That social worker doesn't know what she's talking about. And, she was over ruled. That was in the beginning. The Brown's said that they weren't interviewed by the social worker. You definately need to back up what you're saying.

You definately need to prove that they Brown's only wanted OJ's money. That is a very completely false statement. You are only trying to bash them. They loved the children. The kids told them from the beginning that they wanted to live with OJ. But, like I said, sometimes the kids don't know everything and what's best. Sydney doesn't avoid the Browns. You make it sound like she doesn't want to see them. That's false. And, the Browns are not in good health and can't make all the trips to Florida. Talk about stretching.

[martin II]

Hi William,

I do agree (except the Simpson proven unfit part..lol). I believe that from the beginning they had the children's best interest at heart.

tazzy hi
The botton line is that oj and his kids got out of Dodge and moved to Florida
where they have lived and developed into great kids for the last 11 years out of reach of the grifters. Also it is important to note that now the kids know that the browns also have a large judgement against their dad which is a effort to take away his money that he need to support them in collage and in life. So oj m,ay have been telling the truth when he said the kids agreed with his lending his name to the book to make money to continue to support them. Did you ever think about that.

Wasn't it not too long ago that the lawyer for the nicoles trust had to force the browns to put that $25,000 or $50,000 into nicoles trust for the kids that they were trying to keep? Nicole condo sold got about $250,000. do you know if the browns put that money in nicoles trust as they are required to do or did they keep it.

I am not sure the browns were all that great as they seemed to always have their hand out to snatch someone elses money especially OJ'S.
You know how i feel about that bunch of money grabbers.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

tazzy hi
when lou was not doing so ggod finnancially, oj used his influence to get lou a hertz franchise in ca. when lou could not get it on his own. Literally put this guy into a lucrative and prized business. all for free.
When doninique wanted to go to collage and thay had no money, oj paid for her collage educaiton. When lou could not pay his mortage oj loaned him$300,000 to save the family home. Lou never paid a penny back. and this was before the murders. Oj was paying $10,000 per month child support to the browns when he was in jail. the browns wanted control of the kids because they did not want the $10,000 to stop. They tried to keep money that belonged in nicoles trust for themselves and was forced to give it back.
It just seems that they care more about themselves than the kids otherwise why take money from nicoles trust.

Another question;
1f nicole was being battered by oj allt those years, where were her parents when she needed them to step in and correct the situaiton. Where were they when wey allowed their 18 year old teenage daughter to marry this old professional ball player with too much experience for her. where were they when she was playing the role of the other woman as she stole oj from his wife and was shacking up with him not too far from rockingham where he and his wife and children lived.

No i cannot give them a free pass. they did not seem to be good people as you seem to believe they were. all my opinion

martin II

[martin II]

Please post some links to back up what you are saying. That's just a lot of bashing going on.

The social worker said that even if OJ murdered his wife they should still go with him. What?! That social worker doesn't know what she's talking about. And, she was over ruled. That was in the beginning. The Brown's said that they weren't interviewed by the social worker. You definately need to back up what you're saying.

You definately need to prove that they Brown's only wanted OJ's money. That is a very completely false statement. You are only trying to bash them. They loved the children. The kids told them from the beginning that they wanted to live with OJ. But, like I said, sometimes the kids don't know everything and what's best. Sydney doesn't avoid the Browns. You make it sound like she doesn't want to see them. That's false. And, the Browns are not in good health and can't make all the trips to Florida. Talk about stretching.

tazzy
you may not know it but the courts have given children to parents that have been convicted of murder and served time before.

Oj was not convicted of any thing in the criminal trial and since the civil trial was only about money that does not count in my book.
martin II

[martin II]

tazzy hi

it is great posting to you. i have to leave now. will be back later or tomorrow.

You have some good points.
martin II

[Suzee10]

Hi Suzee! Good to see you posting! Remember good 'ol Talisman29? Well, he's baaaaack! ------------------> :chicken: :ch

JMO and MOO!!


Good Grief, lol. I think I recognize more than one or two of these guys.:lol: Good to see you again.

[Suzee10]

Thank you and I would agree, but considering the numerous, reprehensible and heinous murders that have been committed to include serial murderers, I believe that giving Simpson credit for one of the most heinous murders in history may be a little too extreme. I will agree that whoever committed the murders committed a heinous act.


I realize what you are saying but to murder the mother of your children in the manner he did and to leave such a horrible crime scene for possibly for his children to walk into is the most reprehensible and heinous.

He was thinking of no one but himself especially his children.

[William Anthony]

I realize what you are saying but to murder the mother of your children in the manner he did and to leave such a horrible crime scene for possibly for his children to walk into is the most reprehensible and heinous.

He was thinking of no one but himself especially his children.

If he committed the murders, then I am sure he was thinking only of himself, as do all murderers. What about the murderers, who have killed their entire families for money? There is much effort spent on this board trying to make him the worst of the worst, imho. I do not trully think the outrage comes from how the killer killed, so much as the believe that Simpson was the killer and who he killed.

[Suzee10]

If he committed the murders, then I am sure he was thinking only of himself, as do all murderers. What about the murderers, who have killed their entire families for money? There is much effort spent on this board trying to make him the worst of the worst, imho. I do not trully think the outrage comes from how the killer killed, so much as the believe that Simpson was the killer and who he killed.


I see your point concerning murderers that have killed their entire families but in a way simpson did just that. He took the life of the mother of two children and so matter what anyone says they both have to have some concern or suspicion in the back of minds about their fathers guilt. So in a way he did kill their family, and one of the main problems, and of course the murders, I have is he left his children to see what he had done. He did not consider their feelings at all. He could have gone into the house and removed the children from the back way, but he was only concerned of getting his tail out of there so he would not be detected.

[Kate Sachel]

If he committed the murders, then I am sure he was thinking only of himself, as do all murderers. What about the murderers, who have killed their entire families for money? There is much effort spent on this board trying to make him the worst of the worst, imho. I do not trully think the outrage comes from how the killer killed, so much as the believe that Simpson was the killer and who he killed.

Can you please calrify your last statement? I will await your response and hope it refers to nothing regarding race.

For myself, the outrage of the actual murders comes from the manner in which the two were murdered and the fact that I believe Simpson murdered them and left their bodies where the young children could have easily found them.

Have you read the autopsy reports? In a way I recommend the reports, but they are difficult to read through because the true nature of the crimes has a tendency to hit where it hurts and make the stomach turn.

I trust that you are having a good morning.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I see your point concerning murderers that have killed their entire families but in a way simpson did just that. He took the life of the mother of two children and so matter what anyone says they both have to have some concern or suspicion in the back of minds about their fathers guilt. So in a way he did kill their family, and one of the main problems, and of course the murders, I have is he left his children to see what he had done. He did not consider their feelings at all. He could have gone into the house and removed the children from the back way, but he was only concerned of getting his tail out of there so he would not be detected.

I understand what you are saying, but, to me that is not the same as murdering the entire family. If he is the killer, there is no doubt that he tore the family apart. If he is not the killer, then he has suffered so great an outcry by those that are convinced of his guilt that the children may always have doubts. Perhaps, it would be in the best interest of the children, if we all could let the subject rest.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

it is great posting to you. i have to leave now. will be back later or tomorrow.

You have some good points.
martin II

Hi Martin,

Thanks and thanks! I stayed home yesterday because of the frozen roads here in Texas. You know we texans don't know what to do when there is snow/ice/sleet. lol

And, you also have some good points.

:seeya:

[William Anthony]

Can you please calrify your last statement? I will await your response and hope it refers to nothing regarding race.

For myself, the outrage of the actual murders comes from the manner in which the two were murdered and the fact that I believe Simpson murdered them and left their bodies where the young children could have easily found them.

Have you read the autopsy reports? In a way I recommend the reports, but they are difficult to read through because the true nature of the crimes has a tendency to hit where it hurts and make the stomach turn.

I trust that you are having a good morning.

Kate

Kinetic Kate,

I read your post to martydom and hope work is not too arduous.:)

I know of a great many that were killed in a manner that I consider far more heinous than were Nicole and Ron, which is not to diminish the manner in which they were killed. I have stated that, imo, if the burden was more likely than not, I would agree that Simpson was the killer. However, because of circumstances surrounding the LE's performance in this case, and some of the experts’ testimonies, I am not convinced that he is the killer. I understand your conviction that he is and appreciate your feelings as to the manner of the killings. Again, I was not saying all are outraged over who he killed.
However, I do feel that some on this board, as evidenced by their posts, are more concerned that he was acquitted than they are with the manner of the killings. There have been many husbands that killed their wives. There have been some that have killed their wives and children. Personally, I feel that to kill anyone is uncalled for, unless done in self-defense or defense of another, but to kill or abuse a child or an elderly person for financial gain is most reprehensible. There are certain posters, who have stated that the defense got him off, because of the race card. I do not believe this was the reason he was acquitted. For those who make such claims, imho, their outrage is motivated more by race than the deed. I do believe that there are some who simply believe that he is the killer, and that the murder should be punished. However, many simply want to accuse the jury, and, not allow for the defense's impeachment of the evidence. I hope this response will clarify my statement, and, I would, likewise, like to wish you a wonderful day and many more to come.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi
when lou was not doing so ggod finnancially, oj used his influence to get lou a hertz franchise in ca. when lou could not get it on his own. Literally put this guy into a lucrative and prized business. all for free.
When doninique wanted to go to collage and thay had no money, oj paid for her collage educaiton. When lou could not pay his mortage oj loaned him$300,000 to save the family home. Lou never paid a penny back. and this was before the murders. Oj was paying $10,000 per month child support to the browns when he was in jail. the browns wanted control of the kids because they did not want the $10,000 to stop. They tried to keep money that belonged in nicoles trust for themselves and was forced to give it back.
It just seems that they care more about themselves than the kids otherwise why take money from nicoles trust.

Another question;
1f nicole was being battered by oj allt those years, where were her parents when she needed them to step in and correct the situaiton. Where were they when wey allowed their 18 year old teenage daughter to marry this old professional ball player with too much experience for her. where were they when she was playing the role of the other woman as she stole oj from his wife and was shacking up with him not too far from rockingham where he and his wife and children lived.

No i cannot give them a free pass. they did not seem to be good people as you seem to believe they were. all my opinion

martin II

Hi Martin,

OJ helped many people. OJ did financially help his in laws and Nicole's sisters. Does this make them bad people? There are many people in this world that help their families. And, there are many people in this world that take the help. No, they did not pay OJ back the loan that he gave them. How long before the murders did they get this loan? The browns had their own money before OJ. I don't really see them accepting help from OJ as something that is shocking or bad. You can only speak of a few things. OJ wasn't giving them monthly money. His own family was seeking and getting money from OJ. I believe that if I had a lot of money I would also help family members and my spouses family. I would not think bad of them if they accepted the money. It would make me feel good to help them.

I do NOT think they wanted the children just so they could have $10000 a month. OJ killed their daughter. The Brown's kept the kids often before Nicole died. They loved their grandchildren. And, I would fight for my grandkids if their father killed my daughter, their mother. And, if they came to me begging that I let it go....I probably would.

They did not keep money from Nicole's trust. They sold their own pictures and etc. And, they also ended up putting that money in the trust. Lou Brown was so offended that they were trying to make it seem like he was keeping money from the kids or mishandling the trust. He relinquished control of the Trust and there have been no allegations since. Nothing. That was right after the trial. I do not agree with the family selling some of the stuff they sold regarding Nicole. However, Lou wasn't involved in all of that. I do agree with them selling Nicole's diary entries. I believe that was an attempt to get her side out.

From what I remember they did have a problem with Nicole being with OJ at first. And, I believe it was because he was married and he was so much older. But, she was 18 and she did what she wanted. They saw she loved him and eventually welcomed OJ into their family. As far as the abuse goes...I do not think for one minute they knew what was really going on. They knew some stuff. But, I do not think they thought he would ever truly kill her. They also felt bad after all of this. They have educated themselves about abuse since. They have also tried to educate others and help victims now.

I believe they were good people. I don't agree with all of their choices but I believe they loved Nicole and Sydney and Justin.

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

OJ helped many people. OJ did financially help his in laws and Nicole's sisters. Does this make them bad people? There are many people in this world that help their families. And, there are many people in this world that take the help. No, they did not pay OJ back the loan that he gave them. How long before the murders did they get this loan? The browns had their own money before OJ. I don't really see them accepting help from OJ as something that is shocking or bad. You can only speak of a few things. OJ wasn't giving them monthly money. His own family was seeking and getting money from OJ. I believe that if I had a lot of money I would also help family members and my spouses family. I would not think bad of them if they accepted the money. It would make me feel good to help them.

I do NOT think they wanted the children just so they could have $10000 a month. OJ killed their daughter. The Brown's kept the kids often before Nicole died. They loved their grandchildren. And, I would fight for my grandkids if their father killed my daughter, their mother. And, if they came to me begging that I let it go....I probably would.

They did not keep money from Nicole's trust. They sold their own pictures and etc. And, they also ended up putting that money in the trust. Lou Brown was so offended that they were trying to make it seem like he was keeping money from the kids or mishandling the trust. He relinquished control of the Trust and there have been no allegations since. Nothing. That was right after the trial. I do not agree with the family selling some of the stuff they sold regarding Nicole. However, Lou wasn't involved in all of that. I do agree with them selling Nicole's diary entries. I believe that was an attempt to get her side out.

From what I remember they did have a problem with Nicole being with OJ at first. And, I believe it was because he was married and he was so much older. But, she was 18 and she did what she wanted. They saw she loved him and eventually welcomed OJ into their family. As far as the abuse goes...I do not think for one minute they knew what was really going on. They knew some stuff. But, I do not think they thought he would ever truly kill her. They also felt bad after all of this. They have educated themselves about abuse since. They have also tried to educate others and help victims now.

I believe they were good people. I don't agree with all of their choices but I believe they loved Nicole and Sydney and Justin.

tazzy hi

You have presented you opinions in such a excellant way that i am forced to agree with almost all of what you have posted.

I see nothing wrong with oj helping his inlaws as he was a generous person with his wealth. It just seemed that the flow of money/help was, in most cases from oj to them. imo
:beer:
martin II

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

Thanks and thanks! I stayed home yesterday because of the frozen roads here in Texas. You know we texans don't know what to do when there is snow/ice/sleet. lol

And, you also have some good points.

:seeya:

tazzy hi

I guess you have all the snow we should have gotten by now.That is ok with me as we have not had any YET.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

You have presented you opinions in such a excellant way that i am forced to agree with almost all of what you have posted.

I see nothing wrong with oj helping his inlaws as he was a generous person with his wealth. It just seemed that the flow of money/help was, in most cases from oj to them. imo
:beer:
martin II

Wow, Martin. Thanks!!

OJ was a generous person with his wealth. I think maybe that is why the Brown's thought so highly of him. Not because of the money but because he was generous and seemed to genuinely care about them. When you help someone out as OJ did with the Brown's that usually means they care about what happens to you. Possibly what the Brown's could show in return is love. Juditha and OJ talked a lot. He called her for advice regarding Nicole.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

I guess you have all the snow we should have gotten by now.That is ok with me as we have not had any YET.
martin II


Snow in Texas?....lol No, we get ICE. We had a few snow flurry's. They were showing on the news last night a kid trying to sled down a hill. They kept getting stuck...lol I can remember 4 times in my life that we have had enough snow to actually build a snow man.


:D

[martin II]

Snow in Texas?....lol No, we get ICE. We had a few snow flurry's. They were showing on the news last night a kid trying to sled down a hill. They kept getting stuck...lol I can remember 4 times in my life that we have had enough snow to actually build a snow man.


:D

tazzy hi

Harper collins has CLOSED Regan book co.Today
martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

Harper collins has CLOSED Regan book co.Today
martin II

Hi martin,

What do you mean? Forever? Or just today? Do you have a link?

[martin II]

Hi martin,

What do you mean? Forever? Or just today? Do you have a link?




http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/489777p-412421c.html
martin ii

[sassylassy]

links re: lawsuit/book :read:

video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2801185

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2795472

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2800813&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[2L8 4A D8]

links re: lawsuit/book :read:

video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2801185

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2795472

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2800813&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Why did you waste bandwidth and put these links here and then put them again in the "Links Only" Sticky? One or the other would do just fine. Just curious! :confused:

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

links re: lawsuit/book :read:

video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2801185

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2795472

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2800813&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312


sassy
thanks for these links.
martin II

[martin II]

sassy

ps

I noticed that the reporter made sure that people got the impression that oj wrote the book by repeating "OJ SAID"

martin II

[martin II]

OJ's lawyers offers to pay Fred from profits of book according to this article.
martin II


"We are prepared to negotiate," said Slates, hinting that Simpson is weary of spending tens of thousands on legal fees to fend off the Goldmans' claims.

But Fred Goldman won't bargain.

"I should get over the anger? And forget his murdering client took the life of my son? He must be out of his damn mind," the father said.

"No way in hell I'd enter into a business arrangement that benefits him [Simpson]. He belongs on a gurney with a needle in his arm to end his life," Goldman said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/490325p-412976c.html

[martin II]

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A state judge has ordered O.J. Simpson to limit his spending to "ordinary and necessary living expenses" after the family of murder victim Ron Goldman raised concerns the former football star was shopping another book deal.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/20/simpson.lawsuit.ap/index.html



martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

sassy

ps

I noticed that the reporter made sure that people got the impression that oj wrote the book by repeating "OJ SAID"

martin II

Of course you would notice that because that's what you do all of the time ~ OJ SAID, OJ SAID, OJ SAID, OJ SAID ~ ad nauseum! Like that automatically makes it the TRUTH! OJ SAID, OJ SAID OJ SAID! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

One of the men Brown Simpson dated after her divorce was one of O.J.'s rivals, Marcus Allen, running back for the Kansas City Chiefs.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Brown-Simpson.htm

I was wondering why she chose Marcus Allen to do. sounds kinda vicious imo
martin II

[martin II]

When it comes to the law and the legal system, blacks are far more realistic than whites, because whites don't see the things that we see happen, that cops will do.
O. J. Simpson

[2L8 4A D8]

When it comes to the law and the legal system, blacks are far more realistic than whites, because whites don't see the things that we see happen, that cops will do.
O. J. Simpson

You could have just made this up as far as I am concerned. Wouldn't be the first time. You are absolutely NOT credible and everyone knows it, unless it is your comrades, of course! Link, please ~ to substantiate that OJ actually said this! :no:

JMO and MOO!!

[sassylassy]

OJ's lawyers offers to pay Fred from profits of book according to this article.
martin II


"We are prepared to negotiate," said Slates, hinting that Simpson is weary of spending tens of thousands on legal fees to fend off the Goldmans' claims.

But Fred Goldman won't bargain.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/490325p-412976c.html


gosh they ALL must have spent tons of money in legal fees by now!

[martin II]

gosh they ALL must have spent tons of money in legal fees by now!

sassy

Fred Goldman was on tv again last night angry as he**.

martin II

[sassylassy]

sassy

Fred Goldman was on tv again last night angry as he**.

martin II


oh really, I must have missed it- what program was Fred on??:read:

[weezer]

*Snipped*One of the men Brown Simpson dated after her divorce was one of O.J.'s rivals, Marcus Allen. . .I was wondering why she chose Marcus Allen to do. sounds kinda vicious

Maybe because he was a really, really nice looking guy AND no history of domestic abuse?

Besides, if you put orenthal and Marcus side by side, I bet even you would pick Marcus. IMO