O.J. In The News Again

[tv]

Im my post i did not add , the trial was moved up state to what has been knows as a police favorable white conservative community. And that all acquitted. The civil trial was held in the bronk where the crime was commited and they all lost.

Sounds a lot like what happened in the OJ criminal case except he moved to a favorable venue for him. Oops, I'm off-topic talking about the criminal trial in this thread. Moving along now...:)

[socaldiva]

Hi Diva! I researched it and it is. Santa Monica is in LA county but is a different judicial district than downtown LA. Nice to see you. :)

Hi, nice to see you as well! Perhaps Martin isn't aware of it, but Los Angeles county is huge.

[weezer]

simpson criminal jury question:

201. Do you have a religious affiliation or preference? Yes? No? If yes, please describe. How important would you say religion is in your life? Would anything about your religious beliefs make it difficult for you to sit in judgement of another person? Yes? No? Possibly? How often do you attend religious services?

[tv]

Hi, nice to see you as well! Perhaps Martin isn't aware of it, but Los Angeles county is huge.

I've never been there but my husband was just telling me how huge it is. I hope to get there one of these days! I have family in San Luis Obispo which I think is further up north, am I right?

[martin II]

Santa Monica is the judicial district where the murders occurred. Gil Garcetti filed the case downtown for the reasons you stated. Gil Garcetti said he thought that once the grand jury heard the case downtown that it had to stay there. He was mistaken. The case could have been tried in the Santa Monica where the murders occurred. I misstated what I meant about the jury pool. I meant that a jury from the SM district could have been seated in SM even though the grand jury was held downtown. (sorry, I need sleep)

The potential Simpson jurors were selected using the Bullseye system which is a computer program used by LA County for all cases. It calculates the distance that jurors live from the courthouse and those living more than 20 miles from the courthouse are not contacted. They can live in a surrounding district as long as it's not more than 20 miles from the courthouse. I don't know if that system is still used but that's what was used at that time.

So the people that live closest to the court house are the only ones that serve on la juries.

I would be surprised in Garcetti did not know if and how cases could be moved around. he had held office for many many years.

If la courtroom was more capable administratively, computers, staff. i guess he had a reason to have it there. After all he thought he had a cake walk because he did not know j Cochran was going to part of that team.

[martin II]

I've never been there but my husband was just telling me how huge it is. I hope to get there one of these days! I have family in San Luis Obispo which I think is further up north, am I right?

I am aware of the size of la country which is why i believe it was the best place to find people with diverse back grounds instead of a sterile community such as Santa Monica.

[martin II]

Sounds a lot like what happened in the OJ criminal case except he moved to a favorable venue for him. Oops, I'm off-topic talking about the criminal trial in this thread. Moving along now...:)

La county is not some black ghetto you know.

[socaldiva]

I've never been there but my husband was just telling me how huge it is. I hope to get there one of these days! I have family in San Luis Obispo which I think is further up north, am I right?


Yep, San Luis Obispo is north. Probably 1-2 hrs I would guess. It's a very nice area, but I haven't been there in several years.

Gotta run....hope to see you soon.

[tv]

I am aware of the size of la country which is why i believe it was the best place to find people with diverse back grounds instead of a sterile community such as Santa Monica.

Santa Monica is in LA county.

[tv]

La county is not some black ghetto you know.

martin, I didn't say that LA county is a black ghetto. I don't know how you got that out of anything that I said. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I understand the Batson challenge. My question is if any of the white potential jurors were excluded for the same or similar reasons given for the exclusion of the two black women.

I seriously doubt it or the defense would not have raised it as an issue, I presume but I am not sure.

[tv]

I am aware of the size of la country which is why i believe it was the best place to find people with diverse back grounds instead of a sterile community such as Santa Monica.

martin, LA county has 11 or 12 judicial districts. The murders were comitted in the West district which has it's courthouse in Santa Monica. The trial was held in the Central district which is located in downtown LA. The reason that Gil Garcetti gave for not having it in Santa Monica is silly -- there have been other high-profile trials held in Santa Monica.

What do you mean sterile?

[William Anthony]

:)Not apologizing just trying to make clear I wasn't attacking anyone, LOL...Now I do understand what you're saying about jurisdiction, but my point is that some in those jurisdiction"s may not have the knowledge of a particular area. For instance, Say a man or woman is on trial for domestic abuse. Now in some areas as hard as it is to believe that is a normal occurrence, so those persons selected may see nothing wrong in what the defendant did. Even though the laws are very clear on what constitutes abuse..Hence the verdict would not necessarily be a just one. If I am making myself clear, LOL...That was my point, hope I am making sense:D, it has been a long night , LOL

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that within a certain jurisdiction there may be areas that the normal activity is outside the confines of the law and that is understood by the inhabitants? The only point is that the law is the same or should be throughout the state. I think your statement speaks more to the concept of jury nullification than the fairness or due process of the trial. I suppose it is theoretically possible to get a jury from one section of a community but doubt that would actually happen with the challenges to exclude that are allowed. A jury of your peers would mean a cross section of the inhabitants of the people, who live within the jurisdiction.

I hope this makes it clearer, although it seems to confuse the issue.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/u025.htm

[tv]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that within a certain jurisdiction there may be areas that the normal activity is outside the confines of the law and that is understood by the inhabitants? The only point is that the law is the same or should be throughout the state. I think your statement speaks more to the concept of jury nullification than the fairness or due process of the trial. I suppose it is theoretically possible to get a jury from one section of a community but doubt that would actually happen with the challenges to exclude that are allowed. A jury of your peers would mean a cross section of the inhabitants of the people, who live within the jurisdiction.

I hope this makes it clearer, although it seems to confuse the issue.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/u025.htm

For OJ Simpson that would have been the Santa Monica courthouse in the West district.

[William Anthony]

For OJ Simpson that would have been the Santa Monica courthouse in the West district.

It would have meant a cross section of the people who resided in LA. county and it was the prosecution who sought the change, which I forget why. The change of venue having been granted, then there must have been valid legal reasons for it. The jury was empaneled. A trial was held and a verdict rendered. I did not hear any protest that Whites were systematically excluded, which I do not think there is a legal argument to support that position but I may be wrong. I did hear protests over Blacks being part of the jury.

[William Anthony]

The Movable Buffet: Dispatches from Las Vegas by Richard Abowitz

Could O.J. Simpson tapes be faked?
09:33 AM PT, Sep 18 2008
Today I am heading to the O.J. Simpson trial for the first time this week. I have seen a lot of the trial on television, as it is being covered in its entirety on cable in the Vegas area. I was especially interested in the testimony regarding the security cameras at the Palms, and how those "thousands" of cameras can follow a guest from the moment he enters the front door up until he enters his room. Also, there were some brief mentions of face-recognition software. But I did not catch them going into any details on this amazing technique and how it works. Attorneys on both sides offered that they wished to respect the Palms security protocols.

The other testimony that interested me was from the FBI audio experts (one in previously recorded video testimony) on the digital voice recorder used in the case to secretly tape the events that transpired. You can hear for yourself the evidence dubbed the Riccio tapes along with other evidence available on the Clark County site.

Anyway, Riccio and I both use an Olympus Digital Voice Recorder model VN -4100PC. As designed it is absolutely impossible to place altered recordings (or any recordings) back onto the recorder from a computer. You can only move them as recorded from the machine to a computer. But under questioning from experts, there seemed to be some confusion over whether some software (not supplied by Olympus) could be used or designed to allow this reverse process to happen. The attempt by the defense was to raise doubt about the authenticity of the tapes with the jurors. In fact, one defense lawyer challenged the authenticity of the tapes, claiming to detect manipulation. But a step has been skipped. So, I am curious if anyone reading this knows a way to place files from a computer back onto a VN-4100PC? I spent a few hours on the riddle yesterday and had no success. It will be interesting if the defense can go further and offer the jury someone connected with the case who could have had the computer know-how and the opportunity to alter the seven digital files in question. That could change the entire nature of the case.

http://vegasblog.latimes.com/vegas/2008/09/could-o-j-simps.html

That is a very interesting article. I guess it would also speak to the issue of deletion but I am not sure. I am not well versed in this area. I am sure you can delte something and copy it without the deletion or is the article ruling out this possibility?

[William Anthony]

I was able to locate a link in a case in Maryland that extents the protection of Batson to Whites. I do not know if the Supreme Court has ruled on that issue, yet, but I see no reasons why anyone should be excluded, because of race.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20080225/ai_n24370989/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

[WarmNCozy]

That is a very interesting article. I guess it would also speak to the issue of deletion but I am not sure. I am not well versed in this area. I am sure you can delte something and copy it without the deletion or is the article ruling out this possibility?

http://www.tmz.com/2007/09/18/o-j-s-alleged-robbery-audio/

[William Anthony]

http://www.tmz.com/2007/09/18/o-j-s-alleged-robbery-audio/

Link does not work for me. I think for me the issue is whether portions were deleted or not and, if they were what was said.

[martin II]

Link does not work for me. I think for me the issue is whether portions were deleted or not and, if they were what was said.

I thought the detective testified that of all the files 4 were deleted and he was able to recover all but 2. So is the question, what was on the two deleted flies.

[martin II]

Oct 11, 4:14 PM EDT


Attorney: Jailed O.J. believes he was 'railroaded'

By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OJ_SIMPSON?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

[martin II]

The top part is in the link.

Galanter said he and Simpson believe that jury foreman, Paul Connelly, intimated that he thought Simpson should have been imprisoned 13 years ago in the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman.

"He should not have been on that jury," said Galanter, who also cited the foreman's comment that he kept jurors deliberating for 13 hours into the night because he feared one of them might suffer some mishap on the way home and be unable to return.

"He commandeered that jury and took over," Galanter said.

Connelly has said he was consistent in agreeing with Simpson's murder acquittal.

Simpson, who is being held at the Clark County jail in a 7-by-14-foot cell, has little contact with other people, Galanter said.

His few visitors can't see him in person. They talk to him via a live closed-circuit video hookup in which Simpson, in his cell, talks into a microphone and looks into a camera. The visitor does the same.

He is allowed two hours of visitation every two weeks, Galanter said. So far the only acquaintance who has visited is his friend Tom Scotto, whose wedding took Simpson to Las Vegas in September 2007.

But the lawyers, who have unlimited "contact visits" with their client, make sure one member of the defense team visits every day. Galanter has returned home to Miami, but Grasso, whose practice is in Las Vegas, is a consistent visitor.

Galanter said he has been studying a video recording of the jury's post-verdict news conference while considering points to be raised on appeal to the state Supreme Court. He said it was surprising that jurors said they were most influenced by surreptitious audio recordings made by collectibles dealer Tom Riccio during the six-minute hotel room confrontation.

An FBI agent testified the recordings could not be authenticated and could not say whether they were altered before police took custody of them eight days after the confrontation. In the interim, Riccio sold the recordings to media outlets for $210,000.

Galanter acknowledged he never sought to suppress the recordings as evidence, because he believed they would help Simpson's case.

"I wanted the jury to hear O.J. say, 'Anything that's not mine, give it back,'" Galanter said. "I wanted them to hear him say to his compatriots, 'You can't lie. You can't lie. You've got to tell the truth.'"

Instead, he said, jurors focused on Simpson shouting, "Nobody leaves this room." That statement formed the basis of the kidnapping charge leveled by prosecutors, who also argued that ownership was not a defense to robbery.

Prosecutors are not commenting during the appeals process.

Galanter said juror comments showed they never considered Simpson's state of mind. He said he wanted jurors to hear that at no time in the six-minute encounter did anyone explicitly mention a gun being shown.

"If I'm in a room and somebody pulled a gun, the first thing I would expect to hear is, 'Put that thing away,' or 'No need for that.' But in the six minutes, there is nothing said to indicate a gun was present."

The jurors pointed out that in another recording made hours later, Simpson appears to be mentioning "a piece" to Michael McClinton, the man who said he brought a gun to the room. And they said they noticed in a surveillance video that McClinton and another man who had entered the room with their suit jackets closed left with them open. No guns were visible, but both men said they carried guns.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

[martin II]

That is a very interesting article. I guess it would also speak to the issue of deletion but I am not sure. I am not well versed in this area. I am sure you can delte something and copy it without the deletion or is the article ruling out this possibility?


William
i spoke to a friend, a tech for Verizion

He said using 'FRAME WORK" editing softwear it is possible to import from a digital recorder to a computer,edit and export back to the digital recorder without the edited sections. One has to be skilled professionally to cover the "breaks" but it is done. He has not done this on the olympus model but does it on other digital recorders.

I agree with Stewarts lawyer that in a medic capital such as la there are many electronic studios capable of this manipulation.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

Link does not work for me. I think for me the issue is whether portions were deleted or not and, if they were what was said.

If this was a regular non background noise recording it may be more difficult to detect 'breaks' from editing. considering all the yelling and background noise i think it is possible to edit.

Example: Fumong in his efforts to 'PUT AWARENESS ' of a gun in the room said he heard someone say 'PUT THE GUN DOWN' This is not heard on the tape.

[martin II]

For OJ Simpson that would have been the Santa Monica courthouse in the West district.

I am not sure this is correct.

From what i have read, when Garcetti decided to go the GJ route to get a indictment he was locked into trial where the indictment was made. If he had not saught the indictment the trial could have been in SM, BUT one big obstacle was the court room was under some major repair, La had a superior
trial adminstration support system and other issues.

[tv]

I am not sure this is correct.

From what i have read, when Garcetti decided to go the GJ route to get a indictment he was locked into trial where the indictment was made. If he had not saught the indictment the trial could have been in SM, BUT one big obstacle was the court room was under some major repair, La had a superior
trial adminstration support system and other issues.

martin, my information is correct. According to Gil Garcetti, he THOUGHT he was locked into having the trial downtown because that's where the grand jury was seated. He was mistaken; that is not the case.

I know his reason for having it downtown was that it would support the media and number of participants and attendees better but he did change his reason from time to time.

[William Anthony]

martin, my information is correct. According to Gil Garcetti, he THOUGHT he was locked into having the trial downtown because that's where the grand jury was seated. He was mistaken; that is not the case.

I know his reason for having it downtown was that it would support the media and number of participants and attendees better but he did change his reason from time to time.

I am sure that his selection of venue caused quite a stir in the DA's office and I am sure there were many, who could have researched or informed him on this thoughts.

[martin II]

I am sure that his selection of venue caused quite a stir in the DA's office and I am sure there were many, who could have researched or informed him on this thoughts.

That is my point. There must have been some discussion in the DAS office on a issue as important as that. This was not the first time for a situation such as this.

[martin II]

martin, my information is correct. According to Gil Garcetti, he THOUGHT he was locked into having the trial downtown because that's where the grand jury was seated. He was mistaken; that is not the case.

I know his reason for having it downtown was that it would support the media and number of participants and attendees better but he did change his reason from time to time.

And the same thing happened with the decision to indict Simpson by grand jury, which meant that the case had to be taken from the suburbs to downtown. And basically the decision is -- and Gil Garcetti claims that he made this decision consciously, and probably did -- you're going from a largely white, suburban jury to an inner-city jury by taking the case downtown, to indict it in front of the grand jury.

Now, Garcetti has said he had the [Rodney] King riots in mind. He didn't think that he could convict somebody of the stature of O.J. Simpson in front of a white jury, and so he decided to make sure that he would have an inner-city jury. That's what he says, and it's quite possible that that was his thought process.

PBS.ORG

[martin II]

In terms of other things, there was a myth associated with the case, if you will, that somehow Gil Garcetti moved the case from the Santa Monica Judicial District or the West Judicial District downtown, and that was not the case. At the time, all long-cause cases in Los Angeles County were being tried on the very floor, in the very courthouse, here in downtown L.A. where the O.J. Simpson case was tried. Many, many cases, from Pomona to Long Beach to the Valley and elsewhere, which had a time estimate of three weeks or more all were being sent downtown, and unfortunately, it was a lot of murder cases, because the long-cause courtrooms could process those cases, try those cases faster. It was something that had been a subject of some dispute between my office and the courts.

So then you had some choice in deciding where the case would be tried?

Well, we had a choice. We could have very well filed the case in Santa Monica. And if we could have done something differently to avoid all the grief that flowed thereafter, it would have been smarter for our office to have filed the case in Santa Monica. And then, if the court wanted to move the case downtown or the defense wanted to move the case downtown, they could have brought their motion, and it would have been granted or denied, appealed or not. But by practically filing the case where we knew it was going to end up, it has generated a lot of controversy, and again, I think some of that controversy has been unfair to some people.

Because it gave the impression that the district attorney was choosing a venue where it would be guaranteed many black jurors?

Yeah, I think some people felt that that was pandering to the black community by having it here. It had nothing to do with that at all really. It was the practical awareness that the case was going to be tried here, so let's not beat around the bush. Let's get the case cued up, and let's get it going.

Bill Hodmon sp

[William Anthony]

And the same thing happened with the decision to indict Simpson by grand jury, which meant that the case had to be taken from the suburbs to downtown. And basically the decision is -- and Gil Garcetti claims that he made this decision consciously, and probably did -- you're going from a largely white, suburban jury to an inner-city jury by taking the case downtown, to indict it in front of the grand jury.

Now, Garcetti has said he had the [Rodney] King riots in mind. He didn't think that he could convict somebody of the stature of O.J. Simpson in front of a white jury, and so he decided to make sure that he would have an inner-city jury. That's what he says, and it's quite possible that that was his thought process.

PBS.ORG

I think there is some validity to that thought process and I think he was more concerned of the repercussions if he did convict in front of an all White jury. This is what is sad about our judicial system-that there is a perception that juries, either acquit or convict on basis other than the evidence.

[martin II]

In my last post BH stated that all lonng term murder cases were sent to downtown la so mtby GG did not have a choice.

[martin II]

Although even at 209 pages of text "Reasonable Doubts" feels a little padded, it isn't sloppy or hasty, and its main argument is quite interesting. The prosecution, Mr. Dershowitz says, and not gently, blew an easy case. First Gil Garcetti, the District Attorney, decided to try to obtain an indictment through a grand jury proceeding rather than a preliminary hearing before a judge. Because the only grand jury in Los Angeles County is downtown, Mr. Garcetti thus committed himself to trying the case in a venue where he was likely to get a black-majority jury. He may have seen this as a plus in terms of keeping the peace in Los Angeles, but it decreased his odds of getting a conviction.

Then the defense successfully challenged the grand jury proceeding's validity on the ground that the jurors had been prejudiced by prosecution leaks to the press. When the case was taken away from the grand jury, which operates in secret, and given to a judge in open court, the prosecution was forced to show its cards to the defense well in advance of the trial. Mr. Dershowitz presents this early tactical maneuver as the key to Mr. Simpson's acquittal (and also mentions that it was his idea).

The prosecution's most disastrous initial mistake was refusing to confine its case to evidence gathered at the scene of the crime. When it decided also to introduce Mr. Simpson's socks, the bloody glove and other evidence that the police had found at his house, it opened Pandora's box. It made Mark Fuhrman, God's gift to the defense, a central figure in the case, and raised the troublesome question of why four Los Angeles police officers were traipsing around Mr. Simpson's property at 5 in the morning without a search warrant. Detective Philip Vannatter testified under oath that they had come simply to notify Mr. Simpson of his former wife's death, but, Mr. Dershowitz says, that was a transparent untruth that gave the defense the opportunity to make this a case about an illegal search, tampering with evidence, police perjury and Mr. Fuhrman's racial views.

Mr. Dershowitz treats Marcia Clark particularly nastily, hurling assorted personal



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE3DC1E39F930A35750C0A9609582 60&sec=&spon=

[William Anthony]

In my last post BH stated that all lonng term murder cases were sent to downtown la so mtby GG did not have a choice.

I believe he was more concerned with the effect trying Simpson in front of an all White jury and convicting may have had on the larger community. I think his hands were somewhat tied.

[martin II]

In my last post BH stated that all lonng term murder cases were sent to downtown la so mtby GG did not have a choice.

corrections
long term
so maby.

[tv]

You guys have taken this completely out of the ballpark with your speculation. I read this from someone that actually spoke to Gil Garcetti about it. You're never going to believe that the decision to have the trial downtown wasn't racially motivated in some way. Not everything in the world that happens is about race.

[limakey]

William and Martin,

IMO, an all white jury in SM would have aquitted Simpson. If they followed the judge's instruction, they would have rendered the same verfict. They had no choice.

I am sure that Garcetti had many reason why he choose downtown. However, he is savvy enough to now that an aquittal in SM would have been a million times worse for him and his professional aspirations. Again, IMO.

[William Anthony]

You guys have taken this completely out of the ballpark with your speculation. I read this from someone that actually spoke to Gil Garcetti about it. You're never going to believe that the decision to have the trial downtown wasn't racially motivated in some way. Not everything in the world that happens is about race.

I think it would have shown a great callousness on his part, if he did not consider the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

IMO, an all white jury in SM would have aquitted Simpson. If they followed the judge's instruction, they would have rendered the same verfict. They had no choice.

I am sure that Garcetti had many reason why he choose downtown. However, he is savvy enough to now that an aquittal in SM would have been a million times worse for him and his professional aspirations. Again, IMO.

I understand your point and you may be correct but we will never know what verdict a different jury would have reached, listening and deliberating on the same evidence. Some say that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

[WarmNCozy]

Link does not work for me. I think for me the issue is whether portions were deleted or not and, if they were what was said.

Link isn't working for me today. Probably was deleted.

It's OJ saying do you think you people can just sell my s****, etc.

[William Anthony]

Link isn't working for me today. Probably was deleted.

It's OJ saying do you think you people can just sell my s****, etc.

I have some idea of what was said on the tapes. I think Galanter was using them to try to show that Simpson did not have the general intent to commit a crime. However, this may be a weak argument, because general intent could be formed as to the unlawful taking of property and the lack of a claim of right defense, meaning that he intended to take the property and the ownership of the property was not an issue under Nevada law, as I understand it. I don't think his argument flew with the jury.

[weezer]

High Cost For O.J. Simpson's Items

"When all is said and done, who gets to keep the memorabilia? That answer is unknown. "You could say Mr. Fromong and Beardsley could lay claim to it because they brought it into the hotel room," Mr. Sommermeyer says. "But there are other people who might be interested in this as well," he adds, alluding to the Brown and Goldman families. "And not to mention, there's O.J. Simpson himself."

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/collect1012.pdf

[martin II]

You guys have taken this completely out of the ballpark with your speculation. I read this from someone that actually spoke to Gil Garcetti about it. You're never going to believe that the decision to have the trial downtown wasn't racially motivated in some way. Not everything in the world that happens is about race.

tv

BH says he was involved in the decision and has given his story on what took place and the reason for the change. How do i get blamed for what he has said? BH was one of the heavies in the DAS office.

[martin II]

Link isn't working for me today. Probably was deleted.

It's OJ saying do you think you people can just sell my s****, etc.

It worked for me.

[WarmNCozy]

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Riccio_Transcripts/McClinton%20transcript.pdf

FYI - a lot of cussing.

[martin II]

High Cost For O.J. Simpson's Items

"When all is said and done, who gets to keep the memorabilia? That answer is unknown. "You could say Mr. Fromong and Beardsley could lay claim to it because they brought it into the hotel room," Mr. Sommermeyer says. "But there are other people who might be interested in this as well," he adds, alluding to the Brown and Goldman families. "And not to mention, there's O.J. Simpson himself."

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/collect1012.pdf

Riccio said the joe Monatana items had very little value in the market and the oj personal family stuff had no commercial value. However if freds lawyers believe they can get $75.00 for ojs stuff i believe they will go to court to get it.

[weezer]

Riccio said the joe Monatana items had very little value in the market and the oj personal family stuff had no commercial value. However if freds lawyers believe they can get $75.00 for ojs stuff i believe they will go to court to get it.

so be it.

[martin II]

http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/media/Riccio_Transcripts/McClinton%20transcript.pdf

FYI - a lot of cussing.


Some people that have heard the hotel tape are just bent out of shape as if they have never heard grown men in a argument cuss.

[William Anthony]

Riccio said the joe Monatana items had very little value in the market and the oj personal family stuff had no commercial value. However if freds lawyers believe they can get $75.00 for ojs stuff i believe they will go to court to get it.

The issue of the ownership of the property seems eerily similar to the Amistad case, imho.

[martin II]

The issue of the ownership of the property seems eerily similar to the Amistad case, imho.

Well they ended up owning themselves which is what they told the white captain when they took his ship.

[WarmNCozy]

The issue of the ownership of the property seems eerily similar to the Amistad case, imho. Speaking of the Amistad case, John Quincy Adams represented the slaves on appeal to the Supreme Court http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/amistad/adamsarg.html

[William Anthony]

Well they ended up owning themselves which is what they told the white captain when they took his ship.

Talk about Karma. I don't think those inanimate objects will own themselves.

[William Anthony]

Speaking of the Amistad case, John Quincy Adams represented the slaves on appeal to the Supreme Court http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/amistad/adamsarg.html

Yes, and he gave a compelling oral argument, placing freedom and equality above preservation of the status quo.

[weezer]

OT -- :no:

[William Anthony]

WNC,

Do you think that, based on the case we have been discussing, that a property owner has a Constitutional right to regain his property, despite using violence. In the case, the slaves regained their property, themselves. However, I think it would be more appropriately viewed as regaining their liberty.

[WarmNCozy]

WNC,

Do you think that, based on the case we have been discussing, that a property owner has a Constitutional right to regain his property, despite using violence. In the case, the slaves regained their property, themselves. However, I think it would be more appropriately viewed as regaining their liberty.

I'll start with this: From the Brief of John Quincy Adams on behalf of the Amistad victims:

1. " Resolved—That a ship or vessel on the high seas, in time of peace, engaged in a lawful voyage, is according to the laws of nations under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state to which her flag belongs as much as if constituting a part of its own domain.''

2. " Resolved-- That if such ship or vessel should be forced, by stress of weather, or other unavoidable cause into the port, and under the jurisdiction of a friendly power, she and her cargo, and persons on board, with their property, and all the rights belonging to their personal relations, as established by the laws of the state to which they belong, would be placed under the protection which the laws of nations extend to the unfortunate under such circumstances."

"The Africans were in possession, and had the presumptive right of ownership; they were in peace with the United States; the Courts have decided, and truly, that they were not pirates; they were on a voyage to their native homes—their dulces Argos; they kind acquired the right and so far as their knowledge extended they had the power of prosecuting the voyage; the ship was theirs, and being in immediate communication with the shore, was in the territory of the State of New York; or, if not, at least half the number were actually on the soil of New York, and entitled to all the provisions of the law of nations, and the protection and comfort which the laws of that State secure to every human being within its limits."

[weezer]

too bad orenthal wasn't on a ship out of New York -- maybe he wouldn't be sitting in a teeny, tiny waiting on visitors.

[tv]

The issue of the ownership of the property seems eerily similar to the Amistad case, imho.

There is no relevancy of the Amistad case to the case of OJ Simpson taking a posse of thugs into a hotel room and robbing the occupants at gunpoint. In fact, I think to try to make a link between them is insulting to the prisoners of the Amistad and what they endured. What's eerie is you or anyone else finding common ground between these two events.

[tv]

too bad orenthal wasn't on a ship out of New York -- maybe he wouldn't be sitting in a teeny, tiny waiting on visitors.I saw Tom Scotti on tv after he had visited Simpson. He said they're all in shock including OJS. Yale Galanter said OJ Simpson was prepared for the verdict so I wonder why he's so shocked?

[WarmNCozy]

There is no relevancy of the Amistad case to the case of OJ Simpson taking a posse of thugs into a hotel room and robbing the occupants at gunpoint. In fact, I think to try to make a link between them is insulting to the prisoners of the Amistad and what they endured. What's eerie is you or anyone else finding common ground between these two events.

1. "presumptive right of ownership"
2. "the ship was theirs"
3. "entitled to all the provisions of the law of nations, and the protection and comfort which the laws of that State secure to every human being within its limits."

JMO

[tv]

1. "presumptive right of ownership"
2. "the ship was theirs"
3. "entitled to all the provisions of the law of nations, and the protection and comfort which the laws of that State secure to every human being within its limits."

JMO

Nope, I don't see it. This was 269 years ago. Certainly there is something more relevant than this. It's actually more relevant to what happened to Beardsley and Fromong because they were denied their freedom and held at gunpoint.

[William Anthony]

There is no relevancy of the Amistad case to the case of OJ Simpson taking a posse of thugs into a hotel room and robbing the occupants at gunpoint. In fact, I think to try to make a link between them is insulting to the prisoners of the Amistad and what they endured. What's eerie is you or anyone else finding common ground between these two events.

The relevancy is on the issue of property and the right of a property owner to retrieve that property, In short, is there any precedent to say that the Nevada statute not recognizing a claim of right defense is unconstitutional, which was originally asked by martin. I had to rethink this based on some of the posts. I think that an argument can be made that it is based to some degree on the Amistad case and the Dred Scott case. However, there may be other cases that say no. I have to do some research. I do believe that creative thinking is part of being a lawyer of there would never be a case of first impression.

[martin II]

Nope, I don't see it. This was 269 years ago. Certainly there is something more relevant than this. It's actually more relevant to what happened to Beardsley and Fromong because they were denied their freedom and held at gunpoint.

You should at least try to understand. It seems that your bias against oj may be blinding you a bit. What does the length of time have to do with the law.
How old is the constitution.

[martin II]

I saw Tom Scotti on tv after he had visited Simpson. He said they're all in shock including OJS. Yale Galanter said OJ Simpson was prepared for the verdict so I wonder why he's so shocked?

I think oj may not have been sure the jury would see the case in his favor but had no idea that they would find as they did. Neither did i.

[tv]

You should at least try to understand. It seems that your bias against oj may be blinding you a bit. What does the length of time have to do with the law.
How old is the constitution.

For heaven's sake, martin. We're talking about people captured in their homeland and sold to slave traders. They escaped and took over the ship they were on. They were desperately fighting for their lives and their freedom. I see no similarity between what happened to them and what happened in that Vegas hotel room. No matter how much you try to paint OJ Simpson a martyr and a hero he's not. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[WarmNCozy]

Nope, I don't see it. This was 269 years ago. Certainly there is something more relevant than this. It's actually more relevant to what happened to Beardsley and Fromong because they were denied their freedom and held at gunpoint.

And you know they were held at gunpoint, how? Please show me. I'm at a loss. And you know OJ was holding the gun?

It's still as relevant as it was 269 years ago.

[tv]

I think oj may not have been sure the jury would see the case in his favor but had no idea that they would find as they did. Neither did i.

Actually, neither did I. I thought they would find guilty on some charges but not all. Now it all depends on the judge.

[martin II]

The relevancy is on the issue of property and the right of a property owner to retrieve that property, In short, is there any precedent to say that the Nevada statute not recognizing a claim of right defense is unconstitutional, which was originally asked by martin. I had to rethink this based on some of the posts. I think that an argument can be made that it is based to some degree on the Amistad case and the Dred Scott case. However, there may be other cases that say no. I have to do some research. I do believe that creative thinking is part of being a lawyer of there would never be a case of first impression.

Thanks.
Very good explination. It is exactly what oj was attempting to do.

[tv]

And you know they were held at gunpoint, how? Please show me. I'm at a loss. And you know OJ was holding the gun?

It's still as relevant as it was 269 years ago.Even martin admits there were guns there. The question is whether or not OJ Simpson knew about them. Sorry you're at a loss. Maybe you should do some research into the facts of the case and the testimony.

[martin II]

For heaven's sake, martin. We're talking about people captured in their homeland and sold to slave traders. They escaped and took over the ship they were on. They were desperately fighting for their lives and their freedom. I see no similarity between what happened to them and what happened in that Vegas hotel room. No matter how much you try to paint OJ Simpson a martyr and a hero he's not. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Try reading Adams argument again and maby, just maby, it will come to you.
Check your bias before your read.

[WarmNCozy]

Even martin admits there were guns there. The question is whether or not OJ Simpson knew about them. Sorry you're at a loss. Maybe you should do some research into the facts of the case and the testimony.

In most states, a concealed weapon is not against the law. Because a gun was mentioned on the tapes, does not mean there was one there or that it was brought out and pointed at anyone.

Please show me with hard cold facts where I am at a loss and where should I further do research to set me right?

[tv]

Try reading Adams argument again and maby, just maby, it will come to you.
Check your bias before your read.

martin, I don't appreciate your insults. I've been familiar with the Amistad case for many years. I've never seen the movie but have seen documentaries on it and done a good bit if reading. I find it to be a heroic story on many levels. It simply doesn't have anything to do with a group of thugs holding up two memorabilia dealers at gunpoint.

[martin II]

Even martin admits there were guns there. The question is whether or not OJ Simpson knew about them. Sorry you're at a loss. Maybe you should do some research into the facts of the case and the testimony.

I have not admitted anything as i know i was not there. Maby you were. i have posted what witnesses said.

[WarmNCozy]

Try reading Adams argument again and maby, just maby, it will come to you.
Check your bias before your read.

I only quoted the minimum. His entire argument is 74 pages long. Do you have the time?

[martin II]

Fumong testified that oj or someone said "put the gun down".This is not heard on the room tape. Would this lead to you to believe that the tape had been altered?

[tv]

In most states, a concealed weapon is not against the law. Because a gun was mentioned on the tapes, does not mean there was one there or that it was brought out and pointed at anyone.

Please show me with hard cold facts where I am at a loss and where should I further do research to set me right?

The only help I can offer you is to suggest you read the testimony and listen to the tapes.

[martin II]

I only quoted the minimum. His entire argument is 74 pages long. Do you have the time?

You can pm me the link or post it here for all including tv. She may need to read more to understand.

[tv]

I have not admitted anything as i know i was not there. Maby you were. i have posted what witnesses said.

Sorry, martin. That's what I got from some of what you've posted. If that's not the case I stand corrected.

[tv]

You can pm me the link or post it here for all including tv. She may need to read more to understand.

Please don't include me and don't assume what I do or do not understand.

[weezer]

to compare amistad and las vegas is silly.

[martin II]

The only help I can offer you is to suggest you read the testimony and listen to the tapes.

TV
Did any witness testify that anyone in the group went to the hotel with the intent to commit a crime.Did any witness testify that they saw oj with a gun at any time.

[WarmNCozy]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/amistad/adamsarg.html

[weezer]

TV
Did any witness testify that anyone in the group went to the hotel with the intent to commit a crime.Did any witness testify that they saw oj with a gun at any time.

martin, I believe it's time you followed your own advice: get over it.

[tv]

to compare amistad and las vegas is silly.

It's also completely irrelevant and off-topic.

[tv]

TV
Did any witness testify that anyone in the group went to the hotel with the intent to commit a crime.Did any witness testify that they saw oj with a gun at any time.IF you don't know the answers maybe you need to do some research along with your friend.

[martin II]

to compare amistad and las vegas is silly.

I understand why you may not understand.

[martin II]

IF you don't know the answers maybe you need to do some research along with your friend.

I know the answer i was interestred in your knowledge about those two issues. It goes to the fairness of the charges made by the prosecution.

[tv]

I understand why you may not understand.

Oh really? Why do you think I don't understand?

[martin II]

It's also completely irrelevant and off-topic.

You may be focusing on slaves on a ship and missing the principles of adams argumment.

[martin II]

Oh really? Why do you think I don't understand?

tv
I thought i posted to weezer not you.

[tv]

You may be focusing on slaves on a ship and missing the principles of adams argumment.

No, I'm not missing anything. These two cases have nothing in common. You guys are really reaching on this one.

[martin II]

tv
i did post it to weezer not you.

[weezer]

I understand why you may not understand.

what do I not understand?

[weezer]

now come on tv, you know what their re-occurring theme always is --

[tv]

tv
I thought i posted to weezer not you.
Sorry, you thought right.

[tv]

now come on tv, you know what their re-occurring theme always is --

Unfortunately, I do, but this time I'm not falling for it. The two cases have nothing to do with each other. They've effectively taken the focus off OJ Simpson and his group of thugs as usual.

[martin II]

what do I not understand?

Based on your post, the principles of both issues. Especially since you call it silly. Which is a silly remark in itself.:cool:

[martin II]

Unfortunately, I do, but this time I'm not falling for it. The two cases have nothing to do with each other. They've effectively taken the focus off OJ Simpson and his group of thugs as usual.

TV
The issue is about the right to reclaim ones property.This was a central issue
in the oj defense so it is not ot and oj is still being discussed.

[tv]

TV
The issue is about the right to reclaim ones property.This was a central issue
in the oj defense so it is not ot and oj is still being discussed.

The two cases bear no similarity.

[weezer]

TV
The issue is about the right to reclaim ones property.This was a central issue
in the oj defense so it is not ot and oj is still being discussed.

it's a stupid correlation --

[tv]

it's a stupid correlation --

It really is. I think there has to be some case somewhere more relevant than people sold to slavers taking over a ship to regain their freedom. Geez, talk about apples and rocks.

[weezer]

TV
The issue is about the right to reclaim ones property.This was a central issue
in the oj defense so it is not ot and oj is still being discussed.

martin, it was not a central issue in the case since it is not a defense to robbery in Nevada.

[susie31023]

If I may interject something here..The Amistad case was in fact a very heroic effort to save their lives. The Las Vegas case was to supposedly get back OJ's "stuff". That in no way equates to the same level of fairness. OJ not having his stuff isn't even close to what these men suffered.To lower the Amistad case to the level of the Las vegas case is insulting to those who fought so valiantly for their lives and freedom. And that is just wrong, no matter who you are there is no logical way you can equate the two.

The reason OJ is sitting in Jail is because if HE hadn't started this whole thing in order to get his "stuff" back he would not be sitting in Jail now. The other men were "asked" to accompany him thereby making him the ring leader, plain and simple. Therefore anything that happened in that hotel room was because of OJ. Also before anyone brings it up, no we don't control what others do but we must be held accountable for what we start..Especially in a case such as this where there would be no case except for one man..OJS. In the case of a crime the one who instigates the crime is held to a higher standard simply because it was them who started it.

Whether OJ believed it was truly his things or not he was indeed smart enough to know that when you gather together persons to carry with you to "take" back what you believe is yours it is a crime. You must follow proper channels no matter who you are and that includes even if you are OJ. The men who were with him are being described as thugs now..well then OJ knew they were thugs when he gathered them together.

IS that why he chose those particular men? Who know's but I think it is hghly likely. I think they all should be sitting in jail, but as has been stated before in our justice system they make compromises everyday. They make those in order to assure that the head person responsible for the crime is convicted. It may not be right but that is the way it works..

And in my opinion had OJ done the correct and legal thing, which would be reporting those items as stolen we would not be here discussing this case now. He would not be sitting in Jail and Sydney and Justin along with his other two choldren would not be having to talk to their father behind bars..In my opinion~Suz

[weezer]

If I may interject something here..The Amistad case was in fact a very heroic effort to save their lives. The Las Vegas case was to supposedly get back OJ's "stuff". That in no way equates to the same level of fairness. OJ not having his stuff isn't even close to what these men suffered.To lower the Amistad case to the level of the Las vegas case is insulting to those who fought so valiantly for their lives and freedom. And that is just wrong, no matter who you are there is no logical way you can equate the two.

The reason OJ is sitting in Jail is because if HE hadn't started this whole thing in order to get his "stuff" back he would not be sitting in Jail now. The other men were "asked" to accompany him thereby making him the ring leader, plain and simple. Therefore anything that happened in that hotel room was because of OJ. Also before anyone brings it up, no we don't control what others do but we must be held accountable for what we start..Especially in a case such as this where there would be no case except for one man..OJS. In the case of a crime the one who instigates the crime is held to a higher standard simply because it was them who started it.

Whether OJ believed it was truly his things or not he was indeed smart enough to know that when you gather together persons to carry with you to "take" back what you believe is yours it is a crime. You must follow proper channels no matter who you are and that includes even if you are OJ. The men who were with him are being described as thugs now..well then OJ knew they were thugs when he gathered them together.

IS that why he chose those particular men? Who know's but I think it is hghly likely. I think they all should be sitting in jail, but as has been stated before in our justice system they make compromises everyday. They make those in order to assure that the head person responsible for the crime is convicted. It may not be right but that is the way it works..

And in my opinion had OJ done the correct and legal thing, which would be reporting those items as stolen we would not be here discussing this case now. He would not be sitting in Jail and Sydney and Justin along with his other two choldren would not be having to talk to their father behind bars..In my opinion~Suz

very well said! :beer:

[tv]

If I may interject something here..The Amistad case was in fact a very heroic effort to save their lives. The Las Vegas case was to supposedly get back OJ's "stuff". That in no way equates to the same level of fairness. OJ not having his stuff isn't even close to what these men suffered.To lower the Amistad case to the level of the Las vegas case is insulting to those who fought so valiantly for their lives and freedom. And that is just wrong, no matter who you are there is no logical way you can equate the two.

The reason OJ is sitting in Jail is because if HE hadn't started this whole thing in order to get his "stuff" back he would not be sitting in Jail now. The other men were "asked" to accompany him thereby making him the ring leader, plain and simple. Therefore anything that happened in that hotel room was because of OJ. Also before anyone brings it up, no we don't control what others do but we must be held accountable for what we start..Especially in a case such as this where there would be no case except for one man..OJS. In the case of a crime the one who instigates the crime is held to a higher standard simply because it was them who started it.

Whether OJ believed it was truly his things or not he was indeed smart enough to know that when you gather together persons to carry with you to "take" back what you believe is yours it is a crime. You must follow proper channels no matter who you are and that includes even if you are OJ. The men who were with him are being described as thugs now..well then OJ knew they were thugs when he gathered them together.

IS that why he chose those particular men? Who know's but I think it is hghly likely. I think they all should be sitting in jail, but as has been stated before in our justice system they make compromises everyday. They make those in order to assure that the head person responsible for the crime is convicted. It may not be right but that is the way it works..

And in my opinion had OJ done the correct and legal thing, which would be reporting those items as stolen we would not be here discussing this case now. He would not be sitting in Jail and Sydney and Justin along with his other two choldren would not be having to talk to their father behind bars..In my opinion~Suz

Excellent post! :)

[WarmNCozy]

WNC,

Do you think that, based on the case we have been discussing, that a property owner has a Constitutional right to regain his property, despite using violence. In the case, the slaves regained their property, themselves. However, I think it would be more appropriately viewed as regaining their liberty.

If I may interject something here..The Amistad case was in fact a very heroic effort to save their lives. The Las Vegas case was to supposedly get back OJ's "stuff". That in no way equates to the same level of fairness. OJ not having his stuff isn't even close to what these men suffered.To lower the Amistad case to the level of the Las vegas case is insulting to those who fought so valiantly for their lives and freedom. And that is just wrong, no matter who you are there is no logical way you can equate the two.

The reason OJ is sitting in Jail is because if HE hadn't started this whole thing in order to get his "stuff" back he would not be sitting in Jail now. The other men were "asked" to accompany him thereby making him the ring leader, plain and simple. Therefore anything that happened in that hotel room was because of OJ. Also before anyone brings it up, no we don't control what others do but we must be held accountable for what we start..Especially in a case such as this where there would be no case except for one man..OJS. In the case of a crime the one who instigates the crime is held to a higher standard simply because it was them who started it.

Whether OJ believed it was truly his things or not he was indeed smart enough to know that when you gather together persons to carry with you to "take" back what you believe is yours it is a crime. You must follow proper channels no matter who you are and that includes even if you are OJ. The men who were with him are being described as thugs now..well then OJ knew they were thugs when he gathered them together.

IS that why he chose those particular men? Who know's but I think it is hghly likely. I think they all should be sitting in jail, but as has been stated before in our justice system they make compromises everyday. They make those in order to assure that the head person responsible for the crime is convicted. It may not be right but that is the way it works..

And in my opinion had OJ done the correct and legal thing, which would be reporting those items as stolen we would not be here discussing this case now. He would not be sitting in Jail and Sydney and Justin along with his other two choldren would not be having to talk to their father behind bars..In my opinion~Suz

William asked a question, and I answered the question he asked. That is not in any way meant to dismiss the horrible inhumanity these slaves suffered, or to equate it with the OJ case as when it came the rights to one's property. Just wanted to clear that up!

The Amistad slaves took back their individual freedoms by murder. A right guaranteed by the Constitution for protection of life and property.

[martin II]

William asked a question, and I answered the question he asked. That is not in any way meant to dismiss the horrible inhumanity these slaves suffered, or to equate it with the OJ case as when it came the rights to one's property. Just wanted to clear that up!

The Amistad slaves took back their individual freedoms by murder. A right guaranteed by the Constitution for protection of life and property.


Your last line is what some are not considering.THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY IMO

[susie31023]

William asked a question, and I answered the question he asked. That is not in any way meant to dismiss the horrible inhumanity these slaves suffered, or to equate it with the OJ case as when it came the rights to one's property. Just wanted to clear that up!

The Amistad slaves took back their individual freedoms by murder. A right guaranteed by the Constitution for protection of life and property.

Exactly WNC, what those men did was guaranteed under our constitution and what OJ tried to do was not. At least not the way he did it. OJ is by no means a stupid or ignorant man and I feel sure he knew going about it the way he did was in fact illegal.

It is one thing to go over to someones home and say give me back my lawn mower you took, it is another to gather what is described now as thugs and go to a hotel room and try to "take" back what you believe is yours by force. That was what I was trying to point out. In my opinion~Suz

[weezer]

I think some have lost sight of the fact that orenthal didn't just take what he thought was his 'stuff' -- he took everything.

[tv]

Your last line is what some are not considering.THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY IMOProtection of life and property doesn't mean you are the aggressor. It means you can protect yourself when your life is in danger or you are in imminent danger of losing your property. I don't think 13 years is an immediate danger. After all, he allowed his things to be taken away so Fred Goldman couldn't benefit.

[WarmNCozy]

Exactly WNC, what those men did was guaranteed under our constitution and what OJ tried to do was not. At least not the way he did it. OJ is by no means a stupid or ignorant man and I feel sure he knew going about it the way he did was in fact illegal.

It is one thing to go over to someones home and say give me back my lawn mower you took, it is another to gather what is described now as thugs and go to a hotel room and try to "take" back what you believe is yours by force. That was what I was trying to point out. In my opinion~Suz

I have to disagree with you Susie. I think some things OJ has done are so stupid to be not believed. And as I have said of more than one ocassion, I think he took too many hits to the head in his football years.

I think he was setup. He took the bait to get his things back and the thugs as you refer to them stood to profit. The jury admitted they did not base their verdict on their testimony but instead the tapes. How they could come up with armed robbery, kidnapping from the tapes, I'm scratching my head.

IMO, OJ will be free on appeal. This case was a fiasco.JMO

[WarmNCozy]

I think some have lost sight of the fact that orenthal didn't just take what he thought was his 'stuff' -- he took everything.which he intended to return and said so in one of those tapes

[tv]

I have to disagree with you Susie. I think some things OJ has done are so stupid to be not believed. And as I have said of more than one ocassion, I think he took too many hits to the head in his football years.

I think he was setup. He took the bait to get his things back and the thugs as you refer to them stood to profit. The jury admitted they did not base their verdict on their testimony but instead the tapes. How they could come up with armed robbery, kidnapping from the tapes, I'm scratching my head.

IMO, OJ will be free on appeal. This case was a fiasco.JMO
When you say nobody can leave the room that's kidnapping. When you brandish a gun and take things that don't belong to you that's armed robbery.

[tv]

which he intended to return and said so in one of those tapesIt's not okay to commit robbery as long as you promise to give the stolen goods back. That's ludicrous.

[WarmNCozy]

Protection of life and property doesn't mean you are the aggressor. It means you can protect yourself when your life is in danger or you are in imminent danger of losing your property. I don't think 13 years is an immediate danger. After all, he allowed his things to be taken away so Fred Goldman couldn't benefit.

So how did we get back to the criminal trial again? 13 years?

[tv]

So how did we get back to the criminal trial again? 13 years? I didn't mention the criminal trial. I was under the impression that the things disappeared around the time of the civil trial.

[weezer]

let's recant the facts:

orenthal assembled a band of goons
orenthal accompanied the goons to a hotel
orenthal and goons entered the hotel room with weapons
orenthal and goons kept anyone from leaving
orenthal and goons threatened harm to the rooms occupants
orenthal and goons took all of the memorabilia from the room
orenthal and goons took personal items of the rooms inhabitants

[William Anthony]

If I may interject something here..The Amistad case was in fact a very heroic effort to save their lives. The Las Vegas case was to supposedly get back OJ's "stuff". That in no way equates to the same level of fairness. OJ not having his stuff isn't even close to what these men suffered.To lower the Amistad case to the level of the Las vegas case is insulting to those who fought so valiantly for their lives and freedom. And that is just wrong, no matter who you are there is no logical way you can equate the two.

The reason OJ is sitting in Jail is because if HE hadn't started this whole thing in order to get his "stuff" back he would not be sitting in Jail now. The other men were "asked" to accompany him thereby making him the ring leader, plain and simple. Therefore anything that happened in that hotel room was because of OJ. Also before anyone brings it up, no we don't control what others do but we must be held accountable for what we start..Especially in a case such as this where there would be no case except for one man..OJS. In the case of a crime the one who instigates the crime is held to a higher standard simply because it was them who started it.

Whether OJ believed it was truly his things or not he was indeed smart enough to know that when you gather together persons to carry with you to "take" back what you believe is yours it is a crime. You must follow proper channels no matter who you are and that includes even if you are OJ. The men who were with him are being described as thugs now..well then OJ knew they were thugs when he gathered them together.

IS that why he chose those particular men? Who know's but I think it is hghly likely. I think they all should be sitting in jail, but as has been stated before in our justice system they make compromises everyday. They make those in order to assure that the head person responsible for the crime is convicted. It may not be right but that is the way it works..

And in my opinion had OJ done the correct and legal thing, which would be reporting those items as stolen we would not be here discussing this case now. He would not be sitting in Jail and Sydney and Justin along with his other two choldren would not be having to talk to their father behind bars..In my opinion~Suz

I am in no way trying to diminish the atrocities of slavery to include people being snatched from their homes and property. It is essentially the point I am trying to make. The Africans had a desire to return to their native land to see their loved ones and to resume the lifestyle (enjoying the use of their personal property) in their homes of their land (real property), which was snatched from them as they were enslaved (liberty interest). I will not say that they were not primarily motivated by the liberty interest and that was motivated by the desire to return to their loved ones and their personal property. Did they take the lawful action to fulfill their desires? Did those who enslave them take lawful action? Did the law take that into consideration? We can also review the Dread Scott decision, in which the Court ruled that a slave owner could take back his property by force. Certainly, the law evolved and there are measures such as reporting crimes to authorities and expecting authorities to react to the report. Did not Simpson have the right to have a report of his stolen property investigated? Did the fact that he was Simpson eliminate the authorities duty to react?

When the law fails to react, what choice is left? Fredrick Dougglas said that law without enforcement is a mockery. The point is that there may be legal precedent that Simpson did have the right to regain his property by force and that there have been decisions made by the highest court in the land that reflect that the law takes into consideration all circumstances. If those circumstances could be considered in regard to foreigners, should they not be considered in regard to citizens? In developing a legal argument, certain things are emphasized and others diminished. That is not to say that what the Africans went through is diminished but the legal precedent set by their case is emphasized. That is not to say that legal precedent outweighs the human condition. It is to say that in a courtroom stare decisis forming precedent is what the judge is looking for. The similarity of the circumstances both seeking the return of things sacred to them is persuasive after finding the precedent to allow the argument. The slave owner used force to retrieve his property, the Africans used force in order to retrieve their property. Should not a property owner be allowed those same privileges, after seeking and having the authorities reject his request for assistance. With all that said, it does not mean that the argument will be won, only that it is creative to be able to form such an argument, and that is the job of a good lawyer, which is what I want to be. Good to see you posting.

[William Anthony]

Exactly WNC, what those men did was guaranteed under our constitution and what OJ tried to do was not. At least not the way he did it. OJ is by no means a stupid or ignorant man and I feel sure he knew going about it the way he did was in fact illegal.

It is one thing to go over to someones home and say give me back my lawn mower you took, it is another to gather what is described now as thugs and go to a hotel room and try to "take" back what you believe is yours by force. That was what I was trying to point out. In my opinion~Suz

In Nevada from what I have read claim of right is a defense to burglary. I think it should extend to armed robbery and based on Supreme Court decisions it did, at least at some time.

[WarmNCozy]

I didn't mention the criminal trial. I was under the impression that the things disappeared around the time of the civil trial.Oh, OK. I misunderstood. Sorry!

[tv]

I am in no way trying to diminish the atrocities of slavery to include people being snatched from their homes and property. It is essentially the point I am trying to make. The Africans had a desire to return to their native land to see their loved ones and to resume the lifestyle (enjoying the use of their personal property) in their homes of their land (real property), which was snatched from them as they were enslaved (liberty interest). I will not say that they were not primarily motivated by the liberty interest and that was motivated by the desire to return to their loved ones and their personal property. Did they take the lawful action to fulfill their desires? Did those who enslave them take lawful action? Did the law take that into consideration? We can also review the Dread Scott decision, in which the Court ruled that a slave owner could take back his property by force. Certainly, the law evolved and there are measures such as reporting crimes to authorities and expecting authorities to react to the report. Did not Simpson have the right to have a report of his stolen property investigated? Did the fact that he was Simpson eliminate the authorities duty to react?

When the law fails to react, what choice is left? Fredrick Dougglas said that law without enforcement is a mockery. The point is that there may be legal precedent that Simpson did have the right to regain his property by force and that there have been decisions made by the highest court in the land that reflect that the law takes into consideration all circumstances. If those circumstances could be considered in regard to foreigners, should they not be considered in regard to citizens? In developing a legal argument, certain things are emphasized and others diminished. That is not to say that what the Africans went through is diminished but the legal precedent set by their case is emphasized. That is not to say that legal precedent outweighs the human condition. It is to say that in a courtroom stare decisis forming precedent is what the judge is looking for. The similarity of the circumstances both seeking the return of things sacred to them is persuasive after finding the precedent to allow the argument. The slave owner used force to retrieve his property, the Africans used force in order to retrieve their property. Should not a property owner be allowed those same privileges, after seeking and having the authorities reject his request for assistance. With all that said, it does not mean that the argument will be won, only that it is creative to be able to form such an argument, and that is the job of a good lawyer, which is what I want to be. Good to see you posting.

Do you have information that OJ Simpson called LE to report that items he considered to be his were in that hotel room and in danger of being sold?

[William Anthony]

Do you have information that OJ Simpson called LE to report that items he considered to be his were in that hotel room and in danger of being sold?

Did I say he did? The police received a report and said, if it involved Simpson, they were not interested, by the evidence. If you see a crime, can you report it and, if the person being victimized does not, does that give the police authority not to act?

[susie31023]

I am in no way trying to diminish the atrocities of slavery to include people being snatched from their homes and property. It is essentially the point I am trying to make. The Africans had a desire to return to their native land to see their loved ones and to resume the lifestyle (enjoying the use of their personal property) in their homes of their land (real property), which was snatched from them as they were enslaved (liberty interest). I will not say that they were not primarily motivated by the liberty interest and that was motivated by the desire to return to their loved ones and their personal property. Did they take the lawful action to fulfill their desires? Did those who enslave them take lawful action? Did the law take that into consideration? We can also review the Dread Scott decision, in which the Court ruled that a slave owner could take back his property by force. Certainly, the law evolved and there are measures such as reporting crimes to authorities and expecting authorities to react to the report. Did not Simpson have the right to have a report of his stolen property investigated? Did the fact that he was Simpson eliminate the authorities duty to react?

When the law fails to react, what choice is left? Fredrick Dougglas said that law without enforcement is a mockery. The point is that there may be legal precedent that Simpson did have the right to regain his property by force and that there have been decisions made by the highest court in the land that reflect that the law takes into consideration all circumstances. If those circumstances could be considered in regard to foreigners, should they not be considered in regard to citizens? In developing a legal argument, certain things are emphasized and others diminished. That is not to say that what the Africans went through is diminished but the legal precedent set by their case is emphasized. That is not to say that legal precedent outweighs the human condition. It is to say that in a courtroom stare decisis forming precedent is what the judge is looking for. The similarity of the circumstances both seeking the return of things sacred to them is persuasive after finding the precedent to allow the argument. The slave owner used force to retrieve his property, the Africans used force in order to retrieve their property. Should not a property owner be allowed those same privileges, after seeking and having the authorities reject his request for assistance. With all that said, it does not mean that the argument will be won, only that it is creative to be able to form such an argument, and that is the job of a good lawyer, which is what I want to be. Good to see you posting.

I see what you're saying but let me just interject one thing here....You and other's say OJ had a right to use force to retrieve his things[ or at least what he claims to be his things]. Even if we go with that supposition how does that equate with him gathering so called thugs to help him?

Then it becomes a crime because he is using others to do what the law{according to you and others say] allows him to do. It might be legal for me to go take my things out of my neighbors home but if I were to get others involved it becomes a crime because it is NOT their things they are taking it is mine..Therefore I am committing a crime because I am no longer using the law to acquire my things back I am in essence using a vigilante justice which is not legal in this country. I then become accountable for the thugs I have obtained to help me.

It all boils down to one simple thing If OJ felt the police didn't want to do their jobs and file a report, which I'm not sure which jurisdiction it would have needed to be filed in anyway. Then he should have went to a higher le agency. Instead he, instead of going there alone to get his things, he got the goon squad and so therefore in my opinion it then became a crime. Not allowing someone to leave is kidnapping, taking someone elses things is burglary/stealing..

Ask any department store, if I sit my purse down to try on clothes and when I start to leave I pick up a blouse without paying for it it is called theft. The store doesn't care whether I tell them I was going to bring it back or not, they lock me up for theft...The use of a gun in the commission of a crime is a felony, doesn't matter who holds it it is the one in charge that they come after. So I will respectfully agree to disagree on this matter. In my opinion~Suz

[martin II]

Exactly WNC, what those men did was guaranteed under our constitution and what OJ tried to do was not. At least not the way he did it. OJ is by no means a stupid or ignorant man and I feel sure he knew going about it the way he did was in fact illegal.

It is one thing to go over to someones home and say give me back my lawn mower you took, it is another to gather what is described now as thugs and go to a hotel room and try to "take" back what you believe is yours by force. That was what I was trying to point out. In my opinion~Suz

suz

Williams original remark was how simular the issue of right to property the two issues were. not that the details of the two event were the same.
Both cases delt with the principle of right to property.

[weezer]

suz

Williams original remark was how simular the issue of right to property the two issues were. not that the details of the two event were the same.
Both cases delt with the principle of right to property.

I'm surprised that you would equate orenthal's armed robbery with the struggle of the Amistad. sad.

[rph3664]

This weekend, I met a woman whose son-in-law used to work with OJ on those Hertz commercials, and OJ was the best man at his wedding - in Iowa!

:eek:

He was still married to Nicole, who was there as were the kids, and she said he was very superficially charming - she certainly saw through him - and Nicole walked around like some kind of goddess; she didn't try to upstage the bride or anything, but she let it be known that all those Iowa hicks were beneath her.

Yes, she believes he's guilty as charged. And her daughter is still married.

[martin II]

let's recant the facts:

orenthal assembled a band of goons
orenthal accompanied the goons to a hotel
orenthal and goons entered the hotel room with weaponsoj did not enter the room with a weapon
orenthal and goons kept anyone from leavingno one asked to leave
orenthal and goons threatened harm to the rooms occupants
orenthal and goons took all of the memorabilia from the roomoj removed nothing from the room
orenthal and goons took personal items of the rooms inhabitantsAlexander took a cell phone and glasses not oj

[martin II]

This weekend, I met a woman whose son-in-law used to work with OJ on those Hertz commercials, and OJ was the best man at his wedding - in Iowa!

:eek:

He was still married to Nicole, who was there as were the kids, and she said he was very superficially charming - she certainly saw through him - and Nicole walked around like some kind of goddess; she didn't try to upstage the bride or anything, but she let it be known that all those Iowa hicks were beneath her.

Yes, she believes he's guilty as charged. And her daughter is still married.


Is this iowa gossip?

[martin II]

When you say nobody can leave the room that's kidnapping. When you brandish a gun and take things that don't belong to you that's armed robbery.

oj had no gun in the room and did not take any item away.

[William Anthony]

I see what you're saying but let me just interject one thing here....You and other's say OJ had a right to use force to retrieve his things[ or at least what he claims to be his things]. Even if we go with that supposition how does that equate with him gathering so called thugs to help him?

Then it becomes a crime because he is using others to do what the law{according to you and others say] allows him to do. It might be legal for me to go take my things out of my neighbors home but if I were to get others involved it becomes a crime because it is NOT their things they are taking it is mine..Therefore I am committing a crime because I am no longer using the law to acquire my things back I am in essence using a vigilante justice which is not legal in this country. I then become accountable for the thugs I have obtained to help me.

It all boils down to one simple thing If OJ felt the police didn't want to do their jobs and file a report, which I'm not sure which jurisdiction it would have needed to be filed in anyway. Then he should have went to a higher le agency. Instead he, instead of going there alone to get his things, he got the goon squad and so therefore in my opinion it then became a crime. Not allowing someone to leave is kidnapping, taking someone elses things is burglary/stealing..

Ask any department store, if I sit my purse down to try on clothes and when I start to leave I pick up a blouse without paying for it it is called theft. The store doesn't care whether I tell them I was going to bring it back or not, they lock me up for theft...The use of a gun in the commission of a crime is a felony, doesn't matter who holds it it is the one in charge that they come after. So I will respectfully agree to disagree on this matter. In my opinion~Suz

I do not say he had the right to get his property back. I am saying, according to my understanding that the Nevada law is that he could get things through a burglary, if he believed the things were his, but he could not if it was a robbery be it armed or not. I am saying based on my prior post that there may be precedent from the Supreme Court to form an argument that he could use that defense, although he acted in the manner that he did. What I was attempting to say that the taking may not have been unlawful based on precedence from Supreme Court decisions. A slave owner had the right to go into a state where slavery was abolished to retrieve his property.

I understand you point that all the Africans in the Amistad case had a stake in their freedom and their respective lifestyles (property). However, a slave owner often required the assistance of others in tracking and capturing his slave. The charge of conspiracy pertains to a crime, which is what I think you are talking about as it pertains to those who assisted him. However, if there was no unlawful taking, he believed the property was his, and precedent allowed him to use force, get assistance and have weapons, then there was no crime and, consequently no conspiracy or kidnapping. The legal argument is that the Nevada statute not allowing the claim of right defense may be unconstitutional.

According to the evidence, a report was filed with local authorities and with the FBI, neither of whom investigated. The FBI would have had jurisdiction, because it involved interstate transportation of stolen property and the local authorities would have had co0jurisdiction, because the alleged stolen property was attempting to be sold within their jurisdiction.

The point is whether or not the Nevada statute is Constitutional by not allowing the claim of right defense and precedent to show that the circumstances surrounded in his taking of the property he believed, rightly or wrongly, were in line with prior Supreme Court decisions allowing property owners to reclaim their property. The first element of the Nevada statute is an unlawful taking. Did the denial of the claim of right defense prevent him from showing there was no crime and was the statute Constitutional? I hope I am explaining it more clearly. keep posting.

[tv]

oj had no gun in the room and did not take any item away.

He was the RINGLEADER. He knew the guns were going to be there and he instructed his cronies to take the things from the room -- things that did not belong to him.

[martin II]

He was the RINGLEADER. He knew the guns were going to be there and he instructed his cronies to take the things from the room -- things that did not belong to him.

Riccio was the ringmaster oj just brought some help. I am not sure he knew what mcclinton and Alexander was bringing. I think that right after they left mcclinton told him he had a gun.

[martin II]

He was the RINGLEADER. He knew the guns were going to be there and he instructed his cronies to take the things from the room -- things that did not belong to him.

TV

mCCLINTON met with the prosecution three times and never said a word about oj asking him to bring a gun, each time he claimed to be telling them the total truth. It was when he had to testify in the hearing that he told them oj asked him to bring a gun. Sound like he made this up to me.

[tv]

TV

mCCLINTON met with the prosecution three times and never said a word about oj asking him to bring a gun, each time he claimed to be telling them the total truth. It was when he had to testify in the hearing that he told them oj asked him to bring a gun. Sound like he made this up to me.

OJ Simpson asked if the gun was taken out in the hallway. Sounds to me like he knew about the gun but didn't want it pulled in the hallway because of the security cameras. The jury saw it that way too.

[martin II]

OJ Simpson asked if the gun was taken out in the hallway. Sounds to me like he knew about the gun but didn't want it pulled in the hallway because of the security cameras. The jury saw it that way too.

There were no security cameras in the hall way and oj ASKED this question at the party later that night when mcclinton told him he brought the gun.

The jury heard no tape of oj asking them to bring guns. They said they did not believe any of the witnesses testinmony but it seems they did believe mcclinton and Alexanders testimony on oj telling them to bring the gun but shiffted the responmsibility on mcclinton and alexanders personal decision to bring the gun to oj. Why did mcclinotn after three interviews with le only remember to tell them oj asked him to bring a gun when he was finally given a reduced charge?

If they jury believe these witnesses told lies,why didn't they toss all of their terstimony as the judge instructed them they could? 'if you believe any witness lied in his testinmony you can disregard all of his testimony" Seems the jury disregarded this instruction from the judge.

Question: during jury selection a potential jurory, the one that was a mechanical tech at some company was the one that said oj got away with murder in the criminal trial, was this the same person that was the jury forperson?? if you know.

[tv]

There were no security cameras in the hall way and oj ASKED this question at the party later that night when mcclinton told him he brought the gun.

The jury heard no tape of oj asking them to bring guns. They said they did not believe any of the witnesses testinmony but it seems they did believe mcclinton and Alexanders testimony on oj telling them to bring the gun but shiffted the responmsibility on mcclinton and alexanders personal decision to bring the gun to oj. Why did mcclinotn after three interviews with le only remember to tell them oj asked him to bring a gun when he was finally given a reduced charge?

If they jury believe these witnesses told lies,why didn't they toss all of their terstimony as the judge instructed them they could? 'if you believe any witness lied in his testinmony you can disregard all of his testimony" Seems the jury disregarded this instruction from the judge.

Question: during jury selection a potential jurory, the one that was a mechanical tech at some company was the one that said oj got away with murder in the criminal trial, was this the same person that was the jury forperson?? if you know.

martin, either you or William are always saying that you can disregard all OR PART of witness testimony. I don't think any of them are completely trustworthy. As my grandmother used to say -- you could put them all in a paper bag and shake it and they'd all fall out at the same time. :) The jury had to decide to believe and what to throw out. That's where the tapes came in.

I don't know who the jury foreman was. I don't even know if it was a man or woman.

[William Anthony]

martin, either you or William are always saying that you can disregard all OR PART of witness testimony. I don't think any of them are completely trustworthy. As my grandmother used to say -- you could put them all in a paper bag and shake it and they'd all fall out at the same time. :) The jury had to decide to believe and what to throw out. That's where the tapes came in.

I don't know who the jury foreman was. I don't even know if it was a man or woman.

The jury foreman was a man.

[tv]

The jury foreman was a man.

Thank you. :)

[William Anthony]

Thank you. :)

You are welcome. :)

[susie31023]

Riccio was the ringmaster oj just brought some help. I am not sure he knew what mcclinton and Alexander was bringing. I think that right after they left mcclinton told him he had a gun.

Martin I respectfully have to disagree with you. OJ was the ringleader since it was his things they were to recover. No matter what Riccio did it was to aid OJ. Therefore it all comes down to one thing and that is even if we go on the assumption that OJ had a right to recover what he believed to be his things, he did not have a right to bring others into a hotel room or any other place considered to be private and force the persons there to remain there until he got what he thought were his things.

If that were to be the case, I could bust into your home and force you and your family or friends to sit there while I went through your possessions till I found what I percieved to be my belongings. And if I took something that belonged to you, you would have to wait till I decided it wasn't mine and I would give it back..I'm sorry but I don't think you would like that very much nor do I think the police who I'm sure you would call would believe I had such a right as described above..In my homest opinion~Suz

[Jayme K]

Riccio was the ringmaster oj just brought some help. I am not sure he knew what mcclinton and Alexander was bringing. I think that right after they left mcclinton told him he had a gun.

So are you saying that Simpson was just an innocent bystander?

[Jayme K]

martin, either you or William are always saying that you can disregard all OR PART of witness testimony. I don't think any of them are completely trustworthy. As my grandmother used to say -- you could put them all in a paper bag and shake it and they'd all fall out at the same time. :) The jury had to decide to believe and what to throw out. That's where the tapes came in.

I don't know who the jury foreman was. I don't even know if it was a man or woman.

:beer:

[Jayme K]

Amnesia for yourself, all others need to be PERFECT! If this nit picking continues, I for one will find another board to discuss this case or if I choose, read and not participate.

By all means, pack up and head on out.

[WarmNCozy]

By all means, pack up and head on out.

This comes out of the blue! Where have you been since that post?

[Jayme K]

TV
When the referance to slavery 40 acres and a mule comment was made by weezer, I expected to see you at least post OT.But that did not happen.

Why? You never post OT when William decides to lug his cross during slavery rants.

[Jayme K]

It is my hope that Warmn cozy continues to give us adult contribution in this discussion. You can just say i dissagree.

So can you - but you never do.

[Jayme K]

This is not an insult? And all your insults instead of focusing on the case and the issues makes me immature!

Another insult!

That's all you and your OJ guilty posters can do! Drive people away! When the Jury rendered it's verdict NOT QUILTY!

How can I drive that point any further, the man did not kill Nicole and Ron.


I will get by the pettiness and I AM HERE FOR THE LONG HAUL! AND WILL CALL EVERYONE WHO IS PETTY AND HAS NOTHING TO ADD INTEllIGENTLY TO THIS CASE!

Foots, 40 mules, fat people, feet, fences, forget it all!

Let's talk about the case!

I'm not going away because of the personal fights which do not create an amicable debate!

Enjoyed the outrageous rant. Thanks for making it clear that you're as petty as anyone else on the board - but it does make for one heck of a good laugh.

I'm curious though - the not "QUILTY" verdict that you mentioned apparently means that the "man" didn't kill anyone and I see that you're all amped up to run the length of the football field with that one, but the guilty verdict in the recent case appears to be a travesty in your eyes. Cluck cluck.

[Jayme K]

This comes out of the blue! Where have you been since that post?

Not really out of the blue - some of us don't have the pleasure of being able to log on whenever we want so we have to make our appearances fewer and more far between.

[William Anthony]

Why? You never post OT when William decides to lug his cross during slavery rants.

I would guess that she is intelligent enough to know that they are not off topic. How have you been?

[William Anthony]

Not really out of the blue - some of us don't have the pleasure of being able to log on whenever we want so we have to make our appearances fewer and more far between.

Suffice it say, you are missed, because we can tell you are not here. ;):cool:

[martin II]

Not really out of the blue - some of us don't have the pleasure of being able to log on whenever we want so we have to make our appearances fewer and more far between.

Jame k
What i see are two things that limit your informed participation.
1. You cannot log on as often as you would like.
2. You have some difficulty in understand the topic of conversation AND
developing a comments that does not indicate that you do not have
some kind of serious problem in discussion the issues of the cases.

martin II

[Jayme K]

Suffice it say, you are missed, because we can tell you are not here. ;):cool:

Awww, thanks;):cool:

[Jayme K]

Jame k
What i see are two things that limit your informed participation.
1. You cannot log on as often as you would like.
2. You have some difficulty in understand the topic of conversation AND
developing a comments that does not indicate that you do not have
some kind of serious problem in discussion the issues of the cases.

martin II

Yeah, I agree that's it's difficult to understand things like this post where your spelling and grammar are so incorrect that it's hard to really know what you are saying.

[Jayme K]

I would guess that she is intelligent enough to know that they are not off topic. How have you been?

I always thought that martin is a guy. I've been doing great, and you?

[William Anthony]

I always thought that martin is a guy. I've been doing great, and you?

My bad, so sad. I thought you were continuing the argument with WNC. I didn't know you were engaged in another one with martin ;):cool: I am okay but have to run shortly.

[martin II]

The jury foreman was a man.

I think it was PAUL CONNELLY.

He is the one that it is reported did not want the jury to go home because he thought one juror might have a problem returning the next day. Some jurors wanted to quit for the day but he prevailed and had supper brought in so the jury could work straight through the night to get a verdict at about 10:30pm
on the 13th hour.

[WarmNCozy]

Yeah, I agree that's it's difficult to understand things like this post where your spelling and grammar are so incorrect that it's hard to really know what you are saying.I just started posting on a new board, and guess what ---- they have SPELL CHECK! We need it here.:seeya:

[Jayme K]

My bad, so sad. I thought you were continuing the argument with WNC. I didn't know you were engaged in another one with martin ;):cool: I am okay but have to run shortly.

Of course I was, why would you doubt that:rolleyes::cool:

[William Anthony]

Of course I was, why would you doubt that:rolleyes::cool:

Go figure? ;):cool:

[WarmNCozy]

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Avatar/animated86.gif

[Jayme K]

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Avatar/animated86.gif

I would expect nothing less:eek:

[WarmNCozy]

I would expect nothing less:eek:
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Sayings/awwshucks.gif

[William Anthony]

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Avatar/animated86.gif

Unfair, you know how I like those laughing dogs.

[William Anthony]

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Sayings/awwshucks.gif

That one is pretty cute too.

[Jayme K]

That one is pretty cute too.

I agree!

[WarmNCozy]

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Sayings/awwshucks.gif

That one is pretty cute too.

I agree!

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Sayings/highfive1.jpg

[WarmNCozy]

But I found the case on line and will print it out and read it two, three or four times.

Because I bought the book, John Adams when it was first published in 2001 did I know the first thing about this noble man and his family as far as the Law and Justice was all about. So I know all about the appeal and results of that appeal to the Supreme Court.

And I am not a lawyer, nor was it ever in my interests in life to become one. Justice is! But science, Mathematics, and the Piano, are my greatest loves plus my #2 after the piano, is golf and I'm an awful golfer (but as Bagger Vance said in the film Robert Redford directed, It's a game you cannot win, only Play!) OK, it hookey! (need spell check) and from a movie but one that touched me! And Literature!

Susie wants William and I to present a case newer to the right of ownership than we presented in both cases preported!

I am going to assume that William and I are the "defendants", and you (Susie) as the Plaintiff must provide the burden of proof! The definition of such is:

A "legal burden" or a "burden of persuasion" is an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the claim. Once the burden has been entirely discharged to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, the party carrying the burden will succeed in its claim. For example, the presumption of innocence places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offence (generally beyond a reasonable doubt) and to disprove all the defences except for affirmative defenses in which the proof of nonexistence of all affirmative defence(s) is not constitutionally required of the prosecution.

I think it is your turn to show a Supreme Court Appeal in modern times, not William or I?
N'est-ce pas?

[tv]

Jame k
What i see are two things that limit your informed participation.
1. You cannot log on as often as you would like.
2. You have some difficulty in understand the topic of conversation AND
developing a comments that does not indicate that you do not have
some kind of serious problem in discussion the issues of the cases.

martin II

A person doesn't have to be here 24/7 to join in the discussion and to see what's going on with this board. You don't seem to mind that your friend WNC was absent from participation in this forum for over a year and then decided to jump back in feet first to get rid of me and others like me as she said in her post.

[tv]

I think it was PAUL CONNELLY.

He is the one that it is reported did not want the jury to go home because he thought one juror might have a problem returning the next day. Some jurors wanted to quit for the day but he prevailed and had supper brought in so the jury could work straight through the night to get a verdict at about 10:30pm
on the 13th hour.

HaHaHa, you're complaining about a verdict coming at the 13th hour when you've defended the criminal jurors for coming up with a verdict in 3 hours? Come on, martin.

[martin II]

HaHaHa, you're complaining about a verdict coming at the 13th hour when you've defended the criminal jurors for coming up with a verdict in 3 hours? Come on, martin.

Don't be quick to jump the gun.

there were three 13s associated with this case.is the correct

[WarmNCozy]

A person doesn't have to be here 24/7 to join in the discussion and to see what's going on with this board. You don't seem to mind that your friend WNC was absent from participation in this forum for over a year and then decided to jump back in feet first to get rid of me and others like me as she said in her post.
What makes you think I am Martin's friend? I will disagree with him as I will with anyone who posts on this thread.

[tv]

What makes you think I am Martin's friend? I will disagree with him as I will with anyone who posts on this thread.

Okay, so you're not martin's friend. It really doesn't matter to me. :shrug:

[martin II]

A person doesn't have to be here 24/7 to join in the discussion and to see what's going on with this board. You don't seem to mind that your friend WNC was absent from participation in this forum for over a year and then decided to jump back in feet first to get rid of me and others like me as she said in her post.

I don't know anything about anyone trying to get rid of you.

[martin II]

Okay, so you're not martin's friend. It really doesn't matter to me. :shrug:

You are not suggesting that i cannot have friends are you.

[tv]

I don't know anything about anyone trying to get rid of you.

She made that threat in a post a few days ago. Would you like me to direct you to it?

[tv]

You are not suggesting that i cannot have friends are you.Nope.

[WarmNCozy]

A person doesn't have to be here 24/7 to join in the discussion and to see what's going on with this board. You don't seem to mind that your friend WNC was absent from participation in this forum for over a year and then decided to jump back in feet first to get rid of me and others like me as she said in her post.

Your participation is most welcomed! We can agree to disagree! I want to see both sides of an issue! What I will not do is not allow you your views.

But I stepped away a year ago because it was not conversation that was accepted by both sides. It was awful. I did withdraw from the discussion. But now I'm back! And ready to take on the a real discussion with merits and not demeaning each other to make a point!

The Criminal Trial of OJ has affected his whole lifel Jury found him innocent.

The world has judged him otherwise!

In the case we are now discussing let the past be done, and deal with the evidence! OK?

[WarmNCozy]

Okay, so you're not martin's friend. It really doesn't matter to me. :shrug:

And what makes you think I'm not your friend?

[William Anthony]

Your participation is most welcomed! We can agree to disagree! I want to see both sides of an issue! What I will not do is not allow you your views.

But I stepped away a year ago because it was not conversation that was accepted by both sides. It was awful. I did withdraw from the discussion. But now I'm back! And ready to take on the a real discussion with merits and not demeaning each other to make a point!

The Criminal Trial of OJ has affected his whole lifel Jury found him innocent.

The world has judged him otherwise!

In the case we are now discussing let the past be done, and deal with the evidence! OK?

That's what I am talking about. What the world needs now is love sweet love, that's the only thing that there is just too little of.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

The Criminal Trial of OJ has affected his whole lifel Jury found him innocent.



I'm sure you know that they didn't find him innocent. They declared him not guilty. There is a difference.

[tv]

And what makes you think I'm not your friend?

I'm sure you know that they didn't find him innocent. They declared him not guilty. There is a difference.Hi Diva! Thanks for setting the record straight. Our resident legal eagle is falling down on the job! :)

[tv]

Your participation is most welcomed! We can agree to disagree! I want to see both sides of an issue! What I will not do is not allow you your views.

But I stepped away a year ago because it was not conversation that was accepted by both sides. It was awful. I did withdraw from the discussion. But now I'm back! And ready to take on the a real discussion with merits and not demeaning each other to make a point!

The Criminal Trial of OJ has affected his whole lifel Jury found him innocent.

The world has judged him otherwise!

In the case we are now discussing let the past be done, and deal with the evidence! OK?

And what makes you think I'm not your friend?

IMO, you need to decide who you're going to be on any given day. In the meantime, I'm sure you're not a person I'm going to ever feel warm and fuzzy about. :)

[William Anthony]

To err is human, to forgive divine.

[William Anthony]

WNC,

Don't you think they should spread the love around?

[WarmNCozy]

That's what I am talking about. What the world needs now is love sweet love, that's the only thing that there is just too little of.

Because I remember going to Breille, NJ when I lived and worked on Wall Street, on the radio and lived on 86th and York in Manhatten! Still appropriate today as was then!

[William Anthony]

Because I remember going to Breille, NJ when I lived and worked on Wall Street, on the radio and lived on 86th and York in Manhatten! Still appropriate today as was then!

Don't try to guess my age. I am old enough to know the score and young enough to play in any game. :) "That is my claim to fame"-Rick James.

[WarmNCozy]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9131259]WNC,

Don't you think they should spread the love around?[/QUO

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9131259]WNC,

Don't you think they should spread the love around?[/QUO

I just did not want them to think we were starting a monopoly. What is with my game references? :)

[martin II]

Because I remember going to Breille, NJ when I lived and worked on Wall Street, on the radio and lived on 86th and York in Manhatten! Still appropriate today as was then!

Well well
I lived directly across the park from you.87TH and Columbus and 93RD and CPW.

[WarmNCozy]

Don't try to guess my age. I am old enough to know the score and young enough to play in any game. :) "That is my claim to fame"-Rick James.A romantic, humanist, seeker of justice, and probably loves Billy Holliday, Burt Bachrach and Al Jaurreau as I do?

[martin II]

She made that threat in a post a few days ago. Would you like me to direct you to it?

I think there is a effort under way to cut the anger and attacks.Why don't you try it.

[William Anthony]

A romantic, humanist, seeker of justice, and probably loves Billy Holliday, Burt Bachrach and Al Jaurreau as I do?

Yes.

[William Anthony]

I think there is a effort under way to cut the anger and attacks.Why don't you try it.

Wake up everybody.

[WarmNCozy]

I think there is a effort under way to cut the anger and attacks.Why don't you try it.


What the world needs now is love sweet love is just as good now as it was in the 60's when I knew nothing about life coming out of a Prep School!

But the words to that song still fit in today age!

[tv]

I think there is a effort under way to cut the anger and attacks.Why don't you try it.

I'm not angry or attacking. You said you didn't see her make that statement and I offered to direct you to it. I think that remark showed anger but you don't have to agree. I'm glad she came out with her true feelings because I like to know where I stand with people. I don't mind letting it drop but I won't be turning my back. ;) :)

[WarmNCozy]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9131257]IMO, you need to decide who you're going to be on any given day. In the meantime, I'm sure you're not a person I'm going to ever feel warm and fuzzy about. :)[/

And I don't really care if you want to feel warm and fuzzy about unless you share my values . Justice and by the LAW!

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9131257]IMO, you need to decide who you're going to be on any given day. In the meantime, I'm sure you're not a person I'm going to ever feel warm and fuzzy about. :)[/

And I don't really care if you want to feel warm and fuzzy about unless you share my values . Justice and by the LAW!

You mean like the JUSTICE that was just handed down in the case this thread is supposed to be about? The one that was rendered UNDER THE LAW?

[WarmNCozy]

[QUOTE=WarmNCozy;9131281]

You mean like the JUSTICE that was just handed down in the case this thread is supposed to be about? The one that was rendered UNDER THE LAW?

Can the verdict handed down been misguided and wrong under the LAW?

[tv]

Can the verdict handed down been misguided and wrong under the LAW?

Oh sure. I think the criminal murder trial verdict that found OJ Simpson not guilty was misguided. The charges and verdicts in the Vegas case were correct under the laws of Nevada. We don't know what's going to happen with an appeal.

[WarmNCozy]

Oh sure. I think the criminal murder trial verdict that found OJ Simpson not guilty was misguided. The charges and verdicts in the Vegas case were correct under the laws of Nevada. We don't know what's going to happen with an appeal.

for his not guilty verdict 13 years ago!

That has nothing to do with today!

This trail was such a mess, I'm sure men with great law knowledge will find so much fault with this trial! And if OJ is found guilty on appeal, all involved will be also. JMO

[WarmNCozy]

I'm not angry or attacking. You said you didn't see her make that statement and I offered to direct you to it. I think that remark showed anger but you don't have to agree. I'm glad she came out with her true feelings because I like to know where I stand with people. I don't mind letting it drop but I won't be turning my back. ;) :)

and yet the hatred for me is so evident in this post! I feel sorry for you!

[tv]

and yet the hatred for me is so evident in this post! I feel sorry for you!

I can't think of one person in this world that I hate...there are people I dislike. In your case, I simply don't trust you. Your threat to me has been ignored by one and all which is okay because I'm not here to win a popularity contest. If you want to discuss the various issues involved with the cases against OJ Simpson I will participate -- other than that this distracting banter with you is over with for me.

[susie31023]

But I found the case on line and will print it out and read it two, three or four times.

Because I bought the book, John Adams when it was first published in 2001 did I know the first thing about this noble man and his family as far as the Law and Justice was all about. So I know all about the appeal and results of that appeal to the Supreme Court.

And I am not a lawyer, nor was it ever in my interests in life to become one. Justice is! But science, Mathematics, and the Piano, are my greatest loves plus my #2 after the piano, is golf and I'm an awful golfer (but as Bagger Vance said in the film Robert Redford directed, It's a game you cannot win, only Play!) OK, it hookey! (need spell check) and from a movie but one that touched me! And Literature!

Susie wants William and I to present a case newer to the right of ownership than we presented in both cases preported!

I am going to assume that William and I are the "defendants", and you (Susie) as the Plaintiff must provide the burden of proof! The definition of such is:

A "legal burden" or a "burden of persuasion" is an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the claim. Once the burden has been entirely discharged to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, the party carrying the burden will succeed in its claim. For example, the presumption of innocence places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offence (generally beyond a reasonable doubt) and to disprove all the defences except for affirmative defenses in which the proof of nonexistence of all affirmative defence(s) is not constitutionally required of the prosecution.

I think it is your turn to show a Supreme Court Appeal in modern times, not William or I?
N'est-ce pas?


WNC, it is not a game to me. I don't have the 'Burden" of proof, simply put this case was tried in a court of law and whether you agree or not the verdict went by the Laws of Nevada. It is very easy to proclaim the verdict was correct in the criminal trial , while then proclaiming the civil trial verdict incorrect, then proclaiming this verdict is incorrect..

.I have yet seen anyone answer my question. IF you assume that OJ had a right to retrieve what he perceived to be his "property" with him and his gang holding people in the room hostage and taking whatever they chose to take..Would you agree that I have the right to break into your home force everyone there to stay there while I go through your possessions till I find what I say is my property? Keep in mind that it doesn't really have to be my property only that I "believe" it is my property. And If I chose to take something that wasn't mine would you agree I have that right? If so then all the burglars in prison currently will have a good chance for an appeal and to be released from prison. Would you call the police? Since you say it is a persons right to retrieve property they say is their's by force. The argument using the Amistad was just wrong no matter who you are..In my opinion..~Suz

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9131284]

Can the verdict handed down been misguided and wrong under the LAW?

I think the verdict was correct but the law may have not been Constitutional.

[William Anthony]

Oh sure. I think the criminal murder trial verdict that found OJ Simpson not guilty was misguided. The charges and verdicts in the Vegas case were correct under the laws of Nevada. We don't know what's going to happen with an appeal.

Correct on the Nevada trial.

[William Anthony]

WNC, it is not a game to me. I don't have the 'Burden" of proof, simply put this case was tried in a court of law and whether you agree or not the verdict went by the Laws of Nevada. It is very easy to proclaim the verdict was correct in the criminal trial , while then proclaiming the civil trial verdict incorrect, then proclaiming this verdict is incorrect..

.I have yet seen anyone answer my question. IF you assume that OJ had a right to retrieve what he perceived to be his "property" with him and his gang holding people in the room hostage and taking whatever they chose to take..Would you agree that I have the right to break into your home force everyone there to stay there while I go through your possessions till I find what I say is my property? Keep in mind that it doesn't really have to be my property only that I "believe" it is my property. And If I chose to take something that wasn't mine would you agree I have that right? If so then all the burglars in prison currently will have a good chance for an appeal and to be released from prison. Would you call the police? Since you say it is a persons right to retrieve property they say is their's by force. The argument using the Amistad was just wrong no matter who you are..In my opinion..~Suz

The law is never a game to me. I think the all three verdicts were supported by the evidence, rulings and jury instructions.

According to the claim of right defense to burglary under Nevada law, that may well be the case but the jury must decide credibility. According to Constitutional precedent a property owner has the right to use force and assistance to regain his property. The argument using Amistad and the other cases may not be direclty on point, although I think they are, they are persuasive, imho.

[susie31023]

The law is never a game to me. I think the all three verdicts were supported by the evidence, rulings and jury instructions.

According to the claim of right defense to burglary under Nevada law, that may well be the case but the jury must decide credibility. According to Constitutional precedent a property owner has the right to use force and assistance to regain his property. The argument using Amistad and the other cases may not be directly on point, although I think they are, they are persuasive, imho.

Thank you William, I know that you hold the laws of our country in the highest regards. I just wanted to put my opinion out there, As you know the law isn't a game o me either..I appreciate the kindness that you have shown me beginning with my very first post. I would like to thank you for that and the research you do on this case. While we may disagree on a few points I feel we agree on more..I still consider you a friend and hope you feel the same way...I really would like to see all of the insults and anger abandoned in favor of true debate on the merits of each case.~Suz

[William Anthony]

Thank you William, I know that you hold the laws of our country in the highest regards. I just wanted to put my opinion out there, As you know the law isn't a game o me either..I appreciate the kindness that you have shown me beginning with my very first post. I would like to thank you for that and the research you do on this case. While we may disagree on a few points I feel we agree on more..I still consider you a friend and hope you feel the same way...I really would like to see all of the insults and anger abandoned in favor of true debate on the merits of each case.~Suz

Yes, I do consider you a friend and it is easy to return kindness so I take no pride in that, other than I have gained what I hope will be a long lasting friendship. I agree with your post. I wish that I could have found something more current and I am still looking and what I find may again cause me to rethink my argument. I think that the murder case is in the background of all our minds and there were enough issues for all of us to feel passionate about and hope that we can express those passions without becoming negative. I think I have been hear for about two years and realize that bad habits are hard to drop, as I am occasionally an example of that. I do not think that I am with people that are kind to me and I hope I am not. If ever you feel that I am please ask me to explain as we may simply have a misunderstanding. Thanks.

[Kate Sachel]

I have to disagree with you Susie. I think some things OJ has done are so stupid to be not believed. And as I have said of more than one ocassion, I think he took too many hits to the head in his football years.

I think he was setup. He took the bait to get his things back and the thugs as you refer to them stood to profit. The jury admitted they did not base their verdict on their testimony but instead the tapes. How they could come up with armed robbery, kidnapping from the tapes, I'm scratching my head.

IMO, OJ will be free on appeal. This case was a fiasco.JMO

Regardless of whether you believe he was set up, the fact of the matter is that it does not absolve his responsibility for his role. As you said, he took the bait.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Why? You never post OT when William decides to lug his cross during slavery rants.

With all due respect, I do not see how this is helping the cause for this forum.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

and yet the hatred for me is so evident in this post! I feel sorry for you!

I'm not certain where you pick out any hatred in the post you are referring to.

Frankly, I found your postings to her quite as offensive as you undoubtedly found hers. There is a trend going on here that I don't particularly care for, and that trend is the idea being given that this is not a two way street.

I have seen you participate in the insults as well, and I find it difficult to see where suddenly you deem it acceptable to turn the tables and fault someone else for what you deem insults without at least apologizing for the ones you've posted yourself.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9131284]

Can the verdict handed down been misguided and wrong under the LAW?

Yes, there are certainly verdicts all of the time that are misguided and some that are wrong under the law.

Many people feel that way about his criminal trial verdict, though I don't happen to be one of those. I realize that you take issue with the fact that a verdict from thirteen years ago is still being discussed, but there are reasons for that and that is why we have an entire forum designed around that purpose. And, it is appropriate to discuss it on this specific thread if we are going to get into a discussion regarding verdicts and why some find that it is alright to denounce the most current of verdicts on the OJ saga while deeming the criminal verdict off limits.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

I'm not certain where you pick out any hatred in the post you are referring to.

Frankly, I found your postings to her quite as offensive as you undoubtedly found hers. There is a trend going on here that I don't particularly care for, and that trend is the idea being given that this is not a two way street.

I have seen you participate in the insults as well, and I find it difficult to see where suddenly you deem it acceptable to turn the tables and fault someone else for what you deem insults without at least apologizing for the ones you've posted yourself.

Kate

I will be the first to apologize for any and all insults to my fellow posters that are deemed to be unacceptable by them. And I would hope they would do the same for me.

[Jayme K]

Your participation is most welcomed! We can agree to disagree! I want to see both sides of an issue! What I will not do is not allow you your views.

But I stepped away a year ago because it was not conversation that was accepted by both sides. It was awful. I did withdraw from the discussion. But now I'm back! And ready to take on the a real discussion with merits and not demeaning each other to make a point!

The Criminal Trial of OJ has affected his whole lifel Jury found him innocent.

The world has judged him otherwise!

In the case we are now discussing let the past be done, and deal with the evidence! OK?

It should have affected his whole life because he's a murderer that got away with it! And the world has a right to judge him otherwise, the court of public opinion isn't held to a jury verdict ... if it was you'd be in trouble since you're heck bent on talking about how the nevada verdict was sooo wrong.

[Kate Sachel]

I will be the first to apologize for any and all insults to my fellow posters that are deemed to be unacceptable by them. And I would hope they would do the same for me.

I appreciate that truly.

There is no need for anyone to run another individual off of a forum, unless that individual is doing blatantly offensive things that go beyond a sarcastic insult or two. We all have visions and ideas, we are each the holder of a unique thought process and I, for one, enjoy when people share those with me and allow me to view something from an angle I may otherwise not have thought of.

Kate

[WarmNCozy]

Regardless of whether you believe he was set up, the fact of the matter is that it does not absolve his responsibility for his role. As you said, he took the bait.

Kate

Touche! But the others made deals and are free, that's what is really bothering me!

[Kate Sachel]

Touche! But the others made deals and are free, that's what us really bothering me!

I understand, and I don't disagree that it is bothersome, but as I said before that is the way our system works and this case is really only one in a very long line of examples.

Kate

[martin II]

It should have affected his whole life because he's a murderer that got away with it! And the world has a right to judge him otherwise, the court of public opinion isn't held to a jury verdict ... if it was you'd be in trouble since you're heck bent on talking about how the nevada verdict was sooo wrong.

How do you absolutely know that oj is a murderer?

[WarmNCozy]

I'm sure you know that they didn't find him innocent. They declared him not guilty. There is a difference.On that we can agree.

[martin II]

Touche! But the others made deals and are free, that's what is really bothering me!

What i think is that if a person like oj simpson had not been the target of the DA, all of these people would have been on trial for the same 12 charges.

Since it is generally believed by most prosecutors that 'OJ GOT OFF WITH MURDER' he was a walking DA target.

It is my belief that the people of Nevada got the short end of the stick when 4-5 other persons were freed just to build a case against one person.Justice to me would have been if all that broke the law were prosecuted and the prosecution would have had to prosecute each on the basis of what they had without causing some to lie against one to get off.imo

[weezer]

I understand, and I don't disagree that it is bothersome, but as I said before that is the way our system works and this case is really only one in a very long line of examples.

Kate

kind of like the 'deal' orenthal negotiated for the domestic abuse charges he faced, don't you think?

[tv]

What i think is that if a person like oj simpson had not been the target of the DA, all of these people would have been on trial for the same 12 charges.

Since it is generally believed by most prosecutors that 'OJ GOT OFF WITH MURDER' he was a walking DA target.

It is my belief that the people of Nevada got the short end of the stick when 4-5 other persons were freed just to build a case against one person.Justice to me would have been if all that broke the law were prosecuted and the prosecution would have had to prosecute each on the basis of what they had without causing some to lie against one to get off.imo

If OJ Simpson really believes he was targeted by LE and the DA it would have been smarter for him to not engage in criminal activity and open himself up to prosecution. Kind of dumb on his part.

You can complain all you want about the ones that got off but it's not going to change the fact that they're off the hook. Just like Simpson is off the hook for the murders of Ron and Nicole.

[Kate Sachel]

What i think is that if a person like oj simpson had not been the target of the DA, all of these people would have been on trial for the same 12 charges.

Since it is generally believed by most prosecutors that 'OJ GOT OFF WITH MURDER' he was a walking DA target.

It is my belief that the people of Nevada got the short end of the stick when 4-5 other persons were freed just to build a case against one person.Justice to me would have been if all that broke the law were prosecuted and the prosecution would have had to prosecute each on the basis of what they had without causing some to lie against one to get off.imo

No matter how much of a "DA Target" you believe him to be, the fact of the matter is that they would not have been able to touch him had he not participated in criminal activity.

It really is that simple.

Kate

[weezer]

Former Simpson co-defendants to learn fate Dec. 9
By KEN RITTER
Associated Press Writer
Four men who took plea deals and testified against O.J. Simpson are scheduled to be sentenced four days after the former football star and a co-defendant learn their fate.

Judge Jackie Glass said Tuesday that sentencing hearings will be held Dec. 9 for Michael McClinton, Charles Cashmore, Walter Alexander and Charles Ehrlich. Simpson and Clarence "C.J." Stewart are to be sentenced Dec. 5.

Simpson and Stewart were convicted Oct. 3 of kidnapping, armed robbery and other counts in a 2007 confrontation with sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room. They could get life in prison but are seeking a new trial.

The four former co-defendants pleaded guilty to lesser charges. McClinton could get up to 11 years in prison; the others face less.

http://www.kansascity.com/440/story/841407.html

[SlowHandSam]

No matter how much of a "DA Target" you believe him to be, the fact of the matter is that they would not have been able to touch him had he not participated in criminal activity.

It really is that simple.

Kate

ding ding!

at the very root of it all is this belief that OJ doesn't have to take ownership and/or responsibility for his own actions. It's almost as if, somehow, he is absolved of all of that because of his supposed fame.

He chose to go to the hotel, with others - armed. If nothing else - he had to have known that taking a weapon and brandishing it in order to get his way was an illegal activity.

Additionally, if we believe he (and others) think he is a target of LE that are "out to get him" -- surely he wouldn't have been so brazen to do this??

But then I just made a full circle to the argument that I believe OJ thinks he is above the law and does not have to take ownership or responsibility for his actions; illegal or otherwise because his ego knows that there will always be those, including himself, that will paint the picture he is always the victim.

[William Anthony]

No matter how much of a "DA Target" you believe him to be, the fact of the matter is that they would not have been able to touch him had he not participated in criminal activity.

It really is that simple.

Kate

As the state of the Nevada law stands, today.

[Kate Sachel]

As the state of the Nevada law stands, today.

Yes, and as it stood back in 2007 when OJ Simpson decided to engage in activity that broke the laws that stand.

Kate

[martin II]

Former Simpson co-defendants to learn fate Dec. 9
By KEN RITTER
Associated Press Writer
Four men who took plea deals and testified against O.J. Simpson are scheduled to be sentenced four days after the former football star and a co-defendant learn their fate.

Judge Jackie Glass said Tuesday that sentencing hearings will be held Dec. 9 for Michael McClinton, Charles Cashmore, Walter Alexander and Charles Ehrlich. Simpson and Clarence "C.J." Stewart are to be sentenced Dec. 5.

Simpson and Stewart were convicted Oct. 3 of kidnapping, armed robbery and other counts in a 2007 confrontation with sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas hotel room. They could get life in prison but are seeking a new trial.

The four former co-defendants pleaded guilty to lesser charges. McClinton could get up to 11 years in prison; the others face less.

http://www.kansascity.com/440/story/841407.html

mcclinton drew a gun.Alexander drew a gun.
Why would mcclinton get a longer sentance than Alexander?

[martin II]

If OJ Simpson really believes he was targeted by LE and the DA it would have been smarter for him to not engage in criminal activity and open himself up to prosecution. Kind of dumb on his part.

You can complain all you want about the ones that got off but it's not going to change the fact that they're off the hook. Just like Simpson is off the hook for the murders of Ron and Nicole.

The other ex defendants got off because of a decision of the DA.
Oj got off as you say because of the verdict of a legal jury.little difference i think

[William Anthony]

Yes, and as it stood back in 2007 when OJ Simpson decided to engage in activity that broke the laws that stand.

Kate

Yes, and I have agreed and stated that the jury rendered the correct verdict based on the evidence, law and jury instructions. The question for me is whether of not that law is Constitutional, as I believe the jury was instructed that it was irrelevant whether Simpson thought the property was his, and will that issue be raised on appeal. Judging from what I have found thus far, I think it should. I know that you believe in and respect the law. I think you would agree that a person should not be convicted, if the conviction violates his Constitutional rights, as that would set bad precedent.

[William Anthony]

ding ding!

at the very root of it all is this belief that OJ doesn't have to take ownership and/or responsibility for his own actions. It's almost as if, somehow, he is absolved of all of that because of his supposed fame.

He chose to go to the hotel, with others - armed. If nothing else - he had to have known that taking a weapon and brandishing it in order to get his way was an illegal activity.

Additionally, if we believe he (and others) think he is a target of LE that are "out to get him" -- surely he wouldn't have been so brazen to do this??

But then I just made a full circle to the argument that I believe OJ thinks he is above the law and does not have to take ownership or responsibility for his actions; illegal or otherwise because his ego knows that there will always be those, including himself, that will paint the picture he is always the victim.

I understand your point and I agree that his conduct was wrong but question that it was criminal based on Constitutional precedent. I have no problem with the verdict based on the state of the Nevada law. The heart of the matter for me is was that law Constitutional and should he be given a new trial to consider the credibility of his defense that he thought the property was his. I have no problem with the same verdict being upheld or being rendered after the issue of the Constitutionality of the law has been decided.

[weezer]

a few years back, there was a service station here that was burgled several times. the owner decided to sleep in the store nights to see if he could catch who was breaking in and robbing him. eventually, someone did break in. there was a struggle and the owner shot the intruder. guess what? the owner was charged with manslaughter and there was no doubt that the stuff belonged to him and not the robber.

[William Anthony]

I wonder if the store owner will appeal his conviction and is there any Constitutional law that would uphold, remand or reverse the decision. Perhaps, his lawyers would do well to look for precedent in that case, which would be quite different, imho, than is in this case, since it involved protection of property as opposed to retrieving it, if Simpson is believed. However, the case does interest me. Does anyone have the name of the store owner or the person killed so I can look up the details?

[William Anthony]

I found this and will not supply the link, because the circumstances involved in the particular case would, imho, offend the sensibilities of too many. Suffice it to say, it was a case about some runaway slaves and their retreival. The reason I am supplying this is because the slave owners argued precedent and Constitutionality. I am trying to find a more recent case on the issue of personal property and property owners' rights.

"In rebuttal Colonel Chambers stressed the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States over the state courts, and the binding character of the decisions of that court upholding the rights of slaveholders in similar cases. If the slaves were entitled to freedom under Kentucky law, said Chambers, a trial of the issues should be held in that state. (51) Chambers warned that without obedience to the law the Union could not be preserved: "there is a good time ahead, ---life to the nation if the people will only be quiet. We have the Union yet, and let those who would dissolve it for the sake of the slave remember that in achieving the liberty of three millions of blacks, they are periling those of twenty-four millions of the white race."(52)"

[William Anthony]

I found this link about a killing by a store owner in Texas and the owner charged with manslaughter should appeal, if he was convicted, unless there are other circumstances that are different.

http://www.patterico.com/2007/12/15/the-joe-horn-ripple-effect/

[susie31023]

Just wondering if WnC or anyone can answer my question.....

IF we go on the premise that OJ had a right to take his items by force then here is the question...

If I so choose can I go to any of yalls homes with a gang in tow and force you to remain there while going through your posessions till I find what I perceive to be my stuff and if I take something that belongs to you as long as I promise to return it...Is that ok and legal? Please bear in mind the property doesn't really have to be mine only that I "believe" it is mine..

Would you call the police and try to have me charged with burglary or armed robbery? If so why? If not then what has been proposed isn't a valid reason for a new trial....

I really hate to keep bringing this up but no one has answered it yet and I believe it is a very valid question..Thank you to anyone who chooses to try and answer this. ~Suz

[William Anthony]

Just wondering if WnC or anyone can answer my question.....

IF we go on the premise that OJ had a right to take his items by force then here is the question...

If I so choose can I go to any of yalls homes with a gang in tow and force you to remain there while going through your posessions till I find what I perceive to be my stuff and if I take something that belongs to you as long as I promise to return it...Is that ok and legal? Please bear in mind the property doesn't really have to be mine only that I "believe" it is mine..

Would you call the police and try to have me charged with burglary or armed robbery? If so why? If not then what has been proposed isn't a valid reason for a new trial....

I really hate to keep bringing this up but no one has answered it yet and I believe it is a very valid question..Thank you to anyone who chooses to try and answer this. ~Suz


Quote:
Originally Posted by susie31023 View Post
WNC, it is not a game to me. I don't have the 'Burden" of proof, simply put this case was tried in a court of law and whether you agree or not the verdict went by the Laws of Nevada. It is very easy to proclaim the verdict was correct in the criminal trial , while then proclaiming the civil trial verdict incorrect, then proclaiming this verdict is incorrect..

.I have yet seen anyone answer my question. IF you assume that OJ had a right to retrieve what he perceived to be his "property" with him and his gang holding people in the room hostage and taking whatever they chose to take..Would you agree that I have the right to break into your home force everyone there to stay there while I go through your possessions till I find what I say is my property? Keep in mind that it doesn't really have to be my property only that I "believe" it is my property. And If I chose to take something that wasn't mine would you agree I have that right? If so then all the burglars in prison currently will have a good chance for an appeal and to be released from prison. Would you call the police? Since you say it is a persons right to retrieve property they say is their's by force. The argument using the Amistad was just wrong no matter who you are..In my opinion..~Suz

The law is never a game to me. I think the all three verdicts were supported by the evidence, rulings and jury instructions.

According to the claim of right defense to burglary under Nevada law, that may well be the case but the jury must decide credibility. According to Constitutional precedent a property owner has the right to use force and assistance to regain his property. The argument using Amistad and the other cases may not be direclty on point, although I think they are, they are persuasive, imho.

I thought I had answered all the questions. If the property was mine and you took it, yes I would call the police but, if I had stolen it, then no. I may have not provided an answer to that question. I understand the points you are making and it may be morally wrong conduct but may be legally defensible under the claim of right theory. You bring up some interesting points on law versus morality.

[SlowHandSam]

I understand your point and I agree that his conduct was wrong but question that it was criminal based on Constitutional precedent. I have no problem with the verdict based on the state of the Nevada law. The heart of the matter for me is was that law Constitutional and should he be given a new trial to consider the credibility of his defense that he thought the property was his. I have no problem with the same verdict being upheld or being rendered after the issue of the Constitutionality of the law has been decided.

how can taking a gang of men, armed with firearms, to a location in order to prevent them from leaving and going thru items (unsure of the real owner) not be criminal?!

The law doesn't provide me that option. Nothing indicates that I can take the law into my own hands and commit this type of crime and it be "ok". I don't have the right to intimidate someone with imminent danger by use of a firearm. I don't have the right to prevent someone from leaving any location by way of implicit or explicit force.

Not only do I not have the right - no one does. Including the beloved OJ.

Has it even been determined if he was the rightful owner of said property? Or did the property technically belong to the Goldmans?

[William Anthony]

how can taking a gang of men, armed with firearms, to a location in order to prevent them from leaving and going thru items (unsure of the real owner) not be criminal?!

The law doesn't provide me that option. Nothing indicates that I can take the law into my own hands and commit this type of crime and it be "ok". I don't have the right to intimidate someone with imminent danger by use of a firearm. I don't have the right to prevent someone from leaving any location by way of implicit or explicit force.

Not only do I not have the right - no one does. Including the beloved OJ.

Has it even been determined if he was the rightful owner of said property? Or did the property technically belong to the Goldmans?

I understand you point. Under the claim of right defense it is sufficient if the person reasonably believed he owned the property. That is why I am bringing up the precedent. The property owners of old used force and I am sure that when they found their property there were others there, who were detained, until their property was retreived, if for nothing more than the owner's or those others', who assisted him in the acquisition, safety. The issue of whether Simpson could have reasonably believed the property belonged to him would be an issue, if a new trial is granted, which I doubt it will be.

[weezer]

[3] Claim of Right – When a person asserts a claim of right to property in the possession of another and seeks to reclaim such property, the possessor is not justified in using force to thwart the dispossession if he knows, believes, or as a reasonable person should believe, that the claimant has a legitimate claim of right to possession of the property in question. Since the use of force to protect property is legitimate only if the act/attempted act of dispossession is unlawful, in such cases of a legitimate claim to property, the act of dispossession is lawful.


[4] Recapture of Property – A person may not ordinarily use force to recapture property of which he has been unlawfully dispossessed except if he acts promptly after dispossession. One may follow the dispossessor in hot pursuit in order to recapture his property and if necessary, use non-deadly force in the process.

[weezer]

§ 10.01 Defense of Property

[A] Common Law – A person in possession of real or personal property is justified in using non-deadly force against a would-be dispossessor if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful dispossession of the property. Under no circumstances may a person use deadly force to prevent dispossession.

[1] Possession versus Title to Property – The privilege of defense-of-property entitles a person to use necessary force to retain rightful possession of, as distinguished from title to, personal or real property.

[Kate Sachel]

how can taking a gang of men, armed with firearms, to a location in order to prevent them from leaving and going thru items (unsure of the real owner) not be criminal?!

The law doesn't provide me that option. Nothing indicates that I can take the law into my own hands and commit this type of crime and it be "ok". I don't have the right to intimidate someone with imminent danger by use of a firearm. I don't have the right to prevent someone from leaving any location by way of implicit or explicit force.

Not only do I not have the right - no one does. Including the beloved OJ.

Has it even been determined if he was the rightful owner of said property? Or did the property technically belong to the Goldmans?

I may be incorrect, and please advise me if I am William, but I believe that William's point is whether or not the law itself is constitutional.

That brings us to the possibility of judicial review of the law in question, and if the law in question is found to contradict the constitution then it is considered void and written off the books.

Kate

[William Anthony]

A link I provided previously, about Nevada law IIRC.

http://www.slate.com/id/2174296/

The first element of the Nevada law is an "unlawful taking". The link explains that. I don't know, where the definition of claim of right posted above came from, but I do know that an argument can be made that the law, according to Constitutional precedent gave the property owner the right to use force and acquire the assistance of others in retrieving his property and the law does not make allowance for a class of property, since it has said that the particular property is considered the same as any other merchandise. I do know that is highly unlikely that all retrieval of the above mentioned property was made in hot pursuit, since, like the property in this case, it was able to cross state lines.

[William Anthony]

I may be incorrect, and please advise me if I am William, but I believe that William's point is whether or not the law itself is constitutional.

That brings us to the possibility of judicial review of the law in question, and if the law in question is found to contradict the constitution then it is considered void and written off the books.

Kate

You are correct and it could form the basis for a new trial, allowing the defense, although I seriously doubt it will.

[William Anthony]

I may be incorrect, and please advise me if I am William, but I believe that William's point is whether or not the law itself is constitutional.

That brings us to the possibility of judicial review of the law in question, and if the law in question is found to contradict the constitution then it is considered void and written off the books.

Kate

I think it will depend on the political ideology of the Court, as to whether or not the law is unconstitutional, if and when certiorari is granted. I believe for the most part our current Court is conservative and strict constructionist. It would be interesting, if they decided to hear an appeal on that issue, imho.

[susie31023]

I thought I had answered all the questions. If the property was mine and you took it, yes I would call the police but, if I had stolen it, then no. I may have not provided an answer to that question. I understand the points you are making and it may be morally wrong conduct but may be legally defensible under the claim of right theory. You bring up some interesting points on law versus morality.

I am quoting your post William I hope you don't mind..The question I asked wasn't so much a moral one but a legal one. IF the courts decide this law is unconsttutional then my point is that ALL of the criminals in prison who are there because of Burglary charges or armed robbery are entitled to a new trial..Simply because all they have to say is they believed the property they took was theirs.

That is the point I am making. Legally we are more advanced than some of the old laws. There was a time in our history that we did have vigilante justice but it has since been replaced by stricter laws. When you said If the items I took were yours then yes you would call the police that was what I was getting at. We can't have it both ways. Either it is against the law to commit these types of crimes or it isn't, we can not pick and choose when we think the laws are unconstitutional.

No one as far as I know thinks it is legal to go into anothers home/apartment/hotel room etc and force the persons there to remain while the robbers take what they deem as theirs. If they do then I am sorry to say that they will soon end up in prison for burglary/armed robbery.

As for the items I believe most would fall under the possession of the Goldman's because of the judgement they acquired against OJ. So therefore this should be a moot point since he in no way could believe most of the itema were his.

Would it have been ok for Mr. Glodman to enter the hotel room force everyone there to remain while he went through everything in the room to retrieve the items that were given under such a judgement? I believe the few here who think it was alright for OJ would not think it was alright for Mr. Goldman. Of course that is just my opinion and I am in no way inferring that you feel it was ok for anyone to act in this manner..JMO~Suz

[William Anthony]

I am quoting your post William I hope you don't mind..The question I asked wasn't so much a moral one but a legal one. IF the courts decide this law is unconsttutional then my point is that ALL of the criminals in prison who are there because of Burglary charges or armed robbery are entitled to a new trial..Simply because all they have to say is they believed the property they took was theirs.

That is the point I am making. Legally we are more advanced than some of the old laws. There was a time in our history that we did have vigilante justice but it has since been replaced by stricter laws. When you said If the items I took were yours then yes you would call the police that was what I was getting at. We can't have it both ways. Either it is against the law to commit these types of crimes or it isn't, we can not pick and choose when we think the laws are unconstitutional.

No one as far as I know thinks it is legal to go into anothers home/apartment/hotel room etc and force the persons there to remain while the robbers take what they deem as theirs. If they do then I am sorry to say that they will soon end up in prison for burglary/armed robbery.

As for the items I believe most would fall under the possession of the Goldman's because of the judgement they acquired against OJ. So therefore this should be a moot point since he in no way could believe most of the itema were his.

Would it have been ok for Mr. Glodman to enter the hotel room force everyone there to remain while he went through everything in the room to retrieve the items that were given under such a judgement? I believe the few here who think it was alright for OJ would not think it was alright for Mr. Goldman. Of course that is just my opinion and I am in no way inferring that you feel it was ok for anyone to act in this manner..JMO~Suz

Let me begin by saying that I do not know which party bears the burden of proof on the claim of right defense to burglary under Nevada law. I do not believe that all who have committed burglary would automatically claim the defense, since some may have burglarized facilities that could not possibly have had their property. I don't know how many that have been convicted used that defense. It is not my understanding that the defense automatically ends the trial, if proven. I believe that it may be a matter of credibility for the trier of fact.

I have to differ and how far advanced we may be depends on the ideology of the Supreme Court. For example, my midterm, I have been called upon, reviewing cases to determine, if voting is a fundamental right, one granted by the Constitution. In researching, the older cases supported that it wasn't, then there was a shift that it was. However, the last case I researched, Bush v. Gore stated it was not, which was rendered in 2000, IIRC. We do not pick and choose which law is Constitutional or not. That power was usurped by the Supreme Court long ago in Marbury v. Madison. The question becomes is there a basis to say that a law is Unconstitutional. Depending on the ideology of the Court, the answer will be either one way or another. The law is not etched in stone. There are several different standards which the Court uses, depending on their ideology, to answer that question. I wish that I could have given some short answers but your post deserves a complete reply.

The entire issue on this issue revolves around should Simpson have been allowed to present and should the jury been allowed to consider the claim of right defense. Should he have been and should the jury have been allowed to consider the defense that he reasonably believed he had the right to do this. You say that you are not speaking morally but in actuality you are. Some laws allows for this defense but Nevada robbery law did not. The legal question was did the deprivation of that right violate Simpson's constitutional rights, or more correctly was it a Constitutional right.

Under the state of the law in Nevada Goldman would have been guilty just as Simpson was found. However, the question then would become did the law violate his constitutional rights. No, I do not think it was right for anyone to act in the manner that Simpson did. However, that does not end the inquiry for me. The questions become was the conduct criminal and was the process rendering the verdict Constitutional.

[William Anthony]

I am quoting your post William I hope you don't mind..The question I asked wasn't so much a moral one but a legal one. IF the courts decide this law is unconsttutional then my point is that ALL of the criminals in prison who are there because of Burglary charges or armed robbery are entitled to a new trial..Simply because all they have to say is they believed the property they took was theirs.

That is the point I am making. Legally we are more advanced than some of the old laws. There was a time in our history that we did have vigilante justice but it has since been replaced by stricter laws. When you said If the items I took were yours then yes you would call the police that was what I was getting at. We can't have it both ways. Either it is against the law to commit these types of crimes or it isn't, we can not pick and choose when we think the laws are unconstitutional.

No one as far as I know thinks it is legal to go into anothers home/apartment/hotel room etc and force the persons there to remain while the robbers take what they deem as theirs. If they do then I am sorry to say that they will soon end up in prison for burglary/armed robbery.

As for the items I believe most would fall under the possession of the Goldman's because of the judgement they acquired against OJ. So therefore this should be a moot point since he in no way could believe most of the itema were his.

Would it have been ok for Mr. Glodman to enter the hotel room force everyone there to remain while he went through everything in the room to retrieve the items that were given under such a judgement? I believe the few here who think it was alright for OJ would not think it was alright for Mr. Goldman. Of course that is just my opinion and I am in no way inferring that you feel it was ok for anyone to act in this manner..JMO~Suz

I put some thought into what you are saying and I think what you are saying is that you have a problem with the claim of right defense being applicable at all, correct? As I have said, I do not know whether it is an affirmative defense, meaning if proven the defendant could not be found guilty or whether it would be used by the jury to consider whether of not there was an unlawful taking of property. In the latter instance, I think it would be left up to the jury to decide if the defense's proffered position showed that the defendant reasonably believed the property was his.

I would agree that the conduct in this case was morally reprehensible. However, given the paramount value our forefathers placed on the right of individuals to own property and be secure in that ownership, I think legally the court takes another view. Another thing to consider is, if you try to use the law and the law will not help, what choice are do you have. Your post provides an interesting question. Should the law legislate morality? Would certain activities be legally prohibited, because they were viewed as morally wrong? For some time interracial marriages were prohibited by law, homosexuals still are not allowed to marry in some states, there is an ongoing debate over abortion and at one time separate but equal was the law of the land. To what extent do we want the law to legislate our morals? Your post brought up some very interesting points. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

I have been able to find this on the claim of right defense, although I have not found a United States Supreme Court other than the ones I have posted.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:6MG3E9ssXpwJ:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/C032547.DOC+the+united+states+supreme+court+rules+ that+property+owners+have+a+claim+of+right+defense +to+retrieve+property&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Here is what was said.

“Although an intent to steal may ordinarily be inferred when one person takes the property of another, particularly if he takes it by force, proof of the existence of a state of mind incompatible with an intent to steal precludes a finding of either theft or robbery. It has long been the rule in this state and generally throughout the country that a bona fide belief, even though mistakenly held, that one has a right or claim to the property negates felonious intent. A belief that the property taken belongs to the taker, or that he had a right to retake goods sold is sufficient to preclude felonious intent. Felonious intent exists only if the actor intends to take the property of another without believing in good faith that he has a right or claim to it.” (People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935, 943, internal quotation marks and citations "

I think that the issue of the right should be determined by the United States Supreme Court. Whether they will grant certiorari is another thing. It would appear that the claim is an affirmative defense, at least in California. It would appear that a further appeal should be taken pointing to the Story opinion and, in California, Simpson's cohorts would not have the benefit of the claim. I wonder whether there needs to be a decision by the United States Supreme Court on the uniformity of the defense.

[Redmama]

I have been able to find this on the claim of right defense, although I have not found a United States Supreme Court other than the ones I have posted.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:6MG3E9ssXpwJ:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/C032547.DOC+the+united+states+supreme+court+rules+ that+property+owners+have+a+claim+of+right+defense +to+retrieve+property&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Here is what was said.

“Although an intent to steal may ordinarily be inferred when one person takes the property of another, particularly if he takes it by force, proof of the existence of a state of mind incompatible with an intent to steal precludes a finding of either theft or robbery. It has long been the rule in this state and generally throughout the country that a bona fide belief, even though mistakenly held, that one has a right or claim to the property negates felonious intent. A belief that the property taken belongs to the taker, or that he had a right to retake goods sold is sufficient to preclude felonious intent. Felonious intent exists only if the actor intends to take the property of another without believing in good faith that he has a right or claim to it.” (People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935, 943, internal quotation marks and citations "

I think that the issue of the right should be determined by the United States Supreme Court. Whether they will grant certiorari is another thing. It would appear that the claim is an affirmative defense, at least in California. It would appear that a further appeal should be taken pointing to the Story opinion and, in California, Simpson's cohorts would not have the benefit of the claim. I wonder whether there needs to be a decision by the United States Supreme Court on the uniformity of the defense.

I guess I understand the idea of people being able to take back their own possessions, the whole idea that we let everyone decide how to go about getting it back scares me to death. I mean if someone in my house steals something and then I am home alone when the owner comes to get it - that is just scary. I would rather see an officer knock on my door in order to retrieve whatever was taken.