OJ Simpson faces spartan prison as lawyers appeal

[samanthajane13]

By LINDA DEUTSCH and KEN RITTER, Associated Press Writers Linda Deutsch And Ken Ritter, Associated Press Writers – 2 hrs 30 mins ago



LAS VEGAS – In the harsh light of the morning after his sentencing, O.J. Simpson's future was clear Saturday. His new home will be a prison cell in the Nevada desert with his door to freedom hinging on an appeal of a trial that his lawyers say was filled with errors.

"This is not a frivolous appeal," Yale Galanter, Simpson's lawyer, said. "There were some grave errors made by Judge (Jackie) Glass, and we think they are strong enough to overturn the conviction. We also think we have a shot at bail."

Galanter has cited six initial issues for appeal. The most significant concern could be the exclusion of blacks from the jury selection. The defense also will protest the judge allowing comments about Simpson's 1994 Los Angeles murder case in which he was acquitted of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

On Saturday, Simpson remained at the Clark County jail where he has been housed since his conviction on Oct. 3, along with co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart. The two men were found guilty of 12 criminal charges, including kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

Simpson was sentenced Friday to 9 to 33 years in prison. Stewart got 7 1/2 to 27 years.

Michael Shapiro, a New York defense lawyer who has followed the Las Vegas case, said Simpson's case may get extra attention from Nevada Supreme Court, the state's only appellate court.

"Superimposed over all of it is that he's O.J. He's not Joe Schmo," Shapiro said. The justices also could be influenced by Simpson's murder trial, he said, calling it "the 800-pound gorilla in the room."

Before any appeal winds its way to the Nevada Supreme Court, Simpson faces years in prison for a September 2007 confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers over collectibles that Simpson insisted were stolen from him.

"Prison will be very taxing on him," Galanter said. At 61, Simpson is not in great health, he said.

"He'll be treated like every other inmate," said Howard Skolnik, director of the Nevada Department of Corrections. "The only issue might be whether we have to provide a little more protective custody because of his notoriety, at least at the start."

Gabriel Grasso, another Simpson lawyer, anticipated that Simpson would find friends in prison, adding that Simpson had been buying snacks for fellow inmates at the Clark County jail.

"I think when he does meet people in jail, they're going to treat him well because he treats them well," Grasso said.

Simpson could be moved within a week to High Desert State Prison, about 45 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where a 2004 inmate brawl killed one inmate and wounded 18 others. Skolnik said it was unlikely he would go to Nevada's one maximum security facility because he was not under a life sentence. Nevada has six medium security prisons.

Wherever he winds up, the accommodations will be spartan.

Skolnik acknowledged that adjusting to prison may be difficult for a man who once lived the high life as a football star, movie actor and advertising pitchman.

Prison cells average 78 square feet. Each cell has a narrow window about four inches wide and 30 inches long. Most have two beds, a commode, a sink, a shelf and a plastic glass window on the door that allows guards to peer inside.

He won't have much freedom at meal time either. The state allocates $2.18 for meals per day per inmate, and men get a standard 2,800-calorie diet. Hamburgers, hot dogs, chicken and pizza are among the most popular menu items, Skolnik said.

When Simpson is issued a number, clothing, bedding, toiletries and tennis shoes, he'll be one of about 13,000 state prison inmates.

But undoubtedly he will be the most famous prisoner in the yard.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081206/ap_on_re_us/oj_simpson

[William Anthony]

A couple of things are very troubling about Galantar's strategy, imho. He did not argue about the inadmissibility of the tapes and he spent far too much time arguing that Simpson only wanted to get his property back, which was inconsequential under Nevada law. A quick research of the statutory law and the common law would have told him that. Do you think Galantar was a backstabber?

[tv]

A couple of things are very troubling about Galantar's strategy, imho. He did not argue about the inadmissibility of the tapes and he spent far too much time arguing that Simpson only wanted to get his property back, which was inconsequential under Nevada law. A quick research of the statutory law and the common law would have told him that. Do you think Galantar was a backstabber?

Who are you saying he stabbed in the back?

[William Anthony]

Who are you saying he stabbed in the back?

Simpson.

[tv]

Simpson.

Okay, I'll bite. What would be his purpose?

[William Anthony]

Okay, I'll bite. What would be his purpose?

Perhaps, he believed the same as most of America or, perhaps, it was simply a flawed strategy on his part. I just had some questions about the strategy and why he chose it.

[weezer]

Perhaps, he believed the same as most of America or, perhaps, it was simply a flawed strategy on his part. I just had some questions about the strategy and why he chose it.

it might be as simple as him not being a good attorney.

[martin II]

Perhaps, he believed the same as most of America or, perhaps, it was simply a flawed strategy on his part. I just had some questions about the strategy and why he chose it.

You are not alone.

[William Anthony]

it might be as simple as him not being a good attorney.

It could be that he thought he would get an impartial judge Judy and jury. No, I think he was smarter than that.

[weezer]

It could be that he thought he would get an impartial judge Judy and jury. No, I think he was smarter than that.

what do you base your belief that he's 'smarter than that'? just curious. the only thing I've seen that he's defended successfully is a road rage case.

[martin II]

what do you base your belief that he's 'smarter than that'? just curious. the only thing I've seen that he's defended successfully is a road rage case.

That goes show how you try to pretend to know everything and you know very little.:cool:

[weezer]

That goes show how you try to pretend to know everything and you know very little.:cool:

you're right martin -- I stand corrected:

"Galanter first represented Simpson in a road rage trial in October 2001. He was also Simpson's attorney for the federal drug raid case on Simpson's home in 2001, a speeding ticket in 2002, a domestic violence call to his residence in 2003, and his writing of a fictional account of the murders of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, called If I Did It.

Galanter also represented Simpson in Nevada vs Simpson (07-C-237890-C) in which his client was charged with twelve felony counts including conspiracy, robbery, and kidnapping relating to an armed robbery which took place in a guest room (#1203) at the Palace Station Hotel in Las Vegas on September 13, 2007. Simpson and co-defendant Charles "C.J." Stewart were convicted on October 3, 2008, on all counts at the conclusion of a month long jury trial held in Department 5 of the 8th District Court, Clark County, Nevada, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Upon his conviction bail was revoked and the 61-year old Simpson was remanded by District Judge Jackie Glass to the Clark County Detention Center pending sentencing which took place on December 5, 2008, when Mr. Simpson was given terms of incarceration in the Nevada State Prison system totaling a maximum thirty-three years."

[weezer]

Dec. 4, 2000: Simpson is involved in an altercation with another driver in a suburb of Miami. A jury acquits Simpson.

Dec. 4, 2001: Federal authorities and Florida police raid Simpson’s Miami-area home as part of an investigation into a drug ring. No charges are filed against Simpson.

Sept. 13, 2007: Simpson and an entourage confront two collectors in a Las Vegas hotel room over valuable sports memorabilia that Simpson said had been stolen from him.

Sept. 18: Simpson and three others are charged with felonies, including kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon.

Oct. 3, 2008: A jury convicts Simpson on all charges.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/06/nation/na-oj-chrono6

[William Anthony]

what do you base your belief that he's 'smarter than that'? just curious. the only thing I've seen that he's defended successfully is a road rage case.

Well, let me see. The fact that most of America think that this is Karma or believe that he should go to jail, because they think he is a murderer that got off but do not understand the concept of reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

That goes show how you try to pretend to know everything and you know very little.:cool:

Some people do not understand that a lighter sentence is considered a success in some instances. For instance, when a defendant is facing capital punishment but gets a life sentence. I think the magnificent one, JC, set the standard too high for all to understand. They do not realize that all of the other lawyers are not as skilled as the magnificent one.

[martin II]

you're right martin -- I stand corrected:

"Galanter first represented Simpson in a road rage trial in October 2001. He was also Simpson's attorney for the federal drug raid case on Simpson's home in 2001, a speeding ticket in 2002, a domestic violence call to his residence in 2003, and his writing of a fictional account of the murders of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, called If I Did It.

Galanter also represented Simpson in Nevada vs Simpson (07-C-237890-C) in which his client was charged with twelve felony counts including conspiracy, robbery, and kidnapping relating to an armed robbery which took place in a guest room (#1203) at the Palace Station Hotel in Las Vegas on September 13, 2007. Simpson and co-defendant Charles "C.J." Stewart were convicted on October 3, 2008, on all counts at the conclusion of a month long jury trial held in Department 5 of the 8th District Court, Clark County, Nevada, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Upon his conviction bail was revoked and the 61-year old Simpson was remanded by District Judge Jackie Glass to the Clark County Detention Center pending sentencing which took place on December 5, 2008, when Mr. Simpson was given terms of incarceration in the Nevada State Prison system totaling a maximum thirty-three years."

You Proved my point you only know of Galanter because of oj Simpson.See how small that little brain of your is.hahaha:cool:

[weezer]

Well, let me see. The fact that most of America think that this is Karma or believe that he should go to jail, because they think he is a murderer that got off but do not understand the concept of reasonable doubt.

I'm honestly not picking an argument with you about this but I don't understand what you're implying. what in the world does what America think have to do with galanter's performance -- or lack of -- in the vegas case?

[weezer]

You Proved my point you only know of Galanter because of oj Simpson.See how small that little brain of your is.hahaha:cool:

then please martin, enlighten me. what else is galanter known for?

[martin II]

Dec. 4, 2000: Simpson is involved in an altercation with another driver in a suburb of Miami. A jury acquits Simpson.

Dec. 4, 2001: Federal authorities and Florida police raid Simpson’s Miami-area home as part of an investigation into a drug ring. No charges are filed against Simpson.

Sept. 13, 2007: Simpson and an entourage confront two collectors in a Las Vegas hotel room over valuable sports memorabilia that Simpson said had been stolen from him.

Sept. 18: Simpson and three others are charged with felonies, including kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon.

Oct. 3, 2008: A jury convicts Simpson on all charges.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/06/nation/na-oj-chrono6

This must be your mantra.hahaha

[martin II]

I'm honestly not picking an argument with you about this but I don't understand what you're implying. what in the world does what America think have to do with galanter's performance -- or lack of -- in the vegas case?

I am not surprised you don' get it.

[weezer]

This must be your mantra.hahaha

oh martin, you know my mantra is "Karma, Karma, Karma" -- ;)

[martin II]

then please martin, enlighten me. what else is galanter known for?

Well you are the expert.
Look at his web site if you know how.

[weezer]

Well you are the expert.
Look at his web site if you know how.

easy martin. it sounds like you're working yourself up to a meltdown and we KNOW what happened the last time. :eek:

[martin II]

I'm honestly not picking an argument with you about this but I don't understand what you're implying. what in the world does what America think have to do with galanter's performance -- or lack of -- in the vegas case?

Yes you are, your history proves it.

[William Anthony]

I'm honestly not picking an argument with you about this but I don't understand what you're implying. what in the world does what America think have to do with galanter's performance -- or lack of -- in the vegas case?

I am not arguing with you and I will help you to understand. The original post was made in reference to Galanter being a good lawyer. I responded to that with a post that maybe he thought he could get an impartial judge and jury but on second thought I thought that he was too smart to think that, because he realized how most of America thought about Simpson's acquittal and then I followed it up with a post on what success would mean in instances such as that. I do question his strategy but maybe he thought it was best based on the fact that it was highly unlikely that Simpson would receive an impartial judge and jury. I hope you understand, now.

[martin II]

easy martin. it sounds like you're working yourself up to a meltdown and we KNOW what happened the last time. :eek:

watch out for the OD

[weezer]

I am not arguing with you and I will help you to understand. The original post was made in reference to Galanter being a good lawyer. I responded to that with a post that maybe he thought he could get an impartial judge and jury but on second thought I thought that he was too smart to think that, because he realized how most of America thought about Simpson's acquittal and then I followed it up with a post on what success would mean in instances such as that. I do question his strategy but maybe he thought it was best based on the fact that it was highly unlikely that Simpson would receive an impartial judge and jury. I hope you understand, now.

ahh. I think one of two things happened: 1) he couldn't come up with a good defense against the tapes and testimony or 2) orenthal insisted that he was going to continue saying he 'didn't know' he was doing wrong. my best guess is the latter.

can you tell me what galanter is known for other than representing orenthal? I can't find anything.

[William Anthony]

ahh. I think one of two things happened: 1) he couldn't come up with a good defense against the tapes and testimony or 2) orenthal insisted that he was going to continue saying he 'didn't know' he was doing wrong. my best guess is the latter.

can you tell me what galanter is known for other than representing orenthal? I can't find anything.

I think he realized the tapes would come in whether or not they were lawfully admissible and that he knew that Simpson believed in his mind that it was his property that had been stolen.

I am not the one that made any comment about what he was known for. However, I am sure that if you look hard enough you will find it. Didn't Martin respond suggesting that you look at his website?

[weezer]

I think he realized the tapes would come in whether or not they were lawfully admissible and that he knew that Simpson believed in his mind that it was his property that had been stolen.

I am not the one that made any comment about what he was known for. However, I am sure that if you look hard enough you will find it. Didn't Martin respond suggesting that you look at his website?

but he didn't object to the tapes so they can't be appealable (?) right? I'm waiting to see what he lists as errors in the papers.

actually, I looked at his site and can't find anything other than appearances on tv as a talking head -- and those I think are only because of his association with orenthal. I can't find anyone or anything that he is 'known' for so I'll just chalk the post up to what it is -- baseless.

I do have to admit though, this made me laugh out loud:

Practice Areas

Mr. Galanter's law firm is a full service national criminal defense firm.
Practice areas include:

White Collar Crime
Money Laundering
Telemarketing Violations
Grand Jury Subpoenas
Federal Litigation
State Litigation
Homicide
Drug Offenses
Sexual Offenses
Bond Hearings
Theft
Fraud
Forgery
Appeals
DUI
DUI Manslaughter
Domestic Violence
Extraditions
Illegal Seizure of Assets
Burglary

[William Anthony]

but he didn't object to the tapes so they can't be appealable (?) right? I'm waiting to see what he lists as errors in the papers.

actually, I looked at his site and can't find anything other than appearances on tv as a talking head -- and those I think are only because of his association with orenthal. I can't find anyone or anything that he is 'known' for so I'll just chalk the post up to what it is -- baseless.

I do have to admit though, this made me laugh out loud:

Practice Areas

Mr. Galanter's law firm is a full service national criminal defense firm.
Practice areas include:

White Collar Crime
Money Laundering
Telemarketing Violations
Grand Jury Subpoenas
Federal Litigation
State Litigation
Homicide
Drug Offenses
Sexual Offenses
Bond Hearings
Theft
Fraud
Forgery
Appeals
DUI
DUI Manslaughter
Domestic Violence
Extraditions
Illegal Seizure of Assets
Burglary

I am sure you realize that Stewart's lawyer objected. I think Galanter and Jones objected on the basis of authentication. I did a quick search and saw that he had 20 years experience in criminal law and is nationally known. I would not call that baseless. I would call it somewhat successful. I wonder how much he gets for his television appearances. Probably enough to put us in shoes for years to come. Well, the list tells me that he specializes as a criminal defense lawyer. What did you get out of it?

[weezer]

I am sure you realize that Stewart's lawyer objected. I think Galanter and Jones objected on the basis of authentication. I did a quick search and saw that he had 20 years experience in criminal law and is nationally known. I would not call that baseless. I would call it somewhat successful. I wonder how much he gets for his television appearances. Probably enough to put us in shoes for years to come. Well, the list tells me that he specializes as a criminal defense lawyer. What did you get out of it?

so whatever stewart's lawyer objected to works for orenthal's defense also? hmmm

the list tells me he ain't squat without orenthal. :D

still obsessing over my feet I see. :eek:

[tv]

I think he realized the tapes would come in whether or not they were lawfully admissible and that he knew that Simpson believed in his mind that it was his property that had been stolen.

I am not the one that made any comment about what he was known for. However, I am sure that if you look hard enough you will find it. Didn't Martin respond suggesting that you look at his website?

Are you saying that because he knew the tapes would come in that he just give up? Are you also saying that you think Gallanter thought the tapes were not legally admissable but he just rolled over and played dead on that too? :shrug:

[William Anthony]

so whatever stewart's lawyer objected to works for orenthal's defense also? hmmm

the list tells me he ain't squat without orenthal. :D

still obsessing over my feet I see. :eek:

Did you not read the portion where I said that I think he objected on the basis of authentication? However, since the trials were not severed and the jury heard the evidence and, if that evidence was inadmissible then, yes. I see so Simpson is the only one that commits crime. I think the Governor of Illinois will be happy to hear that you might think that way. It may surprise you to know that, imho, most of America wears shoes. Is there some reason why you think that whenever shoes, feet or toes are mentioned that someone is speaking about you? Is there something you consider to be unique about those toes?

[William Anthony]

Are you saying that because he knew the tapes would come in that he just give up? Are you also saying that you think Gallanter thought the tapes were not legally admissable but he just rolled over and played dead on that too? :shrug:

"God grant me the knowledge to accept the things I cannot change." I am saying that he did not argue as vehemently as he could have, armed with the knowledge that judge Judy J. Glass would rule against him.

[William Anthony]

"God grant me the knowledge to accept the things I cannot change." I am saying that he did not argue as vehemently as he could have, armed with the knowledge that judge Judy J. Glass would rule against him.

Correction-"God grant me the serenityto accept the things I cannot change;"

[Kate Sachel]

Well, let me see. The fact that most of America think that this is Karma or believe that he should go to jail, because they think he is a murderer that got off but do not understand the concept of reasonable doubt.

I would not go as far as to say that it comes down to not understanding the concept of reasonable doubt; I have known many that understand the concept but don't believe that reasonable doubt existed.

There are many intelligent arguments for each side; I don't disregard them simply because I may not agree with them.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

"God grant me the knowledge to accept the things I cannot change." I am saying that he did not argue as vehemently as he could have, armed with the knowledge that judge Judy J. Glass would rule against him.

Your continuous reference to Judge Glass as "Judy" is as offensive to me as someone's reference to Cochran as "Cockroach" was to you.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I would not go as far as to say that it comes down to not understanding the concept of reasonable doubt; I have known many that understand the concept but don't believe that reasonable doubt existed.

There are many intelligent arguments for each side; I don't disregard them simply because I may not agree with them.

Kate

I do believe that there are many intelligent arguments for each side, as evidenced by our discussions and have not disregarded them. However, my post was made in the context of Galanter being smarter than that and, perhaps, I should have been more clear, as most of America did not understand that a jury of his peers found reasonable doubt.

Let me address the Judge Judy Glass comment and being as offensive as the cockroach comment. They are both public figures and the rules allow for such treatment. I found it more offensive out of respect for the dead. I know that some here do not share that respect. I think if they want to continue to refer to him as cockroach that is their right as they have demonstrated their willingness to disrespect quite a few. You are not one of those. I was speaking more to my opinion of her courtroom demeanor and did not mean it in any disrespectful manner as Judge Judy is very popular to some and is alive and well to my knowledge. If I misunderstood and you think that it does a disservice to Judge Judy to compare Judge Glass' antics, then I apologize. :)

[Kate Sachel]

I do believe that there are many intelligent arguments for each side, as evidenced by our discussions and have not disregarded them. However, my post was made in the context of Galanter being smarter than that and, perhaps, I should have been more clear, as most of America did not understand that a jury of his peers found reasonable doubt.

Let me address the Judge Judy Glass comment and being as offensive as the cockroach comment. They are both public figures and the rules allow for such treatment. I found it more offensive out of respect for the dead. I know that some here do not share that respect. I think if they want to continue to refer to him as cockroach that is their right as they have demonstrated their willingness to disrespect quite a few. You are not one of those. I was speaking more to my opinion of her courtroom demeanor and did not mean it in any disrespectful manner as Judge Judy is very popular to some and is alive and well to my knowledge. If I misunderstood and you think that it does a disservice Judge Judy to compare Judge Glass' antics, then I apologize. :)

I don't happen to believe that being dead renders someone an elevated level of respect. I spoke out regarding your comment as my right to notify of something I found offensive, the same as it was your right to speak out regarding the cockroach referral. It is up to you and you alone to determine what you will refer to her as. I will take control of all that I can, which would be to simply pass over any postings that refer to her as such.

Thank you for clarifying your reasonable doubt comment. I took it to mean that you were of the opinion that anyone that did not agree with the jury's verdict did not understand the concept of reasonable doubt.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I don't happen to believe that being dead renders someone an elevated level of respect. I spoke out regarding your comment as my right to notify of something I found offensive, the same as it was your right to speak out regarding the cockroach referral. It is up to you and you alone to determine what you will refer to her as. I will take control of all that I can, which would be to simply pass over any postings that refer to her as such.

Thank you for clarifying your reasonable doubt comment. I took it to mean that you were of the opinion that anyone that did not agree with the jury's verdict did not understand the concept of reasonable doubt.

Kate

I understand but I was raised never to speak ill of the dead. However, I will admit that there have been times that I forgot my upbringing. I respect your choice. I mean I don't understand. If judge Ito is fair game, then I am sure equality allows her to be fair game.

My comment on reasonable doubt was not clear and I have been trying unsuccessfully to balance a variety of things. :) It is just my shortened version or that inexact language thing. :)

[William Anthony]

I think that there is a boundless supply of things that we could find offensive, ridiculous or harassing. I forget the state but the controversy over the X-mas, Atheist and Festivus displays/signs is a perfect example. Another thing that I find quizzical as MLK said and I agree with is the "appalling silence of the good people." It is quite one thing to speak out against all things that a person finds offensive, ridiculous or harassing and another to selectively speak out on others. One might find an inherent unfairness in that. I know some will find their intentional selection of things on which to address as a means of promoting their own agenda, imho. I think that should we decide to not remain silent when we see the first offensive, ridiculous or harassing posts, then the level of posting may not decline so rapidly on these threads. Thanks for allowing me to speak and I hope that no one finds this post, offensive, ridiculous or harassing.

[Kate Sachel]

I understand but I was raised never to speak ill of the dead. However, I will admit that there have been times that I forgot my upbringing. I respect your choice. I mean I don't understand. If judge Ito is fair game, then I am sure equality allows her to be fair game.

My comment on reasonable doubt was not clear and I have been trying unsuccessfully to balance a variety of things. :) It is just my shortened version or that inexact language thing. :)

I really think you need to take a moment to consider who you are speaking to; after you have done such would you be so kind as to point me to a post where Judge Ito has been referred to as someone other than Judge Ito or Ito? I don't recall seeing one, but you seem to be under the impression that I am not acting in an equal and fair manner which I highly resent because I have more than put up with enough garbage on this forum while maintaining a very even stance.

It is one thing to place your opinions on Judge Glass, and how you believe she handled or mishandled this case, it is another to continuously refer to her as Judge Judy. I have no control on whether you choose to remain childish, but I find it highly telling that you seem to believe anyone owes you the allowance of referring to any player in any of these cases as anything you deem fit while taking apparent issue with the fact that I find something offensive.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I think that there is a boundless supply of things that we could find offensive, ridiculous or harassing. I forget the state but the controversy over the X-mas, Atheist and Festivus displays/signs is a perfect example. Another thing that I find quizzical as MLK said and I agree with is the "appalling silence of the good people." It is quite one thing to speak out against all things that a person finds offensive, ridiculous or harassing and another to selectively speak out on others. One might find an inherent unfairness in that. I know some will find their intentional selection of things on which to address as a means of promoting their own agenda, imho. I think that should we decide to not remain silent when we see the first offensive, ridiculous or harassing posts, then the level of posting may not decline so rapidly on these threads. Thanks for allowing me to speak and I hope that no one finds this post, offensive, ridiculous or harassing.

We've been there and done that and not a thing has changed in the manner of posting on this forum. It's no wonder so many individuals don't want to come here and speak their minds.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I really think you need to take a moment to consider who you are speaking to; after you have done such would you be so kind as to point me to a post where Judge Ito has been referred to as someone other than Judge Ito or Ito? I don't recall seeing one, but you seem to be under the impression that I am not acting in an equal and fair manner which I highly resent because I have more than put up with enough garbage on this forum while maintaining a very even stance.

It is one thing to place your opinions on Judge Glass, and how you believe she handled or mishandled this case, it is another to continuously refer to her as Judge Judy. I have no control on whether you choose to remain childish, but I find it highly telling that you seem to believe anyone owes you the allowance of referring to any player in any of these cases as anything you deem fit while taking apparent issue with the fact that I find something offensive. Least I forget, there was a recent example by our former editor to correct/ridicule a poster who joined our forum but no welcome extended. I think that was childish. Maybe, that is why some don't want to participate.

Kate

I think the moment for consideration as to whom one speaks is reciprocal. There have been plenty of negative comments made about Judge Ito and, I do not or will not apologize if those who made such comments lacked my creativity. You may see it as childish, which is your right, but I have supplied a link to where she was referred to as judge Judy by others. The only thing that I am somewhat concerned about is that some one beat me to the punch. It is that ego thing on originality. Let's also set the record straight on who did what about allowing reference to players. There was much protestation over my refering to MF as MF, which prompted the cockroach comments. In fact, until the amount of protestations over the use of the initials, I had made no mention of the cockroach use, despite my feelings about speaking ill of the dead. IIRC, there was much protestation over the fact that the magnificent one compared MF to Hitler, and, IIRC, you took offense at that. I then went on to explain that to me any person that could speak of burning and entire race, as the evidence suggested, should be compared to Hitler. It was then, IIRC, that the cockroach comments began. IIRC, you did not speak out against the creative use of cockroach or did not say that you found it childish or offensive. I know that you have an appreciation for the law and are not trying to curtail my First Amendment rights. What is childish or offensive is like beauty, imho. I forgot. There was also some feigned offense that I used his initials, JC, as if I was referring to him as Jesus Christ, which I think you will admit is childish.

[William Anthony]

We've been there and done that and not a thing has changed in the manner of posting on this forum. It's no wonder so many individuals don't want to come here and speak their minds.

Kate

yes, that is why there should be no more preservation of the status quo. It is time for change.

[William Anthony]

We've been there and done that and not a thing has changed in the manner of posting on this forum. It's no wonder so many individuals don't want to come here and speak their minds.

Kate

Yes, we were doing well until the arrival of one and his racially offensive, disrespectful, insulting, snide and uncivil posts.

[William Anthony]

I really think you need to take a moment to consider who you are speaking to; after you have done such would you be so kind as to point me to a post where Judge Ito has been referred to as someone other than Judge Ito or Ito? I don't recall seeing one, but you seem to be under the impression that I am not acting in an equal and fair manner which I highly resent because I have more than put up with enough garbage on this forum while maintaining a very even stance.

It is one thing to place your opinions on Judge Glass, and how you believe she handled or mishandled this case, it is another to continuously refer to her as Judge Judy. I have no control on whether you choose to remain childish, but I find it highly telling that you seem to believe anyone owes you the allowance of referring to any player in any of these cases as anything you deem fit while taking apparent issue with the fact that I find something offensive.
Kate

My addition did not post. So, here it is. There was a recent post made by our former editor correcting/ridiculing a poster, who was new to the forum and made a typo and posted in a manner that the former editor did not agree, without a welcome. I found that childish and maybe that is why some don't want to participate.

[martin II]

My addition did not post. So, here it is. There was a recent post made by our former editor correcting/ridiculing a poster, who was new to the forum and made a typo and posted in a manner that the former editor did not agree, without a welcome. I found that childish and maybe that is why some don't want to participate.

On a regular basis i have read very negative post that included some serious name calling of OJ, His daughter, his other family members including his father, mother and most all of his lawyers.Weezer even said she was pleased that Cochran had died. And there has been no complaint that i can remember from any G.

[William Anthony]

On a regular basis i have read very negative post that included some serious name calling of OJ, His daughter, his other family members including his father, mother and most all of his lawyers.Weezer even said she was pleased that Cochran had died. And there has been no complaint that i can remember from any G.

I have heard complaints from Gs about the comments made about the Goldmans and I spoke out against the comments made on both sides. It is just a personal thing with me that I do not believe in bashing family members. I would not have called them childish or offensive as I realize that others are allowed to disagree with my views. I simply left the conversations alone, as my feelings on the subject did not seem to matter and left it up to those who desired to engage in that type of discourse to determine what was offensive, insulting, rude or childish to them. I do not recall anyone saying that they found the posts about family members personally offensive, other than me, although there may have been some that I do not remember. I think you above all know my efforts to bring peace and I am happy to see that I was successful in one instance. I will continue my efforts in that area, while still noting the inequality. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

I really think you need to take a moment to consider who you are speaking to; after you have done such would you be so kind as to point me to a post where Judge Ito has been referred to as someone other than Judge Ito or Ito? I don't recall seeing one, but you seem to be under the impression that I am not acting in an equal and fair manner which I highly resent because I have more than put up with enough garbage on this forum while maintaining a very even stance.

It is one thing to place your opinions on Judge Glass, and how you believe she handled or mishandled this case, it is another to continuously refer to her as Judge Judy. I have no control on whether you choose to remain childish, but I find it highly telling that you seem to believe anyone owes you the allowance of referring to any player in any of these cases as anything you deem fit while taking apparent issue with the fact that I find something offensive.

Kate

"It is the confidence of men and women that administer the judicial system
that is the true backbone of the law. Time will one day heal the wound that
is inflicted by today’s decision. One thing is, however, certain. We may
never know the identify of the winner…the identity of the loser is perfectly
clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian
of the rule of law

Dissenting of opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore."

[William Anthony]

While this is not a Nevada case, it might shed some light on what Simpson will have to prove to show on appeal that the judge's demeanor prejudiced his case.

http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:Iwy21pyeVeQJ:pards.org/ij/ferlise/DonaldFerlise(PARDSProfileSeries,Philadelphia,Penn sylvania)April29,2006.doc+appeals+granted+due+to+j udge%27s+demeanor&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

[martin II]

While this is not a Nevada case, it might shed some light on what Simpson will have to prove to show on appeal that the judge's demeanor prejudiced his case.

http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:Iwy21pyeVeQJ:pards.org/ij/ferlise/DonaldFerlise(PARDSProfileSeries,Philadelphia,Penn sylvania)April29,2006.doc+appeals+granted+due+to+j udge%27s+demeanor&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

If the Vegas appeals court finds that Glass demeaned defense council and did not allow then legal objections.If they find as was her reputation, that she prevented defense legal argumants to make their case and showed biase againse defense council, there may be a change for the defendants.
"SIT DOWN MR GALANTER" was frequently shouted by judge Glass.

[William Anthony]

If the Vegas appeals court finds that Glass demeaned defense council and did not allow then legal objections.If they find as was her reputation, that she prevented defense legal argumants to make their case and showed biase againse defense council, there may be a change for the defendants.
"SIT DOWN MR GALANTER" was frequently shouted by judge Glass.

I think that is a remote possibility that might entitle him to a new trial, although I doubt that the outcome will be any different. It just may add some validity to the impartiality process, which is what I question. I think he will still be found guilty in a new trial and I think that is the correct verdict under the state of the Nevada law. I don't see that the Supreme Court will change the standard of intent that the Nevada law imposes. They might entertain the idea that one cannot rob his own property (an off-handed way of addressing intent) but that involves federalism and state sovereignty.