OJ Asked to Leave Restaurant

[Suzee10]

At least there are some people that will speak up and act.



LOUISVILLE, Ky.

The owner of an upscale steakhouse in Louisville said he asked O.J. Simpson to leave his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby because he is sickened by the attention Simpson still attracts.

"I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families," Jeff Ruby said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "The way he continues to torture the lives of those families ... with his behavior, attitude and conduct."

Simpson, an NFL Hall of Famer and Heisman Trophy winner, was found innocent in 1995 of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman but was found liable in a civil trial that followed.

Ruby - who owns restaurants in Cincinnati, Louisville and Belterra, Ind. - said Simpson, who was in town for the Derby on Saturday, came in with a group of about 12 Friday night and was seated at a table in the back. A customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing Simpson, Ruby said.

"I didn't want that experience in my restaurant," Ruby said, later adding that seeing Simpson get so much attention "makes me sick to my stomach."

He said he went to Simpson's table and said, "I'm not serving you." Ruby said when Simpson didn't respond, he repeated himself and left the room.

Ruby said Simpson soon came up to him and said he understood and would gather the rest of his party to leave.

Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, did not immediately return phone calls Tuesday night seeking comment.

"It was the first time since 1994 he has ever shown any class," Ruby said. "He showed it that night in the restaurant" by leaving quietly.

Ruby said after Simpson left, people in the restaurant started applauding him. He said he has received about 100 positive e-mails since the incident.

The walls of Ruby's restaurants are decorated with celebrity photos. A photo of Simpson and Ruby used to be on display, but Ruby said he took it down after the killings.

[socaldiva]

Thanks for posting this. I posted a link a bit ago, but I wasn't sure where to put it. I LOVE it that OJ got booted out of the restaurant :beer: I know I wouldn't be able to sit in the same establishment & eat my dinner with the double murderer sitting near by. How embarrassing for Orenthal to be out with 12 people & be forced to leave. Love it!!

[sassylassy]

Thanks for posting this. I posted a link a bit ago, but I wasn't sure where to put it. I LOVE it that OJ got booted out of the restaurant :beer: I know I wouldn't be able to sit in the same establishment & eat my dinner with the double murderer sitting near by. How embarrassing for Orenthal to be out with 12 people & be forced to leave. Love it!!

ummm maybe there should be a thread called OJ gossip!.....
where stuff like this can be housed!

((moo))

[socaldiva]

ummm maybe there should be a thread called OJ gossip!.....
where stuff like this can be housed!

((moo))

I don't see a problem with the name of the thread & I doubt you would either, if it favored Simpson.

I don't consider what Suze posted "gossip". She had a valid link to a news story, which is more than I can say for some here. Some seem to post whatever they please & refuse to back it up, even when asked multiple times.

[Suzee10]

ummm maybe there should be a thread called OJ gossip!.....
where stuff like this can be housed!

((moo))


This hardly just gossip. It is a true story of simpson and people who will not tolerate him. Not gossip.

[socaldiva]

I see this little ditty was added to the article that is linked at the start of this thread. Galanter should be ashamed of himself for even attempting to attribute this to race.:flamemad:

It's about a double murderer, who just happens to be black. Would anyone here want to eat with Scott Peterson? GMAB!

Simpson's attorney, Yale Galanter, said the incident was about race, and he intended to pursue the matter and possibly go after the restaurant's liquor license.

"He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did," Galanter said by telephone Tuesday night.

[martin II]

Whereas this may have made the owner feel good, refusing to serve or demanding that a orderly person/party of people leave his resturant, that is open to the PUBLIC, can be a problem for the owner. This may violate the owners city/state license to serve the PUBLIC. Resturants open to the public
are usually required to serve all patrons.One cannot discriminate between partons when the doors are open to all the PUBLIC.jmoo
martin II

[weezer]

Any owner or any establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone as long as the reason is not illegal. orenthal's presence obviously disrupted the business function of the establishment and the owner had the right to ask him to leave. IMO

[Kate Sachel]

Whereas this may have made the owner feel good, refusing to serve or demanding that a orderly person/party of people leave his resturant, that is open to the PUBLIC, can be a problem for the owner. This may violate the owners city/state license to serve the PUBLIC. Resturants open to the public
are usually required to serve all patrons.One cannot discriminate between partons when the doors are open to all the PUBLIC.jmoo
martin II

It depends on the state laws.

Where I live a business owner can refuse service to anyone who is causing a disruption in their establishment. OJ Simpson, though not intentionally by any acts that he was committing, was causing a disruption.

I doubt Yale is going to get very far on this one.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

ummm maybe there should be a thread called OJ gossip!.....
where stuff like this can be housed!

((moo))

Can you explain to me why you consider this gossip?

A valid and true news story is being discussed here, and while I recognize that some may simply consider it to be just another OJ slam, it's nothing different than the types of discussions being had on the various other threads on this forum.

Are they all gossip as well?

Kate

[martin II]

Where i am and in most states it is not legal to discriminate between customers in a PUBLIC resturant. To do what the owner did will cost one his operating license and his liquor license quickly. IF Mr Simpron was not acting out or being disorderly, then he was most likely acting just like the other patrons/parties that was being served. I don't know about Louville but most cities/states have a Human Rights Commission and a state liquor authority.
martin II

[socaldiva]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_en_ce/people_simpson;_ylt=AnBl.eo4mCPUDQ3WUFGV1S7MWM0F

[Suzee10]

At least there are some people that will speak up and act.



LOUISVILLE, Ky.

The owner of an upscale steakhouse in Louisville said he asked O.J. Simpson to leave his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby because he is sickened by the attention Simpson still attracts.

"I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families," Jeff Ruby said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "The way he continues to torture the lives of those families ... with his behavior, attitude and conduct."

Simpson, an NFL Hall of Famer and Heisman Trophy winner, was found innocent in 1995 of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman but was found liable in a civil trial that followed.

Ruby - who owns restaurants in Cincinnati, Louisville and Belterra, Ind. - said Simpson, who was in town for the Derby on Saturday, came in with a group of about 12 Friday night and was seated at a table in the back. A customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing Simpson, Ruby said.

"I didn't want that experience in my restaurant," Ruby said, later adding that seeing Simpson get so much attention "makes me sick to my stomach."

He said he went to Simpson's table and said, "I'm not serving you." Ruby said when Simpson didn't respond, he repeated himself and left the room.

Ruby said Simpson soon came up to him and said he understood and would gather the rest of his party to leave.

Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, did not immediately return phone calls Tuesday night seeking comment.

"It was the first time since 1994 he has ever shown any class," Ruby said. "He showed it that night in the restaurant" by leaving quietly.

Ruby said after Simpson left, people in the restaurant started applauding him. He said he has received about 100 positive e-mails since the incident.

The walls of Ruby's restaurants are decorated with celebrity photos. A photo of Simpson and Ruby used to be on display, but Ruby said he took it down after the killings.


***************
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_en_ce/people_simpson;_ylt=AnBl.eo4mCPUDQ3WUFGV1S7MWM0F
***************

[weezer]

Looks like an Associated Press story -- not much rumor there.

[Suzee10]

Looks like an Associated Press story -- not much rumor there.


No gossip either, it is for real. There are many people that do not want to see or hear simpson, especially when they are trying to eat.

[sassylassy]

I don't see a problem with the name of the thread & I doubt you would either, if it favored Simpson.

I don't consider what Suze posted "gossip". She had a valid link to a news story, which is more than I can say for some here. Some seem to post whatever they please & refuse to back it up, even when asked multiple times.

I never said there was a problem with the title of the thread :rolleyes:
( u & your buddys always seem so ready to pounce on other posters)

I suggested there should be a thread called gossip, whats the big deal!:shrug:

and btw I back up everything I post...
Thanks!

[martin II]

Angel Cordero one of the worlds most famous riders at KD may not be able to eat at the MEAT HOUSE either after the owner sees this picture.

http://sports.yahoo.com/rah/photo?slug=8eee38a091094fe48c9493e50b67e7f2.kentuc ky_derby_horse_racing_dby235&prov=AP

[sassylassy]

Uh huh, and as your buddie Jotun says, "don't like it, don't read it" OR as I say, "don't come on the Board and Post!" Pretty simple!

JMO and MOO!!

:patriot: Thank You Jeff Ruby!!!!


oh your back!

anyhow, :rolleyes: I dont have a problem with the thread...it was a suggestion!

so if u dont like it.....spare us all the drama & move on!:cuss:

IMO JMO

[martin II]

oh your back!

anyhow, :rolleyes: I dont have a problem with the thread...it was a suggestion!

so if u dont like it.....spare us all the drama & move on!:cuss:

IMO JMO

sassy
Thanks again
martin II

[martin II]

oj in Louisville.
There seems to be more than one resturant in Louisville.

"Later in the week he continued his painstaking search for the "real killers" of Ron and Nicole by playing a round of golf at an exclusive private course."

"On top of that, a friend of mine saw him eating dinner at the new Basa Modern Vietnamese Restaurant. Another rumor had him feasting on nuevo-Latin cuisine at Seviche."

[weezer]

I saw his pic -- he needs to back away from the table. ;)

[martin II]

In the video clip of the resturant sceen, some white people are seen giving oj menues/programs and asking for his autograph, which he was giving.
Maby this is what pissed the owner off.

martinII

[martin II]

I saw his pic -- he needs to back away from the table. ;)

In the picture with angel and some others around K D he looks in great shape to me.

martin II

[weezer]

looks like he's been to the feeding trough one too many times to me. :biggrin:

[martin II]

looks like he's been to the feeding trough one too many times to me. :biggrin:


some people may prefer skin and bones.

But, i would agree that dinning regularly on Kobe sirloins and french bubbly
can tend to add a few pounds to oj's mid section especially if he misses a day on the golf course during the week.
martin II

[weezer]

Angel Cordero one of the worlds most famous riders at KD may not be able to eat at the MEAT HOUSE either after the owner sees this picture.

http://sports.yahoo.com/rah/photo?slug=8eee38a091094fe48c9493e50b67e7f2.kentuc ky_derby_horse_racing_dby235&prov=AP

he was probably checking orenthal for weapons......:eek:

[martin II]

Angel knows oj from racing. maby you don't know Angel.

martin II

[socaldiva]

some people may prefer skin and bones.

But, i would agree that dinning regularly on Kobe sirloins and french bubbly
can tend to add a few pounds to oj's mid section especially if he misses a day on the golf course during the week.
martin II

How on earth do you profess to know what Orenthal dines on? It could be Big Macs for all you know.....I doubt they'd kick him out of the drive through. :tongue:

[weezer]

How on earth do you profess to know what Orenthal dines on? It could be Big Macs for all you know.....I doubt they'd kick him out of the drive through. :tongue:

wasn't it Big Macs on the night of his rampage?

drive thru probably wouldn't recognize him with the knit cap and gloves -- :D

[Suzee10]

wasn't it Big Macs on the night of his rampage?

drive thru probably wouldn't recognize him with the knit cap and gloves -- :D


I agree! :beer:

[socaldiva]

wasn't it Big Macs on the night of his rampage?

drive thru probably wouldn't recognize him with the knit cap and gloves -- :D

Yes it was & IIRC he was annoyed that Kato said he wolfed down his food, without stopping to chew. :tongue:

[Suzee10]

Yes it was & IIRC he was annoyed that Kato said he wolfed down his food, without stopping to chew. :tongue:


Like simpson is Mr. Manners! :tongue:

[socaldiva]

Like simpson is Mr. Manners! :tongue:

I know. Petrocelli in his book remarked that Orenthal would get annoyed with some of the dumbest little details. :D

[weezer]

I know. Petrocelli in his book remarked that Orenthal would get annoyed with some of the dumbest little details. :D

I thought it was sad that orenthal was more concerned that people not think Nicole or Paula dumped him then he was with sounding like a raving, raging lunatic on the 911 call.

[sassylassy]

Can you explain to me why you consider this gossip?

A valid and true news story is being discussed here, and while I recognize that some may simply consider it to be just another OJ slam, it's nothing different than the types of discussions being had on the various other threads on this forum.

Are they all gossip as well?

Kate

I thought it was gossip because there was no link provided with the story!
(at the time of my post) :cool:

[martin II]

to you sassy:beer:


People can grumble all they want BUT
OJ IS FREE. OJ IS FREE.

NOT GUILTY SET HIM FREE.
:D
MARTIN ii

[Suzee10]

I thought it was gossip because there was no link provided with the story!
(at the time of my post) :cool:


I don't spread gossip, just the facts!

[martin II]

I thought it was sad that orenthal was more concerned that people not think Nicole or Paula dumped him then he was with sounding like a raving, raging lunatic on the 911 call.

wonder who that was hiding in the bedroom.

[Suzee10]

to you sassy:beer:


People can grumble all they want BUT
OJ IS FREE. OJ IS FREE.

NOT GUILTY SET HIM FREE.
:D
MARTIN ii


But "not guilty" does not mean innocent, big difference. The not guilty came from simpson and Johnny C. fans.

[sassylassy]

to you sassy:beer:


People can grumble all they want BUT
OJ IS FREE. OJ IS FREE.

NOT GUILTY SET HIM FREE.
:D
MARTIN ii

:beer: why thank you!

[martin II]

But "not guilty" does not mean innocent, big difference. The not guilty came from simpson and Johnny C. fans.

not guilty came from the jury.
Maby you need to read the criminal trial jury verdict, in case you have not so far.

martin II

[martin II]

sassy hi

I am leaving this thread. All the gulping down and big mac talk is a little too silly for me.

martin II

[socaldiva]

But "not guilty" does not mean innocent, big difference. The not guilty came from simpson and Johnny C. fans.

Big difference indeed!

[socaldiva]

I thought it was sad that orenthal was more concerned that people not think Nicole or Paula dumped him then he was with sounding like a raving, raging lunatic on the 911 call.

I know, it seemed like he had to preserve the idea that he was desirable. Seems to me like a raging lunatic wouldn't be very desirable either. :tongue:

[socaldiva]

not guilty came from the jury.
Maby you need to read the criminal trial jury verdict, in case you have not so far.

martin II

I'm sure Suzee10 is quite familar with the criminal verdict. Others here have suggested that you read up on the civil case & the information contained within that trial. Did you ever get a chance to do so?

[socaldiva]

sassy hi

I am leaving this thread. All the gulping down and big mac talk is a little too silly for me.

martin II

Aren't you the poster that was posting about Orenthal eating "kobe steaks & drinking bubbly"? I think that preceeded any Big Mac remarks. The topic of this thread does have to do with food you know. Restaurant = food......Oh well :seeya:

[socaldiva]

Here's a link about the same incident, that has a few additional details. I wonder how OJ's "rep" & Galanter can even attempt to say that he was ejected from the restaurant due to race. The article says that the owner has several restaurants & served Orenthal prior to the double murders:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20070509/en_celeb_eo/2f2332ae_eefc49fd_88bb_61adbcb6b1bb;_ylt=AiKmQrsrn rwzl0dqSbSlROJdDxkF

[Suzee10]

not guilty came from the jury.
Maby you need to read the criminal trial jury verdict, in case you have not so far.

martin II


That is just what I meant, and I have read it all. It came from the jury, simpson and Johnnie C. fans.

[Kate Sachel]

I thought it was gossip because there was no link provided with the story!
(at the time of my post) :cool:

You sound offended, and offending you was certainly not my intent, I was simply curious as to what made you refer to this particular news story as gossip considering the fact that there are not links for half of what I read on this forum.

Kate

[tazzybaby]

I was so glad to hear this story. The restaurant owner seems to feel the same way that most people in America feel. The applause he received was well deserved. What he kept referring to is how OJ continues to try and profit from the murders. Whether he committed the crime or not he should NEVER try and profit from it. Especially since he has children with the victim. OJ creates this himself. He has(had) enough money to live on. His income from his pension would have been enough to put his children through college and still live a comfortable life. He craves the spot light and doesn't care how he gets it.

[Suzee10]

I was so glad to hear this story. The restaurant owner seems to feel the same way that most people in America feel. The applause he received was well deserved. What he kept referring to is how OJ continues to try and profit from the murders. Whether he committed the crime or not he should NEVER try and profit from it. Especially since he has children with the victim. OJ creates this himself. He has(had) enough money to live on. His income from his pension would have been enough to put his children through college and still live a comfortable life. He craves the spot light and doesn't care how he gets it.


Hi Tazzy good to see you.

You are so right about simpson. After all of this time you would think he would get it through his head, no one wants him around, except a very few hangers on. He is a disgusting spectacle, a joke. He does not have the adoring fans he once had. That's what a double murder will do for you.

[martin II]

OJ was in Louville for one or two days.It is reported that he played golf at a great private course and ate his three meals per day at some of louisville best resturants. Walked around and talked with some of the horse handlers and jocikes. Placed his bets and attended parties just as others did.
Great weekend.

This steak resturant guy and that publicity stunt he pulled means nothing.It seems that he was really pissed because HIS partons were asking for oj's AUTOGRAPH.

Sure OJ and his party just went to another steak resturant for their KOBE
and bubbly.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Hi Tazzy good to see you.

You are so right about simpson. After all of this time you would think he would get it through his head, no one wants him around, except a very few hangers on. He is a disgusting spectacle, a joke. He does not have the adoring fans he once had. That's what a double murder will do for you.


Hi Suzee!

Good to see you too!!

Simpson is definately a spectacle and joke. The people that want his autograph (besides a few true collectors) only because he is a double murderer. I don't think he even cares. As long as he get some attention. He has a deep sickness.

[tazzybaby]

*snip*

This steak resturant guy and that publicity stunt he pulled means nothing.It seems that he was really pissed because HIS partons were asking for oj's AUTOGRAPH.

martin II

How wrong you are! lol

His patrons applauded him after he refused service to OJ. Just like most of America does.

:beer:

[Suzee10]

Hi Suzee!

Good to see you too!!

Simpson is definately a spectacle and joke. The people that want his autograph (besides a few true collectors) only because he is a double murderer. I don't think he even cares. As long as he get some attention. He has a deep sickness.


That is what is so disgusting about the entire thing, he does not even care. He thinks he is still the young football star, running down through the airport for Hertz and all is is a broken down old has been murderer.

[socaldiva]

This steak resturant guy and that publicity stunt he pulled means nothing.

If it "meant nothing" to Orenthal, he wouldn't be threatening to sue! ;)

[socaldiva]

*snip*
OJ was in Louville for one or two days.It is reported that he played golf at a great private course and ate his three meals per day at some of louisville best resturants. Walked around and talked with some of the horse handlers and jocikes. Placed his bets and attended parties just as others did.
Great weekend.



I've not read anything like what you've posted. Got a link for this info?

[socaldiva]

*snip*
It seems that he was really p***ed because HIS partons were asking for oj's AUTOGRAPH.



I think you are mistaken. I don't think a single person asked for Simpson's authograph & they CHEERED when he got the boot. :tongue:

[Suzee10]

If it "meant nothing" to Orenthal, he wouldn't be threatening to sue! ;)

Can you believe simpson is threatening to "SUE" anyone, after he does everything illegal to keep from paying the money to the Goldmans and Browns. What a sap!

[socaldiva]

That is what is so disgusting about the entire thing, he does not even care. He thinks he is still the young football star, running down through the airport for Hertz and all is is a broken down old has been murderer.

:beer: :beer: I heard the restaurant owner say that Fred Goldman called him to thank him. Perhaps if OJ sues, the money would go to Fred & Fred can give it back to the restaurant owner. :D

[Suzee10]

I think you are mistaken. I don't think a single person asked for Simpson's authograph & they CHEERED when he got the boot. :tongue:


They did indeed cheer and clap. :D

[socaldiva]

Can you believe simpson is threatening to "SUE" anyone, after he does everything illegal to keep from paying the money to the Goldmans and Browns. What a sap!

I know, what nerve! And to bust out with the race card! All of the legal pundits I've heard in the last couple of days, say he doesn't have a chance! OJ just continues to embarrass himself.....

[Suzee10]

:beer: I heard the restaurant owner say that Fred Goldman called him to thank him. Perhaps if OJ sues, the money would go to Fred & Fred can give it back to the restaurant owner. :D


Great idea and I am sure Fred would be honored to do so. Anything to get rid of old simpson would please Fred.:beer:

[socaldiva]

They did indeed cheer and clap. :D

As it should be :biggrin: Maybe this will inspire other restaurants to do the same. Wouldn't that be grand? :)

[Suzee10]

I know, what nerve! And to bust out with the race card! All of the legal pundits I've heard in the last couple of days, say he doesn't have a chance! OJ just continues to embarrass himself.....


That is all he is, an embarrassment. Can you imagine what his children think of him. I am sure they too wish he would just stay at home, out of the spotlight and shut up.:o

[socaldiva]

Great idea and I am sure Fred would be honored to do so. Anything to get rid of old simpson would please Fred.:beer:

Simpson is such a dim bulb to claim it was a racially motivated act. The restaurant owner served OJ prior to the murders & has pictures with him & he seated Michael Jordan 5 minutes after Orenthal got the boot.:rolleyes:

[Suzee10]

As it should be :biggrin: Maybe this will inspire other restaurants to do the same. Wouldn't that be grand? :)


Oh yes!!! :beer:

[socaldiva]

That is all he is, an embarrassment. Can you imagine what his children think of him. I am sure they too wish he would just stay at home, out of the spotlight and shut up.:o

I know. I bet they are mortified on a regular basis.

[Suzee10]

I know. I bet they are mortified on a regular basis.

I don't know why his children have not set him down and told him what an embarrassment he is, unless they are afraid of him, which would be understandable.

I hear some of these ng's say his children back him and believe he did not kill their mom, but you know we never hear them or have never heard them make a public statement to that fact. I know if it was my dad and so many people were attacking him I would make a statemnet in his defense. These kids are old enough to do just that. So I am sure they are totally embarrassed by him and they think he is guilty.

[socaldiva]

I don't know why his children have not set him down and told him what an embarrassment he is, unless they are afraid of him, which would be understandable.

I hear some of these ng's say his children back him and believe he did not kill their mom, but you know we never hear them or have never heard them make a public statement to that fact. I know if it was my dad and so many people were attacking him I would make a statemnet in his defense. These kids are old enough to do just that. So I am sure they are totally embarrassed by him and they think he is guilty.

I've always thought that they rely on him for support, so until they no longer need that, they will just go along with it. I'm sure he's also intimidating with his demeanor. Just a guess.

RL calls....:seeya:

[martin II]

I don't know why his children have not set him down and told him what an embarrassment he is, unless they are afraid of him, which would be understandable.

I hear some of these ng's say his children back him and believe he did not kill their mom, but you know we never hear them or have never heard them make a public statement to that fact. I know if it was my dad and so many people were attacking him I would make a statemnet in his defense. These kids are old enough to do just that. So I am sure they are totally embarrassed by him and they think he is guilty.

why would oj's children put themselves in the media gossip. To satisfy some people that have no clue as to what they are talking about?

[sassylassy]

You sound offended, and offending you was certainly not my intent, I was simply curious as to what made you refer to this particular news story as gossip considering the fact that there are not links for half of what I read on this forum.

Kate


Thanks for asking, & no I am not offended! :cool:

[socaldiva]

why would oj's children put themselves in the media gossip. To satisfy some people that have no clue as to what they are talking about?

Who are these elusive people you speak of that "have no clue"??? The murders, Sydney's 911 call, the road rage, the theft of cable services, the bouncing from the restaurant. NONE of that was "media gossip". They were factual events.

As the OP stated, some would publicly defend their loved one, if they felt they were being misrepresented publicly.

[socaldiva]

It's about one's actions, not skin color, Ruby said.

"I don't serve murderers unless they have served their time and come in afterward," he said.

For Ruby: :beer: :beer:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/0510gns-oj-goldmans10-ON.html

[Suzee10]

:beer: :beer: I heard the restaurant owner say that Fred Goldman called him to thank him. Perhaps if OJ sues, the money would go to Fred & Fred can give it back to the restaurant owner. :D


Fred did call the restaurant owner, it was on one of my homepages. It also said Jeff Ruby had recieved numerous emails and calls applauding his actions concerning simpson.

[Livia]

to you sassy:beer:


People can grumble all they want BUT
OJ IS FREE. OJ IS FREE.

NOT GUILTY SET HIM FREE.
:D
MARTIN ii

Martin 11, I both agree and disagree with you.

I agree that OJ is free.

I DISagree that Not Guilty set him free.

In my humble, albeit informed, opinion, a biased and alarmingly ignorant jury chose to ignore the evidence and set him free.

I don't think that's a ringing endorsement of his innocence. Neither does the vast majority of the public.

I laughed and applauded when I heard that restaurant manager kicked him out.

OJ is long overdue for some public humiliation. IMHO of course.

All my sympathy is for Nicole and Ron and their grieving families. May God bless them and grant them peace.

And THIS is for that brave soul who pulicly humiliated the shameless OJ. :beer:

[martin II]

Martin 11, I both agree and disagree with you.

I agree that OJ is free.

I DISagree that Not Guilty set him free.

In my humble, albeit informed, opinion, a biased and alarmingly ignorant jury chose to ignore the evidence and set him free.

I don't think that's a ringing endorsement of his innocence. Neither does the vast majority of the public.

I laughed and applauded when I heard that restaurant manager kicked him out.

OJ is long overdue for some public humiliation. IMHO of course.

All my sympathy is for Nicole and Ron and their grieving families. May God bless them and grant them peace.

And THIS is for that brave soul who pulicly humiliated the shameless OJ. :beer:


LIVIA HI

According to the CJS that we all live by, the jury NOT GUILTY verdict means that Oj was found NOT GUILTY of murdering anyone as charged by the prosecution. People can read into what that means for themselves but the fact cannot be changed that Oj was charged and the prosecution did not prove the charge to the jury which they had to do. Some people always attack the defense and or the jury when the verdict is not what they wanted to hear.

Oj simpson was in town for the KD for two days and he and his party ate their meals at some of the best resturants in the city, played golf at a private course, visited some jocky friends at the stables and placed his bets as all others did, WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM WHATSO EVER.

The steak resturant owner, ( in the video clip, stated that a white patron came to him 'ALL GIDDY' wanting to get Oj autograph and this pissed him off.
As oj was leaving another white person was seen asking oj for his autography and Oj complied.)

Imo this was just a PR stunt pulled off by the owner to get some free publicity for his resturant.

OJ and his party did not miss a meal at the Derby.
It is sad that two people were murdered but we still do not know beyond a reasonable doubt who did it.

The vast majority of the pubilc can believe what they like.

jmoo

martin II

[martin II]

livia

PS
"Louisville community activists picketed the restaurant on Wednesday, claiming that Ruby may have violated Simpson's civil rights"
--------------------
It seems that not all people agreed with the resturant owner.

I don't know what the law is in ohio but where i am and in many other places
A resturant that is open to the PUBLIC cannot refuse to serve a person that is orderly and not causing a problem by his actions at the resturant especially if there is a state liquor license issued to the establishment and a city consumer affairs license.

We will maby see if any law was broken if oj's lawyers decide it is worth it to make a civil rights claim.
But in the scheme of things this is of very small importance jmoo

martin II

[Kate Sachel]

LIVIA HI

According to the CJS that we all live by, the jury NOT GUILTY verdict means that Oj was found NOT GUILTY of murdering anyone as charged by the prosecution.

martin II

When a jury returns a verdict of "not guilty" it means that the state has not convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt as to all elements of the crime in question.

For example, in a first degree murder case, the state must prove that the defendant deliberately and with malice unlawfully caused the death of another human being. If the defendant presents a valid defense that he killed the victim in self-defense, then the defendant is not innocent of murder because he did in fact kill another human being but he is "not guilty" of murder because the state did not convince the jury that the defendant acted with premeditated malice.

An even better example is "not guilty by reason of insanity". Remember John Hinkley? We are all aware that that he admitted to the attempted assasination of Ronald Reagan, and thus we know he was "guilty", but the jury found that he did not have an understanding of the criminality of his conduct and so they returned the verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity".

I wish that people would truly understand that even a jury that believes a defendent is more than likely guilty can return a "not guilty" verdict based on various circumstances and therefore I wish that people would cease from assuming that the verdict equates into "OJ didn't kill anyone".

Kate

[weezer]

good post, Kate. The fact that the jury had their own agenda, were not able to comprehend the forensic evidence and disregarded credible evidence incriminating orenthal only added to the travesty of the trial outcome. IMO

[martin II]

people are entitled to TWIST the criminal trial NOT GUILTY VERDICT to mean anything they desire it to mean to them. It means nothing as the NOT GUILTY
verdict does in fact mean the oj simpson was charged with killing two people and was found to be NOT GUILTY of killing anyone.

I guess the next book will be

"I KICKED OJ OUT"

j Ruby

[weezer]

as well as the civil verdict meaning that orenthal was accused of the deaths of Nicole and Ron and was found liable; i.e., guilty.

[Livia]

Juries in Scotland (their judiciary is independent of the English system) have an interesting alternative to our stark GUILTY/NOT GUILTY options.

In the US and most of the world, if the jury believes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty, they must vote "guilty". If they have their suspicions, but these suspicions do not go "beyond a reasonable doubt", they must declare the person "not guilty" and let him/her go.

In Scotland, there is a third option: "Not Proven". This means basically (and I hope I'm getting this right!) that while the evidence is not strong enough to convict the person (so no "Guilty" verdict), it still is strong enough to preclude a judgment of complete innocence (our "Not Guilty" verdict). So the case is said to be "Not Proven"....i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, BUT indicating there is still plenty of doubt left in the jurors' minds.

I believe that once a Scottish jury hands down a verdict of "Not Proven", the defendant must be released, as if the verdict were "Not Guilty".

But can he/she be tried again for the crime if further incriminating evidence comes to light?

It would seem so. I don't see how the rule of "double jeopardy" could be applied since the person was never actually found "NOT GUILTY" of the crime.

Does anyone here know more about this Scottish system, and exactly what a verdict of "Not Proven" means to a defendant?

Should be interesting research....;)

[Kate Sachel]

the NOT GUILTY verdict does in fact mean the oj simpson was charged with killing two people and was found to be NOT GUILTY of killing anyone.



Yet he was not found innocent.

All I can offer, though the outlook looks bleak that you may actually adhere, is :read: :read: :read:

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Juries in Scotland (their judiciary is independent of the English system) have an interesting alternative to our stark GUILTY/NOT GUILTY options.

In the US and most of the world, if the jury believes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty, they must vote "guilty". If they have their suspicions, but these suspicions do not go "beyond a reasonable doubt", they must declare the person "not guilty" and let him/her go.

In Scotland, there is a third option: "Not Proven". This means basically (and I hope I'm getting this right!) that while the evidence is not strong enough to convict the person (so no "Guilty" verdict), it still is strong enough to preclude a judgment of complete innocence (our "Not Guilty" verdict). So the case is said to be "Not Proven"....i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, BUT indicating there is still plenty of doubt left in the jurors' minds.

I believe that once a Scottish jury hands down a verdict of "Not Proven", the defendant must be released, as if the verdict were "Not Guilty".

But can he/she be tried again for the crime if further incriminating evidence comes to light?

It would seem so. I don't see how the rule of "double jeopardy" could be applied since the person was never actually found "NOT GUILTY" of the crime.

Does anyone here know more about this Scottish system, and exactly what a verdict of "Not Proven" means to a defendant?

Should be interesting research....;)

Also, in the Scottish system the verdict does not have to be unanimous but rather only a majority.

Kate

[martin II]

as well as the civil verdict meaning that orenthal was accused of the deaths of Nicole and Ron and was found liable; i.e., guilty.

this post and some others may be OT but here it is.
websters;

liable
One entry found for liable.


Main Entry: li·a·ble
Pronunciation: 'lI-&-b&l, especially in sense 2 often 'lI-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English lyable, from Anglo-French *liable, from lier to bind, from Latin ligare -- more at LIGATURE
1 a : obligated according to law or equity : RESPONSIBLE b : subject to appropriation or attachment
2 a : being in a position to incur -- used with to <liable to a fine> b : exposed or subject to some usually adverse contingency or action <watch out or you're liable to fall>
synonyms LIABLE, OPEN, EXPOSED, SUBJECT, PRONE, SUSCEPTIBLE, SENSITIVE mean being by nature or through circumstances likely to experience something adverse. LIABLE implies a possibility or probability of incurring something because of position, nature, or particular situation <liable to get lost>. OPEN stresses a lack of barriers preventing incurrence <a claim open to question>. EXPOSED suggests lack of protection or powers of resistance against something actually present or threatening <exposed to infection>. SUBJECT implies an openness for any reason to something that must be suffered or undergone <all reports are subject to review>. PRONE stresses natural tendency

[Kate Sachel]

this post and some others may be OT but here it is.
websters;

liable
One entry found for liable.


Main Entry: li·a·ble
Pronunciation: 'lI-&-b&l, especially in sense 2 often 'lI-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English lyable, from Anglo-French *liable, from lier to bind, from Latin ligare -- more at LIGATURE
1 a : obligated according to law or equity : RESPONSIBLE b : subject to appropriation or attachment
2 a : being in a position to incur -- used with to <liable to a fine> b : exposed or subject to some usually adverse contingency or action <watch out or you're liable to fall>
synonyms LIABLE, OPEN, EXPOSED, SUBJECT, PRONE, SUSCEPTIBLE, SENSITIVE mean being by nature or through circumstances likely to experience something adverse. LIABLE implies a possibility or probability of incurring something because of position, nature, or particular situation <liable to get lost>. OPEN stresses a lack of barriers preventing incurrence <a claim open to question>. EXPOSED suggests lack of protection or powers of resistance against something actually present or threatening <exposed to infection>. SUBJECT implies an openness for any reason to something that must be suffered or undergone <all reports are subject to review>. PRONE stresses natural tendency

Yes, and given the circumstances of the murders, being found liable in this case can mean only one thing ~ that he murdered them.

Kate

[Jayme K]

Civil rights violated? Crap, could I laugh any harder at that one?

I might actually be more disgusted than humored though considering that jumping up onto the race bandwagon seems to stick like a bad habit.

I plan on calling the guy and thanking him for booting out IMO a porn star, satellite stealing, murdering little sports guy out of the restaurant.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[martin II]

Juries in Scotland (their judiciary is independent of the English system) have an interesting alternative to our stark GUILTY/NOT GUILTY options.

In the US and most of the world, if the jury believes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty, they must vote "guilty". If they have their suspicions, but these suspicions do not go "beyond a reasonable doubt", they must declare the person "not guilty" and let him/her go.

In Scotland, there is a third option: "Not Proven". This means basically (and I hope I'm getting this right!) that while the evidence is not strong enough to convict the person (so no "Guilty" verdict), it still is strong enough to preclude a judgment of complete innocence (our "Not Guilty" verdict). So the case is said to be "Not Proven"....i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, BUT indicating there is still plenty of doubt left in the jurors' minds.

I believe that once a Scottish jury hands down a verdict of "Not Proven", the defendant must be released, as if the verdict were "Not Guilty".

But can he/she be tried again for the crime if further incriminating evidence comes to light?

It would seem so. I don't see how the rule of "double jeopardy" could be applied since the person was never actually found "NOT GUILTY" of the crime.

Does anyone here know more about this Scottish system, and exactly what a verdict of "Not Proven" means to a defendant?

Should be interesting research....;)


livia
i cannot add info relative to the scottish system. But thank god for the american system rule against double jeopardy as it does prevent the prosecution from trying a defendant multiple times for the same charge until they get the desired verdict.

I am not sure that i agree with the idea that a civil trial after a criminal trial verdict of not guilty is not some form of double jeopardy. I do realize that it is
an effort to make to not guilty defendant pay money to a plaintiff. But it is the law.
martin II

[martin II]

some comments from local ohio newspapers.

ruby said "he only serves MURDERS if they have served their time and then came to eat."

"OJ should file a lawsuit against Mr. Ruby for violating his civil rights. As you may know, this is not the first time that Mr. Ruby has denied access to black patrons - he did the same thing in Cincinnati in 2000 which was a precipitating factor in 2001 racial uprising. If Mr. Ruby desires to discriminate against clientele then he should operate private dinner clubs, not public ones. It's a shame and a sad commentary about American society and the racist views harbored by many.
----------------
Mr. Ruby is a hypocrite. He cheated on his wife. He condoned prostitution, drug use, and drug sales in his restaurants. Maybe he should exclude people guilty of those crimes from eating at his businesses as well. Oh wait. He couldn’t eat there as well.
------------------------

Ruby's last quote is confusing... So he DOES serve murders? And was it about the book OR the murders now? "If Robert Blake would have walked in I would have kicked him out," Ruby said. "I don't serve murderers unless they have served their time and come in afterward." Regardless, I'm sure business is picking up now."

[tazzybaby]

Here is Yale Galanters contact information for those who want to let him know just how they feel about him threatening to file RACIAL discrimination regarding the Restaurant boot...

The Law Offices of Yale L. Galanter, P.A.
http://www.galanterlaw.com/

Ft. Lauderdale
525 South Andrews Ave.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954.731.1500
Fax: 954.760.9040

Miami
2800 Biscayne Blvd.
Ninth Floor
Miami, FL 33137
Tel: 305-576-0244

For appointments and additional information please contact office manager, Ali Costales, at the above phone numbers or at ali@galanterlaw.com.

You can e-mail Mr. Galanter at yale@galanterlaw.com

[martin II]

Here is Yale Galanters contact information for those who want to let him know just how they feel about him threatening to file RACIAL discrimination regarding the Restaurant boot...

The Law Offices of Yale L. Galanter, P.A.
http://www.galanterlaw.com/

Ft. Lauderdale
525 South Andrews Ave.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954.731.1500
Fax: 954.760.9040

Miami
2800 Biscayne Blvd.
Ninth Floor
Miami, FL 33137
Tel: 305-576-0244

For appointments and additional information please contact office manager, Ali Costales, at the above phone numbers or at ali@galanterlaw.com.

You can e-mail Mr. Galanter at yale@galanterlaw.com

TAZZY HI

GEES
Don't you think this is a little extreme to try to clog up the lawyers phones/e mail by posting his business numbers here.

martin II

[tazzybaby]

TAZZY HI

GEES
Don't you think this is a little extreme to try to clog up the lawyers phones/e mail by posting his business numbers here.

martin II

Martin,

Anyone can look it up. It's not private. They also have this posted on many other message boards.

They are talking about protesting at the restaurant. WTH? And, you know what it's about??? It's about RACE. Talk about a little extreme. I think most people are about tired of all of his antics.

:mad:

[Jayme K]

TAZZY HI

GEES
Don't you think this is a little extreme to try to clog up the lawyers phones/e mail by posting his business numbers here.

martin II

Hey bright one, lift the blinders and see that good ol Yale has a website on which he posts his contact information for God sakes! He's the one that makes it public.

And NO, it's NOT extreme ... THANKS TAZZYBABY!!!

I'll be calling, emailing AND writing this loser, crybaby guy.

[weezer]

Here is Yale Galanters contact information for those who want to let him know just how they feel about him threatening to file RACIAL discrimination regarding the Restaurant boot...

The Law Offices of Yale L. Galanter, P.A.
http://www.galanterlaw.com/

Ft. Lauderdale
525 South Andrews Ave.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954.731.1500
Fax: 954.760.9040

Miami
2800 Biscayne Blvd.
Ninth Floor
Miami, FL 33137
Tel: 305-576-0244

For appointments and additional information please contact office manager, Ali Costales, at the above phone numbers or at ali@galanterlaw.com.

You can e-mail Mr. Galanter at yale@galanterlaw.com

thanks tazzy --

[martin II]

Martin,

Anyone can look it up. It's not private. They also have this posted on many other message boards.

They are talking about protesting at the restaurant. WTH? And, you know what it's about??? It's about RACE. Talk about a little extreme. I think most people are about tired of all of his antics.

:mad:

tazzy hi
local activist already picketed the resturant wednesday.
I am not sure the claim should be racism because Mr m jordan was allowed to eat there.(HE WOULD NEVER TOSS MICHAEL) Unless ruby used the book ISSUE to hide some deep seeded racism.

But i think the claim should be discrimination against a orderly patron in a PUBLIC resturant. It is my opinion that government laws prevent a owner
from deciding on the spot who he will not serve since he is using a city (PUBLIC CONSUMMER AFFAIRS) license to operate his meat stand

In most cities a license to operate a establishment comes with some rules everone must abide by. i think nondiscrimination would be one.

suppose this guy joined MAW could he bar women or blonds?

This guy got what he was trying to get BIG TIME PUBLICITY he has been on fox and all the other gossip programs like N GRACE.
martin II

[weezer]

looks like this discussion has touched a nerve -- :eek:

[martin II]

Martin,

Anyone can look it up. It's not private. They also have this posted on many other message boards.

They are talking about protesting at the restaurant. WTH? And, you know what it's about??? It's about RACE. Talk about a little extreme. I think most people are about tired of all of his antics.

:mad:

tazzy hi
i am not sure it was about race but am sure it was about getting some free publicity which he has received. But depending on the local laws there may some other issues.

martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi
local activist already picketed the resturant wednesday.
I am not sure the claim should be racism because Mr m jordan was allowed to eat there.(HE WOULD NEVER TOSS MICHAEL) Unless ruby used the book ISSUE to hide some deep seeded racism.

But i think the claim should be discrimination against a orderly patron in a PUBLIC resturant. It is my opinion that government laws prevent a owner
from deciding on the spot who he will not serve since he is using a city (PUBLIC CONSUMMER AFFAIRS) license to operate his meat stand

In most cities a license to operate a establishment comes with some rules everone must abide by. i think nondiscrimination would be one.

suppose this guy joined MAW could he bar women or blonds?

This guy got what he was trying to get BIG TIME PUBLICITY he has been on fox and all the other gossip programs like N GRACE.
martin II

Martin,

Haven't you seen the signs in the windows of restaurants that say "We have the right to refuse service to anyone"? That is true except for discrimination based on sex, race or handicap. Why do you think that Yale Galoober was shouting racism? He had no other option to try and "sue". Jeff Ruby has the complete right to refuse service to anyone. Most places do not uphold the "We have the right..." unless there is some type of disturbance. In this instance the disturbance was the fact that OJ continues to taunt the victims families. It really bothered Jeff Ruby so he refused him service. And, the rest of the restaurant was happy because of this. So, he throws out a murderer and makes his PR lawyer mad but makes the entire restaurant happy. Sounds like a good plan to me.

:beer:

[tazzybaby]

looks like this discussion has touched a nerve -- :eek:

lol.....I'm thinkin' so

:cool:

[martin II]

looks like this discussion has touched a nerve -- :eek:

weezer

Actually i am not sure there is much more to be said. Ruby told Oj he was not going to serve him and asked oj to leave. Oj said ok and after obliging a few customers that were asking for oj's autograph,(which ruby said pissed him off) he left. Oj and his party went to a nearby resturant and had dinner and drinKs without incident. The guy got a lot of free publicity.

martin II

[Suzee10]

livia

PS
"Louisville community activists picketed the restaurant on Wednesday, claiming that Ruby may have violated Simpson's civil rights"
--------------------
It seems that not all people agreed with the resturant owner.

I don't know what the law is in ohio but where i am and in many other places
A resturant that is open to the PUBLIC cannot refuse to serve a person that is orderly and not causing a problem by his actions at the resturant especially if there is a state liquor license issued to the establishment and a city consumer affairs license.

We will maby see if any law was broken if oj's lawyers decide it is worth it to make a civil rights claim.
But in the scheme of things this is of very small importance jmoo

martin II



Don't mean to answer for someone else but I have been waiting for someone to mention simpson's civil rights.

How he and his attorney have the nerve to even think about HIS civil rights are beyond me. He is guilty of this act also concerning Nicole and Ron.

You do know this is how Jeffery MacDonald was finally put in prison where he belongs, ten years after the murders of his wife and two little girls. Colette's step-father, Freddie, filed in federal court a civil rights action against MacDonald, after he was aquitted, for violating Colette and her two girls civil rights to live. He is still setting in prison. I do not know why Fred Goldman has not done this concerning simpson.

[martin II]

Martin,

Haven't you seen the signs in the windows of restaurants that say "We have the right to refuse service to anyone"? That is true except for discrimination based on sex, race or handicap. Why do you think that Yale Galoober was shouting racism? He had no other option to try and "sue". Jeff Ruby has the complete right to refuse service to anyone. Most places do not uphold the "We have the right..." unless there is some type of disturbance. In this instance the disturbance was the fact that OJ continues to taunt the victims families. It really bothered Jeff Ruby so he refused him service. And, the rest of the restaurant was happy because of this. So, he throws out a murderer and makes his PR lawyer mad but makes the entire restaurant happy. Sounds like a good plan to me.

:beer:


tazzy hi

A long time ago i did see that sign in some resturants but have not seen one in a long time. It may be that where i am there are consummer affairs licenses and human rights laws that prevent this stuff so there is no need for these signs any more as most know it is not allowed, but kentucky/ohio may be different.

martin II

[tazzybaby]

weezer

Actually i am not sure there is much more to be said. Ruby told Oj he was not going to serve him and asked oj to leave. Oj said ok and after obliging a few customers that were asking for oj's autograph,(which ruby said pissed him off) he left. Oj and his party went to a nearby resturant and had dinner and drinKs without incident. The guy got a lot of free publicity.

martin II

Well, Yale Galoober thinks there is more to be said.

Jeff Ruby didn't say he was pissed off. He said that the attention that OJ gets (the morbid fascination that he's a murderer who got away with it) makes him sick.

I agree.

[tazzybaby]

Don't mean to answer for someone else but I have been waiting for someone to mention simpson's civil rights.

How he and his attorney have the nerve to even think about HIS civil rights are beyond me. He is guilty of this act also concerning Nicole and Ron.

You do know this is how Jeffery MacDonald was finally put in prison where he belongs, ten years after the murders of his wife and two little girls. Colette's step-father, Freddie, filed in federal court a civil rights action against MacDonald, after he was aquitted, for violating Colette and her two girls civil rights to live. He is still setting in prison. I do not know why Fred Goldman has not done this concerning simpson.

Hi Suzee,

I have wondered the same thing! They have the new evidence that they used in the civil trial also. I would LOVE to see that happen now that the kids are old enough to make it on their own.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

A long time ago i did see that sign in some resturants but have not seen one in a long time. It may be that where i am there are consummer affairs licenses and human rights laws that prevent this stuff so there is no need for these signs any more as most know it is not allowed, but kentucky/ohio may be different.

martin II

They normally don't put signs out anymore. I just brought that up for reference. They can definately refuse service. But, not on the basis of sex, race, religion or handicap.

[Suzee10]

Hi Suzee,

I have wondered the same thing! They have the new evidence that they used in the civil trial also. I would LOVE to see that happen now that the kids are old enough to make it on their own.


I do not know why Fred's attorneys have not brought this it up to him and the children could do the same, they have lost their right to a mom, civil rights violation.

[martin II]

"Ruby told Inside Edition that the sight of Simpson getting a warm welcome in his restaurant turned his stomach."
yahoo

[tazzybaby]

"Ruby told Inside Edition that the sight of Simpson getting a warm welcome in his restaurant turned his stomach."
yahoo

Not exactly the words he used....

I can quote his actual words:

JEFF RUBY, OWNER OF JEFF RUBY`S RESTAURANTS: I am not going to let him sign autographs in my restaurant. I knew that was coming. I walked over to him, and there wasn`t anyone else at the table. I guess he was waiting for the rest of his party. (INAUDIBLE) I`m not serving you. (INAUDIBLE) I`m not serving you.

But I take this very personal. And if you want to -- let`s assume he was found not guilty and he did not commit the murders. And your gentleman from "The Enquirer," I mean, he`s right on the money, "This is why I did it." that if he was found not guilty and he did not commit the murders. So somebody else committed the murders, OK? Somebody else murdered the mother of your children brutally in her condominium, in one of the most brutal crime scenes they`ve ever seen over there. And somebody else murdered your ex-wife and the daughter of your father-in-law.

And you write a book, "If I Did It, Here`s How It Happened," And that`s how you`re going to be a single parent, and that`s how you`re raising your children, "If I Did It, Here`s How It Happened." You didn`t do it. Somebody else did it. You`re found not guilty, and you know somebody else did it. And you`re going to profit off the brutal murder of your ex-wife and the mother of your children, who was beheaded. And you`re going to -- and not give the money to the families who you`ve already been found liable for their death, for her death, and you`re going to profit.

You talked about blood money earlier. If he didn`t commit the murders and he was found not guilty, I would have thrown him out just for that. That`s not the way to raise your children.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/09/ng.01.html

No warm welcome. He was by himself at the table. No autographs. And, there was applause and a standing ovation when Mr Ruby asked him to leave.

The only reason OJ EVER gets an excited response is due to morbid curiosity.

[tazzybaby]

Wow! Check out this poll.....

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770509020

By a landslide!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I am not sure the claim should be racism because Mr m jordan was allowed to eat there.(HE WOULD NEVER TOSS MICHAEL) Unless ruby used the book ISSUE to hide some deep seeded racism.


Why would he 'TOSS MICHAEL"? Michael Jordan never killed anyone. Ruby used to serve Orenthal prior to the murders. Did you miss that part???

[martin II]

Not exactly the words he used....

I can quote his actual words:

JEFF RUBY, OWNER OF JEFF RUBY`S RESTAURANTS: I am not going to let him sign autographs in my restaurant. I knew that was coming. I walked over to him, and there wasn`t anyone else at the table. I guess he was waiting for the rest of his party. (INAUDIBLE) I`m not serving you. (INAUDIBLE) I`m not serving you.

But I take this very personal. And if you want to -- let`s assume he was found not guilty and he did not commit the murders. And your gentleman from "The Enquirer," I mean, he`s right on the money, "This is why I did it." that if he was found not guilty and he did not commit the murders. So somebody else committed the murders, OK? Somebody else murdered the mother of your children brutally in her condominium, in one of the most brutal crime scenes they`ve ever seen over there. And somebody else murdered your ex-wife and the daughter of your father-in-law.

And you write a book, "If I Did It, Here`s How It Happened," And that`s how you`re going to be a single parent, and that`s how you`re raising your children, "If I Did It, Here`s How It Happened." You didn`t do it. Somebody else did it. You`re found not guilty, and you know somebody else did it. And you`re going to profit off the brutal murder of your ex-wife and the mother of your children, who was beheaded. And you`re going to -- and not give the money to the families who you`ve already been found liable for their death, for her death, and you`re going to profit.

You talked about blood money earlier. If he didn`t commit the murders and he was found not guilty, I would have thrown him out just for that. That`s not the way to raise your children.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/09/ng.01.html

No warm welcome. He was by himself at the table. No autographs. And, there was applause and a standing ovation when Mr Ruby asked him to leave.

The only reason OJ EVER gets an excited response is due to morbid curiosity.

from a ohio newspaper blog.
Not being an attorney I realize that I sometimes ask dumb questions. Could you guys indulge me for one more? Since Mr. Simpson has been acquitted by a jury isn't calling him a double murderer in print a bit libelous? I can see accused double murderer or alleged double murderer but can they print that just because they believe him guilty?

Posted by: Dave_D | May 10, 2007 01:13 PM

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Oj and his party went to a nearby resturant and had dinner and drinKs without incident. The guy got a lot of free publicity.


The restaurant owner reportedly has multiple upscale restaurants, so I seriously doubt he was after "free publicity". It seems like you think that anyone that goes after OJ is after a "free" something. Some people do things based on a moral conviction.

[weezer]

orenthal was found liable for two murders -- sounds like double murderer to me.

[martin II]

Not exactly the words he used....

I can quote his actual words:

JEFF RUBY, OWNER OF JEFF RUBY`S RESTAURANTS: I am not going to let him sign autographs in my restaurant. I knew that was coming. I walked over to him, and there wasn`t anyone else at the table. I guess he was waiting for the rest of his party. (INAUDIBLE) I`m not serving you. (INAUDIBLE) I`m not serving you.

But I take this very personal. And if you want to -- let`s assume he was found not guilty and he did not commit the murders. And your gentleman from "The Enquirer," I mean, he`s right on the money, "This is why I did it." that if he was found not guilty and he did not commit the murders. So somebody else committed the murders, OK? Somebody else murdered the mother of your children brutally in her condominium, in one of the most brutal crime scenes they`ve ever seen over there. And somebody else murdered your ex-wife and the daughter of your father-in-law.

And you write a book, "If I Did It, Here`s How It Happened," And that`s how you`re going to be a single parent, and that`s how you`re raising your children, "If I Did It, Here`s How It Happened." You didn`t do it. Somebody else did it. You`re found not guilty, and you know somebody else did it. And you`re going to profit off the brutal murder of your ex-wife and the mother of your children, who was beheaded. And you`re going to -- and not give the money to the families who you`ve already been found liable for their death, for her death, and you`re going to profit.

You talked about blood money earlier. If he didn`t commit the murders and he was found not guilty, I would have thrown him out just for that. That`s not the way to raise your children.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/09/ng.01.html

No warm welcome. He was by himself at the table. No autographs. And, there was applause and a standing ovation when Mr Ruby asked him to leave.

The only reason OJ EVER gets an excited response is due to morbid curiosity.


Tazzy hi

here is the video on ruby giving a interview. cnn
tell me if oj is signing autographs in Ruby;s resturant or not.

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/05/09/sot.oj.booted.affl

ps wait out the advertisement.
martinii

[weezer]

The restaurant owner reportedly has multiple upscale restaurants, so I seriously doubt he was after "free publicity". It seems like you think that anyone that goes after OJ is after a "free" something. Some people do things based on a moral conviction.

somehow I don't think it would be good publicity to draw attention to the fact that a double murderer frequents your establishment. MOO

[socaldiva]

orenthal was found liable for two murders -- sounds like double murderer to me.

Me too! ;)

[socaldiva]

somehow I don't think it would be good publicity to draw attention to the fact that a double murderer frequents your establishment. MOO

True :tongue: Also, we don't know who reported the story. Perhaps it go out when OJ went crying to Yale :D

[tazzybaby]

from a ohio newspaper blog.
Not being an attorney I realize that I sometimes ask dumb questions. Could you guys indulge me for one more? Since Mr. Simpson has been acquitted by a jury isn't calling him a double murderer in print a bit libelous? I can see accused double murderer or alleged double murderer but can they print that just because they believe him guilty?

Posted by: Dave_D | May 10, 2007 01:13 PM


You know what, Martin. I realize that you like to play games and all. But, I include a link almost every time I quote something. You copy a line from a blog but then won't include the link? Why?

And, why do you keep putting other peoples opinions up here? Can you not form your own? I actually like posting with you but these games you play get annoying.

Yes, they can print that. It's not a "legal" document. It doesn't mean it's true. Could he sue? Possibly. But, then he'd have to prove that he's not a murderer. He was found not guilty by a jury that could use a smideon of a doubt to claim this. He was found liable by a jury with a lower standard. Put them together and you have the case solved. OJ is a double murderer.

[socaldiva]

Tazzy hi

here is the video on ruby giving a interview. cnn
tell me if oj is signing autographs in Ruby;s resturant or not.

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/05/09/sot.oj.booted.affl

ps wait out the advertisement.
martinii

I believe that to be a video of another event from some time ago. I've seen it before.

[tazzybaby]

Tazzy hi

here is the video on ruby giving a interview. cnn
tell me if oj is signing autographs in Ruby;s resturant or not.

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/05/09/sot.oj.booted.affl

ps wait out the advertisement.
martinii

Ha! Thanks for the link!!

But, if you pay attention there is a Christmas Tree in the background. This was definately not the same instance.

[socaldiva]

Ha! Thanks for the link!!

But, if you pay attention there is a Christmas Tree in the background. This was definately not the same instance.

Good catch! I told you I'd seen it before & it was from another time :D

[martin II]

You know what, Martin. I realize that you like to play games and all. But, I include a link almost every time I quote something. You copy a line from a blog but then won't include the link? Why?

And, why do you keep putting other peoples opinions up here? Can you not form your own? I actually like posting with you but these games you play get annoying.

Yes, they can print that. It's not a "legal" document. It doesn't mean it's true. Could he sue? Possibly. But, then he'd have to prove that he's not a murderer. He was found not guilty by a jury that could use a smideon of a doubt to claim this. He was found liable by a jury with a lower standard. Put them together and you have the case solved. OJ is a double murderer.


tazzy hi

did you listen to the CNN VIDEO.

All of the quotes from others are from the louisville newspapers blogs. I have given my own opinion on this issue several times on this thread.

There are many pro ruby opinions posted here. I am posting some with different opinions on the issue.
--------------------------

Mr. Ruby is a hypocrite. He cheated on his wife. He condoned prostitution, drug use, and drug sales in his restaurants. Maybe he should exclude people guilty of those crimes from eating at his businesses as well. Oh wait. He couldn’t eat there as well.


Posted 32 min ago by SickandTired


Posted May 9, 2007 by cgull

I know he killed them for sure, it is sad he still walks around. But in this case the restaurant owner cannot act as a judge, he should leave it to the courts. Now OJ can sue and win the case even for sending the patrons away like this. There maybe a molester or abuser in his dining place, will he do that also, he should focus on customer service.

[weezer]

I believe that to be a video of another event from some time ago. I've seen it before.

looks like holiday decorations to me -- I mean, I don't think they would still have Christmas decorations up in May -- of course, I could be wrong. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

tazzy hi

did you listen to the CNN VIDEO.

All of the quotes from others are from the louisville newspapers blogs. I have given my own opinion on this issue several times on this thread.

There are many pro ruby opinions posted here. I am posting some with different opinions on the issue.
--------------------------

Mr. Ruby is a hypocrite. He cheated on his wife. He condoned prostitution, drug use, and drug sales in his restaurants. Maybe he should exclude people guilty of those crimes from eating at his businesses as well. Oh wait. He couldn’t eat there as well.


Posted 32 min ago by SickandTired


Posted May 9, 2007 by cgull

I know he killed them for sure, it is sad he still walks around. But in this case the restaurant owner cannot act as a judge, he should leave it to the courts. Now OJ can sue and win the case even for sending the patrons away like this. There maybe a molester or abuser in his dining place, will he do that also, he should focus on customer service.

I understand that when cornered, the orenthal apologists come out swinging but this may be a little too much. And, martin, you may not want to be the one posting that stuff to this board. MOO

[Suzee10]

Wow! Check out this poll.....

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770509020

By a landslide!


Woooooeeeeee 84%!!!!! I think that says it all. :beer:

[weezer]

. . . He cheated on his wife. He condoned prostitution, drug use, and drug sales in his restaurants. Maybe he should exclude people guilty of those crimes from eating at his businesses as well.

ahh, I'm disappointed........it all sounds like orenthal except of course we know orenthal actually used the drugs himself and killed his wife and an innocent bystander. Hmmm, guess it doesn't sound so much like orenthal after all.

[martin II]

Ha! Thanks for the link!!

But, if you pay attention there is a Christmas Tree in the background. This was definately not the same instance.

Tazz hi
i saw the christmas tree. i think it must be just decorations. with some white boxes on it. or maby ruby likes christmas trees.

Are you suggesting that this video was not from 5/9/07 at ruby resturant????

if so below is the menu from the right side of the video. note the date. if this is not enough go to cmm archives for 5/9/07 and you may find it.
note the title OJ KICKED OUT OF RESTURANT.

let me know what you find. haha
--------------------------------


FeedbackU.S.

O.J. kicked out of restaurant
A restaurant owner in Louisville, Kentucky refuses to serve O.J. Simpson and kicks him out. (May 9)


• WCPO
• CNN.com - U.S. News


Divorce billboard taken down
Attorney Corri Fetman talks about the removal of her law firm's controversial billboard (May 9)


• CNN.com - Local News - U.S./Midwest Region
• WLS


Brush fire scorches L.A. park

[martin II]

tazzy hi

how can you say this video is from another time when the title is in the top left above the picture and the date is under the video even with the christmas tree. gees.

martin II

[weezer]

it wasn't just christmas trees -- there was greenery, red bows and lights around doorways. This has to be an archived video.

[martin II]

looks like holiday decorations to me -- I mean, I don't think they would still have Christmas decorations up in May -- of course, I could be wrong. :rolleyes:

weezer


could you also doubt that this video was from this week even when the title in at the top and the date at the bottom of the video?
martinii

[weezer]

tazzy hi

how can you say this video is from another time when the title is in the top left above the picture and the date is under the video even with the christmas tree. gees.

martin II

obviously the tape was from another time

[weezer]

weezer


could you also doubt that this video was from this week even when the title in at the top and the date at the bottom of the video?
martinii

martin, the restaurant does not still have Christmas decorations up -- gees.

[martin II]

it wasn't just christmas trees -- there was greenery, red bows and lights around doorways. This has to be an archived video.

cnn puts the date on the video as 5/8 to the right is the link.

do you suggest that ruby is not talking about what happened in his resturant this week. if so ,good luck.
martin II

[weezer]

I looked for menu dates, etc but don't see anything............anyone else find what martin is talking about?

[martin II]

martin, the restaurant does not still have Christmas decorations up -- gees.

weezer

make of it what you like but i doubt cnn put this video on their web site and gave the date of 5/8 when it was recorded.

So i guess you KNOW ruby made this vedio long before this week. I also guess
the patron at the table before oj was their before and M JORDAN was there before also.



good luck

martin II

[weezer]

cnn puts the date on the video as 5/8 to the right is the link.

do you suggest that ruby is not talking about what happened in his resturant this week. if so ,good luck.
martin II

of course ruby is talking about what happened this week but what has that to do with your post about ruby liking christmas trees?

[weezer]

weezer

make of it what you like but i doubt cnn put this video on their web site and gave the date of 5/8 when it was recorded.

So i guess you KNOW ruby made this vedio long before this week. I also guess
the patron at the table before oj was their before and M JORDAN was there before also.



good luck

martin II

you are starting to worry me! my interpretation of the video clip: ruby interview was current and discussing what just happened. The video portion showing orenthal and folks in coats with Christmas decorations surrounding them was from archived film.

[martin II]

tazzy hi

has you opinion of the date the video was made changed?or do you also still believe that it was not made this week.
martin II

[martin II]

you are starting to worry me! my interpretation of the video clip: ruby interview was current and discussing what just happened. The video portion showing orenthal and folks in coats with Christmas decorations surrounding them was from archived film.

look it is obvious that oj simpson was signing autographs at rubys on the date of the video. if you cannot admit that then i should be worrying about you.
martin II

[weezer]

first of all, there were no cameras there to video ruby refusing orenthal service. second, there were no cameras inside the restaurant to video orenthal signing autographs. third, trust me, the restaurant does not still have holiday decorations up.

[weezer]

look it is obvious that oj simpson was signing autographs at rubys on the date of the video.

and what do you think that date was?

[martin II]

and what do you think that date was?

tazzy weezer

i looked at the video again (three times to be exact)

the video part that oj is singing autographs must have been done on 5/4. the saturday before the KD. The day ruby said oj came to his resturant and was maby shot by a local tv station(ucpo) that followed oj to the resturant.It would not be strange for photos to hang around a resturant like ruby's on KD
weekend. Ruby's interview is shown as taking place on 5/8/07 on the video.

issues
1. i have no idea as to why christmas decoration are in place. There is a well known very large and famous tourist type Italian resturant where i am "MAMA LEONIES" that kept christmas decoration/trees up all year for many years. for some reason is was a big attraction.

2. The lighting in the resturant when oj is singing autographs seems to be slighty darker orange tent than when ruby is talking. don't know why. maby ruby was talking earlier in the day before opening and the lighting was not down as it would be latrer on.

4. That cnn put the two videos togeather and posted it on their web site 5/8/0r 5/9 where i found it.

5. Ruby has said that Oj had not been in his resturant since long before the murders but in the singing part video oj looks the same as he does now.more grey hair that i don't believ he had in 1995

6. I tried to count the people with oj as he was leaving and i got about 10-11
people with him. his party had 12.

7. Ruby said that a parton of his was acting all 'GIDDY' and wanted to get Oj's autograph on the day he asked oj to leave 5/4/07 as he did not want this happening in his resturant and he asked oj to leave.

I am not 100% sure after reviewing the video but based on the above i tend to believe that one was made on 5/4/07 and one on 5/8/07

if you can prove that the oj video was not made on 5/4/ please do so and i will retract my post about oj siging autographs on 5/4/07 in rubys resturant.

martin II

[socaldiva]

first of all, there were no cameras there to video ruby refusing orenthal service. second, there were no cameras inside the restaurant to video orenthal signing autographs. third, trust me, the restaurant does not still have holiday decorations up.

:beer: "Maby" a funky run down restaurant would have Christmas decorations up year round, but not an upscale restaurant.

Also, I saw that very same video quite some time ago, as I guess I'm psychic. Gawd. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

:beer: "Maby" a funky run down restaurant would have Christmas decorations up year round, but not an upscale restaurant.

Also, I saw that very same video quite some time ago, as I guess I'm psychic. Gawd. :rolleyes:

LOL -- I knew there was something special about you!

Well, I guess they had really strange weather for the Derby -- overcoats and Christmas decorations one night and flowered sundresses and hats for the sun all within a day or two or each other.

[socaldiva]

LOL -- I knew there was something special about you!

Well, I guess they had really strange weather for the Derby -- overcoats and Christmas decorations one night and flowered sundresses and hats for the sun all within a day or two or each other.

Strange attire and the other patron must have been following OJ around the city with an old OJ book. Did you see him signing the book? :tongue:

[weezer]

Louisville weather for May

4th - 72°F 52°F
5th - 72°F 52°F
6th - 73°F 53°F

http://horseracing.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.weather.com/weather/climatology/USKY1096%3Fdayofyear=121

[socaldiva]

*snip*
7. Ruby said that a parton of his was acting all 'GIDDY' and wanted to get Oj's autograph on the day he asked oj to leave 5/4/07 as he did not want this happening in his resturant and he asked oj to leave.


You've already been corrected by another poster, who actually provided you with a link of a transcript as to what Ruby said & yet you continue to post FALSE information here. Ruby did not say the customer asked for an autograph!!

[socaldiva]

Louisville weather for May

4th - 72°F 52°F
5th - 72°F 52°F
6th - 73°F 53°F

http://horseracing.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.weather.com/weather/climatology/USKY1096%3Fdayofyear=121

Don't you always bundle up when it dips down into the 70's? :D

[weezer]

5. Ruby has said that Oj had not been in his resturant since long before the murders but in the singing part video oj looks the same as he does now.more grey hair that i don't believ he had in 1995


hmmm -- then he must have eaten something that swelled him up because he's surely gained weight since the "singing part video" :tongue:

IMO

[weezer]

Strange attire and the other patron must have been following OJ around the city with an old OJ book. Did you see him signing the book? :tongue:

there's all kinds of people in this world -- I saw a report on tv where they are selling fingernail clippings and foot scrappings from the creeps on death row.......

I do have to laugh to think some dude has been carrying around that book waiting to get an autograph and the orenthal apologists think it's because he's a fan. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

Don't you always bundle up when it dips down into the 70's? :D

and it puts me in the mood to drag out the Christmas decorations -- LOL

[martin II]

Ruby is now on www.tmz.com saying "he and fred made a agreement that if oj sues ruby, fred will take the money from oj and give it back to ruby."

Wonder why ruby thinks oj may sue him and get money from him if he was in his rights to kick oj out
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Wonder why ruby thinks oj may sue him and get money from him if he was in his rights to kick oj out
martin II

Maybe because Gallanter has already said he might sue? I'm sure Fred & Ruby are just horsing around. Ruby's got NOTHING to worry about relative to a lawsuit. imo

[martin II]

LOL -- I knew there was something special about you!

Well, I guess they had really strange weather for the Derby -- overcoats and Christmas decorations one night and flowered sundresses and hats for the sun all within a day or two or each other.

WEEZER
Ok you proved your point. i had not noticed the top coat in the warm weather.

I take back my post.I don't think oj signed autographs on 5/4/07 in ruby's resturant.

martin II

[socaldiva]

there's all kinds of people in this world -- I saw a report on tv where they are selling fingernail clippings and foot scrappings from the creeps on death row.......

I do have to laugh to think some dude has been carrying around that book waiting to get an autograph and the orenthal apologists think it's because he's a fan. :rolleyes:

I know, I was just thinking the same thing. People write fan mail to Charles Manson & Scott Peterson, thinking their the cat's pajamas. One of the Menendez brothers & Jeffrey Macdonald got married in prison. I would think anyone wanting an autograph from Simpson would fall into that category. Not wrapped too tight. :tongue:

[socaldiva]

WEEZER
Ok you proved your point. i had not noticed the top coat in the warm weather.

I take back my post.I don't think oj signed autographs on 5/4/07 in ruby's resturant.

martin II


~thud~Never saw that coming :D

[martin II]

tazzy hi
my post about oj signing autographs was not correct. You were correct. oj did not sign authgraphs on 5/4/ in rubys resturant.
martin II


The onus should not be on others to disprove an assumption you present as fact. It is your responsiblity to support your assertions. This is an example of a sequence of posts that should not be necessary.

[weezer]

WEEZER
Ok you proved your point. i had not noticed the top coat in the warm weather.

I take back my post.I don't think oj signed autographs on 5/4/07 in ruby's resturant.

martin II

:beer: thank you martin but I have to say I went :eek: when you posted. LOL

[weezer]

OMG -- I just had this mental picture of orenthal sitting at a table holding a knife :eek:

[socaldiva]

OMG -- I just had this mental picture of orenthal sitting at a table holding a knife :eek:

Speaking of knives,today I heard Ruby say he told the blonde that accompanied Orenthal that was getting in his face about OJ being ejected from the restaurant,"you're blonde, you better be careful...you might be next" or words to that effect. :chicken:

[weezer]

Speaking of knives,today I heard Ruby say he told the blonde that accompanied Orenthal that was getting in his face about OJ being ejected from the restaurant,"you're blonde, you better be careful...you might be next" or words to that effect. :chicken:

I heard that too -- how sad.

[socaldiva]

*snip* Members do not get drawn into the drama - report it to me instead.


Understood :patriot:

[Livia]

OMG -- I just had this mental picture of orenthal sitting at a table holding a knife :eek:

Funny you should mention that, weezer! Just today my mother and I were discussing this whole thing (OJ getting tossed from the restaurant etc) and my mother made almost the identical remark--that the very thought of sitting in a room full of sharp steak knives with OJ Simpson nearby made her very, very nervous. :biggrin:

[socaldiva]

Looks like Galanter won't be filing a lawsuit against Ruby. My guess is, he knew it wouldn't be sucessful & both he & OJ would look like fools. JMO

http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/ap/20070512/117903204000.html

[jotun]

Martin,

Anyone can look it up. It's not private. They also have this posted on many other message boards.



:mad:

Tazzy
Please provide links to the many other message boards that the Yale info is posted on.

jotun

[martin II]

I heard that too -- how sad.

weezer
actually Ruby again made what he considered to be a good news making SOUND BITE during his interview for his personal PR.jmoo

He told the lady' LOOK , YOU ARE A BLOND, YOU BETTER BE CAREFUIL, HE MAY SLIT YOUR TROAT"jmoo

The next headlines grabbing effort was when he informed us that fred and he had talked and decided that if OJ did sue him fred would then take the money from Oj and give it back to him. That was in my opinion a effort to attatch himself to freds effort. I look for more 'REPORTS from ruby soon.
Maby he will put large jar next to the cash register in his place with freds name on it.jmoo
martin II

[martin II]

ALL
i would be willing to bet that when MR Ruby signed his application with the city agency that regulates ALL PUBLIC resturants, he failed to inform them that at any time he would act as judge and jury and pass sentance on any person in his PUBLIC resturant. Don't think he paid any attention to the non discrimination clause either.Wonder what he thinks about a womans right to choose or not be allowed to choose eating in his place. etc. I don't know if he acted from a racist basis or not as it really does not matter.
jmoo
martin II

ps
please add JMOO to my previous post.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Wonder what he thinks about a womans right to choose or not be allowed to choose eating in his place. etc. I don't know if he acted from a racist basis or not as it really does not matter.


I doubt that he has any problems with women eating in his restaurant as long as they aren't murderers that lied their way out of doing prison time for their acts & go on to taunt the victims families.

It really does matter as to whether or not the ejection from the restaurant was racially based, as that is illegal. Tossing OJ for the reasons he did, isn't illegal. Galanter dropped the lawsuit. That should tell you something.

[weezer]

Looks like Galanter won't be filing a lawsuit against Ruby. My guess is, he knew it wouldn't be sucessful & both he & OJ would look like fools. JMO

http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/ap/20070512/117903204000.html

another example of galanter running his mouth. what an idiot! IMOO

[weezer]

ALL
i would be willing to bet that when MR Ruby signed his application with the city agency that regulates ALL PUBLIC resturants, he failed to inform them that at any time he would act as judge and jury and pass sentance on any person in his PUBLIC resturant. Don't think he paid any attention to the non discrimination clause either.Wonder what he thinks about a womans right to choose or not be allowed to choose eating in his place. etc. I don't know if he acted from a racist basis or not as it really does not matter.
jmoo
martin II

ps
please add JMOO to my previous post.

Mr. Ruby has the right to refuse service to anyone as long as that refusal is not an illegal one. Mr. Ruby refusing service to a double murderer is not illegal and I applaud the his actions. IMOO

[weezer]

weezer
actually Ruby again made what he considered to be a good news making SOUND BITE during his interview for his personal PR.jmoo

He told the lady' LOOK , YOU ARE A BLOND, YOU BETTER BE CAREFUIL, HE MAY SLIT YOUR TROAT"jmoo

The next headlines grabbing effort was when he informed us that fred and he had talked and decided that if OJ did sue him fred would then take the money from Oj and give it back to him. That was in my opinion a effort to attatch himself to freds effort. I look for more 'REPORTS from ruby soon.
Maby he will put large jar next to the cash register in his place with freds name on it.jmoo
martin II

From everything I'm reading and hearing, Mr. Ruby is a successful business man -- I doubt orenthal buying a steak in his restaurant would make or break him. IMO What makes you think it was even Mr. Ruby that informed the media of the incident? You know, it could have been one of many of the customers who applauded orenthal being refused service. Wish more people would show their disdain for the double murderer.

[socaldiva]

another example of galanter running his mouth. what an idiot! IMOO

He is an idiot. Right now he's running neck & neck with Garagos for buffoon of the year. imo :D

[martin II]

From everything I'm reading and hearing, Mr. Ruby is a successful business man -- I doubt orenthal buying a steak in his restaurant would make or break him. IMO What makes you think it was even Mr. Ruby that informed the media of the incident? You know, it could have been one of many of the customers who applauded orenthal being refused service. Wish more people would show their disdain for the double murderer.

OJ walked out of ruby's meat house and was welcomed at another nice resturant in the same neighborhhod. no problen what so ever. Ruby's is not the only food place in the town.
martin II



"Simpson was welcomed at another restaurant, Basa Modern Vietnamese Cuisine, on Thursday. The co-owner, Steven Ton, said he tries to treat everyone equally. "I try to treat everyone like family when they are here. I treated him just like I did everyone else."

Ton also said none of the other customers complained about Simpson's presence.

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=6493883&nav=menu31_3

[socaldiva]

*snip*
OJ walked out of ruby's meat house and was welcomed at another nice resturant in the same neighborhhod. no problen what so ever.

"Meat house"?? Now you're going to try to denigrate Ruby's restaurant? I doubt Orenthal considered it a "meat house".

Who cares if OJ got to go to another restaurant? He didn't get to go to his first choice, now did he? :biggrin:

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi
my post about oj signing autographs was not correct. You were correct. oj did not sign authgraphs on 5/4/ in rubys resturant.
martin II


The onus should not be on others to disprove an assumption you present as fact. It is your responsiblity to support your assertions. This is an example of a sequence of posts that should not be necessary.


Hi Martin,

Just got back on the board. So, you guys worked this out while I was gone...lol I appreciate your retraction.

But, no, I never thought it was from that day because I believe the other stations would have shown this and made a bigger deal out of it had it been.

:seeya:

[martin II]

Hi Martin,

Just got back on the board. So, you guys worked this out while I was gone...lol I appreciate your retraction.

But, no, I never thought it was from that day because I believe the other stations would have shown this and made a bigger deal out of it had it been.

:seeya:

tazzy hi.

Thanks.
I will revert back to giving links to my post and jmoo.
I got a infraction for posting that cnn video as it had a advertisement attatched at the beginning.

thanks again
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Tazzy
Please provide links to the many other message boards that the Yale info is posted on.

jotun


Hi Jotun,

I didn't save those links. This was before Freshwater made her link comment. And, I didn't think anyone would ask me to back up the message boards comment...lol I almost always provide a link. There have been instances where I haven't. But, it is not on purpose.

I found Galanter's information through several blog/message boards. That's why I posted his information. (They were also commenting about contacting him and letting him know what you think.) You can also look his information up by typing in his name in google. Were you just wanting to find his information? Or where you just trying to call me out? I don't mind providing links. So, I apologize that I did not save those. I will definately (especially since Freshwater made her comment) make sure I provide links for everything (even if I think it's not necessary to the point).


:seeya:

[martin II]

Mr. Ruby has the right to refuse service to anyone as long as that refusal is not an illegal one. Mr. Ruby refusing service to a double murderer is not illegal and I applaud the his actions. IMOO


tazzy hi
Just a thought.
I am wondering if it woud be legal for Mr Ruby to refuse service to a woman that had a abortion a few days prior to comming to his resturant as a customer, if he was against a womans right to choose and considered her actions to be murder.jmoo

martin II

[Jayme K]

tazzy hi
Just a thought.
I am wondering if it woud be legal for Mr Ruby to refuse service to a woman that had a abortion a few days prior to comming to his resturant as a customer, if he was against a womans right to choose and considered her actions to be murder.jmoo

martin II

Abortion is legal no matter what your opinion. Cold blooded killing ain't.

[Jayme K]

Who welcomes a cold blooded killer? It would be interesting to see if that co-owner is get-away murderer himself.

Thank you!!!

[martin II]

Who welcomes a cold blooded killer? It would be interesting to see if that co-owner is get-away murderer himself.


beautiful one.

It is my belief that mr. Simpson must have had meals at other resturants during his 2-3 day stay in Louisville without reported incidents. jmoo
If true then i assume that he was welcomed at those places.jmoo
martin II

[martin II]

Trust me, if he was recognize and welcomed, there must be a few get-away murderers operating restaurants in Louisville. I don't care how long he starves, he wouldn't be allowed to eat a single french fry in my restaraunt.

you may know more than i do about the restrurant owners in Louisville than i do. I do believe that Oj is recognized in most places.jmoo

martin II

[martin II]

It seems you think OJ is innocent, is that correct?

i think that when a resturant owner ask for and receives a license from the PUBLIC (CITY/STATE AGENCY) to operate and serve the PUBLIC he should do just that and not pick and choose who to serve based on what he thinks about any iindividual customer.jmoo
martin II

[weezer]

i think that when a resturant owner ask for and receives a license from the PUBLIC (CITY/STATE AGENCY) to operate and serve the PUBLIC he should do just that and not pick and choose who to serve based on what he thinks about any iindividual customer.jmoo
martin II

This was a privately owned restaurant licensed and regulated by city/state agency to operate and to serve food and alcohol to the public. The owner has every right to refuse service to anyone as long as the reason is not an illegal one. Mr. Ruby believes orenthal to be a double murderer and based his refusal of service on that. IMOO

[martin II]

This was a privately owned restaurant licensed and regulated by city/state agency to operate and to serve food and alcohol to the public. The owner has every right to refuse service to anyone as long as the reason is not an illegal one. Mr. Ruby believes orenthal to be a double murderer and based his refusal of service on that. IMOO

weezer
The issue imo is, if refusing service based on the owners personal belief is legal under the Kentucky public accomodaitons law or under the comsuner affairs law of the city of Louisville KY that issued the license to operate a resturant to serve the public.jmoo
martin II

[martin II]

maby in kentucky Ruby's private resturant is like his private home and he can pick and choose as to who he wants to associate with.

AT any rate Ruby's decision did not seem to matter to OJ as he just said OK and he and his party went to another resturant and had their meals without any reported problems.

I hope oj just ignores the issue and refuse to give Ruby the opportunity to continue to try to make this into some national important occurance for his own PR benefit by regular sound bites on tv.
all my opinion
martin II

[weezer]

I wonder if the blonde girlfriend with orenthal that got in Ruby's face was the 'puffy' blonde in the picture from the Derby? Is that the same girlfriend that called police on orenthal?

[weezer]

I hope oj just ignores the issue

I hope it's a trend for more proprieters and patrons all over. We can call it "doing a Ruby" :tongue:

[martin II]

I hope it's a trend for more proprieters and patrons all over. We can call it "doing a Ruby" :tongue:

i am not aware that the lady that spoke to ruby told him she was oj 's girlfriend or not.
OJ has been eating in resturants all over florida and the east coast since the time he has been in Florida. I can not recall reading about any "OJ got kicked out " instances other than by ruby.jmoo


'We can call it "doing a Ruby"
Are you going to lead this movement by any chance?jmoo
martin II

[martin II]

I wonder if the blonde girlfriend with orenthal that got in Ruby's face was the 'puffy' blonde in the picture from the Derby? Is that the same girlfriend that called police on orenthal?

what is 'PUFFY'?

[weezer]

If I were a restaurant owner, I certainly would not want my patrons subjected to the sight of the Butcher of Brentwood sitting in my restaurant holding a knife. IMO :no:

[martin II]

Is this the lady you referrred to.
hope this is ok.

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070509/483/25cf31289c7947aa97f6cf229e3da559

[weezer]

Is this the lady you referrred to.
hope this is ok.

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070509/483/25cf31289c7947aa97f6cf229e3da559

Yep -- except the picture I saw she was standing next to him.

See, you knew what 'puffy' meant. :D

[martin II]

Yep -- except the picture I saw she was standing next to him.

See, you knew what 'puffy' meant. :D

i have the other picture.

P Diddy's name use to be PUFFY before he changed it to Diddy. sure you were not refering to him. what does "PUFFY" mean. i am a big boy i can take it.

martin II

[martin II]

If I were a restaurant owner, I certainly would not want my patrons subjected to the sight of the Butcher of Brentwood sitting in my restaurant holding a knife. IMO :no:

weezer
A true vegiterian would tell oj GOOD FOR YOU.You had no business in that resturant trying to eat dead cow/steer meat anyway. I GUESS. JMOO
No offense intended.:D
but to each his own.
martin II

[socaldiva]

weezer
A true vegiterian would tell oj GOOD FOR YOU.You had no business in that resturant trying to eat dead cow/steer meat anyway. I GUESS. JMOO
No offense intended.:D
but to each his own.
martin II

Wrong again. I've been a "true vegiterian" for over 30 yrs & I never tell anyone else what to eat/not eat.

But I would have stood & applauded the double murderer getting the boot :patriot:

[socaldiva]

*snip*
AT any rate Ruby's decision did not seem to matter to OJ as he just said OK and he and his party went to another resturant

Seems to me he must have whined to Galanter about it, or they wouldn't have threatened a lawsuit. :D

[socaldiva]

I hope it's a trend for more proprieters and patrons all over. We can call it "doing a Ruby" :tongue:


:beer: :beer: I love the idea. I heard someone say that a chain has pledged to this, but I haven't had a chance to verify it.

[Suzee10]

:beer:I love the idea. I heard someone say that a chain has pledged to this, but I haven't had a chance to verify it.


Sounds like a winner to me.
:beer:

[Suzee10]

Do you really REALLY THINK OJ is innocent?


That also sound like a great idea to me, just kick simpson off the entire planet!:patriot:

[RainStorm]

Suppose you owned a restaraunt: would you serve Jessica Lunsford, Samantha Runnion or Sherrice Iverson's killers? No you wouldn't. You would outright disrespect them. OJ is just as guilty as them. The only difference is he's big and rich, and his victims were adults rather then children.

I don't think many restaurateurs want a murderer chowing down at their
establishment. So while most owners don't want Simpson there, they are
pragmatic about their options. Is it less disruptive to just serve him and get
him on his way, or is it less disruptive to throw Simpson's murdering butt out?
Most are going to go with the former. Now, if customers start to complain,
that's a whole different story.

This guy Ruby, he sounds like he has some strong convictions on the case that compelled him
to take the action he did. That is deserving of the applause he received.

[socaldiva]

Why was Martin II banned?

I think questions like this should be addressed to Freshwater in a PM rather than here on the board.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
This guy Ruby, he sounds like he has some strong convictions on the case that compelled him
to take the action he did. That is deserving of the applause he received.

I agree. IIRC he said that the book is what really did it for him.

[tazzybaby]

Here is Yale Galanters contact information for those who want to let him know just how they feel about him threatening to file RACIAL discrimination regarding the Restaurant boot...

The Law Offices of Yale L. Galanter, P.A.
http://www.galanterlaw.com/

Ft. Lauderdale
525 South Andrews Ave.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954.731.1500
Fax: 954.760.9040

Miami
2800 Biscayne Blvd.
Ninth Floor
Miami, FL 33137
Tel: 305-576-0244

For appointments and additional information please contact office manager, Ali Costales, at the above phone numbers or at ali@galanterlaw.com.

You can e-mail Mr. Galanter at yale@galanterlaw.com

This reply is for SASSYLASSY,

Hi Sassy,

I don't understand why you keep commenting on the "link only" thread. I also posted this in one of the other threads. So, you could have made this comment there.

:shrug:

But, the reason why anyone would need or want this info is because Galanter tried to make this (restaurant incident) into a race issue when it wasn't. It was posted for anyone who wanted to voice their opinion on that to him. I know that you support Simpson and you seem to like Galanter. So, if that's true, wouldn't you want POSITIVE Simpson PR? Galanter trying to make this a race issue when it very clearly was NOT, is not POSITIVE for Simpson.

:confused:

[sassylassy]

This reply is for SASSYLASSY,

Hi Sassy,

I don't understand why you keep commenting on the "link only" thread. I also posted this in one of the other threads. So, you could have made this comment there.

:shrug:

But, the reason why anyone would need or want this info is because Galanter tried to make this (restaurant incident) into a race issue when it wasn't. It was posted for anyone who wanted to voice their opinion on that to him. I know that you support Simpson and you seem to like Galanter. So, if that's true, wouldn't you want POSITIVE Simpson PR? Galanter trying to make this a race issue when it very clearly was NOT, is not POSITIVE for Simpson.

:confused:


I wasnt aware you posted this info on another thread, I am not active in alot of threads, otherwise I would have posted my question there.

I was just wondering why you posted that info & thank you for the info,

[jotun]

some comments from local ohio newspapers.

ruby said "he only serves MURDERS if they have served their time and then came to eat."

"OJ should file a lawsuit against Mr. Ruby for violating his civil rights. As you may know, this is not the first time that Mr. Ruby has denied access to black patrons - he did the same thing in Cincinnati in 2000 which was a precipitating factor in 2001 racial uprising. If Mr. Ruby desires to discriminate against clientele then he should operate private dinner clubs, not public ones. It's a shame and a sad commentary about American society and the racist views harbored by many.
----------------
Mr. Ruby is a hypocrite. He cheated on his wife. He condoned prostitution, drug use, and drug sales in his restaurants. Maybe he should exclude people guilty of those crimes from eating at his businesses as well. Oh wait. He couldn’t eat there as well.
------------------------



Martin
Would you please send all this info to Yale & the Louisville Metro Human Relations Commisson???
Also all that and the other ohio sunday local info to the Liquor License Bureau in Louisville.

jotun

[jotun]

tazzy hi
local activist already picketed the resturant wednesday.
I am not sure the claim should be racism because Mr m jordan was allowed to eat there.(HE WOULD NEVER TOSS MICHAEL) Unless ruby used the book ISSUE to hide some deep seeded racism.

But i think the claim should be discrimination against a orderly patron in a PUBLIC resturant. It is my opinion that government laws prevent a owner
from deciding on the spot who he will not serve since he is using a city (PUBLIC CONSUMMER AFFAIRS) license to operate his meat stand

In most cities a license to operate a establishment comes with some rules everone must abide by. i think nondiscrimination would be one.

suppose this guy joined MAW could he bar women or blonds?

This guy got what he was trying to get BIG TIME PUBLICITY he has been on fox and all the other gossip programs like N GRACE.
martin II

Martin
ALL SO TRUE!!!

jotun

[jotun]

"Ruby told Inside Edition that the sight of Simpson getting a warm welcome in his restaurant turned his stomach."
yahoo

Martin,
Also on Inside Edition was a interesting video-clip. Showed O.J. [still gorgeous]
& Yale inside at the derby.

jotun

[socaldiva]

Martin
Would you please send all this info to Yale & the Louisville Metro Human Relations Commisson???
Also all that and the other ohio sunday local info to the Liquor License Bureau in Louisville.

jotun

Martin was quoted from an unidentified source, so how do you know that what he's posted is factual?

Do you really think that Martin knows more than Galanter as to what transpired?

Galanter dropped the notion of a lawsuit, that should tell you plenty. imo

[socaldiva]

Martin,
Also on Inside Edition was a interesting video-clip. Showed O.J. [still gorgeous]
& Yale inside at the derby.

jotun

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as I think he's overweight & looks awful.

Also, if he were the best looking man on earth, it would negated by the fact that he abused Nicole for years & then slaughtered her. IMO

[socaldiva]

Martin
ALL SO TRUE!!!

jotun

If you think Martin's post was "so true", perhaps you can provide links to support his assertions being that he didn't.

[jotun]

True :tongue: Also, we don't know who reported the story. Perhaps it go out when OJ went crying to Yale :D

ALL,

Yale attended the derby with O.J. Therefore would assume he was in that party of 12. IMO when Yale said 'he screwed with the wrong guy' he meant himself.

jotun

[socaldiva]

ALL,

Yale attended the derby with O.J. Therefore would assume he was in that party of 12. IMO when Yale said 'he screwed with the wrong guy' he meant himself.

jotun

I'd really rather not "assume" anything. Do you have a link to support that Yale attended the derby with OJ or was part of the party that was tossed from the restaurant?

[jotun]

Ruby is now on www.tmz.com saying "he and fred made a agreement that if oj sues ruby, fred will take the money from oj and give it back to ruby."

Wonder why ruby thinks oj may sue him and get money from him if he was in his rights to kick oj out
martin II

Martin

IMO- That's hilarious...
IMO- Don't think fred would ever give up any money.
LOL-LOL-LOL

jotun

[socaldiva]

Martin

IMO- That's hilarious...
IMO- Don't think fred would ever give up any money.
LOL-LOL-LOL

jotun

What's "hilarious" to you? That there are actually some people with morals that understand that Orenthal hasn't paid his judgement to the Goldman's & they take offense to it? I don't think it's "hilarious", I think it's admirable.

P.S. I don't see anything on that link that refers to Orenthal, Fred or Jeff Ruby.

[jotun]

WEEZER
Ok you proved your point. i had not noticed the top coat in the warm weather.

I take back my post.I don't think oj signed autographs on 5/4/07 in ruby's resturant.

martin II

Martin

The file film shown on cnn is from the Pardo tapes.
IE had a video-clip from the next day at the derby.

jotun

[socaldiva]

Martin

The file film shown on cnn is from the Pardo tapes.
IE had a video-clip from the next day at the derby.

jotun

You keep making posts to Martin. In case you are awaiting a reply & don't know, he is currently banned, therefore I don't think he can respond to your posts.

[jotun]

Hi Jotun,

I didn't save those links. This was before Freshwater made her link comment. And, I didn't think anyone would ask me to back up the message boards comment.

I found Galanter's information through several blog/message boards. That's why I posted his information. (They were also commenting about contacting him and letting him know what you think.) You can also look his information up by typing in his name in google. Were you just wanting to find his information? Or where you just trying to call me out?.


:seeya:

Tazzy
Didn't ask if you had saved the links. Surely you know the names of these blog/message boards.Providing just the names would be just fine.Yes wanted the info on where not what.

I have had the Yale info for years now.I send Yale info from time to time.Things I think he should be aware of.

jotun

[jotun]

weezer
The issue imo is, if refusing service based on the owners personal belief is legal under the Kentucky public accomodaitons law or under the comsuner affairs law of the city of Louisville KY that issued the license to operate a resturant to serve the public.jmoo
martin II

Martin

IMO-that is the ISSUE also. Is it LEGAL...

jotun

[socaldiva]

Martin

IMO-that is the ISSUE also. Is it LEGAL...

jotun

It seems to me it must be LEGAL or Galanter & Orenthal wouldn't have dropped the issue ;)

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Surely you know the names of these blog/message boards.Providing just the names would be just fine.

I don't know if you are supposed to post names of blog/message boards here. You might want to :read: the rules & regulations first.

[jotun]

You keep making posts to Martin. In case you are awaiting a reply & don't know, he is currently banned, therefore I don't think he can respond to your posts.


ALL:
I am responding to Martin's posts.
I am totaly aware that Martin has been banned.
Am NOT awaiting a reply YET.
But Martin can read posts.
Hope you are back soon Martin.

jotun

[jotun]

I'd really rather not "assume" anything. Do you have a link to support that Yale attended the derby with OJ or was part of the party that was tossed from the restaurant?

ALL
Only the video-clip from 'Inside Edition'
showing a GORGEOUS O.J. & Yale at the derby.I assume Yale was one of the 12.Don't have a link so is JMOO.

jotun

[jotun]

It seems to me it must be LEGAL or Galanter & Orenthal wouldn't have dropped the issue ;)

All: IMO
Was NEVER a issue with O.J.
Was for Yale.

Yale said SOME regulatory agencies had contacted him to get info on what happened on Derby eve.
Yale said he would cooperate with the HRC or ANY OTHER regulatory agency LOOKING INTO THE MATTER.

IMO
Seems Yale is going to LET these agencies DO IT FOR HIM.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dill/article?Date=2007511&Category=N...

jotun

[socaldiva]

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dill/article?Date=2007511&Category=N...



Your link doesn't seem to work....

[socaldiva]

ALL
Only the video-clip from 'Inside Edition'
showing a GORGEOUS O.J. & Yale at the derby.I assume Yale was one of the 12.Don't have a link so is JMOO.

jotun

I'm not sure why you feel you need to comment on Orenthal's looks, but I think he looks bloated & old.

I just looked on the Inside Edition website & couldn't find the video that you speak of.

[tazzybaby]

Tazzy
Didn't ask if you had saved the links. Surely you know the names of these blog/message boards.Providing just the names would be just fine.Yes wanted the info on where not what.

I have had the Yale info for years now.I send Yale info from time to time.Things I think he should be aware of.

jotun

Hi Jotun,

Maybe I should have made myself more clear. I got to those blog/message boards through news articles. I did look to see if I could find the same news articles. But, there are so many now that I didn't find the same ones. It would take a while and I don't have that kind of time. Once again, I apologize for not posting the links. Like I said before, I did not anticipate anyone wanting the links to those boards/blogs.

I am not suprised that you send info to Yale. You seem to be a very strong supporter of Yale. As you are completely aware, I am not. IMO he is a joke of an attorney. His actions and comments seem to confirm that to me on a regular basis.

[tazzybaby]

All: IMO
Was NEVER a issue with O.J.
Was for Yale.

Yale said SOME regulatory agencies had contacted him to get info on what happened on Derby eve.
Yale said he would cooperate with the HRC or ANY OTHER regulatory agency LOOKING INTO THE MATTER.

IMO
Seems Yale is going to LET these agencies DO IT FOR HIM.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dill/article?Date=2007511&Category=N...

jotun

Hi Jotun,

This link doesn't work. I went to courier-journal and tried to find it. I couldn't. But, I did find this one.....

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070515/OPINION02/705150329/1018/OPINION

If you can get a better link to the article, please post it.

Thanks!

[tazzybaby]

I wasnt aware you posted this info on another thread, I am not active in alot of threads, otherwise I would have posted my question there.

I was just wondering why you posted that info & thank you for the info,


You're welcome. :seeya:

If you have a question about a link that I provided, you can always PM me. Freshwater made it clear before that the Link thread is for links only and not for comments. I have no problem at all explaining one of my links.

:cool:

[socaldiva]

Hi Jotun,

This link doesn't work. I went to courier-journal and tried to find it. I couldn't. But, I did find this one.....

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070515/OPINION02/705150329/1018/OPINION

If you can get a better link to the article, please post it.

Thanks!

Good link Tazzy. I hadn't read those before. I didn't see ONE person that wrote in to support Orenthal or complain about him being ousted.

[Suzee10]

I wish there was another term to be used in cases such as this (I am working on it!) because banned seems perm and that is not the case here. Martin will return (if he chooses to..) and I have EVERY expectation that any reference to his temporary time out will NOT be discussed by others. When a member has a time out it isn't always for severe or crazy behavior. Let us all remember that.

Thanks
Freshwater


Hi Freshwater,

What is a time-out and what are reasons for this? I have not heard of this before.

[Red Sox Fan]

Do you really REALLY THINK OJ is innocent?

It's hard to believe that ANYONE thinks OJ is innocent with all the damning evidence. But people are weird, go figure.

[Red Sox Fan]

I know right! I can't even fix my mind to figure out how he was aquitted. It had to be a racial verdict. I heard that because the jury was black, they aquitted him. At first I didn't believe that but now I can't seem to find any other reason as to why he was aquitted. That had to be it.

Hi Beautiful One,

I don't think it was a racial verdict. Black juries convict black defendants all the time. I think OJ was acquitted because of his incredible charisma. I have met him a few times. The second time I met him was AFTER the murders and I KNEW he did it, yet I found myself still being in awe of him. Yes I am a sports fan but still have alot of disdain for murderers. I can't really explain my reaction to him but it was kind of like okay I know he is guilty but I just can't believe this nice guy I'm talking to could be a killer. I think the jury was 'seduced' by him. Right after the verdict I was mad at the jury, but after meeting OJ once again I had a better understanding of why things turned out that way. I know I'm not explaining this very well...

Later,

RCR

[limakey]

IMO, in order to call a person a racist, you have to define what you think racism is. IMO, a racist is someone who thinks they are a superior human being simply because of the color of their skin. IMO, a racist who believes that one race of people is just below their standards of being "human".

IMO, I don't believe this was a racist verdict. I don't believe that any of the evidence that I believe was planted was motivated by racism. Again, only my opinon.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
IMO, I don't believe this was a racist verdict. I don't believe that any of the evidence that I believe was planted was motivated by racism. Again, only my opinon.

The verdict & LE actions are two separate things. You seem to be intertwining them. How do you explain one juror statement that "we take care of our own"?

Why would LE implicate OJ Simpson, the very person they had given preferential treatment to prior to the murders?

[limakey]

In a round about way, you bring up an excellent point---why would black people think that a black man was just accused and arrested by police just because he was black?

However, I think this discussion should go to the other thread that deals with racism.

[Kate Sachel]

IMO, in order to call a person a racist, you have to define what you think racism is. IMO, a racist is someone who thinks they are a superior human being simply because of the color of their skin. IMO, a racist who believes that one race of people is just below their standards of being "human".

IMO, I don't believe this was a racist verdict. I don't believe that any of the evidence that I believe was planted was motivated by racism. Again, only my opinon.

I think that's too narrow a definition.

If the jury verdict was based on race, I do not believe it was because those twelve jurors held themselves suprior to white people but rather a need to protect a black man that many individuals felt rose above any racial status in the United States and became successful on all levels.

Kate

[limakey]

Kate,

I posted a reply on the Corruption thread.

Regards

[Red Sox Fan]

That's why it's called opinion, we all have them and they come in all forms. If I read correctly and truthfully, one juror said "black power"..Don't know if it's true but if it is, then that juror WAS quiet racist. Also, after being raised around blacks, I know how many of them are and how they react to black crime. That's why I believe deep down inside the verdict was racial. I know that if a black man is accused of killing whites, any black person's first instict would be "they're just accusing him because he's black".


Was every juror black? They ALL acquitted him. How do you explain the non-blacks voting to acquit??

[Red Sox Fan]

Does that mean it's impossible for a black jury to be racist? I am not calling EVERY black juror a racist, I'm saying that particular jury was racist. And several people agree with me. This has been said for years now. Alot of people think that jury was racist.

Okay I admit that I dont know all the details of this case like some of you do, but I thought there were some non blacks on the OJ jury. Can someone clarify?

[Kate Sachel]

Okay I admit that I dont know all the details of this case like some of you do, but I thought there were some non blacks on the OJ jury. Can someone clarify?

There were nine blacks, one hispanic, and two whites.

Kate

[Red Sox Fan]

There were nine blacks, one hispanic, and two whites.

Kate

Thanks, Kate.

Okay Beautiful One,

If the jury was ALL black I could see your theory of a 'racist jury' but how do you explain the not guilty vote by the hispanic and the 2 whites?

[Red Sox Fan]

Are you sure ALL jurors voted not guilty? If so, then the few non-blacks were the typical Americans--let the big and rich get away any and everything.

I thought so but I'm sure one of these OJ scholars will correct me if I'm wrong..

[weezer]

Anise Aschenbach - #1290 (seat 3) - Placed on jury March 17 (replacing Tracy Kennedy), White female, 61, divorced, one year of college, retired gasoline company clerk, lives in Norwalk. One of two jurors who voted guilty in first vote.

Annie Backman - #63 (seat 11) - Original Juror, White female, 23, single, college graduate, insurance claims adjuster, lives in Burbank. Believed to be the other juror who initially voted 'guilty' (source: Aschenbach's interview on 'Larry King Live').

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/finaljury.html

[weezer]

While waiting for the reading, they voted again. Now it was unanimous. As for the initial holdouts, Woods said, "I think what they did, they listened to the other 10 explain why they thought there was reasonable doubt, and then in the next vote, it was a 12 unanimous not guilty (decision)."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns070.htm

[Red Sox Fan]

While waiting for the reading, they voted again. Now it was unanimous. As for the initial holdouts, Woods said, "I think what they did, they listened to the other 10 explain why they thought there was reasonable doubt, and then in the next vote, it was a 12 unanimous not guilty (decision)."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns070.htm

Thanks for that fbg. Okay so I would say that since there were 3 non blacks who voted to acquit that the verdict was not racially motivated. jmo

[weezer]

Thanks for that fbg. Okay so I would say that since there were 3 non blacks who voted to acquit that the verdict was not racially motivated. jmo

hmmm -- unless you want to consider that the 10 black jurors were NG from the first vote. If two of the non-blacks had initial questions, would it stand to reason that at least one of the black jurors would also? Popular opinion is that it was in fact a racial verdict. Per Alan Dershowitz:

"I think for some of the jurors, Barry Scheck gave them the intellectual and the moral permission to vote their heart. They wanted to vote acquittal. Barry showed them how to; Johnnie told them why to. ..."

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

[Suzee10]

hmmm -- unless you want to consider that the 10 black jurors were NG from the first vote. If two of the non-blacks had initial questions, would it stand to reason that at least one of the black jurors would also? Popular opinion is that it was in fact a racial verdict. Per Alan Dershowitz:

"I think for some of the jurors, Barry Scheck gave them the intellectual and the moral permission to vote their heart. They wanted to vote acquittal. Barry showed them how to; Johnnie told them why to. ..."

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


Hi Fbgweezer, that is the best way I have heard it said, "Barry showed them how to and Johnny told them why"... I agree!!!

[limakey]

I honestly don't know this, I thought the only juror who ever stepped forward to say that she voted guilty first was one white female juror. I know there were two, but I thought the other jurors always stated that person never revealed who they were so none of them knew who the other person was.