Goldmans Sue

[martin II]

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

SASSY
COURT TV last evening
The reportes was waving some paper and saying she had the contracts of harper collins and the childrens company and oj. Don't think she went into detail. Then fred came on with his lawyer. Basically saying what he usually says on LKL.

Martin II

[martin II]

*Snipped*

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

weezer

From your post i am assumming that you have more expertise or reasons to evaluate the 'LOOKS' of men than i do. i have very little reason to be concerend about the looks of either. Howeve I like marcus as a runner But oj was much more productive.im jmo

martin II

[martin II]

*Snipped*

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

weezer

If memory serves me correctly someplace in Coras testimony she speaks of a comment nicole made to her about how(nicole) felt when she heard M Allens name spoken. I can try to find it if you like.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

If memory serves me correctly someplace in Coras testimony she speaks of a comment nicole made to her about how(nicole) felt when she heard M Allens name spoken. I can try to find it if you like.
martin II

:shrug: I don't care what cora said. I discounted her testimony when I understood that it was Cora who was involved in an adulterous affair and using Nicole's friendship to hide it.

Is this the same testimony where she said the ONLY person Nicole was afraid of was orenthal?

[martin II]

:shrug: I don't care what cora said. I discounted her testimony when I understood that it was Cora who was involved in an adulterous affair and using Nicole's friendship to hide it.

weezer

Because Cora, Nicoles best friend, was involved in a adulterous affair and wanted Nicole to cover for her, you discount all of her testimony in the trials?
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

Because Cora, Nicoles best friend, was involved in a adulterous affair and wanted Nicole to cover for her, you discount all of her testimony in the trials?
martin II

You know, in that same deposition, cora was asked if she had slept with orenthal since the murders? Seems she was showing up at his home and even one out of town trip. IIRC

[martin II]

You know, in that same deposition, cora was asked if she had slept with orenthal since the murders? Seems she was showing up at his home and even one out of town trip. IIRC

weezer


AND
Lots of people went to Ojs house.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer


AND
Lots of people went to Ojs house.
martin II

ahh but she was the only 'best' friend of Nicole's that did. AND she was the only 'best' friend of Nicole's that was asked if she was sleeping with orenthal. IIRC

[martin II]

ahh but she was the only 'best' friend of Nicole's that did. AND she was the only 'best' friend of Nicole's that was asked if she was sleeping with orenthal. IIRC

weezer

After the divoice and before the IRS issue Nicole had called Oj, upset because some of her friends were now being friendly with oj (or too friendly for Nicole with him) She accused him of stealing /buying her fiends. OJ denied this.

But from her complaint, it would seem that some of her friends were seeing or remaining friendly with oj. imo/jmo
martin II

[martin II]

ahh but she was the only 'best' friend of Nicole's that did. AND she was the only 'best' friend of Nicole's that was asked if she was sleeping with orenthal. IIRC

wezer
Petrocelli did ask her a lot of nonsense questons trying to show the jury that
her testimony was tailored in favor of oj because she had some kind of affair.
But you can give me a link to proof of this if you believe it was true. imo
jmo
martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped*After the divoice and before the IRS issue

My statement had nothing to do with this timeframe. The question of whether or not cora was sleeping with orenthal was posed after the murders.

I do not have a link to whether or not cora was sleeping with orenthal after the murders. The questions being asked of her concerning this are in her civil trial deposition. Personally, I believe she was. Her husband had found out about the grocery bag boy and her life style was on the way out the door. Maybe she thought she could snag orenthal? IMO

[martin II]

*Snipped*

My statement had nothing to do with this timeframe. The question of whether or not cora was sleeping with orenthal was posed after the murders.

I do not have a link to whether or not cora was sleeping with orenthal after the murders. The questions being asked of her concerning this are in her civil trial deposition. Personally, I believe she was. Her husband had found out about the grocery bag boy and her life style was on the way out the door. Maybe she thought she could snag orenthal? IMO

weezer

knowing you from your post and having read Coras Truthful testimony about Nicoles lifestyle just prior to her murder, I am sure you would think she was
having a affair with oj. But like most times you have no proof. imo jmo
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

knowing you from your post and having read Coras Truthful testimony about Nicoles lifestyle just prior to her murder, I am sure you would think she was
having a affair with oj. But like most times you have no proof. imo jmo
martin II

so you believe cora's testimony to be truthful?

[martin II]

so you believe cora's testimony to be truthful?

weezer

I have not read any proof that would lead me to believe that Coras testimony about Nicole was a lie. However you can offer this proof if you have any.imo
jmo
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

I have not read any proof that would lead me to believe that Coras testimony about Nicole was a lie. However you can offer this proof if you have any.imo
jmo
martin II


so that means you also believe her when she said 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.

Q: In fact she told you about a 1989 incident in which he had beaten her. Is that true?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE WITNESS: That's true.

BY MR. BREWER:

Q: And he had caused her physical injury. Is that true?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE WITNESS: True.

BY MR. BREWER:

Q: And she had even told you or you had even made a comparison-she had made a comparison with you with respect to bruising that she had received in connection with that beating when you were talking about bruising that you had on your body. True?

A: True.

Q: Has Nicole ever told you that anyone else has ever beaten her?

A: If Nicole told me?

Q: Yeah. Did Nicole tell you, other than Mr. Simpson-

A: No.

Q:-has she ever told you that anyone, anyone in this universe, has beaten her?

A: She never told me anything.

Q: Has she told you that anyone has caused her physical harm other than OJ. Simpson?

A: No.

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.

[martin II]

so that means you also believe her when she said 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.

Q: In fact she told you about a 1989 incident in which he had beaten her. Is that true?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE WITNESS: That's true.

BY MR. BREWER:

Q: And he had caused her physical injury. Is that true?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE WITNESS: True.

BY MR. BREWER:

Q: And she had even told you or you had even made a comparison-she had made a comparison with you with respect to bruising that she had received in connection with that beating when you were talking about bruising that you had on your body. True?

A: True.

Q: Has Nicole ever told you that anyone else has ever beaten her?

A: If Nicole told me?

Q: Yeah. Did Nicole tell you, other than Mr. Simpson-

A: No.

Q:-has she ever told you that anyone, anyone in this universe, has beaten her?

A: She never told me anything.

Q: Has she told you that anyone has caused her physical harm other than OJ. Simpson?

A: No.

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

Are you sugggesting that Cora was lying in this testimony?

In the same testimony Cora states that Nicole was afraid of some crank caller that had been calling her at her house and had asked OJ to watch out for her safety.

So she asked a person that she was afraid of to watch out for her safety as it related to a caller making threats against her.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

Are you sugggesting that Cora was lying in this testimony?

In the same testimony Cora states that Nicole was afraid of some crank caller that had been calling her at her house and had asked OJ to watch out for her safety.

So she asked a person that she was afraid of to watch out for her safety as it related to a caller making threats against her.
martin II

The phone calls:
Q: In 1992 was Nicole receiving threatening phone calls?

A: Yes.

Q: This was in the calendar year of 1992?

A: Yes.

Nicole being afraid of orenthal hurting her:
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.

[2L8 4A D8]

weezer

knowing you from your post and having read Coras Truthful testimony about Nicoles lifestyle just prior to her murder, I am sure you would think she was
having a affair with oj. But like most times you have no proof. imo jmo
martin II

You have the audacity, as usual, to tell Weezer that "But like most times you have no proof." WTH?

YOU ARE THE "KING" OF HAVING NO PROOF" AND SUPPLYING NO LINKS, but that hasn't stopped you from posting absolutely non-stop on this Board and these Threads! Give all of us a freaking break and start practicing what you preach! Or, better yet, why don't you just STHU? :punch:

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

The phone calls:
Q: In 1992 was Nicole receiving threatening phone calls?

A: Yes.

Q: This was in the calendar year of 1992?

A: Yes.

Nicole being afraid of orenthal hurting her:
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
I see you are up to your old tricks again trying to trick the evidence.

In the same testimony you are posting cora speaks of a man that was making crank threatening phone calls to nicole at her home. LE eventually investigated this and caught the man but he did make another call to nicole.

Cora testified to this and said that as a result of these calls from this man Nicole asked OJ SIMPSON to wat ch out for her safety. imo

It is in the same testimony you are using to show she was afraid of oj and i think you kow this but decided to leave this out as it shows that she was not afraid of oj when she asked him to watch our for her. imo jmo
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
I see you are up to your old tricks again trying to trick the evidence.

In the same testimony you are posting cora speaks of a man that was making crank threatening phone calls to nicole at her home. LE eventually investigated this and caught the man but he did make another call to nicole.

Cora testified to this and said that as a result of these calls from this man Nicole asked OJ SIMPSON to wat ch out for her safety. imo

It is in the same testimony you are using to show she was afraid of oj and i think you kow this but decided to leave this out as it shows that she was not afraid of oj when she asked him to watch our for her. imo jmo
martin II

Hellooooo -- the first part of my post addresses the phone calls she was receiving -- in 1992 -- two years before orenthal murdered her.

[martin II]

Hellooooo -- the first part of my post addresses the phone calls she was receiving -- in 1992 -- two years before orenthal murdered her.

weezer

She was not affraid when she wanted to talk to him about allowing her to use his address for her IRS SCAM a few weeks before someone killed her.

At any rate if at some time nicole was afraid of oj she was also at some time
begging him to let her back into his house as she had realized that she was at least responsible for some of their problems.
imo
martin II

[Suzee10]

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


This is absolutely disgusting. Anyone that would think this guy is innocent has to have a head full of rocks.

I am so glad they are way more people with some sense that had this book done away with. I know I signed the petition and sent it to many more.

[William Anthony]

This is absolutely disgusting. Anyone that would think this guy is innocent has to have a head full of rocks.

I am so glad they are way more people with some sense that had this book done away with. I know I signed the petition and sent it to many more.

While I cannot and will not call him innocent, I will say that he was proven not guilty. Having been proclaimed not guilty, there was nothing that precluded him from writing any sort of book he so desired to write. Do I think he should have written it, no. Do I think that it inflamed those who believe him to be guilty, yes. Do I think it showed poor taste and insensitivity on his part, yes. Should he be allowed free speeh, yes. Should the book have been banned, because it contained the type of speech that might incite people, I am not sure, and that is an interesting legal concept.

[martin II]

This is absolutely disgusting. Anyone that would think this guy is innocent has to have a head full of rocks.

I am so glad they are way more people with some sense that had this book done away with. I know I signed the petition and sent it to many more.

suzee

It is my belief that there was never any intent on the part of the publisher Regan books, Harper Collins for this book to deliver any sliver of truth as to what happened to nicole and Ron.

I believe it was only meant to trick the public into buying A book that they could profit from. Damm whether any truth was in the book or not.
imo
jmo
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

While I cannot and will not call him innocent, I will say that he was proven not guilty. Having been proclaimed not guilty, there was nothing that precluded him from writing any sort of book he so desired to write. Do I think he should have written it, no. Do I think that it inflamed those who believe him to be guilty, yes. Do I think it showed poor taste and insensitivity on his part, yes. Should he be allowed free speeh, yes. Should the book have been banned, because it contained the type of speech that might incite people, I am not sure, and that is an interesting legal concept.

I'm not certain that it was "the type of speech that might incite people" that demolished the publishing. I believe that the majority of people residing in this country believe that OJ Simpson murdered two people and got away with it.

Based on that, I believe that there is outrage over the idea that a man they believe murdered two people would be allowed to profit from his crimes.

Again, I assert that no one denied him his First Amendment rights nor did anyone censor him.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I'm not certain that it was "the type of speech that might incite people" that demolished the publishing. I believe that the majority of people residing in this country believe that OJ Simpson murdered two people and got away with it.

Based on that, I believe that there is outrage over the idea that a man they believe murdered two people would be allowed to profit from his crimes.

Again, I assert that no one denied him his First Amendment rights nor did anyone censor him.

Kate

Kinetic Kate,

I was not speaking to the fact of cencorship. I was speaking to his right to publish the book. I understand that most feel he is guilty, and, therefore took the steps to bring threats of financial pressure against the publisher in order to preclude the publishing. As I have stated, I do not believe it should have been published, and it was written in a poor and insensitive venue. My last question and statememts were purely hypothetical, since the book was not published, and the question dealt soley with a legal concept, such as yelling fire in a crowded room. The question was poorly placed I admit. What I was attempting to ask was whether or not the book could be banned from publishing, because of its tendency to incite. I am not sure of the answer. Does someone have to yell fire before it is actionable, or can they be stopped prior to the yelling, because they made their intentions known, and, if so, is that actionable? You know me and the law.

[Kate Sachel]

Kinetic Kate,

I was not speaking to the fact of cencorship. I was speaking to his right to publish the book. I understand that most feel he is guilty, and, therefore took the steps to bring threats of financial pressure against the publisher in order to preclude the publishing. As I have stated, I do not believe it should have been published, and it was written in a poor and insensitive venue. My last question and statememts were purely hypothetical, since the book was not published, and the question dealt soley with a legal concept, such as yelling fire in a crowded room. The question was poorly placed I admit. What I was attempting to ask was whether or not the book could be banned from publishing, because of its tendency to incite. I am not sure of the answer. Does someone have to yell fire before it is actionable, or can they be stopped prior to the yelling, because they made their intentions known, and, if so, is that actionable? You know me and the law.

Quite frankly I admire the manner in which you refuse to accept things at face value, and your willingness to explore the issues you feel are worth addressing.

I guess I don't feel that anyone has taken away his right to publish the book. One company made the decision to bow to public pressure and cease the release of the book under their title. But no one has said that OJ cannot make the book and publish it himself.

Kate

[martin II]

Kinetic Kate,

I was not speaking to the fact of cencorship. I was speaking to his right to publish the book. I understand that most feel he is guilty, and, therefore took the steps to bring threats of financial pressure against the publisher in order to preclude the publishing. As I have stated, I do not believe it should have been published, and it was written in a poor and insensitive venue. My last question and statememts were purely hypothetical, since the book was not published, and the question dealt soley with a legal concept, such as yelling fire in a crowded room. The question was poorly placed I admit. What I was attempting to ask was whether or not the book could be banned from publishing, because of its tendency to incite. I am not sure of the answer. Does someone have to yell fire before it is actionable, or can they be stopped prior to the yelling, because they made their intentions known, and, if so, is that actionable? You know me and the law.

william
my quesiton is how far can one group/person go to prevent another from publishing or having a book published.Oj was not the publisher of this book.

example
How much pressure can be put on a publisher that desires to publish a book
before the people applying the pressure crosses the line in , say, preventing that person or publisher from engaging in regular legal commerce or the ability to make a living.

Say Apple computers attacks a new Microsoft product as morally wrong, according to them, stirs up public opinion against microsoft to the point that
retailers become spooked about carrying the product. microsoft then claims damage to their new product caused by apple's public efforts against the product.

martin II

[William Anthony]

Quite frankly I admire the manner in which you refuse to accept things at face value, and your willingness to explore the issues you feel are worth addressing.

I guess I don't feel that anyone has taken away his right to publish the book. One company made the decision to bow to public pressure and cease the release of the book under their title. But no one has said that OJ cannot make the book and publish it himself.

Kate

You are right on the latter point, if he has the money? I think that, keeping the book in the limelight will inevitably produce great future profits, for whoever publishes it. Controversy seems to breed interest. I think that many, and rightly so, will be reluctant to have their names associated with the book. I still wonder, if the attempt to publish would be actionable given the exceptions to the right of free speech. What are your thoughts on this-maybe send them in a PM so others will not get angered.

[William Anthony]

william
my quesiton is how far can one group/person go to prevent another from publishing or having a book published.Oj was not the publisher of this book.

example
How much pressure can be put on a publisher that desires to publish a book
before the people applying the pressure crosses the line in , say, preventing that person or publisher from engaging in regular legal commerce or the ability to make a living.

Say Apple computers attacks a new Microsoft product as morally wrong, according to them, stirs up public opinion against microsoft to the point that
retailers become spooked about carrying the product. microsoft then claims damage to their new product caused by apple's public efforts against the product.

martin II

Martin,

I think now we are talking about interference with a contract? This is an area of the law that I am unsure about at the present. However, with that said, I think that you may also be speaking of fraudulent misrepresentations and unlawful restriction of trade. I am not sure what is actionable under those concepts, (i.e. the elements that must be spelled out and proven) to support a claim for damages. I have had some teaching on fradulent misrepresentations in contractual issues and warranties (which are really the same as contracts). There may also be causes of actions for defamation and/or slander. You have asked some interesting questions, as usual. The fact that someone creates a product does not automatically create a right to have retailers sell it. I will do some research, and get back to you on this. There may be other causes of actions, of which I am unaware.

[martin II]

Martin,

I think now we are talking about interference with a contract? This is an area of the law that I am unsure about at the present. However, with that said, I think that you may also be speaking of fraudulent misrepresentations and unlawful restriction of trade. I am not sure what is actionable under those concepts, (i.e. the elements that must be spelled out and proven) to support a claim for damages. I have had some teaching on fradulent misrepresentations in contractual issues and warranties (which are really the same as contracts). There may also be causes of actions for defamation and/or slander. You have asked some interesting questions, as usual. The fact that someone creates a product does not automatically create a right to have retailers sell it. I will do some research, and get back to you on this. There may be other causes of actions, of which I am unaware.


william
i understand your second to last para.

If a retailer regularly sells microsoft products but refuse the new product because of the public pressure created by apple?

martin II

[martin II]

You are right on the latter point, if he has the money? I think that, keeping the book in the limelight will inevitably produce great future profits, for whoever publishes it. Controversy seems to breed interest. I think that many, and rightly so, will be reluctant to have their names associated with the book. I still wonder, if the attempt to publish would be actionable given the exceptions to the right of free speech. What are your thoughts on this-maybe send them in a PM so others will not get angered.
william
The problen for oj publishing his own book is at the retail level. Amazone ,Bordrs etc. The retailers caved last time at the request of Fred Goldman. oj's only option seems to be the internet or a foreign country.
martin II

[William Anthony]

william
i understand your second to last para.

If a retailer regularly sells microsoft products but refuse the new product because of the public pressure created by apple?

martin II

Then the applicability of a lawsuit and the damages would be contingent on the terms on any contract between them. There are too too many variables that would come into play, imo, for me to give you a definitive answer.

[martin II]

william
If oj feels compelled to make money off this book then his options imo are
to have it printed and use the net to sell it. This way individuals can decide if they want to buy or not.
martin II

[socaldiva]

This is absolutely disgusting. Anyone that would think this guy is innocent has to have a head full of rocks.

I am so glad they are way more people with some sense that had this book done away with. I know I signed the petition and sent it to many more.

A head full of rocks is right :tongue: I signed the petition as well :patriot:

[socaldiva]

william
If oj feels compelled to make money off this book then his options imo are
to have it printed and use the net to sell it. This way individuals can decide if they want to buy or not.
martin II


Yes, and OJ can look like a loser again when next to no one buys his trash :D

[William Anthony]

william
If oj feels compelled to make money off this book then his options imo are
to have it printed and use the net to sell it. This way individuals can decide if they want to buy or not.
martin II

I think that, in regard to the language that may tend to incite, the FCC may have some say so in that. I am not well versed in any of this. Personally, I think any attempt to sell the book tends to incite, but, by the same token, you may have many interested in purchasing the book that are not incited. These are just my personal opinions and are by no means intended to provide legal advice. That sentiment goes with all my past, present and future posts.

[martin II]

I think that, in regard to the language that may tend to incite, the FCC may have some say so in that. I am not well versed in any of this. Personally, I think any attempt to sell the book tends to incite, but, by the same token, you may have many interested in purchasing the book that are not incited. These are just my personal opinions and are by no means intended to provide legal advice. That sentiment goes with all my past, present and future posts.

william
who knows.

When the book was first shipped to retailers it moved up the list at Amazone.com quite rapidly until it was removed under pressure.

martin II

[William Anthony]

william
who knows.

When the book was first shipped to retailers it moved up the list at Amazone.com quite rapidly until it was removed under pressure.

martin II

Understandable.

[Suzee10]

A head full of rocks is right :tongue: I signed the petition as well :patriot:


Socaldiva, I cannot for the life of me figure why he did this at all. He is always moaning and whinning over the fact of how people treat him and then he pulls something that will inflame at least 80% of the U.S. and people all over and a book like this one. "If I Did It", if yeah right! :no:

[socaldiva]

Socaldiva, I cannot for the life of me figure why he did this at all. He is always moaning and whinning over the fact of how people treat him and then he pulls something that will inflame at least 80% of the U.S. and people all over and a book like this one. "If I Did It", if yeah right! :no:

The only thing I can come up with is that he was thinking he would put up this false version & make some further claims as to why it couldn't have been him. But, who knows what that knucklehead was thinking :D

[2L8 4A D8]

The only thing I can come up with is that he was thinking he would put up this false version & make some further claims as to why it couldn't have been him. But, who knows what that knucklehead was thinking :D

OJ will do or say just about anything to claim that it just couldn't have been him. He so desperately wants the old OJ back (minus Nicole, of course) and what went with it ~ the lifestyle, the endorsements, the adulation, the admiration, the fame and the fortune. However, OJ should have thought about all of that before he slaughtered and murdered Nicole and Ron! What made him actually think that he could get away with it? Oh yeah, excuse me, he wouldn't have if he hadn't had a Jury with an Agenda and a moronic one at that. He'd be in an orange jumpsuit up in San Quentin sitting on Death Row hobnobbing with the likes of wife and baby killer, Scott Peterson!

OJ seems to underestimate the general public around the World. We will not FORGET and we will NEVER forgive ~ period! End of story!

JMO and MOO!!

[jotun]

All--
Goldman's federal lawsuit is OVER.
Heard on CTV that it was:
DISMISSED.

jotun

[martin II]

All--
Goldman's federal lawsuit is OVER.
Heard on CTV that it was:
DISMISSED.

jotun

gotun
do you mean the latest one over the book???

martinII

[martin II]

gotun
do you mean the latest one over the book???

martinII

typo

Jotun correction.

martin II

[martin II]

typo

Jotun correction.

martin II

FredS case "kicked to the curb."

http://www.accessatlanta.com/entertainment/content/shared-gen/ap/Other_Entertainment/Simpson_Lawsuit.html

MARTIN II

[sassylassy]

wow- dare I ask what happened while I was away :shrug:


http://www.stuff.co.nz/3940033a4501.html

anyhow-looks like the case has been dismissed--but I'm pretty sure Fred will pick this up with the courts of Florida- imo

[socaldiva]

*snip*
looks like the case has been dismissed--but I'm pretty sure Fred will pick this up with the courts of Florida- imo

I hope he does. I just don't know how easy that is to do. I wonder if he needs a lawyer that is licensed in Florida :shrug:

[sassylassy]

I hope he does. I just don't know how easy that is to do. I wonder if he needs a lawyer that is licensed in Florida :shrug:

I'm guessing the money is being spent or hidden as we speak :shrug:

[socaldiva]

I'm guessing the money is being spent or hidden as we speak :shrug:

As far as the advance money from the book, OJ has already said that the money was spent. Usually I don't believe him, but I do this time. :tongue:

[littlebit]

I'm guessing the money is being spent or hidden as we speak :shrug:

I hope he will have to go to jail if he spends or hides the money.

[limakey]

I really don't want to upset any G with this next post but did you really think that the Goldmans were going to win on this issue? Lets face it, when it comes to money, the rich have gotten laws on the book to protect money.

Do any of you believe that OJ Simpson was the first and only person who benefit from such laws? Do you think that the law protecting pensions has only been on the books since the Simpson case?

And lets be real, how would any of us feel if our pensions were fair game? How many of us would pay for a judgement first rather then pay bills that helped our families? There is no way would I ever put a judgement before that of my family. I would be looking for every way to ensure that it would be my chidren who benefited from any money I made rather then a judgement.


G's, one last question, if OJ Simpson went on TV and said he had the judgement and wanted to pay the Goldmans right there and then, do any of you think they would accept it?

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I really don't want to upset any G with this next post but did you really think that the Goldmans were going to win on this issue?


Who's upset? It was worth a try & it failed. Such is life. Fred won't give up.

[Suzee10]

Who's upset? It was worth a try & it failed. Such is life. Fred won't give up.


I, too, know Fred Goldman will never give up. I know I wouldn't. If my child had been murdered by anyone and they were turned loose, I would hound them until I was no longer here or able to.

[janetlynn]

I know that this is alittle off base but I have been wondering about this. So...
Nicole had a very large dog. The dog’s bloody prints were found all around the bodies. If a stranger were attacking his master the dog would have bitten them. The dog would have had a knife wound too from trying to fight someone off. No one was found to have went to the emergency room with dog bites….so someone the dog knew must have killed them! Who took the dog?

[socaldiva]

I know that this is alittle off base but I have been wondering about this. So...
Nicole had a very large dog. The dog’s bloody prints were found all around the bodies. If a stranger were attacking his master the dog would have bitten them. The dog would have had a knife wound too from trying to fight someone off. No one was found to have went to the emergency room with dog bites….so someone the dog knew must have killed them! Who took the dog?

IIRC, after the murders, Kato the dog went to live with the Brown family. I think you are right, if the dog had access to the murderer & he was a stranger, the dog would have attacked.

Welcome, by the way :seeya:

[weezer]

http://www.grandtimes.com/dogs.html:

The only known living witness to the Nicole Simpson murder is Kato. The dog, that is, not Kato Kaelin. But why didn't Kato (the dog, or the one with brushed hair), try to stop the murder, and why did he behave so oddly afterwards?
Why didn't the Akita attack the killer that night? The dog probably not only knew the killer, but the killer was a boss to him or he would have attacked him. If the killer is also a boss to the dog, he becomes confused, doesn't know who to defend, and does nothing. "An Akita will attack someone harming his family unless it's another dominant household member," says Barbara Bouyet, national coordinator of the Akita Rescue Society of America, and author of Akita: Treasure of Japan.
How else did the dog prove that OJ did it? People who have dogs know that when they come home, their dogs greet them warmly. But OJ's dog barked angrily at him when he saw him right after the murder.
When OJ arrived back home in his white Bronco after the famous chase, the Akita, who had been taken to OJ's home, did not act normal. He did not greet O.J., or go up to anyone in the car. "Instead, that dog looked into the car, stiffened, backed up, barked, and backed up again when he saw OJ," says Bouyet who watched the scene on local TV.
Why did the dog show such defensive behavior? "I don't believe that an Akita would ever behave that way toward someone unless that person had done something very bad," she says.
Did Nicole's Akita do anything else incriminating after the murder? People reported that they heard strange howls of a confused and anguished dog. "These are quiet dogs," says Bouyet. "They hunt silently like cats. I think he was confused because the person attacking his mistress was not an outsider."

[socaldiva]

"An Akita will attack someone harming his family unless it's another dominant household member,"

"Instead, that dog looked into the car, stiffened, backed up, barked, and backed up again when he saw OJ," "

Good info fbg. I think these two lines say a lot.

[littlebit]

http://www.grandtimes.com/dogs.html:

The only known living witness to the Nicole Simpson murder is Kato. The dog, that is, not Kato Kaelin. But why didn't Kato (the dog, or the one with brushed hair), try to stop the murder, and why did he behave so oddly afterwards?
Why didn't the Akita attack the killer that night? The dog probably not only knew the killer, but the killer was a boss to him or he would have attacked him. If the killer is also a boss to the dog, he becomes confused, doesn't know who to defend, and does nothing. "An Akita will attack someone harming his family unless it's another dominant household member," says Barbara Bouyet, national coordinator of the Akita Rescue Society of America, and author of Akita: Treasure of Japan.
How else did the dog prove that OJ did it? People who have dogs know that when they come home, their dogs greet them warmly. But OJ's dog barked angrily at him when he saw him right after the murder.
When OJ arrived back home in his white Bronco after the famous chase, the Akita, who had been taken to OJ's home, did not act normal. He did not greet O.J., or go up to anyone in the car. "Instead, that dog looked into the car, stiffened, backed up, barked, and backed up again when he saw OJ," says Bouyet who watched the scene on local TV.
Why did the dog show such defensive behavior? "I don't believe that an Akita would ever behave that way toward someone unless that person had done something very bad," she says.
Did Nicole's Akita do anything else incriminating after the murder? People reported that they heard strange howls of a confused and anguished dog. "These are quiet dogs," says Bouyet. "They hunt silently like cats. I think he was confused because the person attacking his mistress was not an outsider."

The dog certainly was acting strange. Did any of the police testify to the dog's stange behavior?

[weezer]

I don't know if I understand your post. What police would have testified about the dog and when?

[littlebit]

I don't know if I understand your post. What police would have testified about the dog and when?

Weren't there police at the home when Orenthal arrived? Did any of them see the dog's reaction?

[weezer]

Weren't there police at the home when Orenthal arrived? Did any of them see the dog's reaction?

Quite honestly, I don't know what that would prove. Anyone watching television doverage that night, saw the dog when orenthal drove up with AC. No one needed to describe it to us.

[socaldiva]

Quite honestly, I don't know what that would prove. Anyone watching television doverage that night, saw the dog when orenthal drove up with AC. No one needed to describe it to us.

I can't imagine that they would allow dog "tesimony" into the trial :tongue:

[littlebit]

Quite honestly, I don't know what that would prove. Anyone watching television doverage that night, saw the dog when orenthal drove up with AC. No one needed to describe it to us.

There might have been jurors who did not. I doubt that it would have made a difference.

[littlebit]

I can't imagine that they would allow dog "tesimony" into the trial :tongue:

I think they did with the time line.

[sassylassy]

I hope he will have to go to jail if he spends or hides the money.

getttng back to the topic-----

I dont think OJS can go to jail for spenting his money :shrug: hiding it maybe...

since the case is dismissed I think that means theres no longer a restraining order prohibiting Simpson from spending royalties or moving around funds?

I think Fred is wasting his money on legal battles-he doesnt seem to be making any head way. jmo of course

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I dont think OJS can go to jail for spenting his money :shrug: hiding it maybe...

since the case is dismissed I think that means theres no longer a restraining order prohibiting Simpson from spending royalties or moving around funds?

I think Fred is wasting his money on legal battles-he doesnt seem to be making any head way. jmo of course

"His" money is subject to a civil judgement, which is why he filtered these book proceeds through a bogus company. imo

I don't take the dismissal to mean that he is free to spending money or moving funds that should go to the Goldman's.

Who said Fred has to pay these lawyers? I bet some do it for free because it's the right thing to do.

You consider chasing after your Son's murderer a waste of money? What's more important, a new car or chasing after this vile human being?

[littlebit]

getttng back to the topic-----

I dont think OJS can go to jail for spenting his money :shrug: hiding it maybe...

since the case is dismissed I think that means theres no longer a restraining order prohibiting Simpson from spending royalties or moving around funds?

I think Fred is wasting his money on legal battles-he doesnt seem to be making any head way. jmo of course

I have been reading some posts on the subject of fraud. I was thinking that he may go to jail for that. I suppose that Goldman will file another lawsuit. I guess in Florida.

[weezer]

I think if going after orenthal makes the Goldmans feel any better, then they should go for it.

[sassylassy]

"His" money is subject to a civil judgement, which is why he filtered these book proceeds through a bogus company. imo

I don't take the dismissal to mean that he is free to spending money or moving funds that should go to the Goldman's.

Who said Fred has to pay these lawyers? I bet some do it for free because it's the right thing to do.

You consider chasing after your Son's murderer a waste of money? What's more important, a new car or chasing after this vile human being?


Does the dimissal mean that the restraining order has been removed?

someone has to be paying-nothing is free in this world. & it seems a waste cuz he hasnt got ahead (12 yrs later) & I actually feel for
Mr. Goldman and I am sure its really difficult for him to keep fighting and losing- I am sure its very painful. no justice over & over-

[sassylassy]

I think if going after orenthal makes the Goldmans feel any better, then they should go for it.

hey I think the man can do what ever he sees fit.

I just think its sad to see the man legally fight for the last 12 yrs & he hasnt gotten to much lead way..:read:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
someone has to be paying-nothing is free in this world

Actually that's not true. Lawyers do pro bono work all the time. IIRC Petrocelli orchestrated the civil suit without receiving money from Fred.

[sassylassy]

I have been reading some posts on the subject of fraud. I was thinking that he may go to jail for that. I suppose that Goldman will file another lawsuit. I guess in Florida.

fraud? I am not sure about that myself :shrug: .....

[weezer]

I think it would be much more difficult to do nothing. And, you're wrong about the part that nothing is free -- the Goldmans have benefited from legal work on this case over the years (or at least free to them) -- my hat is off to those who have stepped up and footed the bill to make life as uncomfortable as they can for the murderer: orenthal james simpson. IMO

[socaldiva]

hey I think the man can do what ever he sees fit.

I just think its sad to see the man legally fight for the last 12 yrs & he hasnt gotten to much lead way..:read:

You never know, he just might succeed one of these days. He'll never succeed if he gives up.

[sassylassy]

Actually that's not true. Lawyers do pro bono work all the time. IIRC Petrocelli orchestrated the civil suit without receiving money from Fred.

didnt Petrocelli raise money from the public & private donations?

[littlebit]

hey I think the man can do what ever he sees fit.

I just think its sad to see the man legally fight for the last 12 yrs & he hasnt gotten to much lead way..:read:

I agree. It would have been nice if Orenthal had done as he was required.

[weezer]

fraud? I am not sure about that myself :shrug: .....

I believe at the end of the day they will be able to prove fraud on orenthal's part. I thought it was disgusting that he used his children's names for the bogus company to siphon the money over for his use. He really is a loser. IMO

[sassylassy]

snip--the Goldmans have benefited from legal work on this case over the years (: IMO



how did they benefit?:read:

[socaldiva]

didnt Petrocelli raise money from the public & private donations?

Yes, it was a very expensive endevour. My point was that Fred didn't have to come up with the money, there were others that wanted to help.

[sassylassy]

Yes, it was a very expensive endevour. My point was that Fred didn't have to come up with the money, there were others that wanted to help.

and my point was that someone paid & that nothing is free in this world...

[weezer]

how did they benefit?:read:

Poor choice of words -- sorry.

[socaldiva]

and my point was that someone paid & that nothing is free in this world...

Actually you said that Fred is wasting his money. When I posted that lawyers do pro bono work, you said someone has to pay. Obviously there are costs associated with a trial, but the lawyers themselves are not charging they fees they would normally get. ;)

[sassylassy]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8807382]I believe at the end of the day they will be able to prove fraud on orenthal's part. /QUOTE]

I guess we will have to wait and see about that ;) --------

[weezer]

I think most of America applauds Mr. Goldman's tenacity in going after the murderer of his son. IMO

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8807382]I believe at the end of the day they will be able to prove fraud on orenthal's part. /QUOTE]

I guess we will have to wait and see about that ;) --------

yep -- but I still think he can't always dodge the bullet and this one is very likely to find its mark. IMO

[littlebit]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8807382]I believe at the end of the day they will be able to prove fraud on orenthal's part. /QUOTE]

I guess we will have to wait and see about that ;) --------

Does it mean that if they don't prove fraud Orenthal keeps the money?

[sassylassy]

Actually you said that Fred is wasting his money. When I posted that lawyers do pro bono work, you said someone has to pay. Obviously there are costs associated with a trial, but the lawyers themselves are not charging they fees they would normally get. ;)

? :confused: ?

either way imo its still a waste of cash- and I am sure if you total up the bill its huge... anyways this is jmo of course.....

[socaldiva]

? :confused: ?

either way imo its still a waste of cash- and I am sure if you total up the bill its huge... anyways this is jmo of course.....

I don't know what you are confused about, it was a rather simple post :tongue:

A "waste" is a matter of opinion. You think it was/is. I don't. So be it.

[sassylassy]

[QUOTE=sassylassy;8807390]

yep -- but I still think he can't always dodge the bullet and this one is very likely to find its mark. IMO

well of course I disagree ;) but I guess we will have to wait & see what Fred legally does next :read:

[sassylassy]

I don't know what you are confused about, it was a rather simple post :tongue:

A "waste" is a matter of opinion. You think it was/is. I don't. So be it.


oh I'm not confused ;) I meant it more like " whatever" ... :tongue:

[littlebit]

? :confused: ?

either way imo its still a waste of cash- and I am sure if you total up the bill its huge... anyways this is jmo of course.....

You did not answer my last question. I understand if you are unsure. I want to know does that mean he gets to keep the money.

[weezer]

? :confused: ?

either way imo its still a waste of cash- and I am sure if you total up the bill its huge... anyways this is jmo of course.....

Fred has always said it wasn't about the money -- guess this just proves his point. Go Fred!!!!

[sassylassy]

You did not answer my last question. I understand if you are unsure. I want to know does that mean he gets to keep the money.


I dont know forsure :shrug:

I can only ASSUME that right now he has access to his money and he most likely will spend it all by the time the Goldmans sue again & there will nothing left :shrug:

[littlebit]

I dont know forsure :shrug:

I can only ASSUME that right now he has access to his money and he most likely will spend it all by the time the Goldmans sue again & there will nothing left :shrug:

I see. I wil bet your assumptions are right. He must trust that his lawyers know what they are doing.

[weezer]

He has already bragged that he'd spent the money and there was none left. IIRC, he said he paid his bills and his house. Wonder if he paid his cable and American Express bills? I also wonder what he's been doing with his monthly pension income if he hasn't been paying his bills with it? You don't suppose he's been living beyond his means? Hmm, he might have to get an education and a job. IMO

[weezer]

I see. I wil bet your assumptions are right. He must trust that his lawyers know what they are doing.

Looks like his latest lawyer might just get disbarred over this little incident. Oh well.

[sassylassy]

He has already bragged that he'd spent the money and there was none left. IIRC, he said he paid his bills and his house. Wonder if he paid his cable and American Express bills? I also wonder what he's been doing with his monthly pension income if he hasn't been paying his bills with it? You don't suppose he's been living beyond his means? Hmm, he might have to get an education and a job. IMO

seriously ....what kind of job do you think OJS should get?

I think he's ruined-I dont think he can do anything...ha ha would you like to buy a big mac from OJS....

[weezer]

Maybe one of the law firms that represented him would hire him? LOL

[littlebit]

Maybe one of the law firms that represented him would hire him? LOL

They might hire him to do dirty work.:)

[sassylassy]

Poor choice of words -- sorry.

How is that a poor choice of words?

I am asking you how did they benefit ...they havent won anything legally
(as of now) that I know of....

[weezer]

I meant the word "benefit" was probably a poor choice. The Goldmans have and have had benfactors who have stepped up to the plate directly and indirectly to contribute to their quest to make the murderer pay. So maybe 'benefit' is the word. The Goldmans have benefited from the generosity of their benefactors. And actually, they did win legally in the civil suit. IMO

[sassylassy]

I meant the word "benefit" was probably a poor choice. The Goldmans have and have had benfactors who have stepped up to the plate directly and indirectly to contribute to their quest to make the murderer pay. So maybe 'benefit' is the word. The Goldmans have benefited from the generosity of their benefactors. And actually, they did win legally in the civil suit. IMO

oh I see.

yes but besides the civil suit, they havent had any success legally. I am sure that takes alot out of a person physically & mentally.

jmo of course,

[weezer]

It must bring some form of satisfaction -- it would to me.

[sassylassy]

It must bring some form of satisfaction -- it would to me.

u must be right:

Ronald Goldman's sister, Kim Goldman, 35, of Los Angeles, said she would not abandon fighting Simpson in court.

"We've been encouraged to let it go, and to let our anger subside. I find that ridiculous and offensive," she said. "I'm gonna squeeze him until he explodes."

http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah3700.shtml :read:

[jotun]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3940033a4501.html

anyhow-looks like the case has been dismissed--but I'm pretty sure Fred will pick this up with the courts of Florida- imo

sassy-Martin
Goldman's lawyer Polok and O.J.'s Yale were on Crier.Polok kept saying the suit wasn't dismissed and that he was going to educate the judge,unwind transactions and get a court-ORDER to make O.J.go to work.
[ SLAVERY ] Crier said 'if that's the remendy you're seeking you are out of luck.'

Must go to a Florida court.Tho
Yale said it's not going to do them ANYGOOD unless by consent of he and O.J.

jotun

[sassylassy]

sassy-Martin
Goldman's lawyer Polok and O.J.'s Yale were on Crier.Polok kept saying the suit wasn't dismissed .

jotun

could they be talking about another suit that we dont know of?
:confused:

[socaldiva]

sassy-Martin
Goldman's lawyer Polok and O.J.'s Yale were on Crier.Polok kept saying the suit wasn't dismissed and that he was going to educate the judge,unwind transactions and get a court-ORDER to make O.J.go to work.
[ SLAVERY ] Crier said 'if that's the remendy you're seeking you are out of luck.'

Must go to a Florida court.Tho
Yale said it's not going to do them ANYGOOD unless by consent of he and O.J.

jotun


Ummm...I guess being that you are posting to Martin, you didn't notice that he's been BANNED.

Are you trying to imply that forcing OJ to work to pay off the judgement is SLAVERY???? That's absurd.

[sassylassy]

[QUOTE=socaldiva;8807912]snip--Ummm...I guess being that you are posting to Martin, you didn't notice that he's been BANNED.

Yes I did notice Martin & Doc have been banned- but I dont know why
I missed all the action-

anyways ----I'm sure they will back soon :cool:

[socaldiva]

*snip*

anyways ----I'm sure they will back soon :cool:

That will be up to the moderator & if they act the same way, I'm guessing they'll be banned again. ;)

[sassylassy]

That will be up to the moderator & if they act the same way, I'm guessing they'll be banned again. ;)

not if they trick the system & come back in- I have seen many posters do that before :shrug:

[socaldiva]

not if they trick the system & come back in- I have seen many posters do that before :shrug:

Of course, but if they act the same way, the results will be the same, regardless of what nic they use. :D

I think we are off topic & have already spent enough time on this......

[sassylassy]

Of course, but if they act the same way, the results will be the same, regardless of what nic they use. :D

I think we are off topic & have already spent enough time on this......

Oh I just thought since you mentioned it you wanted to discuss it....:shrug:

anyways ....

[socaldiva]

Oh I just thought since you mentioned it you wanted to discuss it....:shrug:

anyways ....

I only pointed it out to a poster that was posting to Martin. No sense wasting bandwidth on posters that are no longer with us.

[sassylassy]

I only pointed it out to a poster that was posting to Martin. No sense wasting bandwidth on posters that are no longer with us.

actually,,,,he addressed the post to Me & martin so no bandwidth was being wasted..;)

[socaldiva]

actually,,,,he addressed the post to Me & martin so no bandwidth was being wasted..;)

I was being pro-active, relative to future postings. ;)

[sassylassy]

I was being pro-active, relative to future postings. ;)

;) sure you were honey....

[socaldiva]

;) sure you were honey....


Excuse me, I'm not your honey. Please refrain from calling me such, or you may be fishing out of the same boat as your other comrades. :no:

[sassylassy]

I didnt know this:

Simpson lawyer Ronald Slates said that 10 years ago, Fred Goldman rejected a settlement offer worth $5 million to $7 million. Galanter urged Goldman to reach a settlement.

What was the judgement 8.5 million each? :read:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070124-1726-cnssimpson.html

[sassylassy]

Excuse me, I'm not your honey. Please refrain from calling me such, or you may be fishing out of the same boat as your other comrades. :no:

DUH! I know your not my honey ---its a figure of speech :tongue:

[2L8 4A D8]

I didnt know this:

Simpson lawyer Ronald Slates said that 10 years ago, Fred Goldman rejected a settlement offer worth $5 million to $7 million. Galanter urged Goldman to reach a settlement.

What was the judgement 8.5 million each? :read:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070124-1726-cnssimpson.html

The total judgment was $33.5 million divided by 2 doesn't = $8.5 million each!

The judgment now totals approximately $38 million due to interest and OJ not paying! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

DUH! I know your not my honey ---its a figure of speech :tongue:

Maybe where you come from it's a figure of speech, but where I come from, it's condescending, snotty and rude. I guess that you have forgotten about Freshwater's post of being "civil!" Calling a Poster "honey" is not "civil!"

JMO and MOO!!

[sassylassy]

:shrug: this site said the judgement is up to 44 mil now....

"Simpson has failed to pay the $44 million judgement against him in the civil suit"

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/11/16/1163266678010.html?from=rss

[sassylassy]

[QUOTE=2L8 4A D8;8808211]Maybe where you come from it's a figure of speech, but where I come from, it's condescending, snotty and rude. I guess that you have forgotten about Freshwater's post of being "civil!" Calling a Poster "honey" is not "civil!"

JMO and MOO!![/QUOTE

I am being civil so dont you worry your pretty little head...;)

sorry the word "honey" is so dark in your world - but in my rosy little world its not...but on that note I wont use it again..;)

ciao

[2L8 4A D8]

[QUOTE=2L8 4A D8;8808211]Maybe where you come from it's a figure of speech, but where I come from, it's condescending, snotty and rude. I guess that you have forgotten about Freshwater's post of being "civil!" Calling a Poster "honey" is not "civil!"

JMO and MOO!![/QUOTE

I am being civil so dont you worry your pretty little head...;)

sorry the word "honey" is so dark in your world - but in my rosy little world its not...but on that note I wont use it again..;)

ciao

That's only what you think! In my world "honey" is a term of endearment and I definitely know that YOU didn't mean it that way! You meant it to be condescending, rude and snotty!

Yes, thanks! Don't use it again! Not on a couple of Posters anyway. Maybe the others would like it, but I can't speak for them!

JMO and MOO!!

[jotun]

[QUOTE=socaldiva;8807912]snip--Ummm...I guess being that you are posting to Martin, you didn't notice that he's been BANNED.

Yes I did notice Martin & Doc have been banned- but I dont know why
I missed all the action-


sassy-Think that post was for me.Yes I noticed martin is banned.But he can still read posts and that one was meant for he and you.

There were banned from what I remember for the usual BICKERING with 2 and bobaugust.Don't understand why they were NOT banned also.IMO
jotun

[socaldiva]

[QUOTE=sassylassy;8807919]
sassy-Think that post was for me.Yes I noticed martin is banned.But he can still read posts and that one was meant for he and you.

There were banned from what I remember for the usual BICKERING with 2 and bobaugust.Don't understand why they were NOT banned also.IMO
jotun

You have intermixed my post with Sassy's, so it looks as though her words are mine.

As for posting to posters that have been banned, what is the point if they don't have the ability to answer you?

[jotun]

I didnt know this:

Simpson lawyer Ronald Slates said that 10 years ago, Fred Goldman rejected a settlement offer worth $5 million to $7 million. Galanter urged Goldman to reach a settlement.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070124-1726-cnssimpson.html


sassy:
Not exactly.Was during the early debtor hearings in 97.Slates stated that maybe O.J. would pay since he lost. IFFFFF the plant-iffs would get it down to the normal sum for wrongful death which is no more than $600,000 or so per person.

The millions comes from Slates stating that since Enron Petroselli's law firm had already spent 6 to 7 million to persecute O.J. He would think they would WANT to settle.

Yale now says he wants to settle so everyone can get on with their lives.
But he knows full well that the Goldmans will NEVER give-up the O.J. SPOTLIGHT.
How else would they get on tv, get sympathy or the always FREE legal counsel?????...

IMO

jotun

[limakey]

Jotun,

I wonder if that settlement was offered on behalf of OJ's insurance company?

IMO, I don't Simpson would have personally paid the judgement if it was $1,000.00.

[socaldiva]

Jotun,

I wonder if that settlement was offered on behalf of OJ's insurance company?

IMO, I don't Simpson would have personally paid the judgement if it was $1,000.00.

Since when would any insurance company make an offer to pay out on someone you murdered? Too funny.

[littlebit]

Since when would any insurance company make an offer to pay out on someone you murdered? Too funny.

Would it be possible for the insurance company to pay because he was not found guilty of murder? I know they pay for deaths in vehicle collisions. Would this be different because of the type of case?

[2L8 4A D8]

Would it be possible for the insurance company to pay because he was not found guilty of murder? I know they pay for deaths in vehicle collisions. Would this be different because of the type of case?

What insurance company would that be? Your Homeowner's Insurance Policy? I would think that you would have to have some kind of Umbrella policy and I have never heard of an Umbrella policy covering you for a murder criminal trial and eventually a wrongful death civil trial, but I could be wrong. :shrug:

Since you say "I know they pay for deaths in vehicle collisions" would that be covered under your Automobile Insurance Policy if you kill someone in an accident or maybe by driving drunk? I find that unbelievable, but again, I could be wrong. :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

What insurance company would that be? Your Homeowner's Insurance Policy? I would think that you would have to have some kind of Umbrella policy and I have never heard of an Umbrella policy covering you for a murder criminal trial and eventually a wrongful death civil trial, but I could be wrong. :shrug:

Since you say "I know they pay for deaths in vehicle collisions" would that be covered under your Automobile Insurance Policy if you kill someone in an accident or maybe by driving drunk? I find that unbelievable, but again, I could be wrong. :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

Here is a link that may answer some of your questions.

http://www.coloradolaw.net/html/auto.html

[littlebit]

Here is a link that may answer some of your questions.

http://www.coloradolaw.net/html/auto.html

Thank you for the link.

[socaldiva]

Thank you for the link.

I didn't see anything in the link that specifically spoke to damages being paid as a result of drunk driving :shrug:

[littlebit]

I didn't see anything in the link that specifically spoke to damages being paid as a result of drunk driving :shrug:

This is the part I took as speaking to the drunk driver.

In Colorado, the person who caused the accident (the at-fault driver) and/or their insurance company is responsible for all of your accident-related injuries, damages and losses. Additionally, if your loved one suffers serious death in a car accident caused by another driver, you may be eligible to receive compensation for medical bills, funeral expenses, and emotional distress related to the accident.

[socaldiva]

This is the part I took as speaking to the drunk driver.

In Colorado, the person who caused the accident (the at-fault driver) and/or their insurance company is responsible for all of your accident-related injuries, damages and losses. Additionally, if your loved one suffers serious death in a car accident caused by another driver, you may be eligible to receive compensation for medical bills, funeral expenses, and emotional distress related to the accident.

You could be right. It just wasn't specific enough for me. Too general. imo:seeya:

[2L8 4A D8]

This is the part I took as speaking to the drunk driver.

In Colorado, the person who caused the accident (the at-fault driver) and/or their insurance company is responsible for all of your accident-related injuries, damages and losses. Additionally, if your loved one suffers serious death in a car accident caused by another driver, you may be eligible to receive compensation for medical bills, funeral expenses, and emotional distress related to the accident.

Yes, the at-fault driver's "insurance company is responsible for all of your accident-related injuries, damages and losses" up to your policy limits, which the insurance company would pay. However, even after that it wouldn't be enough to compensate you "if your loved one suffers serious death." Thus, again, for you to receive any kind of "compensation for medical bills, funeral expenses and emotional distress" you would have to file suit against the at-fault driver himself because his insurance company paid all that they are going to pay. I think that this is how it works, but I am not sure!

Bottom line, I really don't think that any Auto/Homeowner's insurance company's coverage would compensate OJ for anything that he did or else we would have heard about it, trust me!

JMO and MOO!!

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=2L8 4A D8;880891
Snipped

Bottom line, I really don't think that any Auto/Homeowner's insurance company's coverage would compensate OJ for anything that he did or else we would have heard about it, trust me!

JMO and MOO!![/QUOTE]


I agree that no insurance company would compensate him for being liable. The insurance company would compensate those to whom he was liable. I will readily admit that I am not up to par on insurance matters. However, with continuance and successful completion of my educational endeavors, I am hopeful that fortune will bestow upon me the opportunity to acquire the type of insurances that people of Simpson's financial status have opportunities to acquire.

[littlebit]

Yes, the at-fault driver's "insurance company is responsible for all of your accident-related injuries, damages and losses" up to your policy limits, which the insurance company would pay. However, even after that it wouldn't be enough to compensate you "if your loved one suffers serious death." Thus, again, for you to receive any kind of "compensation for medical bills, funeral expenses and emotional distress" you would have to file suit against the at-fault driver himself because his insurance company paid all that they are going to pay. I think that this is how it works, but I am not sure!

Bottom line, I really don't think that any Auto/Homeowner's insurance company's coverage would compensate OJ for anything that he did or else we would have heard about it, trust me!

JMO and MOO!!

Thank you. I think I have had my questions answered.

[sassylassy]

:read: Judge rejects OJ Simpson book lawsuit:read:

A US judge has dismissed a lawsuit against OJ Simpson over an advance the ex-football star was paid for his scuttled book about the murders of his ex-wife and her friend.

But the father of murder victim Ron Goldman intends to pursue his case in state court.

US District Judge Manuel Real ruled that he had no jurisdiction in the dispute between Fred Goldman and Simpson over the reported $US1 million ($A1.3 million) advance he was paid for the controversial book If I Did It, court papers show.

"While disappointed, the Goldman legal team still seeks to recover these funds, and the state courthouse still has an open door," Goldman lawyer David Cook said.

Goldman sued Simpson in December over the advance for If I Did It, in which he muses about how he could have killed his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman.

A public furore over the book prompted News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch to scrap the book and an accompanying Fox television special in November.

Simpson, who parlayed his fame as an athlete into a career as an actor and television pitchman, was acquitted of the June 12, 1994 murders.

A civil jury found him liable for the deaths in 1997 and ordered him to pay $33.5 million in damages to the murder victims families. Little of that judgment has been collected and Simpson has vowed to never voluntarily pay.

He claims to have already spent the money he was paid for If I Did It.

Goldman's lawyers have asked a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to order that the money Simpson was paid for If I Did It be used to partially satisfy the 1997 judgment.

In January, the judge, acting on a request by Goldman's lawyers, issued a limited restraining order prohibiting Simpson from spending royalties or otherwise moving around funds from any past deals, including media, books and magazines, until a hearing in February.

That order does not apply to the advance for If I Did It.

The Simpson book deal and television interview were brokered by maverick publisher Judith Regan, who was fired from her HarperCollins imprint, ReganBooks, about a month later.

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

[2L8 4A D8]

Saving bandwidth would have been nice. I think that we are all capable of going into a "Link" and reading for ourselves. Next time, just a "Link" please! Thanks!

[socaldiva]

Saving bandwidth would have been nice. I think that we are all capable of going into a "Link" and reading for ourselves. Next time, just a "Link" please! Thanks!

I was thinking the same thing, especially since she asked one of the new posters to snip :shrug:

[sassylassy]

I was thinking the same thing, especially since she asked one of the new posters to snip :shrug:

Duh & Duh!

you snip when you reply to a post :rolleyes:

anyhow I like to post the contents of my links for quick accurate reference!

and not to mention the information isnt always kept on these links for long
so I like having it available in print. :read:

[socaldiva]

Duh & Duh!

you snip when you reply to a post :rolleyes:

anyhow I like to post the contents of my links for quick accurate reference!

and not to mention the information isnt always kept on these links for long
so I like having it available in print. :read:

No, you don't need to post the ENTIRE contents of the link you are providing. Most of us can read the link if we so desire.

[sassylassy]

No, you don't need to post the ENTIRE contents of the link you are providing. Most of us can read the link if we so desire.


I will post how I see fit Thank you very much!

[socaldiva]

I will post how I see fit Thank you very much!

Then stop telling others how to post ;) Thank you very much!

[sassylassy]

Then stop telling others how to post ;) Thank you very much!

maybe you should take your own advice?

and just for the record I dont tell ppl how to post.

[socaldiva]

maybe you should take your own advice?

and just for the record I dont tell ppl how to post.

My own advice???? You sure tried to tell others how to post, when you asked them to snip their posts. ;)

[sassylassy]

My own advice???? You sure tried to tell others how to post, when you asked them to snip their posts. ;)

and how is that your business or concern?
that person had no problem with the info I provided!

I think you should worry about your own posts instead mine.

Thank you very much!:cool:

[socaldiva]

and how is that your business or concern?

I think you should worry about your own posts instead mine.

Thank you very much!:cool:

My "business or concern" is relative to this being a public message board and I don't need to "worry" about my posts. ;)

[sassylassy]

My "business or concern" is relative to this being a public message board and I don't need to "worry" about my posts. ;)

:confused: whatever thats suppose to mean:confused:

bottom line- if you dont like how I post, dont read them. its that simple!

Now I think enough bandwidth has been wasted on this foolishness.....

[2L8 4A D8]

:confused: whatever thats suppose to mean:confused:

bottom line- if you dont like how I post, dont read them. its that simple!

Now I think enough bandwidth has been wasted on this foolishness.....

I think that I asked you very nicely to save bandwidth and not post anything but the "Link." It's very simple really. Common sense. I think that this is a matter that Freshwater needs to respond to. She has asked us many times to "snip" posts to save bandwidth. Yet you think that it is okay to post a Link and then actually post the Link? Wow!

You also talk about printing the Link. Anyone who wants to print the Link can do so themselves, if they want to, or they can just read the Link. It's really not up to you to make that decision for them. Duh!

Yes, enough bandwidth has been wasted on this foolishness ~ BY YOU! I don't think that my request was out of line. You know it. I know it. Socaldiva knows it. You just want to be rude and obnoxious to us Posters on the other side of the fence ~ that's your agenda! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

:confused: whatever thats suppose to mean:confused:

bottom line- if you dont like how I post, dont read them. its that simple!

Now I think enough bandwidth has been wasted on this foolishness.....

Too complicated for you to understand?? "bottom line", why do you worry about how others post, yet you think you are immune from such "rules"? Talk about a waste of bandwidth......

[William Anthony]

:read:
But the father of murder victim Ron Goldman intends to pursue his case in state court.

snipped


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

Classy Sassy Lassy,

You know it pains me to my heart to snip any of your posts. With that said, I do not see how the State court will have any jurisdiction over the case, unless they intend to file in Florida. That still is a tenuous issue on the matter of jurisdiction.

[sassylassy]

Classy Sassy Lassy,

You know it pains me to my heart to snip any of your posts. With that said, I do not see how the State court will have any jurisdiction over the case, unless they intend to file in Florida. That still is a tenuous issue on the matter of jurisdiction.


so I guess Fred will have to head to Florida, which I can see him doing, in a matter of time....
:)

[William Anthony]

so I guess Fred will have to head to Florida, which I can see him doing, in a matter of time....
:)

The lawyers are the only ones making money so far. This is a sad state of affairs.

[sassylassy]

The lawyers are the only ones making money so far. This is a sad state of affairs.

I agree, I said that before the amount of money being wasted on lawyers is sad (imo of course) I wonder why they would have even allowed Fred to go ahead with this lawsuit if this wasnt even in their jurisdiction..

I am sure someone would have known that ahead of time..no?:shrug:

[sassylassy]

I think that I asked you very nicely to save bandwidth and not post anything but the "Link." It's very simple really. Common sense. I think that this is a matter that Freshwater needs to respond to. She has asked us many times to "snip" posts to save bandwidth. Yet you think that it is okay to post a Link and then actually post the Link? Wow!

You also talk about printing the Link. Anyone who wants to print the Link can do so themselves, if they want to, or they can just read the Link. It's really not up to you to make that decision for them. Duh!

Yes, enough bandwidth has been wasted on this foolishness ~ BY YOU! I don't think that my request was out of line. You know it. I know it. Socaldiva knows it. You just want to be rude and obnoxious to us Posters on the other side of the fence ~ that's your agenda! :rolleyes:


JMO and MOO!!


I will ask freshwater to address this issue that U & Diva are so "concerned" about...I myself was not aware there was such a problem w/ bandwidth space! :shrug:

and the rest of your post isnt worth commenting on.

[2L8 4A D8]

I will ask freshwater to address this issue that U & Diva are so "concerned" about...I myself was not aware there was such a problem w/ bandwidth space! :shrug:

and the rest of your post isnt worth commenting on.

Uh huh. If Freshwater doesn't post a sticky re: the issue of "saving bandwidth" then I will contact her myself post haste! How can you sit there and state that you were not aware there was such a problem with bandwidth space when you post to "G" Posters to "snip" their posts. Of course, you don't say that to any of your fellow NG's do you? Sounds like discrimination is alive and well in your camp!

Also, please don't forget about Infractions. Your Lack of Civilty to Socaldiva and I can be documented in your posts to both of us!

06-19-2006, 03:13 PM
Freshwater

Links Only

Please provide your link and a BRIEF discussion of its' contents for easier reference.

Thank you

FH20

I think that the word BRIEF is self-explanatory. BRIEF doesn't mean posting 3/4 of the Link or even 1/2 of it for that matter. Thank you for your cooperation! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[sassylassy]

Uh huh. If Freshwater doesn't post a sticky re: the issue of "saving bandwidth" then I will contact her myself post haste! How can you sit there and state that you were not aware there was such a problem with bandwidth space when you post to "G" Posters to "snip" their posts. Of course, you don't say that to any of your fellow NG's do you? Sounds like discrimination is alive and well in your camp!

Also, please don't forget about Infractions. Your Lack of Civilty to Socaldiva and I can be documented in your posts to both of us!



I think that the word BRIEF is self-explanatory. BRIEF doesn't mean posting 3/4 of the Link or even 1/2 of it for that matter. Thank you for your cooperation! :rolleyes:


JMO and MOO!!


I have already contacted Freshwater about your concern with bandwidth
& Freshwater told me there is NO problem with bandwidth space here!!!!

I would have suggested checking the facts first before correcting everyone else!

I am waitting for Freshwaters permission to post the pm that was sent to me
so that everyone can read it & this issue can finally be put to rest.

and again, the rest of your post is not worth commenting on.

Thanks again for you concern :seeya:

[martin II]

[QUOTE=socaldiva;8807912]snip--Ummm...I guess being that you are posting to Martin, you didn't notice that he's been BANNED.

Yes I did notice Martin & Doc have been banned- but I dont know why
I missed all the action-

anyways ----I'm sure they will back soon :cool:

sassy lassy

Keep posting your most informative post.all of it.

I have wondered why freds lawyers did not know the LA FEDERAL judge would not have jurisdiction on their case. Is it that they do not know how to file a suit in any state than Califirnia?

MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Oh I just thought since you mentioned it you wanted to discuss it....:shrug:

anyways ....

sassy
is that socal talking about people being BANNED??
martin II

[sassylassy]

sassy
is that socal talking about people being BANNED??
martin II


well ..welcome back. I guess you werent banned after all :seeya:

[sassylassy]

oj update::read:

Even if he wasn't welcome in most Super Week parties, disgraced football great O.J. Simpson joined the hoopla in Miami Beach Friday night.

The Juice briefly appeared at a poolside affair at the Ritz-Carlton for the 10th anniversary of former Green Bay PackerDesmond Howard's Super Bowl MVP performance.

On his way out, the accused killer of two was surrounded by a flock of barely dressed beauties. A giant stogie in his puss, he did take a break from chatting them up to talk with Page Two.

The New York Times published a story Saturday based on the transcript of a videotaped interview that Kendall resident Simpson conducted withJudith Regan, publisher of his recently nixed book, If I Did It.

According to the Times, the interview was designed to create a buzz for the book, in which Simpson — who was acquitted — hypothetically talks about the 1994 murders. But the book was withdrawn from stores late last year under public outcry over his benefiting from it. Regan was axed. And the interview stayed under wraps.

But Simpson's chilling words came to light in the newspaper: "I remember I grabbed the knife," he reportedly told Regan.

Aware early that the Times was putting out its story, Simpson told Page Two he also told Regan: "I hope this book never comes out."

Why?

"It made it look too much like an admission of guilt," Simpson said. "I wasn't happy with the hypothetical paragraphs. A ghost writer wrote the whole thing, and I OK'd it. But there were a lot of inaccuracies about the case and about how I would have done things. But I figure I'd let it go since I didn't kill anyone."

Asked if the public outcry surprised him, Simpson said: "I don't care. I got paid just the same."

Asked how much, a 5-foot-tall handler told Simpson to keep quiet, and they disappeared in the former Buffalo Bill's Lincoln Navigator.


If all the celebrities who just arrived in SoFla actually make it to today's game, there had better be a red carpet in front of Dolphin Stadium

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/local_news/epaper/2007/02/04/a2a_jose_col_0204.html

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I have already contacted Freshwater about your concern with bandwidth
& Freshwater told me there is NO problem with bandwidth space here!!!!

I would have suggested checking the facts first before correcting everyone else!



Then what was your reasoning for asking Littlebit to snip her posts????? Can't have it both ways.

[2L8 4A D8]

I have already contacted Freshwater about your concern with bandwidth
& Freshwater told me there is NO problem with bandwidth space here!!!!

I would have suggested checking the facts first before correcting everyone else!

I am waitting for Freshwaters permission to post the pm that was sent to me
so that everyone can read it & this issue can finally be put to rest.

and again, the rest of your post is not worth commenting on.

Thanks again for you concern :seeya:

Firstly, I don't believe a word that you say. Secondly, you should have requested Freshwater to put up a Sticky re: Bandwidth. What a joke! You think that she is going to give her permission to you to post a PM? I don't think so! Bandwidth is Bandwidth. Posting a Link and then posting the actual Link is another matter. I don't go into any of the NG's Links anyway, but I certainly don't want to see them plastered all over the Threads just because "this is how you like to do it!" All of your Posts aren't worth commenting on, but unfortunately sometimes we have to! :rolleyes: Ugh!

I will contact Freshwater myself to see what she has to say! Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Various titles are given to posters based on the level of post made by them.

question:

Does a poster automatically receive status or authority to give direction to others based on the level (NUMBER)of post they have made?

example: does a poster with 9,000 post have any more status or rights than a poster with 7 post?

When i first started posting here i was told ALL posters have equal status regardless of the number of post or the little title given.

martin II

[martin II]

oj update::read:

Even if he wasn't welcome in most Super Week parties, disgraced football great O.J. Simpson joined the hoopla in Miami Beach Friday night.

The Juice briefly appeared at a poolside affair at the Ritz-Carlton for the 10th anniversary of former Green Bay PackerDesmond Howard's Super Bowl MVP performance.

On his way out, the accused killer of two was surrounded by a flock of barely dressed beauties. A giant stogie in his puss, he did take a break from chatting them up to talk with Page Two.

The New York Times published a story Saturday based on the transcript of a videotaped interview that Kendall resident Simpson conducted withJudith Regan, publisher of his recently nixed book, If I Did It.

According to the Times, the interview was designed to create a buzz for the book, in which Simpson — who was acquitted — hypothetically talks about the 1994 murders. But the book was withdrawn from stores late last year under public outcry over his benefiting from it. Regan was axed. And the interview stayed under wraps.

But Simpson's chilling words came to light in the newspaper: "I remember I grabbed the knife," he reportedly told Regan.

Aware early that the Times was putting out its story, Simpson told Page Two he also told Regan: "I hope this book never comes out."

Why?

"It made it look too much like an admission of guilt," Simpson said. "I wasn't happy with the hypothetical paragraphs. A ghost writer wrote the whole thing, and I OK'd it. But there were a lot of inaccuracies about the case and about how I would have done things. But I figure I'd let it go since I didn't kill anyone."

Asked if the public outcry surprised him, Simpson said: "I don't care. I got paid just the same."

Asked how much, a 5-foot-tall handler told Simpson to keep quiet, and they disappeared in the former Buffalo Bill's Lincoln Navigator.


If all the celebrities who just arrived in SoFla actually make it to today's game, there had better be a red carpet in front of Dolphin Stadium

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/local_news/epaper/2007/02/04/a2a_jose_col_0204.html

sassy thanks for your post.

i guess all the other people at the game or in Miami have never been accused of a serious crime and found not guilty.
martin II

[martin II]

I agree, I said that before the amount of money being wasted on lawyers is sad (imo of course) I wonder why they would have even allowed Fred to go ahead with this lawsuit if this wasnt even in their jurisdiction..

I am sure someone would have known that ahead of time..no?:shrug:

sassy
in many cases the lawyers agree to a 60/40 split on any money received if they win the case. some lawyers are willing to gamble on a win, that is if they have few customers willing to put up a retainer. I think freds lawyers may have been expecting ALL judges in california to rule against oj even if there was no jurisdiction.
martin II

[martin II]

I meant the word "benefit" was probably a poor choice. The Goldmans have and have had benfactors who have stepped up to the plate directly and indirectly to contribute to their quest to make the murderer pay. So maybe 'benefit' is the word. The Goldmans have benefited from the generosity of their benefactors. And actually, they did win legally in the civil suit. IMO

weezer
do you know who these "benefactors" who have been so generous to fred
are?

martin II

[weezer]

sassy
in many cases the lawyers agree to a 60/40 split on any money received if they win the case. some lawyers are willing to gamble on a win, that is if they have few customers willing to put up a retainer. I think freds lawyers may have been expecting ALL judges in california to rule against oj even if there was no jurisdiction.
martin II

and sometimes, it's a matter of one court declaring whether or not there is jurisdiction before the suit can be filed somewhere else. It would have seemed that since the contract and monies were in california, that would have been the first logical step. IMO

[weezer]

weezer
do you know who these "benefactors" who have been so generous to fred
are?

martin II

I've read a few names over the years but didn't keep track -- I also don't know who orenthal's benefactors are.

[martin II]

oj update::read:

Even if he wasn't welcome in most Super Week parties, disgraced football great O.J. Simpson joined the hoopla in Miami Beach Friday night.

The Juice briefly appeared at a poolside affair at the Ritz-Carlton for the 10th anniversary of former Green Bay PackerDesmond Howard's Super Bowl MVP performance.

On his way out, the accused killer of two was surrounded by a flock of barely dressed beauties. A giant stogie in his puss, he did take a break from chatting them up to talk with Page Two.

The New York Times published a story Saturday based on the transcript of a videotaped interview that Kendall resident Simpson conducted withJudith Regan, publisher of his recently nixed book, If I Did It.

According to the Times, the interview was designed to create a buzz for the book, in which Simpson — who was acquitted — hypothetically talks about the 1994 murders. But the book was withdrawn from stores late last year under public outcry over his benefiting from it. Regan was axed. And the interview stayed under wraps.

But Simpson's chilling words came to light in the newspaper: "I remember I grabbed the knife," he reportedly told Regan.

Aware early that the Times was putting out its story, Simpson told Page Two he also told Regan: "I hope this book never comes out."

Why?

"It made it look too much like an admission of guilt," Simpson said. "I wasn't happy with the hypothetical paragraphs. A ghost writer wrote the whole thing, and I OK'd it. But there were a lot of inaccuracies about the case and about how I would have done things. But I figure I'd let it go since I didn't kill anyone."

Asked if the public outcry surprised him, Simpson said: "I don't care. I got paid just the same."

Asked how much, a 5-foot-tall handler told Simpson to keep quiet, and they disappeared in the former Buffalo Bill's Lincoln Navigator.


If all the celebrities who just arrived in SoFla actually make it to today's game, there had better be a red carpet in front of Dolphin Stadium

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/local_news/epaper/2007/02/04/a2a_jose_col_0204.html

sassy
the moderator has posted on the issue of band width on another thread.
So there should be NO MORE complaints from some telling posters how much they CAN post. Thats one argumernt out of the way.
sorry 2l.
martin II

[weezer]

sassy
the moderator has posted on the issue of band width on another thread.
So there should be NO MORE complaints from some telling posters how much they CAN post. Thats one argumernt out of the way.
sorry 2l.
martin II

trying to antagonize the other posters again?

[martin II]

I've read a few names over the years but didn't keep track -- I also don't know who orenthal's benefactors are.

wezer
so these 'BENEFACTORS" may be something you think is true?

I think oj is paying his own legal fees from his cash box ( he has more since he got paid for that non book) since no lawyer has said he is working free that i have heard of.
martin II

[martin II]

trying to antagonize the other posters again?

weezer
not at all. Just informing posters here that the moderator has posted important information on this issue on another thread. Everyone needs to be informed on this issue since some complain so much about this.
martin II

[martin II]

and sometimes, it's a matter of one court declaring whether or not there is jurisdiction before the suit can be filed somewhere else. It would have seemed that since the contract and monies were in california, that would have been the first logical step. IMO

weezer
or if the lawyers were experienced in federal jurisdiction and had the facts about the case transaction, they would have known they were filling in the wrong court.
martin II

[martin II]

I really don't want to upset any G with this next post but did you really think that the Goldmans were going to win on this issue? Lets face it, when it comes to money, the rich have gotten laws on the book to protect money.

Do any of you believe that OJ Simpson was the first and only person who benefit from such laws? Do you think that the law protecting pensions has only been on the books since the Simpson case?

And lets be real, how would any of us feel if our pensions were fair game? How many of us would pay for a judgement first rather then pay bills that helped our families? There is no way would I ever put a judgement before that of my family. I would be looking for every way to ensure that it would be my chidren who benefited from any money I made rather then a judgement.


G's, one last question, if OJ Simpson went on TV and said he had the judgement and wanted to pay the Goldmans right there and then, do any of you think they would accept it?

limakey
thanks for your post.
Based on some post here there may be several posters here that would pay
the judgement and forget about supporting their famalies so that they could say thet did the right thing(as far as the court order is concerned). At least that is my assessment of what some would do based on what they say oj should do.
martin II

[martin II]

I think they did with the time line.

little bit

Correct.
there were 5-6 different witnesses that heard the dog bark at different times.
Based on which witness one belives, one can guess at the time line and when the murders happened.

However it does seem that the whole time line is based on when a dog was barking and for what reason he was barking.?
imo
martin II

[martin II]

I have been reading some posts on the subject of fraud. I was thinking that he may go to jail for that. I suppose that Goldman will file another lawsuit. I guess in Florida.

littlebit

since oj has no legal responsibility to inform fred when he(oj) gets money and
since fred did not know of the money until it was spent, where is the fraud.?

martin II

[William Anthony]

sassy
in many cases the lawyers agree to a 60/40 split on any money received if they win the case. some lawyers are willing to gamble on a win, that is if they have few customers willing to put up a retainer. I think freds lawyers may have been expecting ALL judges in california to rule against oj even if there was no jurisdiction.
martin II

Martin

Happy to see you back. The issue of jurisdiction concerns the power to hear a case. I thought the Goldmans had a better chance in Federal Court, due to the concept of diversity of citizenship. Because Simpson is a resident of Florida, I do not see how California can have any jurisdiction over him.

[martin II]

Martin

Happy to see you back. The issue of jurisdiction concerns the power to hear a case. I thought the Goldmans had a better chance in Federal Court, due to the concept of diversity of citizenship. Because Simpson is a resident of Florida, I do not see how California can have any jurisdiction over him.

william

this was my idea also. I am wondering if freds lawyers, from research, had a feeling that florida would be more difficult and therefore they went to the CA. Federal courts because of the concept you mentioned.
MARTIN ii

[William Anthony]

william

this was my idea also. I am wondering if freds lawyers, from research, had a feeling that florida would be more difficult and therefore they went to the CA. Federal courts because of the concept you mentioned.
MARTIN ii

I do not know what the lawyers were thinking. It was the same with the suit in the Holloway case. I do not know what the basis of the lawsuit is other than Goldman is seeking to get the money Simpson earned by the book, as part of the judgment. The Florida State court may have jurisdiction over Simpson, but the question that remains is, do they have the power to order him to pay a judgment entered against him by California. Did he accept the money on behalf of the estate for his children? I think, before he accepted any money, his lawyers looked into how he could protect it under Florida law.
The whole issue of freedom of speech, imho, arises in a Federal or State lawsuit.

I do not know what lawyers think sometimes. I, who cannot practice law, knew that the suit in the Holloway was doomed to fail. However, lawyers come up with creative and novel interpretations of the laws, which courts give credence. The reason why the N word came into the trial was because Bailey creatively made the argument that it was admissibel on the issue of the MF's credibility. Ulemen was arguing it from the aspect of relevancy. I remember the stunned looks on the prosecution's faces when Bailey argued for the admissibility of the tapes. If he is a drunk, I would still pick F Lee, if I wanted a good lawyer.

[martin II]

I do not know what the lawyers were thinking. It was the same with the suit in the Holloway case. I do not know what the basis of the lawsuit is other than Goldman is seeking to get the money Simpson earned by the book, as part of the judgment. The Florida State court may have jurisdiction over Simpson, but the question that remains is, do they have the power to order him to pay a judgment entered against him by California. Did he accept the money on behalf of the estate for his children? I think, before he accepted any money, his lawyers looked into how he could protect it under Florida law.
The whole issue of freedom of speech, imho, arises in a Federal or State lawsuit.

I do not know what lawyers think sometimes. I, who cannot practice law, knew that the suit in the Holloway was doomed to fail. However, lawyers come up with creative and novel interpretations of the laws, which courts give credence. The reason why the N word came into the trial was because Bailey creatively made the argument that it was admissibel on the issue of the MF's credibility. Ulemen was arguing it from the aspect of relevancy. I remember the stunned looks on the prosecution's faces when Bailey argued for the admissibility of the tapes. If he is a drunk, I would still pick F Lee, if I wanted a good lawyer.

william
thanks
the hollaway case was doomed as it tried to get the judge to take jurisdiction on something that may have happened in another country by citizens of that country. imo

we will see what happens in florida.

F L Bailey is still one of the great lawyers. Knows how to trap someone not telling the truth and knows how to get what he needs from a witness. Ask mark furhman.
martin II

[weezer]

william
thanks
the hollaway case was doomed as it tried to get the judge to take jurisdiction on something that may have happened in another country by citizens of that country. imo

we will see what happens in florida.

F L Bailey is still one of the great lawyers. Knows how to trap someone not telling the truth and knows how to get what he needs from a witness. Ask mark furhman.
martin II

where's he practicing law now? Didn't Florida take his license for stealing from a client?

[martin II]

where's he practicing law now? Didn't Florida take his license for stealing from a client?

i am not sure but i think he was given that money after a court battle.

since you seem to know inform me
martin II

[martin II]

weezer
baily was disbared in 2001 for at least 5 years. don't know if he is practing now or not.
But he is still one of the most skilled lawyers in the country.
martin II

[William Anthony]

i am not sure but i think he was given that money after a court battle.

since you seem to know inform me
martin II

Martin,

Here is a link that I have found.

http://premierespeakers.com/f_lee_bailey

[martin II]

Martin,

Here is a link that I have found.

http://premierespeakers.com/f_lee_bailey

william
thanks
this may be better that standing before the bench. He must be getting a hugh sum from these speaking engagements.

martin II

[martin II]

I will ask freshwater to address this issue that U & Diva are so "concerned" about...I myself was not aware there was such a problem w/ bandwidth space! :shrug:

and the rest of your post isnt worth commenting on.

sassy

As i see it, there seems to be a concerted effort afloat to attack you about
simply nothing. Poeple looking to fight. Attacking ng relentlessly and then crying I AM OFFENDED BY YOUR POST TO ME. Is getting old and is also so transparant. imo
martin II

[sassylassy]

Firstly, I don't believe a word that you say. Secondly, you should have requested Freshwater to put up a Sticky re: Bandwidth. What a joke! You think that she is going to give her permission to you to post a PM? I don't think so! Bandwidth is Bandwidth. Posting a Link and then posting the actual Link is another matter. I don't go into any of the NG's Links anyway, but I certainly don't want to see them plastered all over the Threads just because "this is how you like to do it!" All of your Posts aren't worth commenting on, but unfortunately sometimes we have to! :rolleyes: Ugh!

I will contact Freshwater myself to see what she has to say! Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!

umm dare I say I was right?!;)

BTW I did suggest that freshwater post a note about the bandwidth, did you see it yet?.....

so now you & social dont need to be so concerned about bandwidth space :beer:

Thanks again..

[littlebit]

littlebit

since oj has no legal responsibility to inform fred when he(oj) gets money and
since fred did not know of the money until it was spent, where is the fraud.?

martin II

I thought he had the responsibility to pay the judgment out of the money he gets. I do not know if it is fraud. There seems to be something wrong. Maybe, concealment.

[sassylassy]

sassy

As i see it, there seems to be a concerted effort afloat to attack you about
simply nothing. Poeple looking to fight. Attacking ng relentlessly and then crying I AM OFFENDED BY YOUR POST TO ME. Is getting old and is also so transparant. imo
martin II


Hi Martin

yes I see it too, and so does eveyone else!

anyways its not worth commenting on, I am not taking the bait & getting into personal attacks with posters- I am much to classy for that..LOL

[martin II]

I know that this is alittle off base but I have been wondering about this. So...
Nicole had a very large dog. The dog’s bloody prints were found all around the bodies. If a stranger were attacking his master the dog would have bitten them. The dog would have had a knife wound too from trying to fight someone off. No one was found to have went to the emergency room with dog bites….so someone the dog knew must have killed them! Who took the dog?

janetlynn

hi
I believe the dog was up stairs in the kids room maby half sleep when nicole went out the front door to the gate. it is my belief that the dog did not come out the front door until after the muders were done and the killers had left.
imo
martin II

[weezer]

I thought he had the responsibility to pay the judgment out of the money he gets. I do not know if it is fraud. There seems to be something wrong. Maybe, concealment.

well, there's that and then of course, lack of character plays a big role in orenthal's life. IMO

[William Anthony]

Hi Martin

yes I see it too, and so does eveyone else!

anyways its not worth commenting on, I am not taking the bait & getting into personal attacks with posters- I am much to classy for that..LOL


Classy Sassy Lassy,

You certainly are.:)

[William Anthony]

I thought he had the responsibility to pay the judgment out of the money he gets. I do not know if it is fraud. There seems to be something wrong. Maybe, concealment.

He may not have to conceal anything, depending on how the money was used. I would like to know, if he did set up a trust for his children, does he have the authority to act on behalf of the trust.

[martin II]

I thought he had the responsibility to pay the judgment out of the money he gets. I do not know if it is fraud. There seems to be something wrong. Maybe, concealment.

hi little bit

I have read someplace previously that about two thrids of the civil judgements in this country are never paid by defendants.I have no link but one can google the subject. To me this means that there is a hole in the system that allows most people to ignore these civil judgements. I think most know this.

He does not have any responsibility to tell TIN CUP FRED anything.I have no idea as to where tin cup found these lawyers, but they have batted ZERO over 12 years. So i don't know who is ZOOMING WHO.

I think oj is doing what most posters here would do if they had a 33 million $ money judgement issued against them. IGNORE THE JUDGEMENT, HIDE THEIR MONEY and DON'T TELL THE JUDGEMENT HOLDER ZIP.

Especially if they had been found not guilty by a criminal trial jury.
I think two thirds of the public ignore the civil trial judgements because they understand that a civil trial is all about money. imo
martin II

[martin II]

well, there's that and then of course, lack of character plays a big role in orenthal's life. IMO

weezer
a judgement is a bill one is on tap for just like anyother bill. say a visa card that visa got a judgement against a person for unpaid debt.

If you want to pay the judgement you can. otherwise if visa cannot find your money to inforce the judgement it will remain unpaid until they do or write it off at some time.

I assume you may be suggesting that the two thirds of the people that don't pay civil judgements lack character.imo
martin II

[William Anthony]

hi little bit

I have read someplace previously that about two thrids of the civil judgements in this country are never paid by defendants.I have no link but one can google the subject. To me this means that there is a hole in the system that allows most people to ignore these civil judgements. I think most know this.

He does not have any responsibility to tell TIN CUP FRED anything.I have no idea as to where tin cup found these lawyers, but they have batted ZERO over 12 years. So i don't know who is ZOOMING WHO.

I think oj is doing what most posters here would do if they had a 33 million $ money judgement issued against them. IGNORE THE JUDGEMENT, HIDE THEIR MONEY and DON'T TELL THE JUDGEMENT HOLDER ZIP.

Especially if they had been found not guilty by a criminal trial jury.
I think two thirds of the public ignore the civil trial judgements because they understand that a civil trial is all about money. imo
martin II

I am in agreement with your posts as to what most people would do. I do believe that Goldman got the judgment executed. The problem is that California has no authority over Florida. I do not know whether or not he would have to conceal his money under those circumstances. This may be why the lawyers went to a federal court, hoping the federal court would mandate him to pay the judgment.

[martin II]

Martin,

Here is a link that I have found.

http://premierespeakers.com/f_lee_bailey

weezer

Bailey showed great skill in asking furhman those questions. Some white people did not understand what was happening in the court room as these questions were asked and asnwered by furhman. But it was very effective with the jury.

martin II

[bobaugust]

F L Bailey is still one of the great lawyers. Knows how to trap someone not telling the truth and knows how to get what he needs from a witness. Ask mark furhman.
martin II

Yes, Bailey was very skilled at dishonest tactics. Taking testimony out of context and asking compound questions. The only people he fooled into believing that he trapped Fuhrman are you and William. Cochran wasn't fooled and Bailey's foolishness was never included in his closing arguments.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Yes, Bailey was very skilled at dishonest tactics. Taking testimony out of context and asking compound questions. The only people he fooled into believing that he trapped Fuhrman are you and William. Cochran wasn't fooled and Bailey's foolishness was never included in his closing arguments.

bobaugust

You have stated in another post that the MF outsmared himself. I believe Bailey outsmarted him by trapping him. There was no need for JC to include that in his closing, as the jury had seen the MF in his true colors, imho.

[bobaugust]

You have stated in another post that the MF outsmared himself. I believe Bailey outsmarted him by trapping him. There was no need for JC to include that in his closing, as the jury had seen the MF in his true colors, imho.

There was no reason because it was all bull crap. Cochran knew that there wasn't two gloves under the plant at Bundy, only you and evidently martin can't seem to grasp the reality of that fact.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There was no reason because it was all bull crap. Cochran knew that there wasn't two gloves under the plant at Bundy, only you and evidently martin can't seem to grasp the reality of that fact.

bobaugust

There was no reason, imho, because the jury realized that the MF had been brought out of the darkness into the vivid and global light of the courtroom. I thank you for recognizing JC's brilliance. I am learning now not to over try a case. This was what he demonstrated. The point was made and he moved on.

[martin II]

Yes, Bailey was very skilled at dishonest tactics. Taking testimony out of context and asking compound questions. The only people he fooled into believing that he trapped Fuhrman are you and William. Cochran wasn't fooled and Bailey's foolishness was never included in his closing arguments.

bobaugust

BOB

this may be what you have failed to understand about Baileys questions to you HERO Furhman. I do understand why you would defend this guy to the end and i do not hold it against you.


bailey furhman

Can you give me an example of how a juror's race could help his or her understanding of the facts of the case?

A classic example of how race improved the jury's deliberations about the credibility of witnesses occurred during F. Lee Bailey's cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman, when Mr. Fuhrman testified for the prosecution. Bailey's cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman asked several critical questions, whose answers led the African American jurors to appreciate long before white America that Fuhrman was lying about his racist past.

Bailey asked Mark Fuhrman on cross-examination, "Do you care if people believe mistakenly that you have racist beliefs?" And Fuhrman said matter-of-factly, "No, I don't care." "Do you care that people mistakenly believe that you are willing to frame an innocent man by planting incriminating evidence against him?" And Fuhrman reddened and showed a sense of annoyance and anger and replied, "Yes, that matters to me." Two African American jurors immediately looked at each other with disgust, because they understood immediately that those differing answers reflected the fact that Fuhrman probably was a racist. They didn't need the tapes. White America and perhaps the one white juror needed to hear those tapes to understand that Mr. Fuhrman was lying on the stand, but the African American jurors already knew. ...

So white America and black America saw that piece of evidence very differently?

White America's reaction to F. Lee Bailey's cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman was "Where's the beef?" Big letdown. He hadn't touched his credibility. Yet in the courtroom, if one was looking at the African American jurors' reactions to some of Mr. Fuhrman's questions and answers to Bailey's questions, one saw that African American jurors had already concluded that Mark Fuhrman was lying on the stand and was a racist by his different answers.

For white America and for the one white juror on the jury panel, it took the tapes to demonstrate Fuhrman's racism, but Bailey's cross-examination was effective at the very moment it was made for those African American jurors. His questions, Fuhrman's answers, led the jurors to believe he was lying long before the tapes were presented in evidence.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/arenella.html

martin II

[martin II]

There was no reason, imho, because the jury realized that the MF had been brought out of the darkness into the vivid and global light of the courtroom. I thank you for recognizing JC's brilliance. I am learning now not to over try a case. This was what he demonstrated. The point was made and he moved on.

william
i have found that jc did that a lot in the trial. He knew what points he wanted the jury to hear. He had no reason to drag every point out to infinity as the rposecution did.
martin II

[martin II]

There was no reason because it was all bull crap. Cochran knew that there wasn't two gloves under the plant at Bundy, only you and evidently martin can't seem to grasp the reality of that fact.

bobaugust

bob
The more you post the more i come to realize that you may have missed the dynamics of the trial.
martin II

[bobaugust]

There was no reason, imho, because the jury realized that the MF had been brought out of the darkness into the vivid and global light of the courtroom. I thank you for recognizing JC's brilliance. I am learning now not to over try a case. This was what he demonstrated. The point was made and he moved on.

Yes I see the brilliance in that tactic just like other things Cochran didn't say. In his opening statement Cochran claimed that Rosa Lopez saw Simpson's Bronco parked on Rockingham at 10:25 when Park didn't see it. When Lopez testified she said the last time she saw the Bronco parked on Rockingham was just after 10:00 not 10:25. Not only did Cochran not call Lopez to testify in front of the jury he never made that claim again.

So by not saying anything about that is the same thing as not saying anything about Bailey's false insinuation that Fuhrman saw two gloves under the plant, right? Brilliant tactics for this brilliant jury. Make false claims and then never talk about them again means this brilliant jury believed them to be true. That's brilliant.

You should add that to your book of tricks along with taking testimony out of context and asking compound questions. You will make a fine lawyer, William, especially if you ever argue a case in front of a jury as brilliant as the Simpson criminal trial jury was. Funny.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

william
i have found that jc did that a lot in the trial. He knew what points he wanted the jury to hear. He had no reason to drag every point out to infinity as the rposecution did.
martin II

It sometimes makes the jury think they are ignorantif you constantly repeat the evidence. I wonder if the prosecution, like some have stated on this board, felt the jury was ignorant. I think, if they did, they sorely underestimated the jury.

[weezer]

weezer
a judgement is a bill one is on tap for just like anyother bill. say a visa card that visa got a judgement against a person for unpaid debt.

If you want to pay the judgement you can. otherwise if visa cannot find your money to inforce the judgement it will remain unpaid until they do or write it off at some time.

I assume you may be suggesting that the two thirds of the people that don't pay civil judgements lack character.imo
martin II

You mean like orenthal's cable bill and american express that there are outstanding judgments to collect because he doesn't pay his bills?

Yes, I am suggesting that the two thirds of people that don't pay civil judgments lack character.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8810854]You mean like orenthal's cable bill and american express that there are outstanding judgments to collect because he doesn't pay his bills?

Yes, I am suggesting that the two thirds of people that don't pay civil judgments lack character.[/QUOTE

weezer

Have you ever considered that the two thirds may consider your suggestion pure nonsense as they may have no intention to abandon the support of their famalies to pay a civil trial judgement.

I wonder if people that pass judgement on others on this issue would actually
taks money from their famalies to pay a creditor say$33,000,000.00 and just let their family go to hell just so they can say they paid their debt.
martin II

[weezer]

weezer

Bailey showed great skill in asking furhman those questions. Some white people did not understand what was happening in the court room as these questions were asked and asnwered by furhman. But it was very effective with the jury.

martin II

that's because 'some' white people had been playing by different rules..........

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8810854]You mean like orenthal's cable bill and american express that there are outstanding judgments to collect because he doesn't pay his bills?

Yes, I am suggesting that the two thirds of people that don't pay civil judgments lack character.[/QUOTE

weezer

Have you ever considered that the two thirds may consider your suggestion pure nonsense as they may have no intention to abandon the support of their famalies to pay a civil trial judgement.

I wonder if people that pass judgement on others on this issue would actually
taks money from their famalies to pay a creditor say$33,000,000.00 and just let their family go to hell just so they can say they paid their debt.
martin II


sounds like this is a concept you can't quite grasp -- my dear, dear martin -- some people actually live by the law and, yes, some people actually pay their bills.

[William Anthony]

that's because 'some' white people had been playing by different rules..........

The rules in America are theoretically the same for everyone. The difference, imho, is the manner in which the rules are enforced.

[weezer]

The rules in America are theoretically the same for everyone. The difference, imho, is the manner in which the rules are enforced.

that's what I thought but I've come to learn differently and I always thought it was a just and noble cause to fight and argue for those rules. The rules are not the same and I have changed too.

[William Anthony]

that's what I thought but I've come to learn differently and I always thought it was a just and noble cause to fight and argue for those rules. The rules are not the same and I have changed too.

Please, explain.

[martin II]

that's because 'some' white people had been playing by different rules..........

i may be in agreement with you but that statement requires much more explination!!!
martin II

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;8810866]


sounds like this is a concept you can't quite grasp -- my dear, dear martin -- some people actually live by the law and, yes, some people actually pay their bills.


weezer


I think most people pay their bills according to their ability to pay.

if a $33,000,000 judgement was issued against you next week and you had to give up your standard of living for your family would you give up your family standard of living and pay the $33,000,000 civil judgement. ????
martin II

[martin II]

that's because 'some' white people had been playing by different rules..........

are you referring to the KKK, white citizens council, or skinheads.?
martin II

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8810869]


weezer


I think most people pay their bills according to their ability to pay.

if a $33,000,000 judgement was issued against you next week and you had to give up your standard of living for your family would you give up your family standard of living and pay the $33,000,000 civil judgement. ????
martin II

Some of us in this society live by the law of our nation -- then we have a certain segment of our society that live by entitlement and believe they are above the law. orenthal was found liable for the brutal deaths of two human beings. orenthal was ordered by a court of law to pay for his actions.

[weezer]

are you referring to the KKK, white citizens council, or skinheads.?
martin II

no, actually, I was referring to a greater majority of white citizens who stood up to be counted in the war on prejudice. joke was on us. IMO

[martin II]

no, actually, I was referring to a greater majority of white citizens who stood up to be counted in the war on prejudice. joke was on us. IMO

WEEZER

All people that stand up against prejudice in this country are doing so for the good of all in the country and the country itself. Not just for one group of people. The joke is on people that do not fight against unfair treatment of any person.imo
example:
The civil rights movement in this country was for the benefit of all people. not just one group.

Now i don't understand what you mean by you have changed. Changed from what to what
martin II

[weezer]

WEEZER

All people that stand up against prejudice in this country are doing so for the good of all in the country and the country itself. Not just for one group of people. The joke is on people that do not fight against unfair treatment of any person.imo
example:
The civil rights movement in this country was for the benefit of all people. not just one group.

Now i don't understand what you mean by you have changed. Changed from what to what
martin II

don't you get it? that's the joke.

let's just say I don't march, carry signs or argue anymore.

[sassylassy]

[QUOTE=sassylassy;8807919]

sassy lassy

Keep posting your most informative post.all of it.

I have wondered why freds lawyers did not know the LA FEDERAL judge would not have jurisdiction on their case. Is it that they do not know how to file a suit in any state than Califirnia?

MARTIN ii

you would think the lawyers would have known this before hand?:read:

like really come on?:shrug:

what a waste of ppls time & money!

imo of course :)

[William Anthony]

don't you get it? that's the joke.

let's just say I don't march, carry signs or argue anymore.

The fact that racism and prejudice still exists is a reason to do something. Maybe not march, carry signs or argue but something to end it. I understand your disillusionment.

[weezer]

The fact that racism and prejudice still exists is a reason to do something. Maybe not march, carry signs or argue but something to end it. I understand your disillusionment.

you could not possibly understand my disillusionment....but's that's okay. I'm learning to live with it.

[martin II]

you could not possibly understand my disillusionment....but's that's okay. I'm learning to live with it.

weezer

I am not sure i understand what you are saying but i think that the oppressed, after seeing changes in some laws that gave the oppressed, including women, some basic rights, had reason to expect that equality would finally come to all and that the country would be better with these changes.

The people that faught and still carry on the fight for these rights understand that the country will never be well with this type cancer(prejudice) festering inside.

I am not sure what you mean by White people have been playing by one set of rules(or something like that) unless you are willing to give explination to your comment.

But some believe that if one is not part of the solution , then one is part of the problem. I am not saying this describes you at all as i can understand how one can have disillusionment over the lack of progress.

martin II

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;8810925]

Some of us in this society live by the law of our nation -- then we have a certain segment of our society that live by entitlement and believe they are above the law. orenthal was found liable for the brutal deaths of two human beings. orenthal was ordered by a court of law to pay for his actions.

weezer

The problem is, a more serious court of law told oj that he was not guilty as charged. Criminal court. I am sure he agreed with this and understood that
the system was not finished with him. So in the trial about money, not his freedom, he was found liable. The good thing for him and others that refuse to pay civil judgements is that they cannot be jailed for debt.imo jmo

martin II

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;8810925]

Some of us in this society live by the law of our nation -- then we have a certain segment of our society that live by entitlement and believe they are above the law. orenthal was found liable for the brutal deaths of two human beings. orenthal was ordered by a court of law to pay for his actions.

weezer
was oj ORDERED BY A COURT TO PAY or did that court approve a judgement in favor of tin cup. i am not sure.

martin II

[William Anthony]

you could not possibly understand my disillusionment....but's that's okay. I'm learning to live with it.

You were not alone in that struggle. Many lost loved ones in the battle for equality. This is the only war in which I am willing to participate. I do not fill myself with illusions that marching, rioting, and singing will overcome the problem. In a nation where law has evolved to a position of supremacy, the only way to effect a lasting change is through the law. Violence begets violence. Understanding, open-mindedness, tolerance and compromise begets change.

[William Anthony]

don't you get it? that's the joke.

let's just say I don't march, carry signs or argue anymore.

What is the joke? Do you really think that Blacks have made any significant advances? Are you saying that, because Blacks have made no significcant advances, the joke is on those who protested? Are you saying that your protests had no effect on the White status quo? Are you saying that your protests had no effect on Blacks who remain racists?

[socaldiva]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8810947]

weezer
was oj ORDERED BY A COURT TO PAY or did that court approve a judgement in favor of tin cup. i am not sure.

martin II

You refer to the father of the murder victim as "tin cup"??? How revolting.

[weezer]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8810947]
. . .a more serious court. . .

do you have any idea how stupid this makes you sound? a court of law is a court of law. Judgments handed down by a court (regardless of the degree) are the same.

[martin II]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=martin II;8811152]

do you have any idea how stupid this makes you sound? a court of law is a court of law. Judgments handed down by a court (regardless of the degree) are the same.




weezer

That may be how you see it but going to jail is a much more serious event than having a money trial court telling you to pay some money to someone because they are pissed that you were not convicted in a criminal court and your freedom taken away.

you need to stop calling me stupid or any other name.

I think you are confused so maby you can clear your previous post up.

was oj ORDERED BY A COURT TO PAY or did that court approve a judgement in favor of tin cup. i am not sure.

martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8811264]*Snipped*
was oj ORDERED BY A COURT TO PAY or did that court approve a judgement in favor of tin cup.

poor, sad little martin -- always first in line to bash the victims and/or the families.

[martin II]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=martin II;8811294]

poor, sad little martin -- always first in line to bash the victims and/or the families.

weezer

I have asked you to stop referring to me using negative adjectives.

martin II

[martin II]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=martin II;8811294]

poor, sad little martin -- always first in line to bash the victims and/or the families.

posting links and facts about fred , the browns or the victims IS NOT BASHING. You may not like what is said in testimony, like some of CORAS testimony, but that is TESTIMONY.

martin II

[martin II]

don't you get it? that's the joke.

let's just say I don't march, carry signs or argue anymore.

weezer

if you believe that womens issues and other issues of fairness for some citizens is not worthy of your speaking out for, them so be it. Others will carry on the fight. imo
martin II

[martin II]

that's because 'some' white people had been playing by different rules..........



weezer

here is some comments about your idea that some white people had been playing by different rules-----

FRONTLINE PBS

Broke down how?

"Well, it broke down because O.J. refused to follow suit, and black America refused to follow the script, and white America then saw that all bets were off.

O.J. refused to follow through because he claimed his blackness again in a way that was troubling to many white Americans: "Wait a minute, O.J. You haven't talked about blackness in our circles for years, indeed for decades. You've never made us feel uncomfortable about the issue of race. All of a sudden now you're claiming your allegiance to black people. You're identifying publicly with black people."

Black people themselves had to squeeze and squirm. They had to re-inscribe O.J. into the black narrative. They had to baptize him again into the community; they had to accept him. Black people are typically, if you're willing to say you're sorry, always [willing to welcome you back] with open arms: "Come on back home, Michael Jackson. Come on back home, Kobe Bryant. Come on back home, O.J. Simpson."

And then white America said: "Well, wait a minute. We had granted you honorary status, which means you have to play by our rules. You have to accept the reality that race doesn't exist. But now you're saying it exists. You have to accept the reality that race no longer is hugely significant, and it no longer rules America. But now you're saying it does. Well, if you say it does, then we're going to go back to our ways as well." All bets were off with O.J.'s acquittal."
MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8811306]*Snipped*

posting links and facts about fred , the browns or the victims IS NOT BASHING.

I consider calling Fred Goldman "tin cup" BASHING!

[2L8 4A D8]

You refer to the father of the murder victim as "tin cup"??? How revolting.


*Snipped*

weezer

you need to stop calling me stupid or any other name.

martin II


*Snipped*

poor, sad little martin -- always first in line to bash the victims and/or the families.


*Snipped*

posting links and facts about fred , the browns or the victims IS NOT BASHING.

*Snipped*

martin II

Originally Posted by socaldiva
I consider calling Fred Goldman "tin cup" BASHING!
This is laughable! Calling Fred Goldman "tin cup" IS NOT BASHING to you? "Maby" if you started showing some respect for the victims and the victims' families, then you wouldn't be receiving the above-referenced comments from other Posters!

Sorry if the truth hurts and if the shoe fits...! :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=martin II;8811152]

do you have any idea how stupid this makes you sound? a court of law is a court of law. Judgments handed down by a court (regardless of the degree) are the same.


weeze
Obviously you need some assistance.

A criminal court trial is considered the more serious venue for a defendant as it involves the possibility of his freedom being taken away and therefore a more serious standard of proof is REQUIRED.
A civil trial is to try to attatch some money payment for a deed if found liable
and there for the standard is much lower or serious.

considering your remarks i can easily see why your post sound so confused
and informed.
I hope you have been helped.
martinII

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*[QUOTE=martin II;8811152]

do you have any idea how stupid this makes you sound? a court of law is a court of law. Judgments handed down by a court (regardless of the degree) are the same.

If you would be so kind, could you answer this posts?

"What is the joke? Do you really think that Blacks have made any significant advances? Are you saying that, because Blacks have made no significcant advances, the joke is on those who protested? Are you saying that your protests had no effect on the White status quo? Are you saying that your protests had no effect on Blacks who remain racists?"
__________________
Doc Holiday

I am really interested in discovering your frame of reference, so that I can then post to you in a manner that may lead us to some semblance of agreement on certain aspects of the trial. Thank you. Your anticipated cooperation and rapid response will be greatly appreciated.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8811264]*Snipped*


weeze
Obviously you need some assistance.

A criminal court trial is considered the more serious venue for a defendant as it involves the possibility of his freedom being taken away and therefore a more serious standard of proof is REQUIRED.
A civil trial is to try to attatch some money payment for a deed if found liable
and there for the standard is much lower or serious.

considering your remarks i can easily see why your post sound so confused
and informed.
I hope you have been helped.
martinII\

typo
should be uninformed not informed.

[martin II]

All

I took this from a larger post above from a frontline interview.

Are there any comments about this subject as it relates to why some whites opinion about race were formed as they were. Or any comments?
martin II

And then white America said: "Well, wait a minute. We had granted you honorary status, which means you have to play by our rules. You have to accept the reality that race doesn't exist. But now you're saying it exists. You have to accept the reality that race no longer is hugely significant, and it no longer rules America. But now you're saying it does. Well, if you say it does, then we're going to go back to our ways as well." All bets were off with O.J.'s acquittal."
MARTIN ii

[Kate Sachel]

All

I took this from a larger post above from a frontline interview.

Are there any comments about this subject as it relates to why some whites opinion about race were formed as they were. Or any comments?
martin II

And then white America said: "Well, wait a minute. We had granted you honorary status, which means you have to play by our rules. You have to accept the reality that race doesn't exist. But now you're saying it exists. You have to accept the reality that race no longer is hugely significant, and it no longer rules America. But now you're saying it does. Well, if you say it does, then we're going to go back to our ways as well." All bets were off with O.J.'s acquittal."
MARTIN ii


This is from the Dyson interview right? Yeah this is the same man who actually painted Blacks in a negative light when he was asked the question:

"Did the African Americans rejoicing at OJ's acquittal really believe he was innocent?

and responded with:

"Absolutely not. I don't think we should make the mistake of believing that black people who celebrated thought O.J. was innocent".

That concerns me. Dyson is openly stating that Blacks didn't really care whether OJ was innocent or guilty, but that they only cared that he got away with it. And that is demoralizing and dehumanizing to Black individuals ... and it serves only to prove the point of what many people have been saying all along.

Kate

[martin II]

Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II

All
Are there any comment about the SPECIFIC comments about why white america took the position they seems to take after the acquittal of OJ.
martin II



I took this from a larger post above from a frontline interview.

Are there any comments about this subject as it relates to why some whites opinion about race were formed as they were. Or any comments?
martin II

"And then white America said: "Well, wait a minute. We had granted you honorary status, which means you have to play by our rules. You have to accept the reality that race doesn't exist. But now you're saying it exists. You have to accept the reality that race no longer is hugely significant, and it no longer rules America. But now you're saying it does. Well, if you say it does, then we're going to go back to our ways as well." All bets were off with O.J.'s acquittal."

[William Anthony]

This is from the Dyson interview right? Yeah this is the same man who actually painted Blacks in a negative light when he was asked the question:

"Did the African Americans rejoicing at OJ's acquittal really believe he was innocent?

and responded with:

"Absolutely not. I don't think we should make the mistake of believing that black people who celebrated thought O.J. was innocent".

That concerns me. Dyson is openly stating that Blacks didn't really care whether OJ was innocent or guilty, but that they only cared that he got away with it. And that is demoralizing and dehumanizing to Black individuals ... and it serves only to prove the point of what many people have been saying all along.

Kate

Kinetic Kate

In any segment of a population or race you will most assuredly find those that are racists. That particular segment will rejoice anytime they feel that there is an event, which supports its agenda. The question is not what those people felt that had no process in the decision making of the trial, but, what were the thoughts of those that did.

As I have found you to be honest, open minded and willing to discuss matters in a respectful and civil manner, let me state that most jurors desire to hear a case that makes sense from the beginning to the end. The last time Simpson was seen on the night of the murders in Nicole's presence was at the recital. He was seen on videotape in a pleasant mood. He discussed her figure/appearance in the black dress with Kato. There is no evidence that Nicole and Simpson argued on that fatal night. Do you think that the prosecution offered a conclusive theory on why Simpson would have committed murder on that particular night, since Nicole and he had many prior arguments that did not end in a killing?