Nevada Case Discussion Only

[serpentsfall]

it looks like they took the first step when the defense filed an appeal for a new trial to Judge Glass and was denied. I guess now they apply to the Supreme Court? From what I read, there is no middle court or step -- district court to supreme court. I've also read that the wait time for a case to be heard by the Nevada Supreme Court is about two years.

I thought the discussion of filing jointly was interesting. I can't imagine Stewart would want orenthal anywhere near his case!

Stewart has a much better chance of winning an overturned verdict on appeal than Simpson, IMO. Any idea whether or not Galanter is qualified to argue an appeal in front of the NV Supreme Court if they do get a chance?

[weezer]

Stewart has a much better chance of winning an overturned verdict on appeal than Simpson, IMO. Any idea whether or not Galanter is qualified to argue an appeal in front of the NV Supreme Court if they do get a chance?

Looks like the thread broke again! dadgummit.

I don't have an answer about galanter's qualifications -- he wasn't licensed in Nevada when this all started. it's always been my impression that the lawyers who appear before a Supreme Court are 'specialists'. If orenthal has any hope at all, he better unload galanter.

[serpentsfall]

Looks like the thread broke again! dadgummit.

I don't have an answer about galanter's qualifications -- he wasn't licensed in Nevada when this all started. it's always been my impression that the lawyers who appear before a Supreme Court are 'specialists'. If orenthal has any hope at all, he better unload galanter.

Trying to negotiate your way to the end of this thread is a major pain in the neck! You can't get there with either "last page" or the arrow by the last poster's name.

[tv]

Trying to negotiate your way to the end of this thread is a major pain in the neck! You can't get there with either "last page" or the arrow by the last poster's name.

Uh-oh, looks like the birds got my bread crumbs. :tongue:

[serpentsfall]

Uh-oh, looks like the birds got my bread crumbs. :tongue:

It could be worse....at least the birds aren't leaving any nasty droppings!

[tv]

It could be worse....at least the birds aren't leaving any nasty droppings!


Hi serpentsfall! You must be one of those people that see the glass as half-full. I like your optimism. :)

[weezer]

hello everyone -- are we all here?

[martin II]

hello everyone -- are we all here?

Good question

[martin II]

Uh-oh, looks like the birds got my bread crumbs. :tongue:

tv

you still making that slamming strawberry shortcake? I am sure they would love those crumbs.:cool:

[tv]

tv

you still making that slamming strawberry shortcake? I am sure they would love those crumbs.:cool:

I think that was Pineapple Upside Down cake which I haven't made one for a while but you've given me a good idea. :)

[martin II]

I think that was Pineapple Upside Down cake which I haven't made one for a while but you've given me a good idea. :)



Sorry my mistake. i knew it was something good.

[martin II]

Not much posting here.
William, where are you?

[RayStar]

Thought I would drop by for a looky. Is Galenter planning an appeal? I was hoping GWB would pardon OJ.

[One2Snoop]

Not much posting here.
William, where are you?

William hasn't been posting? :confused: This forum seems to have changed? :eek: What happened? :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Not much posting here.
William, where are you?

Quite unbeknown to me, CJJR had been reviewing my posts on this board, which led to a notification by email, containing an invitation with a most pleasing summons, requesting my presence to engage in a legal discourse with 8 other most esteemed legal minds in order to share my views on a myriad of legal issues, not the least of those were those related to the Declaration of Independence. I have had the opportunity to peruse the recent posts and any negligence in the amount of posting I have been able to engage in is not due to any reluctance on my part but is compelled by a desire to assist the most sacred, imho, established institution of our American form of government. It is with the deepest regret and appreciation for the fact that I have been missed that I offer this post in explanation. I hope you will understand that duty to country demanded my presence in D.C. and that upon my return, hopefully, I will then have the time, equal to that before my summons, to devote to my previous endeavors.

We are currently engaged in a detailed and lengthy historical analysis trying to determine the reasoning of the authors conveyed in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. We are currently discussing under what circumstances is anarchy acceptable and is that reasoning still valid under modern conditions.

Alas, it seems that CJJR is calling for the discussion to begin. I must partake of the coffee and discussion.

[martin II]

William hasn't been posting? :confused: This forum seems to have changed? :eek: What happened? :shrug:

two old threads have been reactivated.

[martin II]

William hasn't been posting? :confused: This forum seems to have changed? :eek: What happened? :shrug:

it seems that in his absence there has not been that much posting on the case discussion thread.

[William Anthony]

it seems that in his absence there has not been that much posting on the case discussion thread.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/SJR/SJR9_74.pdf

It appears that the bill has been passed. CJJR informed me of this during a break in our discussion. :)

[serpentsfall]

Quite unbeknown to me, CJJR had been reviewing my posts on this board, which led to a notification by email, containing an invitation with a most pleasing summons, requesting my presence to engage in a legal discourse with 8 other most esteemed legal minds in order to share my views on a myriad of legal issues, not the least of those were those related to the Declaration of Independence. I have had the opportunity to peruse the recent posts and any negligence in the amount of posting I have been able to engage in is not due to any reluctance on my part but is compelled by a desire to assist the most sacred, imho, established institution of our American form of government. It is with the deepest regret and appreciation for the fact that I have been missed that I offer this post in explanation. I hope you will understand that duty to country demanded my presence in D.C. and that upon my return, hopefully, I will then have the time, equal to that before my summons, to devote to my previous endeavors.

We are currently engaged in a detailed and lengthy historical analysis trying to determine the reasoning of the authors conveyed in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. We are currently discussing under what circumstances is anarchy acceptable and is that reasoning still valid under modern conditions.

Alas, it seems that CJJR is calling for the discussion to begin. I must partake of the coffee and discussion.

CJJR as in Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University?

[William Anthony]

CJJR as in Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University?

CJJR, as in Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court and the other eight esteemed Justices.

[serpentsfall]

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/SJR/SJR9_74.pdf

It appears that the bill has been passed. CJJR informed me of this during a break in our discussion. :)

Gosh, did CJJR even read that 2007 link?

I'd have thought he'd find this one more timely, considering how you seem to feel about Judge Glass...

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/info/news/index.php?contentID=346

[martin II]

in support of le responding to citizens report of a crime.

media report.

A neighbor called le and informed them that a man that lived across the street was loading some large lights into a uhaul truck parked in front of his house.

Le immediately arrived and asked the man questions about his activity. The smell of marijuana was detected when they walked the side of the house. In the basement they found 100 marijuana plants growing.

The quick response by le to a citizens call of something strange
caused the crime to be exposed.

The grower was a city fireman.

[weezer]

in support of le responding to citizens report of a crime.

media report.

A neighbor called le and informed them that a man that lived across the street was loading some large lights into a uhaul truck parked in front of his house.

Le immediately arrived and asked the man questions about his activity. The smell of marijuana was detected when they walked the side of the house. In the basement they found 100 marijuana plants growing.

The quick response by le to a citizens call of something strange
caused the crime to be exposed.

The grower was a city fireman.


I'm not sure what a witness seeing someone loading and leaving a house with stuff has to do with orenthal's situation? the only person who reported the 'may' be selling of 'stolen' articles, at 'some' time, by 'somebody' was himself involved in the deal.

I did find this and wonder why orenthal and or any of his gang of thugs didn't use it?

'Q. What is the purpose of Crime Stoppers?

A. Crime Stoppers' primary purpose is to reduce crime. To meet this mission, it is designed to do two things: (1) it allows callers to remain anonymous for information they give to the program (the information MUST be given to Crime Stoppers prior to a law enforcement agency), and (2) to be financially rewarded for providing information about felonious criminal activity."

http://crimestoppersofnv.com/secretisout.html

[serpentsfall]

in support of le responding to citizens report of a crime.

media report.

A neighbor called le and informed them that a man that lived across the street was loading some large lights into a uhaul truck parked in front of his house.

Le immediately arrived and asked the man questions about his activity. The smell of marijuana was detected when they walked the side of the house. In the basement they found 100 marijuana plants growing.

The quick response by le to a citizens call of something strange
caused the crime to be exposed.

The grower was a city fireman.

That is an example of a case where a caller was able to report something present tense going on. IMO, not even close to the same as a report of something that might take place at some unknown point in the future regarding items that may or may not have been stolen ten years earlier.

[William Anthony]

in support of le responding to citizens report of a crime.

media report.

A neighbor called le and informed them that a man that lived across the street was loading some large lights into a uhaul truck parked in front of his house.

Le immediately arrived and asked the man questions about his activity. The smell of marijuana was detected when they walked the side of the house. In the basement they found 100 marijuana plants growing.

The quick response by le to a citizens call of something strange
caused the crime to be exposed.

The grower was a city fireman.

CJJR and I have discussed LE's failure to uphold their sworn duty and the adverse effects it has had upon the judicial system, as well as, the growing public concern over the arbitrary manner in which LE conducts, often incomplete investigations.

[weezer]

CJJR and I have discussed LE's failure to uphold their sworn duty and the adverse effects it has had upon the judicial system, as well as, the growing public concern over the arbitrary manner in which LE conducts, often incomplete investigations.

so, like, what? you call him 'CJ' or 'Chief' or just 'Johnny'?

Be sure to tell 'Ruthie' I said hi.

[William Anthony]

Gosh, did CJJR even read that 2007 link?

I'd have thought he'd find this one more timely, considering how you seem to feel about Judge Glass...

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/info/news/index.php?contentID=346

I had expressed my sentiments about the structure of the Nevada courts and out of an act of kindness and appreciation CJJR supplied me with the link. They are now considering a case and I suspect it has to do with a coach that may have lead his football team in prayer before games. In any event, they are currently discussing some cases on the docket and I did not have a chance to share with CJJR or any other esteemed member my feelings on judge J. Glass, although CJJR may believe that there is a need for more governmental transparency, which is just a general feeling I got from him through our limited contacts. However, I will be arriving home shortly as my plane is scheduled to leave within the hour. I promise to take up the matter of judge J. Glass with CJJR on my next contact. :)

[serpentsfall]

CJJR and I have discussed LE's failure to uphold their sworn duty and the adverse effects it has had upon the judicial system, as well as, the growing public concern over the arbitrary manner in which LE conducts, often incomplete investigations.

Too bad CJJR is too busy to post his own thoughts on the case here.

[William Anthony]

so, like, what? you call him 'CJ' or 'Chief' or just 'Johnny'?

Be sure to tell 'Ruthie' I said hi.

No, I call him the Honorable Chief Justice Roberts and I will relay your salutations to the Honorable Justice Ginsburg.

[weezer]

No, I call him the Honorable Chief Justice Roberts and I will relay your salutations to the Honorable Justice Ginsburg.

LOL -- alrighty then. . . .

[William Anthony]

Too bad CJJR is too busy to post his own thoughts on the case here.

ITA but there are pressing Constitutional issues and federal questions that require his attention. I am sure we can all excuse his absence and I, in no way, intend to voice his opinion on the matter, as to whether he feels those perceptions are valid-only that he has expressed concern about them.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- alrighty then. . . .

Okay. :)

[martin II]

That is an example of a case where a caller was able to report something present tense going on. IMO, not even close to the same as a report of something that might take place at some unknown point in the future regarding items that may or may not have been stolen ten years earlier.

For me it is the same as a citizen reporting a person selling stolen goods in his house. if le does not investigate they will never know the details.le response to investigate uncovered several other houses rented by this group for the same growing purposes for a year or so. their willingness to investigate any report of a crime is the issue and they did not give the excuse that they were too busy with other current matters.imo

Riccios claim of Beadsley selling stolen goods was not something in the future
it was present imo
i am sure we dissagree and that is ok by me.

[martin II]

Okay. :)

William
It seems that your current posting has caused others that were not posting to post now.:cool:

[William Anthony]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/22/riccio-cashing-oj-simpson-case/

“While Riccio conceded that it “was a possibility” that Simpson was trying to get him to say that he hadn’t seen a gun, he told Galenter that Simpson had never asked him to lie.

He said there was no question, however, concerning whether or not the memorabilia Simpson was attempting to recover had been stolen.

“(Beardsley) just came right out and said they were stolen from (Simpson’s) trophy room in Rockingham,” Riccio said. “He came right out and crystal clearly said, ‘these are stolen from his trophy room’. That’s his quote, verbatim.”

Riccio said half of the Simpson memorabilia Beardsley was selling was stolen and the other half had been purchased legally. “They were (acquired through) two different deals,” he said. “One was bought from a storage shed (auction), and one was stolen from (Simpson’s trophy) room.”

“I knew they were stolen,” Riccio said. “Beardsley was saying they were stolen, O.J. said they were stolen, I believed they were stolen.”

[martin II]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/22/riccio-cashing-oj-simpson-case/

“While Riccio conceded that it “was a possibility” that Simpson was trying to get him to say that he hadn’t seen a gun, he told Galenter that Simpson had never asked him to lie.

He said there was no question, however, concerning whether or not the memorabilia Simpson was attempting to recover had been stolen.

“(Beardsley) just came right out and said they were stolen from (Simpson’s) trophy room in Rockingham,” Riccio said. “He came right out and crystal clearly said, ‘these are stolen from his trophy room’. That’s his quote, verbatim.”

Riccio said half of the Simpson memorabilia Beardsley was selling was stolen and the other half had been purchased legally. “They were (acquired through) two different deals,” he said. “One was bought from a storage shed (auction), and one was stolen from (Simpson’s trophy) room.”

“I knew they were stolen,” Riccio said. “Beardsley was saying they were stolen, O.J. said they were stolen, I believed they were stolen.”

Thanks for this post as i believe some had thought that all the items in the PSH came from that storage shed transaction.

[martin II]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/22/riccio-cashing-oj-simpson-case/

“While Riccio conceded that it “was a possibility” that Simpson was trying to get him to say that he hadn’t seen a gun, he told Galenter that Simpson had never asked him to lie.

He said there was no question, however, concerning whether or not the memorabilia Simpson was attempting to recover had been stolen.

“(Beardsley) just came right out and said they were stolen from (Simpson’s) trophy room in Rockingham,” Riccio said. “He came right out and crystal clearly said, ‘these are stolen from his trophy room’. That’s his quote, verbatim.”

Riccio said half of the Simpson memorabilia Beardsley was selling was stolen and the other half had been purchased legally. “They were (acquired through) two different deals,” he said. “One was bought from a storage shed (auction), and one was stolen from (Simpson’s trophy) room.”

“I knew they were stolen,” Riccio said. “Beardsley was saying they were stolen, O.J. said they were stolen, I believed they were stolen.”


I think this supports the Bell Boys testimony that Beadsley and Fumong were acting suspecious when he helped them unload the items from his truck at the PSH parking lot.He also thought it was strange that they selected a room well away from the center of the hotel at a back area out of sight of most at the hotel.Riccio selected this/his hotel room.imo

[William Anthony]

Thanks for this post as i believe some had thought that all the items in the PSH came from that storage shed transaction.

The jury stated they did not find any of the witnesses credible. This exasperates the problem, imho. I go back to the burglary and robbery statutes and the claim of right defense. On the tapes Simpson clearly shows, imho, that he entered the hotel room to reclaim property he believed was stolen from him. Given that defense is applicable to burglary, he could not have entered the hotel room with the requisite intent to commit a robbery, imho. However, when we look at the robbery statute, the claim of right defense is not an applicable defense. I do not know, if I have ever made myself clear on this point. The problem is that the law said he had the requisite general intent to commit robbery but the burglary statute requires an entry with a specific intent to commit robbery. I guess the argument would be that he entered specifically with the intent to generally commit robbery. This is not how I read the burglary statute. In my reading it goes to mens rea. Thus, the argument would be that he had the specific intent to commit the general intent crime of robbery at the time he made entry. There seems to be a contradictory mens rea occurring simultaneously. How can the defense of claim of right be applicable to burglary and not to robbery and what constitutes a "unlawful taking", if that has never been clearly defined, or, in other words, how is a person to know that reclaiming one's stolen property is unlawful, if it pertains to robbery, but not, if it pertains to burglary, or, in other words, in one instance it is unlawful but in another instance it is not.

[William Anthony]

I think this supports the Bell Boys testimony that Beadsley and Fumong were acting suspecious when he helped them unload the items from his truck at the PSH parking lot.He also thought it was strange that they selected a room well away from the center of the hotel at a back area out of sight of most at the hotel.Riccio selected this/his hotel room.imo

The jury must not have found the Bell Hop's testimony credible.

[William Anthony]

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/specific-and-general-intent-crimes.html

[William Anthony]

I know that I may have not precisely tailored my argument. I hope this will clarify what I am saying on the intent factors as it pertains to the Nevada burglary and robbery charges.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intent

“General intent refers to the intent to do that which the law prohibits. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result that occurred. Thus, in most states, a defendant who kills a person with a gun while intoxicated, to the extent that the defendant is not aware of having a gun, will be guilty of second-degree murder. The law will infer that the defendant had a general intent to kill.”

This is where the conflict or inconsistency comes in. How can you infer general intent when the law of burglary requires a specific intent? In other words, if the claim of right defense to burglary is allowed and believed, how can you then say that the defendant had an intent to commit robbery when, in fact, he made entry to reclaim his property?

[William Anthony]

What overt act did Simpson take in connection with the burglary charge?

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/criminal-procedure/175.251.html

[martin II]

What overt act did Simpson take in connection with the burglary charge?

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/criminal-procedure/175.251.html

Well the room was rented by Riccio so everyone inside was Riccios guest as he invited everyone to enter including the two people that brough the stolen goods inside.

[William Anthony]

Well the room was rented by Riccio so everyone inside was Riccios guest as he invited everyone to enter including the two people that brough the stolen goods inside.

I suppose that the gathering of people to aid in the event could be taken as an overt act but they all testified, as evidenced by the tape with questionable admissibility, that Simpson and they had not intended to enter to commit a crime or, in other words, there was no showing that they had the requisite intent to commit robbery or any other crime. Therefore, I fail to understand what evidence the jury based its finding of guilty of conspiracy to commit burglary or burglary.

[martin II]

I suppose that the gathering of people to aid in the event could be taken as an overt act but they all testified, as evidenced by the tape with questionable admissibility, that Simpson and they had not intended to enter to commit a crime or, in other words, there was no showing that they had the requisite intent to commit robbery or any other crime. Therefore, I fail to understand what evidence the jury based its finding of guilty of conspiracy to commit burglary or burglary.


True dat.Everyone testified that they only went to the PSH to help oj carry his stuff away.Fumong/Beadsley had told Riccio that they had a large quantity of ojs stuff for sale. If this lie had not been told, i think OJ and Riccio would have been the only two that went to the hotel.imo

[weezer]

True dat.Everyone testified that they only went to the PSH to help oj carry his stuff away.Fumong/Beadsley had told Riccio that they had a large quantity of ojs stuff for sale. If this lie had not been told, i think OJ and Riccio would have been the only two that went to the hotel.imo

nah -- orenthal's always surrounded himself with step-n-fetch-it people. . . .remember it was ac that he sent back to get the black bag out of the trash and it was ac that went with Nicole to the hospital. . . .

nope - it was quite clear from the tapes that orenthal wasn't going to be seen carrying anything out of the hotel.

[William Anthony]

True dat.Everyone testified that they only went to the PSH to help oj carry his stuff away.Fumong/Beadsley had told Riccio that they had a large quantity of ojs stuff for sale. If this lie had not been told, i think OJ and Riccio would have been the only two that went to the hotel.imo

I think you have a valid point. I could not help the fact that a response to your post made me think about "Stepin Fetchit (May 30, 1902–November 19, 1985) was the stage name of American comedian and film actor Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry. Perry parlayed the Fetchit persona into a successful film career, eventually becoming a millionaire, the first black actor in history to do so." It is ironical that Stepin Fetchit made a million dollars off his illusion but Fromong only made petty cash.

[martin II]

nah -- orenthal's always surrounded himself with step-n-fetch-it people. . . .remember it was ac that he sent back to get the black bag out of the trash and it was ac that went with Nicole to the hospital. . . .

nope - it was quite clear from the tapes that orenthal wasn't going to be seen carrying anything out of the hotel.

I don't see the connection from Step-n fetch-it a black minstrial commedian playing a not so smart black man part to OJ simpson unless you have some other motive for making the comparison.

The facts of the Nevada case and why others came to assist oj in getting his stuff was that Beadsley/Fumong lied about how much stuff they had which caused oj and Rizzio to agree to bring help to carry away the thousand pieces of ojs stuff. With only 3-4 cartons and five helpers there was no reason for oj and Rizzio to carrty the stuff themselves. imo

[martin II]

nah -- orenthal's always surrounded himself with step-n-fetch-it people. . . .remember it was ac that he sent back to get the black bag out of the trash and it was ac that went with Nicole to the hospital. . . .

nope - it was quite clear from the tapes that orenthal wasn't going to be seen carrying anything out of the hotel.

AC carrying Nicole to the hospital means he was a step-n-fetch-it type person? I thought he was being kind to help her since she was a dear friend.

[William Anthony]

AC carrying Nicole to the hospital means he was a step-n-fetch-it type person? I thought he was being kind to help her since she was a dear friend.

Did AC have some involvement in the Nevada case, to your knowledge?

[William Anthony]

I think you have a valid point. I could not help the fact that a response to your post made me think about "Stepin Fetchit (May 30, 1902–November 19, 1985) was the stage name of American comedian and film actor Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry. Perry parlayed the Fetchit persona into a successful film career, eventually becoming a millionaire, the first black actor in history to do so." It is ironical that Stepin Fetchit made a million dollars off his illusion but Fromong only made petty cash.

Correction-It is ironic that Stepin Fetchit made a million dollars off his illusion but Fromong only made petty cash.

[martin II]

Did AC have some involvement in the Nevada case, to your knowledge?

NO

This is the first time i have heard AC's name mentioned in the Vegas case or related to it in any way.

[William Anthony]

I am interested in discussing the allegation that AC was sent back to retrieve a black bag from the trash but I do not believe this is the proper thread for the discussion. I would respectfully ask the poster to place the post on the Random Case Discussion thread so that we can discuss that, as I have never previously heard of the accusation, IIRC.

[weezer]

I don't see the connection from Step-n fetch-it a black minstrial commedian playing a not so smart black man part to OJ simpson unless you have some other motive for making the comparison.

The facts of the Nevada case and why others came to assist oj in getting his stuff was that Beadsley/Fumong lied about how much stuff they had which caused oj and Rizzio to agree to bring help to carry away the thousand pieces of ojs stuff. With only 3-4 cartons and five helpers there was no reason for oj and Rizzio to carrty the stuff themselves. imo

psst -- not everything is color related. . . .

step-n-fetch-its come in all sizes, shapes, and colors. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

psst -- not everything is color related. . . .

step-n-fetch-its come in all sizes, shapes, and colors. :rolleyes:

I think they refer to some as Gomer Pyles.

[martin II]

psst -- not everything is color related. . . .

step-n-fetch-its come in all sizes, shapes, and colors. :rolleyes:

nope

Step-n-fetch-it only came in one size tall black minstrial guy that performed to entertain his film target audience. He was always black during the many times i saw his work.:cool:

[weezer]

nope

Step-n-fetch-it only came in one size tall black minstrial guy that performed to entertain his film target audience. He was always black during the many times i saw his work.:cool:

then you really need to broaden your horizons! ;)

[weezer]

I think they refer to some as Gomer Pyles.

really? I always refer to 'Gomers' when I think someone is really naive or just dense. . . .

I think a much better definition for 'step-n-fetch-it' would be cowlings and stewart.

[William Anthony]

really? I always refer to 'Gomers' when I think someone is really naive or just dense. . . .

I think a much better definition for 'step-n-fetch-it' would be cowlings and stewart.

Well gooolly gee, shazam-Fromong and Beardsley seemed really naive and profoundly dense to me and were doing all they could to please Simpson, as evidenced by the tapes, imho. Gomer one became so distressed, he had a heart attack on the witness stand-talk about wanting to please people. What do the Gomers say? Was it shazam or jahzam?

[martin II]

really? I always refer to 'Gomers' when I think someone is really naive or just dense. . . .

I think a much better definition for 'step-n-fetch-it' would be cowlings and stewart.


I don't think you have a understanding of how some people viewed Step-n-fetch-it "Comedy" act.

But i am not sure it is best to assign negative names to people as we all have learned that it is better to try to be Politically Correct.imo

[martin II]

then you really need to broaden your horizons! ;)

I will try.:cool:

[William Anthony]

True dat.Everyone testified that they only went to the PSH to help oj carry his stuff away.Fumong/Beadsley had told Riccio that they had a large quantity of ojs stuff for sale. If this lie had not been told, i think OJ and Riccio would have been the only two that went to the hotel.imo

Bumped. I think that Riccio lured Fromong and Beardsley to the hotel room and Simpson going to the hotel room could be considered a conspiracy, although I think the specific intent to commit burglary still wasn't shown by the evidence. I am trying to recall if judge J. Glass limited the non-applicability of the claim of right defense to the robbery charge. I can't recall but I do remember sustaining the objections to the defense and I did not see any jury instruction stating that the jury couldn't find Simpson or Stewart guilty if they offered a believable defense to the charge of burglary. I will try to discover if conspiracy to burglary is a specific intent crime.

[William Anthony]

It seems that there is some confusion over the elements of specific and general intent and when they should apply under Nevada law.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mBlja1qZ0pIJ:www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Exhibits/Assembly/JUD/AJUD164F.pdf+nevada+legal+decision+conspiracy+to+c ommit+burglary+requires+specific+intent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

February 15, 2007

Dear Chairman Anderson and Members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee,
1.1 am writing in opposition to AB 19, which will be heard by your Committee on Friday,
February 16, 2007.

“In enacted AB 19 would in effect overrule a recent decision of the Nevada Supreme Court in Rolden (Bolden, sic) v State. 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 86,124 P.3d 191 (2005), and would permit a person to be convicted of a specific intent offense, even if that person did not act with specific mtent (intent, sic) Such a result would be an aberration to our criminal code and would be fundamentally unfair. The Nevada Supreme Court's decision in Bolden was correct, so I urge this Committee to reject AB...”

[weezer]

I don't think you have a understanding of how some people viewed Step-n-fetch-it "Comedy" act.

But i am not sure it is best to assign negative names to people as we all have learned that it is better to try to be Politically Correct.imo

and I don't think you have an understanding of how the rest of us view the phrase 'step-n-fetch-it'.

[martin II]

It seems that there is some confusion over the elements of specific and general intent and when they should apply under Nevada law.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mBlja1qZ0pIJ:www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Exhibits/Assembly/JUD/AJUD164F.pdf+nevada+legal+decision+conspiracy+to+c ommit+burglary+requires+specific+intent&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

February 15, 2007

Dear Chairman Anderson and Members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee,
1.1 am writing in opposition to AB 19, which will be heard by your Committee on Friday,
February 16, 2007.

“In enacted AB 19 would in effect overrule a recent decision of the Nevada Supreme Court in Rolden (Bolden, sic) v State. 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 86,124 P.3d 191 (2005), and would permit a person to be convicted of a specific intent offense, even if that person did not act with specific mtent (intent, sic) Such a result would be an aberration to our criminal code and would be fundamentally unfair. The Nevada Supreme Court's decision in Bolden was correct, so I urge this Committee to reject AB...”


William
Thanks for this post. This gives support to your position.

[William Anthony]

William
Thanks for this post. This gives support to your position.

Thanks and I am glad to see that others are concerned over the apparent inconsistency in the laws.

[weezer]

Court to Hear Media Challenges to O.J. Simpson's Jury Secrecy
Monday, March 02, 2009

CARSON CITY, Nev. — Two news media organizations intend to ask the Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday to rule that a judge in the O.J. Simpson robbery-kidnapping trial improperly withheld jury questionnaires until after the trial and then released censored versions.

The Associated Press and the Las Vegas Review-Journal contend that Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass gave no valid legal reason for delaying release of the documents and then redacting them, and erred in saying the matter was moot once the trial was over.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,503884,00.html

[weezer]

Las Vegas judge gives former OJ Simpson co-defendant a break on probation violation
By KEN RITTER, Associated Press Writer
10:39 AM PST, March 3, 2009
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A judge ordered a former O.J. Simpson co-defendant into drug treatment after he violated probation in the Las Vegas robbery and kidnapping case.

Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass could have sent Charles Cashmore to prison for one to three years. The Tuesday hearing resulted from his New Year's Eve arrest for testing positive for methamphetamine.


That violated the strict three years' probation Cashmore received in the Simpson case. He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of accessory to robbery and testified against Simpson.

Simpson and another co-defendant were convicted and sent to prison for several years for kidnapping and robbing two sports memorabilia dealers in September 2007.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-oj-simpson-co-defendant,1,5481247.story

[William Anthony]

Perhaps, Cashmore's drug addiction made him decide that he wanted to keep the items that were taken that did not allegedly belong to Simpson. I think his problem with a highly addictive substance, to the best of my knowledge, may have affected his state of mind and he decided not to adhere to Simpson's promise to return the property that was not his.

[weezer]

Perhaps, Cashmore's drug addiction made him decide that he wanted to keep the items that were taken that did not allegedly belong to Simpson. I think his problem with a highly addictive substance, to the best of my knowledge, may have affected his state of mind and he decided not to adhere to Simpson's promise to return the property that was not his.

you think? sounds like you need to refresh your memory as to what orenthal's intentions were as far as disposal of the property after the armed robbery. :eek:

[martin II]

Perhaps, Cashmore's drug addiction made him decide that he wanted to keep the items that were taken that did not allegedly belong to Simpson. I think his problem with a highly addictive substance, to the best of my knowledge, may have affected his state of mind and he decided not to adhere to Simpson's promise to return the property that was not his.

The strick 3 years probation Glass gave Cashmore for his testimony was not that strick.But i think addicts belong in rehab as long as it is not a 30 day play rehab and more like a longterm program.imo

[William Anthony]

The strick 3 years probation Glass gave Cashmore for his testimony was not that strick.But i think addicts belong in rehab as long as it is not a 30 day play rehab and more like a longterm program.imo

Here is what is interesting about the plea deal. When Cashmore plead guilty, he admitted that he had the mens rea to commit the crimes with which he was charged and the same would hold true of all the other accused witnesses, with the exception of Riccio, but you have them testifying, under penalty of perjury, they were there no to commit robbery but to assist Simpson in getting his property back. Which is more reliable; a plea to avoid prison or a statement under oath and penalty of perjury?

[William Anthony]

you think? sounds like you need to refresh your memory as to what orenthal's intentions were as far as disposal of the property after the armed robbery. :eek:

Did Simpson say to them, keep the property that is not mine and never give it back to them?

[William Anthony]

Court to Hear Media Challenges to O.J. Simpson's Jury Secrecy
Monday, March 02, 2009

CARSON CITY, Nev. — Two news media organizations intend to ask the Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday to rule that a judge in the O.J. Simpson robbery-kidnapping trial improperly withheld jury questionnaires until after the trial and then released censored versions.

The Associated Press and the Las Vegas Review-Journal contend that Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass gave no valid legal reason for delaying release of the documents and then redacting them, and erred in saying the matter was moot once the trial was over.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,503884,00.html

Judge J. Glass' reason for the delay is interesting to me.

"Glass argues that she withheld the questionnaires because three offshore gambling Web sites had been taking bets on the trial's outcome and she feared someone would want to tamper with the jury."

Is she saying that she did not trust the jury to report the fact that someone had tried to influence them? If she had such a concern over their integrity, how could she trust the integrity of their verdict?

[weezer]

Did Simpson say to them, keep the property that is not mine and never give it back to them?

pretty much that's exactly what he said.

[martin II]

pretty much that's exactly what he said.

I doubt that.

[serpentsfall]

Here is what is interesting about the plea deal. When Cashmore plead guilty, he admitted that he had the mens rea to commit the crimes with which he was charged and the same would hold true of all the other accused witnesses, with the exception of Riccio, but you have them testifying, under penalty of perjury, they were there no to commit robbery but to assist Simpson in getting his property back. Which is more reliable; a plea to avoid prison or a statement under oath and penalty of perjury?

Wow. Cashmore didn't strike me as the type to have used the Latin term "mens rea" during his plea bargaining or any other time. You, however, seem to love throwing out the Latin when English would do just as well.

[William Anthony]

pretty much that's exactly what he said.

Link, please?

[William Anthony]

Wow. Cashmore didn't strike me as the type to have used the Latin term "mens rea" during his plea bargaining or any other time. You, however, seem to love throwing out the Latin when English would do just as well.

Pardon me, if I want to utilize the jargon I intend to use in my profession, should all go as planned? I hope you understand.

[William Anthony]

I doubt that.

Me too. I do think that what he actually said could have been interpreted many ways.:)

[serpentsfall]

I doubt that.

In the end, what they did as a group bore greater weight than whatever was said. The group illegally took items that did not belong to them. Whether or not they intended to bring them back means little. Would you let a carjacker off the hook just because he said "hey, I'll get your car back to you when I'm done with it"?

[serpentsfall]

Pardon me, if I want to utilize the jargon I intend to use in my profession, should all go as planned? I hope you understand.

FYI, one should always know and consider their audience. Juries and crime board posters are seldom impressed by the unnecessary use of "big words". It's clear that you are "practicing" for your intended profession. That's why the word "pompous" comes to mind rather than "learned" when you pull out the Latin in your attempts to impart an air of authority to your posts. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm pretty sure most posters read your posts as I do since everyone else seems able to get their viewpoints across using English.

[William Anthony]

In the end, what they did as a group bore greater weight than whatever was said. The group illegally took items that did not belong to them. Whether or not they intended to bring them back means little. Would you let a carjacker off the hook just because he said "hey, I'll get your car back to you when I'm done with it"?

You scenario does not fit the facts in this case, imho. Let's say that the person was arrested and tried in some other state than Nevada where the claim of right defense was allowed for stealing the car. During the trial it was proven that the person's car was just like yours and that the license plate on your car was registered to the accused. I think in that case the claim of right defense would be a strong argument in support of the claim of right defense, negating the requisite mens rea for conviction, and the person might tell you that they would leave any personal property that you had in the car in a specific location.

[William Anthony]

FYI, one should always know and consider their audience. Juries and crime board posters are seldom impressed by the unnecessary use of "big words". It's clear that you are "practicing" for your intended profession. That's why the word "pompous" comes to mind rather than "learned" when you pull out the Latin in your attempts to impart an air of authority to your posts. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm pretty sure most posters read your posts as I do since everyone else seems able to get their viewpoints across using English.

I have learned quite a great deal from poster on this board and through others over my lifetime. I have learned whether or not the used big or little words. I have found that those, who speak in the jargon of their profession, not to be pompous but have a high regard for their chosen profession. I consider life as a learning experience and I do not begrudge others for using language that I may or may not understand. To the contrary, if I don't understand, I ask them to explain or look it up for myself. I certainly would not try to insult them by calling them pompous nor would I ask them to speak to me in a condescending manner, because my ego may or may not have been bruised. I think this board provides an opportunity for all of us to learn and expand our horizons and I hope other posters agree.

[serpentsfall]

You scenario does not fit the facts in this case, imho. Let's say that the person was arrested and tried in some other state than Nevada where the claim of right defense was allowed for stealing the car. During the trial it was proven that the person's car was just like yours and that the license plate on your car was registered to the accused. I think in that case the claim of right defense would be a strong argument in support of the claim of right defense, negating the requisite mens rea for conviction, and the person might tell you that they would leave any personal property that you had in the car in a specific location.

Give it up on the "claim of right defense" mantra. It doesn't apply to the Simpson case any more than it would apply to someone carjacking the "wrong" car! It's an implausible stretch to add that the license plate might be the same as the accused - why do you always feel compelled to do that? What kind of society do you think we live in? Robbery and carjacking are inexcusable, and burglary is inexcusible except in some very, very rare circumstance. Why you insist that a legal loophole to allow for that rare circumstance should be applicable to all burglaries?

[serpentsfall]

I have learned quite a great deal from poster on this board and through others over my lifetime. I have learned whether or not the used big or little words. I have found that those, who speak in the jargon of their profession, not to be pompous but have a high regard for their chosen profession. I consider life as a learning experience and I do not begrudge others for using language that I may or may not understand. To the contrary, if I don't understand, I ask them to explain or look it up for myself. I certainly would not try to insult them by calling them pompous nor would I ask them to speak to me in a condescending manner, because my ego may or may not have been bruised. I think this board provides an opportunity for all of us to learn and expand our horizons and I hope other posters agree.

Whatever.

[weezer]

I doubt that.

from the mcclinton tape:

When mcclinton asks orenthal what he's going to do with the memorabilia they recovered, he tells him that he's not planning on keeping it.

". . .I gave it to my lawyer. ... I said you all can have all of this, I just didn't want them to have it. ... to be honest with you I knew now that Goldmans would get it and sell it and so I, I told these guys do whatever you wanna do with it. ... These guys earned it."

"Ain't that the truth," an unknown member of the group adds.

Unlike Riccio's recording, McClinton's tape was verified by an FBI analysis after he turned it over to Metro investigators. . ."

[William Anthony]

Give it up on the "claim of right defense" mantra. It doesn't apply to the Simpson case any more than it would apply to someone carjacking the "wrong" car! It's an implausible stretch to add that the license plate might be the same as the accused - why do you always feel compelled to do that? What kind of society do you think we live in? Robbery and carjacking are inexcusable, and burglary is inexcusible except in some very, very rare circumstance. Why you insist that a legal loophole to allow for that rare circumstance should be applicable to all burglaries?

The question on appeal will be should the claim of right defense have applied and whether or not it will be a successful issue on appeal, because the defense was denied. Your original scenario in no way reflected the circumstances of this case, so I tailored the circumstances to be more appropriate, imho. I know you have heard of stolen license plates. Some rather creative criminals in my scenario switched license plates on identical cars. I thought you understood that and that the alleged carjacker's argument would be that under those circumstances he lacked the requisite mens rea and was only trying to reclaim his stolen property. I live in a society that I wish was tempered with more understanding. I live in a society where someone's liberties should not depend on the vagueness of the laws and laws that apply inconsistent and conflicting states of mens rea, when the supreme court of that state has recognized the problem, but yet courts arbitrarily decide to put some behind bars for years while they wait on appeals.

[William Anthony]

from the mcclinton tape:

When mcclinton asks orenthal what he's going to do with the memorabilia they recovered, he tells him that he's not planning on keeping it.

". . .I gave it to my lawyer. ... I said you all can have all of this, I just didn't want them to have it. ... to be honest with you I knew now that Goldmans would get it and sell it and so I, I told these guys do whatever you wanna do with it. ... These guys earned it."

"Ain't that the truth," an unknown member of the group adds.

Unlike Riccio's recording, McClinton's tape was verified by an FBI analysis after he turned it over to Metro investigators. . ."

There are so many general adjectives and pronouns in those quotes that I cannot make sense of it.

[William Anthony]

Whatever.

You see, I have learned something from your response.

[weezer]

There are so many general adjectives and pronouns in those quotes that I cannot make sense of it.

really? orenthal and his thugs knew exactly what to make of the conversation. :eek:

[William Anthony]

really? orenthal and his thugs knew exactly what to make of the conversation. :eek:

The one sentence that is pretty clear to me is this one, although the it causes me some concerns, since I am not sure whether he is speaking of the property that was allegedly stolen from him or the other items. I am sure that either way he said he's not planning on keeping it.

"When mcclinton asks orenthal what he's going to do with the memorabilia they recovered, he tells him that he's not planning on keeping it."

[weezer]

The one sentence that is pretty clear to me is this one, although the it causes me some concerns, since I am not sure whether he is speaking of the property that was allegedly stolen from him or the other items. I am sure that either way he said he's not planning on keeping it.

"When mcclinton asks orenthal what he's going to do with the memorabilia they recovered, he tells him that he's not planning on keeping it."

there's been lots of discussion about what the 'it' was that orenthal gave to his lawyer. maybe the judge hearing the case on the disposition of the property will compel the lawyer to disclose what 'it' is. :eek:

[William Anthony]

there's been lots of discussion about what the 'it' was that orenthal gave to his lawyer. maybe the judge hearing the case on the disposition of the property will compel the lawyer to disclose what 'it' is. :eek:

Oh, I think that the it in the quote was pretty clear that he was referring to the memorabilia and that he did not plan to keep it, whether that was the personal property allegedly stolen from him or the other possibly stolen items that Fromong and Beardsley had in their possession. Whatever it was, Simpson planned on turning it over to an officer of the court, which, imho, negates the requisite mens rea.

[martin II]

FYI, one should always know and consider their audience. Juries and crime board posters are seldom impressed by the unnecessary use of "big words". It's clear that you are "practicing" for your intended profession. That's why the word "pompous" comes to mind rather than "learned" when you pull out the Latin in your attempts to impart an air of authority to your posts. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm pretty sure most posters read your posts as I do since everyone else seems able to get their viewpoints across using English.

We are speaking in terms of legal specific terms. as a appeals expert i am sure you have no problem with the latin used by courts. Your post seem to have a personal comments to them which i think is not necessary here.

[martin II]

Give it up on the "claim of right defense" mantra. It doesn't apply to the Simpson case any more than it would apply to someone carjacking the "wrong" car! It's an implausible stretch to add that the license plate might be the same as the accused - why do you always feel compelled to do that? What kind of society do you think we live in? Robbery and carjacking are inexcusable, and burglary is inexcusible except in some very, very rare circumstance. Why you insist that a legal loophole to allow for that rare circumstance should be applicable to all burglaries?

The appeals court will decide this issue.

[martin II]

In the end, what they did as a group bore greater weight than whatever was said. The group illegally took items that did not belong to them. Whether or not they intended to bring them back means little. Would you let a carjacker off the hook just because he said "hey, I'll get your car back to you when I'm done with it"?

So why did the jury base their conviction on the spoken words on the tapes???

[serpentsfall]

The appeals court will decide this issue.

Exactly. Judge Glass disallowing Simpson's defense strategy was not something that just popped up in the course of the trial. One would have to assume Judge Glass hadn't researched the issue in depth before explaining Nevada law and ruling against Galanter in the trial court. I can't believe this is the first time a defendant has tried to use the "I was only trying to get my own stuff back" defense. I can see circumstances where that would be valid, especially if burglary was the only crime committed. In a civil society, it should never justify armed robbery and kidnapping (or carjacking).

[serpentsfall]

So why did the jury base their conviction on the spoken words on the tapes???

Because what was said on the tapes painted an accurate picture of what they actually did. Why they chose to rob and kidnap two men really didn't matter.

[serpentsfall]

We are speaking in terms of legal specific terms. as a appeals expert i am sure you have no problem with the latin used by courts. Your post seem to have a personal comments to them which i think is not necessary here.

The point is I'm not an "appeals expert" and neither is anybody else who is posting here. When only one poster is guilty of using Latin when English would suffice, I guess it is "person-al".

[William Anthony]

The appeals court will decide this issue.

I hope the appellate court will decide sua sponte to consider the issues I have discussed, inter alia, and will not consider the matter as res judicata.

[tv]

I hope the appellate court will decide sua sponte to consider the issues I have discussed, inter alia, and will not consider the matter as res judicata.

So your wish is that the appellate court will decide to consider the issues you have discussed of it's own accord, along with other things, and not consider it a matter that can't be relitigated...I used to be able to recite Little Red Riding Hood all the way through in French...impressed? :tongue:

[William Anthony]

So your wish is that the appellate court will decide to consider the issues you have discussed of it's own accord, along with other things, and not consider it a matter that can't be relitigated...I used to be able to recite Little Red Riding Hood all the way through in French...impressed? :tongue:

I am very impressed but not at all surprised that a woman with you multiplicity of talents would be capable of understanding the terminology used in my post, which obviates the need for me to speak on in English and consider it admirable that you are somewhat versed, (pun intended) for lack of a better word, in the language of love. I have not had the chance to study the French language but did take Latin in junior high school. It was a requirement of the academic course at the time and I did not think it would ever come in handy. I guess that is one of the many things, which time has proven me wrong. :)

[martin II]

The point is I'm not an "appeals expert" and neither is anybody else who is posting here. When only one poster is guilty of using Latin when English would suffice, I guess it is "person-al".

Any court language i don't understand i just google it. Maby you can consider the same or follow the moderators suggestion about post that you find annoying or irritating.This will prevent personal attacks on posters.imo

[tv]

I am very impressed but not at all surprised that a woman with you multiplicity of talents would be capable of understanding the terminology used in my post, which obviates the need for me to speak on in English and consider it admirable that you are somewhat versed, (pun intended) for lack of a better word, in the language of love. I have not had the chance to study the French language but did take Latin in junior high school. It was a requirement of the academic course at the time and I did not think it would ever come in handy. I guess that is one of the many things, which time has proven me wrong. :)

Considering that my French lessons were during grades 4, 5 and 6 I thought of it more as the language of torture. I merely googled your latin phrases, of course. My suggestion is that if you feel the need to educate the rest of us on legal terminology expressed in Latin that you include the meaning in English in parentheses. Just a thought. :)

[William Anthony]

Considering that my French lessons were during grades 4, 5 and 6 I thought of it more as the language of torture. I merely googled your latin phrases, of course. My suggestion is that if you feel the need to educate the rest of us on legal terminology expressed in Latin that you include the meaning in English in parentheses. Just a thought. :)

I wasn't trying to educate anyone but was in stilling within one the desire to educate one's self, as you demonstrated. That which comes the easiest is often lost the easiest and there is no gain without pain. Personally, I have found that, if I take the time and the interest to research something, it is harder to forget. I believe, if it interests someone, they can ask or research it for themselves and, if it doesn't, they really have no interest in understanding. I think that you have the desire. You should have seen me when I represented myself for the first time in a land that was totally foreign to me.

I will admit that the Latin is infrequently used in the courts and, as Martin correctly pointed out, you find it more in decisions. However, due to my regard for the profession, I think it should be used more often and using it helps me to remember the distinctions in things such as state of mind and mens rea. I did not intend to make this post so lengthy but I did want to make myself clear. I will take your suggestion under advisement and anyone who wants to have a term I used explained can ask me via a pm. I do appreciate you suggestion and how you worded it. :)

[tv]

I wasn't trying to educate anyone but was in stilling within one the desire to educate one's self, as you demonstrated. That which comes the easiest is often lost the easiest and there is no gain without pain. Personally, I have found that, if I take the time and the interest to research something, it is harder to forget. I believe, if it interests someone, they can ask or research it for themselves and, if it doesn't, they really have no interest in understanding. I think that you have the desire. You should have seen me when I represented myself for the first time in a land that was totally foreign to me.

I will admit that the Latin is infrequently used in the courts and, as Martin correctly pointed out, you find it more in decisions. However, due to my regard for the profession, I think it should be used more often and using it helps me to remember the distinctions in things such as state of mind and mens rea. I did not intend to make this post so lengthy but I did want to make myself clear. I will take your suggestion under advisement and anyone who wants to have a term I used explained can ask me via a pm. I do appreciate you suggestion and how you worded it. :)

Each to his own, I guess. I tried. :shrug:

[weezer]

Each to his own, I guess. I tried. :shrug:

LOL -- this may be like any newbie: they know just enough to make them dangerous! :tongue:

[William Anthony]

Each to his own, I guess. I tried. :shrug:

Nothing beats a failure but a try and I don't see your initiative to look things up for yourself as being dangerous.:)

[William Anthony]

"An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it."

James Michener.

[William Anthony]

The United States Supreme Court makes another ruling on the Batson challenge.

http://ussc.blogspot.com/2008/03/snyder-v-louisiana-successful-batson.html

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-10119.pdf

[weezer]

The United States Supreme Court makes another ruling on the Batson challenge.

http://ussc.blogspot.com/2008/03/snyder-v-louisiana-successful-batson.html

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-10119.pdf

hmm -- wonder if the challenge has ever been made on the reverse?

[William Anthony]

hmm -- wonder if the challenge has ever been made on the reverse?

I don't know what you mean by reverse but I was able to find cases and one from Texas, which was an unpublished opinion and the Defendant's name is Moller, where a Caucasian defendant raised a Batson challenge, because of the exclusion of Blacks from the jury.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tcca/PDF/022/dalemarkl.pdf

[weezer]

I don't know what you mean by reverse but I was able to find cases and one from Texas, which was an unpublished opinion and the Defendant's name is Moller, where a Caucasian defendant raised a Batson challenge, because of the exclusion of Blacks from the jury.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tcca/PDF/022/dalemarkl.pdf

looks like a defense lawyer figured out how to use the system --

[William Anthony]

looks like a defense lawyer figured out how to use the system --

It appears to me that a defense lawyer understood the Equal Protection Clause.

[weezer]

Web site seeks donations to help O.J. Simpson appeal convictionStory Highlights

Web site says former football star, actor was railroaded

O.J. Simpson was sentenced in December for robbery, kidnapping

Jury found that Simpson, others robbed men in Nevada hotel room

(CNN) -- A new Web site is seeking donations to help free O.J. Simpson, who it says was wrongly convicted of robbery and kidnapping.

O.J. Simpson was sentenced in December to a maximum of 33 years in prison; he could get out in nine.

Creators of the site say the controversial former football star was railroaded by a "kangaroo court" in Las Vegas, Nevada, last year.

Simpson was sentenced in December to a maximum of 33 years for his role in an armed confrontation with sports memorabilia dealers in a hotel in 2007, and he'll be eligible for parole in nine years.

The Web site, run by a group called the Society Against Legal Injustice, says Simpson's case was mishandled and he deserves an appeal. The group lists what it calls errors in the case, including the contention that Simpson was targeted because of his controversial acquittal in the killings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her companion Ronald Goldman in 1995.

The group put the price tag for an appeal at $1 million.

"The unfairness levied against O.J. Simpson in Las Vegas is something no citizen deserves," the site says. "O.J. Simpson is not a wealthy man anymore and is therefore largely at the mercy of the Las Vegas legal system."

The group says its goal is "to educate, promote and advocate against judicial discrimination." But the only case the nonprofit organization highlights on the site is Simpson's.

Prosecutors said Simpson led a group of men who used threats, guns and force to take sports memorabilia from dealers Bruce Fromong and Al Beardsley.

Simpson claimed he was trying to recover items that belonged to him. Most of the co-defendants in the case made deals with prosecutors in exchange for testifying against Simpson.

The two-member board of directors listed on the Web site could not be reached immediately for comment

:chicken:

[weezer]

OJ Simpson friend sets up nonprofit for legal fund
By KEN RITTER Associated Press Writer

Print Mar 15th, 2009 | LAS VEGAS -- Claiming O.J. Simpson was dealt an injustice, the brother of the football star's former girlfriend is soliciting money to appeal Simpson's conviction and prison sentence on kidnapping and armed robbery charges.

Barrett Prody, 35, has created a nonprofit corporation and an Internet Web site, the Society Against Legal Injustice Inc., to raise money for Simpson.

"I hope to help out someone who has gotten to be a good friend," Prody said by telephone from his home in Fargo, N.D. "I want to leverage his name in an effort to right an injustice out there in Las Vegas."

But Simpson lawyers Yale Galanter in Miami and Gabriel Grasso in Las Vegas said they don't think the fund is needed. Galanter said Simpson's trial fees and costs were fully paid and his appellate fees and costs were "basically paid." He declined to provide amounts, citing attorney-client confidentiality.

"It seems that Barrett has the best of intentions," Galanter said. "But whatever he's doing is on a separate track with what we're doing."

The lawyers said they expected to file an appeal in the next six weeks with the Nevada Supreme Court over Simpson's conviction for the armed robbery and kidnapping of two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

Simpson's daughter, Arnelle Simpson, and a Simpson friend, Tom Scotto, said they support Prody's effort and that they expected any money Prody raises would help pay the 61-year-old former football star and television actor's legal bills.

"It's legit," Arnelle Simpson said. "It was established and created for my dad. Of course I approve of it and will support it."

Scotto said he also agreed to be a board member of the Society Against Legal Injustice.

Prody's younger sister, Christine Prody, was Simpson's girlfriend for more than a decade after the NFL Hall of Famer was acquitted in the 1994 slaying of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, in Los Angeles. But Christine Prody and Simpson are no longer a couple, Simpson's daughter and friends said.

Simpson was found liable for the deaths in a Los Angeles civil lawsuit and was ordered to pay $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages to the Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson estates.

Barrett Prody said his 33-year-old sister, who lives in Fergus Falls, Minn., had no connection with the Web fundraising effort.

Barrett Prody, who runs an automobile marketing company in North Dakota, said he talks several times a week by telephone with Simpson, who is serving nine to 33 years at Lovelock State Prison in northern Nevada after being convicted of leading five other men into a Las Vegas hotel room to retrieve what he said were personal items and family mementos from two sports collectibles dealers.

Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart were convicted on all 12 charges, and Stewart was sentenced to 7 1/2 years to 27 years. The four other men who accompanied Simpson were sentenced to probation after they took plea deals and testified for the prosecution.

Prody's Web site blames the hotel room confrontation on Thomas Riccio, the memorabilia dealer who arranged the meeting, and criticizes prosecutors and Judge Jackie Glass for their handling of the case.

Prody estimated he spent about $6,000 filing incorporation papers in North Dakota and applying to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status.

He said he did not intend to take a salary from donations, at least at the start, and intended to use any money not needed for Simpson's case to fund other causes he deemed unjust.

:no: LOL :punch: :chicken:

[William Anthony]

OJ Simpson friend sets up nonprofit for legal fund
By KEN RITTER Associated Press Writer

Print Mar 15th, 2009 | LAS VEGAS -- Claiming O.J. Simpson was dealt an injustice, the brother of the football star's former girlfriend is soliciting money to appeal Simpson's conviction and prison sentence on kidnapping and armed robbery charges.

Barrett Prody, 35, has created a nonprofit corporation and an Internet Web site, the Society Against Legal Injustice Inc., to raise money for Simpson.

"I hope to help out someone who has gotten to be a good friend," Prody said by telephone from his home in Fargo, N.D. "I want to leverage his name in an effort to right an injustice out there in Las Vegas."

But Simpson lawyers Yale Galanter in Miami and Gabriel Grasso in Las Vegas said they don't think the fund is needed. Galanter said Simpson's trial fees and costs were fully paid and his appellate fees and costs were "basically paid." He declined to provide amounts, citing attorney-client confidentiality.

"It seems that Barrett has the best of intentions," Galanter said. "But whatever he's doing is on a separate track with what we're doing."

The lawyers said they expected to file an appeal in the next six weeks with the Nevada Supreme Court over Simpson's conviction for the armed robbery and kidnapping of two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

Simpson's daughter, Arnelle Simpson, and a Simpson friend, Tom Scotto, said they support Prody's effort and that they expected any money Prody raises would help pay the 61-year-old former football star and television actor's legal bills.

"It's legit," Arnelle Simpson said. "It was established and created for my dad. Of course I approve of it and will support it."

Scotto said he also agreed to be a board member of the Society Against Legal Injustice.

Prody's younger sister, Christine Prody, was Simpson's girlfriend for more than a decade after the NFL Hall of Famer was acquitted in the 1994 slaying of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, in Los Angeles. But Christine Prody and Simpson are no longer a couple, Simpson's daughter and friends said.

Simpson was found liable for the deaths in a Los Angeles civil lawsuit and was ordered to pay $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages to the Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson estates.

Barrett Prody said his 33-year-old sister, who lives in Fergus Falls, Minn., had no connection with the Web fundraising effort.

Barrett Prody, who runs an automobile marketing company in North Dakota, said he talks several times a week by telephone with Simpson, who is serving nine to 33 years at Lovelock State Prison in northern Nevada after being convicted of leading five other men into a Las Vegas hotel room to retrieve what he said were personal items and family mementos from two sports collectibles dealers.

Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart were convicted on all 12 charges, and Stewart was sentenced to 7 1/2 years to 27 years. The four other men who accompanied Simpson were sentenced to probation after they took plea deals and testified for the prosecution.

Prody's Web site blames the hotel room confrontation on Thomas Riccio, the memorabilia dealer who arranged the meeting, and criticizes prosecutors and Judge Jackie Glass for their handling of the case.

Prody estimated he spent about $6,000 filing incorporation papers in North Dakota and applying to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status.

He said he did not intend to take a salary from donations, at least at the start, and intended to use any money not needed for Simpson's case to fund other causes he deemed unjust.

:no: LOL :punch: :chicken:

I guess not everyone agrees with how the case was handled.

[weezer]

I guess not everyone agrees with how the case was handled.

maybe not but holy cow! christy prody's brother, scotto, and arnelle!!!!! :eek:

who in the world is going to donate money to them ---------- or should I say who in their right minds would donate money to them?

did you think yale contradicts the statements made by them?

[William Anthony]

maybe not but holy cow! christy prody's brother, scotto, and arnelle!!!!! :eek:

who in the world is going to donate money to them ---------- or should I say who in their right minds would donate money to them?

did you think yale contradicts the statements made by them?

No, I don't think Yale's comments contradict their statements. He merely explained that there intentions were good and the money could be used to help others who might be wrongly convicted, because Simpson may not need financial help, imho.

[weezer]

No, I don't think Yale's comments contradict their statements. He merely explained that there intentions were good and the money could be used to help others who might be wrongly convicted, because Simpson may not need financial help, imho.

hmmm -- sounds pretty much like a contradiction to me -- :shrug:

". . .But Simpson lawyers Yale Galanter in Miami and Gabriel Grasso in Las Vegas said they don't think the fund is needed. Galanter said Simpson's trial fees and costs were fully paid and his appellate fees and costs were "basically paid." He declined to provide amounts, citing attorney-client confidentiality. . ."

". . .Simpson's daughter, Arnelle Simpson, and a Simpson friend, Tom Scotto, said they support Prody's effort and that they expected any money Prody raises would help pay the 61-year-old former football star and television actor's legal bills. . ."

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- sounds pretty much like a contradiction to me -- :shrug:

". . .But Simpson lawyers Yale Galanter in Miami and Gabriel Grasso in Las Vegas said they don't think the fund is needed. Galanter said Simpson's trial fees and costs were fully paid and his appellate fees and costs were "basically paid." He declined to provide amounts, citing attorney-client confidentiality. . ."

". . .Simpson's daughter, Arnelle Simpson, and a Simpson friend, Tom Scotto, said they support Prody's effort and that they expected any money Prody raises would help pay the 61-year-old former football star and television actor's legal bills. . ."


"It seems that Barrett has the best of intentions," Galanter said. "But whatever he's doing is on a separate track with what we're doing."

"He said he did not intend to take a salary from donations, at least at the start, and intended to use any money not needed for Simpson's case to fund other causes he deemed unjust."

I guess like the appeal it is a matter of interpretation. I guess there were no qualms, with giving money to Citi Group, AIG, and Madoff, until after the fact.

[weezer]

"It seems that Barrett has the best of intentions," Galanter said. "But whatever he's doing is on a separate track with what we're doing."

"He said he did not intend to take a salary from donations, at least at the start, and intended to use any money not needed for Simpson's case to fund other causes he deemed unjust."

I guess like the appeal it is a matter of interpretation. I guess there were no qualms, with giving money to Citi Group, AIG, and Madoff, until after the fact.

lol -- so what's wrong with this statement? LOL "did not intend to take a salary" -- "at least at the start" :eek:

somebody needs to let arnelle know that prody isn't planning on giving her money. that might make a difference in whether or not she supports the plan. ;)

[William Anthony]

lol -- so what's wrong with this statement? LOL "did not intend to take a salary" -- "at least at the start" :eek:

somebody needs to let arnelle know that prody isn't planning on giving her money. that might make a difference in whether or not she supports the plan. ;)

I do not intend to dissect a article line by line; nor do I intend to engage in bashing. The point is that others see the trial as unjust and there are different ways to interpret the statements contained therein. It's like everything else; some see things one way while others see it another.

[weezer]

I do not intend to dissect a article line by line; nor do I intend to engage in bashing. The point is that others see the trial as unjust and there are different ways to interpret the statements contained therein. It's like everything else; some see things one way while others see it another.

and my point is that everyone connected to it is saying something different!

[William Anthony]

and my point is that everyone connected to it is saying something different!

The only people connected to it are Scotto and Prody, as I see it with Ms. Arnelle saying only that she would support it.

[weezer]

The only people connected to it are Scotto and Prody, as I see it with Ms. Arnelle saying only that she would support it.

prody is connected to it -- geez -- it's his website.

as far as arnelle and scotto, they think the money will be used to pay orenthal's legal bills even though yale says those are already taken care of.

[weezer]

orenthal won't be needing no nasty, too tight leather gloves where he is now! ;)

[William Anthony]

prody is connected to it -- geez -- it's his website.

as far as arnelle and scotto, they think the money will be used to pay orenthal's legal bills even though yale says those are already taken care of.

So, I guess you admit there is only one person connected to it, and there are several people that may or may not be interested in it.

[weezer]

So, I guess you admit there is only one person connected to it, and there are several people that may or may not be interested in it.

nope -- what I'm saying is holy cow! who in their right mind would donate money to #1 orenthal and/or #2 the brother of orenthal's ex-girlfriend? or donate money when it's sanctioned by orenthal's friend scotto or co-conspirator arnelle?

[William Anthony]

nope -- what I'm saying is holy cow! who in their right mind would donate money to #1 orenthal and/or #2 the brother of orenthal's ex-girlfriend? or donate money when it's sanctioned by orenthal's friend scotto or co-conspirator arnelle?

Like I said, I see no need to engage in bashing, which is also against the moderator's instructions.

[weezer]

Like I said, I see no need to engage in bashing, which is also against the moderator's instructions.

who in the world is bashing?

[William Anthony]

who in the world is bashing?

In what trial was Ms. Arnelle indicted as a co-conspirator?

[weezer]

In what trial was Ms. Arnelle indicted as a co-conspirator?

in what trial was Mark Fuhrman indicted for planting evidence?

[William Anthony]

in what trial was Mark Fuhrman indicted for planting evidence?

He avoided that by pleading the 5th and the expiration of the statute of limitations, remember? I have never said that MF planted evidence in the case. I said the evidence allows the inference that he did and I have referred to him as an admitted evidence planter/fabricator/manipulator. I am sure you realize the difference in the postures of Ms. Arnelle and MF.

[weezer]

He avoided that by pleading the 5th and the expiration of the statute of limitations, remember? I have never said that MF planted evidence in the case. I said the evidence allows the inference that he did and I have referred to him as an admitted evidence planter/fabricator/manipulator. I am sure you realize the difference in the postures of Ms. Arnelle and MF.

Petrocelli's Accomplice Theory

Triumph of Justice
The Final Judgment on the Simpson Case
Daniel Petrocelli with Peter Knobler

In the criminal trial, Cochran put Arnelle Simpson on the stand and she testified that she and Detectives Lange and Phillips had entered the house by circling the property to the front and going in the front door. She said two other officers were still interrogating Kato Kaelin in his room at the time.

In her version, she said she chose the front entry because she wanted to turn off the alarm system, using a keypad that was located outside that door. Now, one might wonder why she would care about the alarm system; she was in the company of police detectives, why worry about tripping a house alarm? The alarm could be deactivated once inside the house. She said in her deposition that she was "nervous and scared."

Kato and four police officers all testified that Arnelle's version of the facts was wrong. There is a back door into the main house, just yards from Arnelle's room. Kato said this back door was not routinely locked, that it was usually left unlatched, so that people could come inside from the pool area and the backyard. He and each of the four detectives distinctly remember entering the house with Arnelle, all six together, through the rear door. There's no question, they went in the back.

Why is this important?

Simpson had called Kato from an LAX airport pay phone a little before midnight on June 12 just before boarding his flight and asked that he set the alarm system. (The phone call was made at 11:35 P.M.) This was the first and only time Kato had been asked to do this job. He had not previously been entrusted with the code, so Simpson recited it to him. Not wanting to screw up, Kato wrote the code down on a piece of paper, went to the front of the house, punched the numbers on the system's keypad, set the alarm, walked back to his room, and went to bed.

This was incontrovertible. Simpson and Kato testified to it, there was no dispute. The house was secured. But when they entered the rear door with Arnelle, Kato and the police detectives were positive that no alarm went off, no beeping was heard, nothing.

So why did the alarm system not go off?

Under Simpson's alarm system, from the time a secured door opens until the proper code is entered on the keypad and the system is deactivated, a beeping noise will sound, giving you time to turn off the alarm. If it is not promptly deactivated, the alarm starts to ring. There was no keypad either directly inside or outside the back doors, you had to go into the house near the bar area to find the closest one. Nobody saw Arnelle go into the bar area to deactivate the system. There was no record of an alarm having registered at Westec, the company that provided security for the estate.

Were Kato and four detectives all lying when they said they entered through the back door together? They would have no reason to lie about this fact - it didn't help the case against Simpson to say they went on through the back. Kato would never have been capable of making that kind of sophisticated calculation in the first place, and he would have had no reason to. Neither would the cops. Even if you have a jaundiced view of the LAPD and believe there are bad cops who fabricate evidence or concoct incriminating scenarios, it would be nearly impossible to get four police officers to lie about a seemingly minor detail when any one of them would turn on the others and rat them out. At the time it was an innocuous fact.

But that innocuous fact leads to an incriminating conclusion: after Simpson left, someone else was in that house.

Between the time Kato turned on the system at midnight and when he, Arnelle, and the four police officers entered just past five-thirty A.M., that system had been disarmed. Someone who had the code was in there and did it.

If Arnelle was not telling the truth and she did, in fact, go through the back door with the four officers and Kato Kaelin, then that tells me someone definitely was in the house. That someone might have been Arnelle, and if it wasn't Arnelle, she may well know who it was. Why otherwise would she create the fiction of her journey to the front door?

What was the person or persons who deactivated the Rockingham alarm system doing in the house?

The police found a load of wet laundry sitting in Simpson's washing machine, apparently including some of Arnelle's underwear. The housekeeper Gigi Gaurin, hadn't run it. She had been away that weekend and had testified in the criminal trial that she had left Friday with all the laundry dried and folded. In any case, she didn't do Arnelle's wash. When shown a video of the contents of the washing machine while testifying in the criminal trial, Gigi identified the laundry basket as Arnelle's. Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the laundry room, since Saturday night. She said she had gotten home Sunday morning and gone straight to bed. Simpson didn't do the laundry, that night or any night.

So, who did this load of laundry? Why was it still in the machine? To what end?

The most striking possibility, of course, is that Simpson had returned home from the scene of the crime and bled all over it. In his haste to seal his alibi and meet the limousine and catch his flight, there's no telling what condition he may have left the place. He made at least one phone call - to Kato - just before boarding his plane from a pay phone at the gate. He could have made other calls then, or even when he landed at O'Hare. He could have asked someone to clean up after him, to give the place a once over, to check and see that he didn't leave any incriminating evidence where it could be found. Quentin Tarantino would have a field day with this scene.

Who might Simpson call? Who were the people closest to him? Who could he trust? Cowlings had returned from a party and was at home alone. Arnelle was in her room alone. Cathy Randa was at her home alone. All were familiar with Simpson's home property.

Whoever he might have called, he or she or they gained access and turned off the alarm system when they entered. They would not have risked turning on the lights; Kato was in his room, neighbors might notice, some stray motorist might remember lights blazing in the mansion late at night. So they picked up whatever they could find, and wiped up the rest. It's not impossible to surmise that, in the dark, they might have missed the few small blood drops that were still there when the police entered early in the morning, or dropped something, like socks on a carpet.

They took their load - a sweatsuit? towels? - and ran it through the washing machine, them ran a load behind it as camouflage. Knowing what they knew, think about waiting in that house, at that hour, for the spin cycle to finish.

In their haste on the way out, whoever did this clean-up job forgot to reset the system.

What had needed washing so badly that it was done in an empty house after Simpson was gone? What had been washed? How many loads? Who ran them? These remained unsolved mysteries of the Simpson case.

So, do we have an accessory after the fact? I think so. Who routinely cleans up after Simpson?

"I'm sorry daddy. I was so nervous and scared, I just wanted to get out of there as fast as I could and back to my room. I didn't think of resetting the alarm. I'm really sorry."

[William Anthony]

Petrocelli's Accomplice Theory

Triumph of Justice
The Final Judgment on the Simpson Case
Daniel Petrocelli with Peter Knobler

In the criminal trial, Cochran put Arnelle Simpson on the stand and she testified that she and Detectives Lange and Phillips had entered the house by circling the property to the front and going in the front door. She said two other officers were still interrogating Kato Kaelin in his room at the time.

In her version, she said she chose the front entry because she wanted to turn off the alarm system, using a keypad that was located outside that door. Now, one might wonder why she would care about the alarm system; she was in the company of police detectives, why worry about tripping a house alarm? The alarm could be deactivated once inside the house. She said in her deposition that she was "nervous and scared."

Kato and four police officers all testified that Arnelle's version of the facts was wrong. There is a back door into the main house, just yards from Arnelle's room. Kato said this back door was not routinely locked, that it was usually left unlatched, so that people could come inside from the pool area and the backyard. He and each of the four detectives distinctly remember entering the house with Arnelle, all six together, through the rear door. There's no question, they went in the back.

Why is this important?

Simpson had called Kato from an LAX airport pay phone a little before midnight on June 12 just before boarding his flight and asked that he set the alarm system. (The phone call was made at 11:35 P.M.) This was the first and only time Kato had been asked to do this job. He had not previously been entrusted with the code, so Simpson recited it to him. Not wanting to screw up, Kato wrote the code down on a piece of paper, went to the front of the house, punched the numbers on the system's keypad, set the alarm, walked back to his room, and went to bed.

This was incontrovertible. Simpson and Kato testified to it, there was no dispute. The house was secured. But when they entered the rear door with Arnelle, Kato and the police detectives were positive that no alarm went off, no beeping was heard, nothing.

So why did the alarm system not go off?

Under Simpson's alarm system, from the time a secured door opens until the proper code is entered on the keypad and the system is deactivated, a beeping noise will sound, giving you time to turn off the alarm. If it is not promptly deactivated, the alarm starts to ring. There was no keypad either directly inside or outside the back doors, you had to go into the house near the bar area to find the closest one. Nobody saw Arnelle go into the bar area to deactivate the system. There was no record of an alarm having registered at Westec, the company that provided security for the estate.

Were Kato and four detectives all lying when they said they entered through the back door together? They would have no reason to lie about this fact - it didn't help the case against Simpson to say they went on through the back. Kato would never have been capable of making that kind of sophisticated calculation in the first place, and he would have had no reason to. Neither would the cops. Even if you have a jaundiced view of the LAPD and believe there are bad cops who fabricate evidence or concoct incriminating scenarios, it would be nearly impossible to get four police officers to lie about a seemingly minor detail when any one of them would turn on the others and rat them out. At the time it was an innocuous fact.

But that innocuous fact leads to an incriminating conclusion: after Simpson left, someone else was in that house.

Between the time Kato turned on the system at midnight and when he, Arnelle, and the four police officers entered just past five-thirty A.M., that system had been disarmed. Someone who had the code was in there and did it.

If Arnelle was not telling the truth and she did, in fact, go through the back door with the four officers and Kato Kaelin, then that tells me someone definitely was in the house. That someone might have been Arnelle, and if it wasn't Arnelle, she may well know who it was. Why otherwise would she create the fiction of her journey to the front door?

What was the person or persons who deactivated the Rockingham alarm system doing in the house?

The police found a load of wet laundry sitting in Simpson's washing machine, apparently including some of Arnelle's underwear. The housekeeper Gigi Gaurin, hadn't run it. She had been away that weekend and had testified in the criminal trial that she had left Friday with all the laundry dried and folded. In any case, she didn't do Arnelle's wash. When shown a video of the contents of the washing machine while testifying in the criminal trial, Gigi identified the laundry basket as Arnelle's. Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the laundry room, since Saturday night. She said she had gotten home Sunday morning and gone straight to bed. Simpson didn't do the laundry, that night or any night.

So, who did this load of laundry? Why was it still in the machine? To what end?

The most striking possibility, of course, is that Simpson had returned home from the scene of the crime and bled all over it. In his haste to seal his alibi and meet the limousine and catch his flight, there's no telling what condition he may have left the place. He made at least one phone call - to Kato - just before boarding his plane from a pay phone at the gate. He could have made other calls then, or even when he landed at O'Hare. He could have asked someone to clean up after him, to give the place a once over, to check and see that he didn't leave any incriminating evidence where it could be found. Quentin Tarantino would have a field day with this scene.

Who might Simpson call? Who were the people closest to him? Who could he trust? Cowlings had returned from a party and was at home alone. Arnelle was in her room alone. Cathy Randa was at her home alone. All were familiar with Simpson's home property.

Whoever he might have called, he or she or they gained access and turned off the alarm system when they entered. They would not have risked turning on the lights; Kato was in his room, neighbors might notice, some stray motorist might remember lights blazing in the mansion late at night. So they picked up whatever they could find, and wiped up the rest. It's not impossible to surmise that, in the dark, they might have missed the few small blood drops that were still there when the police entered early in the morning, or dropped something, like socks on a carpet.

They took their load - a sweatsuit? towels? - and ran it through the washing machine, them ran a load behind it as camouflage. Knowing what they knew, think about waiting in that house, at that hour, for the spin cycle to finish.

In their haste on the way out, whoever did this clean-up job forgot to reset the system.

What had needed washing so badly that it was done in an empty house after Simpson was gone? What had been washed? How many loads? Who ran them? These remained unsolved mysteries of the Simpson case.

So, do we have an accessory after the fact? I think so. Who routinely cleans up after Simpson?

"I'm sorry daddy. I was so nervous and scared, I just wanted to get out of there as fast as I could and back to my room. I didn't think of resetting the alarm. I'm really sorry."

This is a theory. I have never said MF planted evidence in the murder case. You called Ms. Arnelle a co-conspirator and I reiterate in which trial was she indicted as a co-conspirator and convicted as such. That is why I said I will not engage in bashing. Do you see the differences in what you say about Ms. Arnelle and what I said about MF?

[martin II]

Petrocelli's Accomplice Theory

Triumph of Justice
The Final Judgment on the Simpson Case
Daniel Petrocelli with Peter Knobler

In the criminal trial, Cochran put Arnelle Simpson on the stand and she testified that she and Detectives Lange and Phillips had entered the house by circling the property to the front and going in the front door. She said two other officers were still interrogating Kato Kaelin in his room at the time.

In her version, she said she chose the front entry because she wanted to turn off the alarm system, using a keypad that was located outside that door. Now, one might wonder why she would care about the alarm system; she was in the company of police detectives, why worry about tripping a house alarm? The alarm could be deactivated once inside the house. She said in her deposition that she was "nervous and scared."

Kato and four police officers all testified that Arnelle's version of the facts was wrong. There is a back door into the main house, just yards from Arnelle's room. Kato said this back door was not routinely locked, that it was usually left unlatched, so that people could come inside from the pool area and the backyard. He and each of the four detectives distinctly remember entering the house with Arnelle, all six together, through the rear door. There's no question, they went in the back.

Why is this important?

Simpson had called Kato from an LAX airport pay phone a little before midnight on June 12 just before boarding his flight and asked that he set the alarm system. (The phone call was made at 11:35 P.M.) This was the first and only time Kato had been asked to do this job. He had not previously been entrusted with the code, so Simpson recited it to him. Not wanting to screw up, Kato wrote the code down on a piece of paper, went to the front of the house, punched the numbers on the system's keypad, set the alarm, walked back to his room, and went to bed.

This was incontrovertible. Simpson and Kato testified to it, there was no dispute. The house was secured. But when they entered the rear door with Arnelle, Kato and the police detectives were positive that no alarm went off, no beeping was heard, nothing.

So why did the alarm system not go off?

Under Simpson's alarm system, from the time a secured door opens until the proper code is entered on the keypad and the system is deactivated, a beeping noise will sound, giving you time to turn off the alarm. If it is not promptly deactivated, the alarm starts to ring. There was no keypad either directly inside or outside the back doors, you had to go into the house near the bar area to find the closest one. Nobody saw Arnelle go into the bar area to deactivate the system. There was no record of an alarm having registered at Westec, the company that provided security for the estate.

Were Kato and four detectives all lying when they said they entered through the back door together? They would have no reason to lie about this fact - it didn't help the case against Simpson to say they went on through the back. Kato would never have been capable of making that kind of sophisticated calculation in the first place, and he would have had no reason to. Neither would the cops. Even if you have a jaundiced view of the LAPD and believe there are bad cops who fabricate evidence or concoct incriminating scenarios, it would be nearly impossible to get four police officers to lie about a seemingly minor detail when any one of them would turn on the others and rat them out. At the time it was an innocuous fact.

But that innocuous fact leads to an incriminating conclusion: after Simpson left, someone else was in that house.

Between the time Kato turned on the system at midnight and when he, Arnelle, and the four police officers entered just past five-thirty A.M., that system had been disarmed. Someone who had the code was in there and did it.

If Arnelle was not telling the truth and she did, in fact, go through the back door with the four officers and Kato Kaelin, then that tells me someone definitely was in the house. That someone might have been Arnelle, and if it wasn't Arnelle, she may well know who it was. Why otherwise would she create the fiction of her journey to the front door?

What was the person or persons who deactivated the Rockingham alarm system doing in the house?

The police found a load of wet laundry sitting in Simpson's washing machine, apparently including some of Arnelle's underwear. The housekeeper Gigi Gaurin, hadn't run it. She had been away that weekend and had testified in the criminal trial that she had left Friday with all the laundry dried and folded. In any case, she didn't do Arnelle's wash. When shown a video of the contents of the washing machine while testifying in the criminal trial, Gigi identified the laundry basket as Arnelle's. Arnelle said she hadn't done any laundry from June 9 through June 12, nor had she been inside the main house, which included the laundry room, since Saturday night. She said she had gotten home Sunday morning and gone straight to bed. Simpson didn't do the laundry, that night or any night.

So, who did this load of laundry? Why was it still in the machine? To what end?

The most striking possibility, of course, is that Simpson had returned home from the scene of the crime and bled all over it. In his haste to seal his alibi and meet the limousine and catch his flight, there's no telling what condition he may have left the place. He made at least one phone call - to Kato - just before boarding his plane from a pay phone at the gate. He could have made other calls then, or even when he landed at O'Hare. He could have asked someone to clean up after him, to give the place a once over, to check and see that he didn't leave any incriminating evidence where it could be found. Quentin Tarantino would have a field day with this scene.

Who might Simpson call? Who were the people closest to him? Who could he trust? Cowlings had returned from a party and was at home alone. Arnelle was in her room alone. Cathy Randa was at her home alone. All were familiar with Simpson's home property.

Whoever he might have called, he or she or they gained access and turned off the alarm system when they entered. They would not have risked turning on the lights; Kato was in his room, neighbors might notice, some stray motorist might remember lights blazing in the mansion late at night. So they picked up whatever they could find, and wiped up the rest. It's not impossible to surmise that, in the dark, they might have missed the few small blood drops that were still there when the police entered early in the morning, or dropped something, like socks on a carpet.

They took their load - a sweatsuit? towels? - and ran it through the washing machine, them ran a load behind it as camouflage. Knowing what they knew, think about waiting in that house, at that hour, for the spin cycle to finish.

In their haste on the way out, whoever did this clean-up job forgot to reset the system.

What had needed washing so badly that it was done in an empty house after Simpson was gone? What had been washed? How many loads? Who ran them? These remained unsolved mysteries of the Simpson case.

So, do we have an accessory after the fact? I think so. Who routinely cleans up after Simpson?

"I'm sorry daddy. I was so nervous and scared, I just wanted to get out of there as fast as I could and back to my room. I didn't think of resetting the alarm. I'm really sorry."

Weezer

Bashing of ojs family members is off limits as is the the victims family members By direction of the moderator.

[martin II]

Web site seeks donations to help O.J. Simpson appeal convictionStory Highlights

Web site says former football star, actor was railroaded

O.J. Simpson was sentenced in December for robbery, kidnapping

Jury found that Simpson, others robbed men in Nevada hotel room

(CNN) -- A new Web site is seeking donations to help free O.J. Simpson, who it says was wrongly convicted of robbery and kidnapping.

O.J. Simpson was sentenced in December to a maximum of 33 years in prison; he could get out in nine.

Creators of the site say the controversial former football star was railroaded by a "kangaroo court" in Las Vegas, Nevada, last year.

Simpson was sentenced in December to a maximum of 33 years for his role in an armed confrontation with sports memorabilia dealers in a hotel in 2007, and he'll be eligible for parole in nine years.

The Web site, run by a group called the Society Against Legal Injustice, says Simpson's case was mishandled and he deserves an appeal. The group lists what it calls errors in the case, including the contention that Simpson was targeted because of his controversial acquittal in the killings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her companion Ronald Goldman in 1995.

The group put the price tag for an appeal at $1 million.

"The unfairness levied against O.J. Simpson in Las Vegas is something no citizen deserves," the site says. "O.J. Simpson is not a wealthy man anymore and is therefore largely at the mercy of the Las Vegas legal system."

The group says its goal is "to educate, promote and advocate against judicial discrimination." But the only case the nonprofit organization highlights on the site is Simpson's.

Prosecutors said Simpson led a group of men who used threats, guns and force to take sports memorabilia from dealers Bruce Fromong and Al Beardsley.

Simpson claimed he was trying to recover items that belonged to him. Most of the co-defendants in the case made deals with prosecutors in exchange for testifying against Simpson.

The two-member board of directors listed on the Web site could not be reached immediately for comment

:chicken:


could be a scam without backing of oj or his lawyers.There are many money scams today.

[martin II]

lol -- so what's wrong with this statement? LOL "did not intend to take a salary" -- "at least at the start" :eek:

somebody needs to let arnelle know that prody isn't planning on giving her money. that might make a difference in whether or not she supports the plan. ;)

Fred raised money for his legal expenses. Many people accused or in jail have friends that raise money for legal expenses. Whats wrong with ojs friends doing the same.

If he raises money and oj does not need any, he can donate it to others that do. Everyone that run these fundrasers take salaries. Denise Brown runs one and she is a paid administrator of that fund.

[weezer]

This is a theory. I have never said MF planted evidence in the murder case. You called Ms. Arnelle a co-conspirator and I reiterate in which trial was she indicted as a co-conspirator and convicted as such. That is why I said I will not engage in bashing. Do you see the differences in what you say about Ms. Arnelle and what I said about MF?

I don't see any difference quite frankly. You have used the fact that Fuhrman was convicted of perjury for the use of a word to accuse him of all kinds of misdeeds. I have used the fact that arnelle lied about more than the use of a 'word' to question whether or not she was/is orenthal's co-conspirator.

You are being dishonest when you say you don't engage in bashing -- or did you mean the only bashing you engage in is when it comes to LE, the prosecution, and prosecution witnesses?

[weezer]

Weezer

Bashing of ojs family members is off limits as is the the victims family members By direction of the moderator.

no one is bashing orenthal's family members -- I posted what I believe to be facts about arnelle's complicity in the case.

[weezer]

could be a scam without backing of oj or his lawyers.There are many money scams today.

but it looks like everyone connected to orenthal knows about it and except for yale's statements that orenthal doesn't need the money for legal bills, it's being sanctioned by friend and family member. I'm guessing maybe someone that got beat out of the 'book' money is looking to see where they (she) might cash in. I can't imagine that orenthal would let anyone get money that he didn't get a part or all of. imo

[weezer]

Fred raised money for his legal expenses. Many people accused or in jail have friends that raise money for legal expenses. Whats wrong with ojs friends doing the same.

If he raises money and oj does not need any, he can donate it to others that do. Everyone that run these fundrasers take salaries. Denise Brown runs one and she is a paid administrator of that fund.

martin, the fact that yale makes the public statement that orenthal doesn't need any money for legal expenses and arnelle is saying 'yeah, yeah, yeah" should be the first tip-off that maybe this isn't on the up and up.

Denise Brown doesn't run a legal defense fundraiser. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I don't see any difference quite frankly. You have used the fact that Fuhrman was convicted of perjury for the use of a word to accuse him of all kinds of misdeeds. I have used the fact that arnelle lied about more than the use of a 'word' to question whether or not she was/is orenthal's co-conspirator.

You are being dishonest when you say you don't engage in bashing -- or did you mean the only bashing you engage in is when it comes to LE, the prosecution, and prosecution witnesses?

You continually call me dishonest, so I ask you to go back and find where I said MF planted evidence. We have had this discussion before and no one has been able to do so. I have not accused him of anything but I did say he admitted to them. You called Ms. Arnelle a co-conspirator and did not qualify it with in your opinion or based upon evidence. I have called certain witnesses liars, after so many others here referred to the defense witnesses as liars, to include the magnificent one, while saying that the prosecution's witnesses made human mistakes and errors (lies). I do not call that bashing but I do call it leveling the playing field. To say that you questioned whether she was a co-conspirator when you called her one, is not being honest, imho.

"nope -- what I'm saying is holy cow! who in their right mind would donate money to #1 orenthal and/or #2 the brother of orenthal's ex-girlfriend? or donate money when it's sanctioned by orenthal's friend scotto or co-conspirator arnelle? "-by fbgweezer

[William Anthony]

martin, the fact that yale makes the public statement that orenthal doesn't need any money for legal expenses and arnelle is saying 'yeah, yeah, yeah" should be the first tip-off that maybe this isn't on the up and up.

Denise Brown doesn't run a legal defense fundraiser. :shrug:

Show me where Ms. Arnelle said her father did need money in the link you previously provided, please?

". . .Simpson's daughter, Arnelle Simpson, and a Simpson friend, Tom Scotto, said they support Prody's effort and that they expected any money Prody raises would help pay the 61-year-old former football star and television actor's legal bills. . ."

[weezer]

Show me where Ms. Arnelle said her father did need money in the link you previously provided, please?

". . .Simpson's daughter, Arnelle Simpson, and a Simpson friend, Tom Scotto, said they support Prody's effort and that they expected any money Prody raises would help pay the 61-year-old former football star and television actor's legal bills. . ."

you got me there -- I guess 'expected' to get isn't the same as 'needs'. In fact, that sounds more like orenthal and arnelle doesn't it? we expect to get the money -- not, we need the money.

[William Anthony]

you got me there -- I guess 'expected' to get isn't the same as 'needs'. In fact, that sounds more like orenthal and arnelle doesn't it? we expect to get the money -- not, we need the money.

The point is in being accurate about someone before engaging in bashing.

[weezer]

You continually call me dishonest, so I ask you to go back and find where I said MF planted evidence. We have had this discussion before and no one has been able to do so. I have not accused him of anything but I did say he admitted to them. You called Ms. Arnelle a co-conspirator and did not qualify it with in your opinion or based upon evidence. I have called certain witnesses liars, after so many others here referred to the defense witnesses as liars, to include the magnificent one, while saying that the prosecution's witnesses made human mistakes and errors (lies). I do not call that bashing but I do call it leveling the playing field. To say that you questioned whether she was a co-conspirator when you called her one, is not being honest, imho.

"nope -- what I'm saying is holy cow! who in their right mind would donate money to #1 orenthal and/or #2 the brother of orenthal's ex-girlfriend? or donate money when it's sanctioned by orenthal's friend scotto or co-conspirator arnelle? "-by fbgweezer

'disingenuous' would probably be the better description for most of your posts. I don't understand what you believe this says ". . .I have not accused him of anything but I did say he admitted to them. . ." -- this is the lie you continue to tell william.

The facts are: Furhman was found guilty of perjury for the use of a word.

[weezer]

The point is in being accurate about someone before engaging in bashing.

I'm all for that! now when are you going to be accurate and post that Mark Fuhrman was convicted for perjury for the use of a word. Mark Fuhrman was not convicted nor was there or has there ever been evidence that any of the crap you try to pin on him ever happened. ;)

[William Anthony]

I'm all for that! now when are you going to be accurate and post that Mark Fuhrman was convicted for perjury for the use of a word. Mark Fuhrman was not convicted nor was there or has there ever been evidence that any of the crap you try to pin on him ever happened. ;)

I stick by my prior statements that MF is a convicted perjurer, interracial couple hater by the evidence and an admitted evidence planter/fabricator/manipulator.

[weezer]

I stick by my prior statements that MF is a convicted perjurer, interracial couple hater by the evidence and an admitted evidence planter/fabricator/manipulator.

then I am compelled to stick by my prior statements that you are either disingenuous or a liar or both.

[William Anthony]

then I am compelled to stick by my prior statements that you are either disingenuous or a liar or both.

:seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:

[weezer]

:seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:

are you feeling better today?

[William Anthony]

are you feeling better today?

Not good enough to be insulted.:)

[weezer]

Not good enough to be insulted.:)

then we can continue when you return to your normal self! :tongue:

[William Anthony]

then we can continue when you return to your normal self! :tongue:

Yes, then I will be better capable of suffering the insults. :)

[tv]

Yes, then I will be better capable of suffering the insults. :)

William, we don't insult each other on the OJ forum. It's called light-hearted banter between friends. Repeat after me -- lighthearted banter between friends. :)

[William Anthony]

William, we don't insult each other on the OJ forum. It's called light-hearted banter between friends. Repeat after me -- lighthearted banter between friends. :)

Lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, a rose by any other name would still be a rose.:)

[tv]

Lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, a rose by any other name would still be a rose.:)

Very good...and don't forget to breathe slowly -- in through your nose and out through your mouth. Speaking of roses, don't forget to smell them too. :)

[William Anthony]

Very good...and don't forget to breathe slowly -- in through your nose and out through your mouth. Speaking of roses, don't forget to smell them too. :)

Ah, that sweet enchanting elixir that has led many a man and woman to their doom. :)

[martin II]

martin, the fact that yale makes the public statement that orenthal doesn't need any money for legal expenses and arnelle is saying 'yeah, yeah, yeah" should be the first tip-off that maybe this isn't on the up and up.

Denise Brown doesn't run a legal defense fundraiser. :shrug:

You seem to ignore The guys statement that the fund will be for oj if he needs it and for others if he does not.One thing is constant in your post is your constant looking for a way to Bash Arnell Simpson. Something wrong with that.

[weezer]

You seem to ignore The guys statement that the fund will be for oj if he needs it and for others if he does not.One thing is constant in your post is your constant looking for a way to Bash Arnell Simpson. Something wrong with that.

I'm not bashing arnelle simpson -- the fact that her name keeps appearing in the middle of all the messes associated with orenthal is not my doing.

[William Anthony]

I'm not bashing arnelle simpson -- the fact that her name keeps appearing in the middle of all the messes associated with orenthal is not my doing.

The fact that you call her things with which she has not been charged and no evidence introduced as to her involvement, only theories, is.:)

[tv]

The fact that you call her things with which she has not been charged and no evidence introduced as to her involvement, only theories, is.:)

Just as you call Mark Fuhrman things with which he hasn't been charged or evidence introduced to support the acts you credit him with. I believe it's called personal opinion. :)

[martin II]

martin, the fact that yale makes the public statement that orenthal doesn't need any money for legal expenses and arnelle is saying 'yeah, yeah, yeah" should be the first tip-off that maybe this isn't on the up and up.

Denise Brown doesn't run a legal defense fundraiser. :shrug:

Denise is the paid administertor of a fund raising group for Abused women in her sisters name no differance than a defense fund for the accused that need funds for a good defense.Both ask money from the public.

[martin II]

I'm not bashing arnelle simpson -- the fact that her name keeps appearing in the middle of all the messes associated with orenthal is not my doing.

You always bash her.Or find a way to turn a discussion to slip in a negative about her.You also seem not to have respect for the moderators request about bashing all victims and accused families including OJS it not allowed.

You should give it a rest.It is obvious as to what you are doing.

[William Anthony]

Just as you call Mark Fuhrman things with which he hasn't been charged or evidence introduced to support the acts you credit him with. I believe it's called personal opinion. :)

Not true. I call MF a convicted perjurer (fact), racist (supported by the tapes), interracial couple hater (supported by the testimony that was not refuted) and an admitted evidence planter/fabricator/manipulator (supported by the tapes).:)

[weezer]

Not true. I call MF a convicted perjurer (fact), racist (supported by the tapes), interracial couple hater (supported by the testimony that was not refuted) and an admitted evidence planter/fabricator/manipulator (supported by the tapes).:)

you use the screenplay tapes (fiction) to bolster your hate posts about Fuhrman. I use testimony to post my fact statements regarding arnelle's participation in her daddy's doings.

[weezer]

Denise is the paid administertor of a fund raising group for Abused women in her sisters name no differance than a defense fund for the accused that need funds for a good defense.Both ask money from the public.

I find it very telling that you would compare the two.

[William Anthony]

I find it very telling that you would compare the two.

I think both organizations are intended to help those they see as victims.

[weezer]

anyone hear about the appeal? tick, tick, tick

[weezer]

wow --

". . .Simpson is appealing the conviction. For now, although he could be eligible for parole in nine years, Simpson's full sentence does not end until 2041 when he will be 94 years old. . ."

[weezer]

OJ Simpson judge sets hearing on restitution issue
The Associated Press
Posted: 04/27/2009 03:05:09 PM PDT
Updated: 04/27/2009 03:05:09 PM PDT


LAS VEGAS—The Nevada judge who sentenced former football star O.J. Simpson to prison has scheduled a Thursday hearing on a convicted codefendant's question about restitution.
Charles Ehrlich's lawyer, John Moran Jr. said Monday he'll ask Judge Jackie Glass to determine how much the six men have paid and how much collectibles dealer Bruce Fromong is still due.

The judge decided in December that Simpson, co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart and the four men who testified against them have to pay a combined $3,560 to Fromong.

Most of the amount is for medical bills Fromong claimed after he was pushed into a chair while being robbed at gunpoint Sept. 13, 2007, in a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

Fromong said Monday he hasn't gotten any restitution yet.

[weezer]

O.J. Simpson witness and Dr. Phil settle case
1 hour ago

LOS ANGELES (AP) — There's a settlement in the defamation lawsuit filed against Dr. Phil by a witness in O.J. Simpson's robbery case.

Attorneys for Phil McGraw and memorabilia dealer Thomas Riccio filed a statement Monday, saying an agreement had been reached.

Riccio sued McGraw and Stage 29 Media Productions in October. He claimed an interview with McGraw was edited to remove his denials to certain accusations, including that he set Simpson up and told Simpson to bring guns to a Las Vegas robbery.

A judge gutted the case last month, removing defamation, false light and infliction of emotional distress claims.

The interview aired days after Simpson was convicted of robbing and kidnapping two sports memorabilia dealers at gunpoint.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[weezer]

OJ judge tells codefendants to make restitution
By KEN RITTER Associated Press Writer
Posted: 04/30/2009 12:23:10 PM PDT
Updated: 04/30/2009 03:03:01 PM PDT


LAS VEGAS—The judge who sentenced former football star O.J. Simpson to prison in Nevada told lawyers for several convicted co-defendants who received probation that their clients remain on the hook for restitution to a victim in the case, a court official said.

"They've got until the end of their probations to repay the victim," Clark County District Court spokesman Michael Sommermeyer said after lawyers for former co-defendants Charles Ehrlich, Charles Cashmore and Michael McClinton appeared for a brief hearing Thursday before Judge Jackie Glass.

McClinton and Bruce Fromong, one of two sports memorabilia dealers robbed at gunpoint in September 2007 in a Las Vegas casino hotel room, watched from the court audience.

Neither spoke during the hearing, during which the judge did not distinguish which former co-defendants owed how much in restitution.

The judge ruled Dec. 19 that Simpson, Clarence "C.J." Stewart and four men who testified against them at trial were together liable to pay a combined $3,560 in restitution to Fromong for medical bills and other expenses after he was pushed into a chair and robbed at gunpoint in a September 2007 encounter in a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

Simpson and Stewart were convicted last October of 12 felony charges.

Simpson, 62, is serving nine to 33 years in state prison. Stewart, 55, is serving 7 1/2 to 27 years.

Glass on Thursday said Fromong was not to contact the former defendants in
the case, Sommermeyer said.

John Moran Jr., a lawyer for former Simpson friend and co-defendant Charles Ehrlich, complained that Fromong, 54, made repeated calls to parole and probation officials about the restitution money.

Outside the courtroom, Fromong acknowledged calling county officials only once. He said he hadn't received any money.

[tv]

OJ judge tells codefendants to make restitution
By KEN RITTER Associated Press Writer
Posted: 04/30/2009 12:23:10 PM PDT
Updated: 04/30/2009 03:03:01 PM PDT


LAS VEGAS—The judge who sentenced former football star O.J. Simpson to prison in Nevada told lawyers for several convicted co-defendants who received probation that their clients remain on the hook for restitution to a victim in the case, a court official said.

"They've got until the end of their probations to repay the victim," Clark County District Court spokesman Michael Sommermeyer said after lawyers for former co-defendants Charles Ehrlich, Charles Cashmore and Michael McClinton appeared for a brief hearing Thursday before Judge Jackie Glass.

McClinton and Bruce Fromong, one of two sports memorabilia dealers robbed at gunpoint in September 2007 in a Las Vegas casino hotel room, watched from the court audience.

Neither spoke during the hearing, during which the judge did not distinguish which former co-defendants owed how much in restitution.

The judge ruled Dec. 19 that Simpson, Clarence "C.J." Stewart and four men who testified against them at trial were together liable to pay a combined $3,560 in restitution to Fromong for medical bills and other expenses after he was pushed into a chair and robbed at gunpoint in a September 2007 encounter in a Las Vegas casino hotel room.

Simpson and Stewart were convicted last October of 12 felony charges.

Simpson, 62, is serving nine to 33 years in state prison. Stewart, 55, is serving 7 1/2 to 27 years.

Glass on Thursday said Fromong was not to contact the former defendants in
the case, Sommermeyer said.

John Moran Jr., a lawyer for former Simpson friend and co-defendant Charles Ehrlich, complained that Fromong, 54, made repeated calls to parole and probation officials about the restitution money.

Outside the courtroom, Fromong acknowledged calling county officials only once. I'm surprised that Simpson hasn't ponied up his part. We all know he takes care of his financial responsibilities. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

I'm surprised that Simpson hasn't ponied up his part. We all know he takes care of his financial responsibilities. :rolleyes:

LOL -- and I hear he's good to wives and girlfriends! :eek:

[tv]

LOL -- and I hear he's good to wives and girlfriends! :eek:They do seem to have mysterious accidents. He needs to find a woman that's not so accident prone. Oh, that's right -- there are no available women where he is!

[weezer]

http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/view-documents-and-forms.html?func=startdown&id=1762

orenthal's brief as submitted to the Nevada Supreme Court:

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
I. Did the District Court Commit Error in not Giving the Jury a Requested Theory of Defense Instruction?
a) Did the District Court Commit Error by Improperly Instructing the Jury on Coconspirator Liability?
b) Was it Error to not Instruct the Jury on the Lesser Included Offenses of Larceny and Second Degree Kidnapping?
II. Did the District Court Commit Error When Sentencing Simpson for Both Robbery and Aggravated Assault with a Deadly weapon?
III. Was there Insufficient Evidence to Support Simpson's Conviction for
Kidnapping? Were the Kidnapping convictions Redundant to the Robbery Convictions?
IV. Did the District Court Error by Admitting Inadmissible Hearsay Statements
Against Simpson?
V. Did The Prosecution Commit Prosecutorial Misconduct by Eliciting Testimony of Witness Intimidation?
VI. Did the District Court Violate Simpson's 6`' Amendment Right to Confront
Witnesses When it Prohibited Defense Counsel from Conducting Full and Complete Crossexamination?
VII. Did the District Court Commit Error During Jury Selection in Denying the
Defense's Batson Challenges, Challenges for Cause, and Improperly Restrict Jury Voir Dire?
VIII. Did the District Court Commit Judicial Misconduct Throughout the Trial Which Prejudiced Simpson's right to Due Process ?

[RayStar]

I hope the court hears his case. Judge Glass should only hear capital murder cases. IMO

[William Anthony]

Martin,

It seems I was on point on the issues that would be presented in the appeal. I am glad the defense brought those issues out.

[serpentsfall]

Martin,

It seems I was on point on the issues that would be presented in the appeal. I am glad the defense brought those issues out.

Yeah; they're gonna love an opportunity to review an appeal to discuss cats being let out of bags. I loved the interpretive spins they couldn't resist adding to the cited testimony.

[William Anthony]

Yeah; they're gonna love an opportunity to review an appeal to discuss cats being let out of bags. I loved the interpretive spins they couldn't resist adding to the cited testimony.

I haven't read the brief yet but I am glad you found something that pleases you.:)

[weezer]

Martin,

It seems I was on point on the issues that would be presented in the appeal. I am glad the defense brought those issues out.

LOL -- these are the points/issues that every commentator AND defense lawyers said they would bring up on appeal before there was even a verdict -- it didn't take a rocket scientist to regurgitate what we heard on tv. geez!

[weezer]

Yeah; they're gonna love an opportunity to review an appeal to discuss cats being let out of bags. I loved the interpretive spins they couldn't resist adding to the cited testimony.

when I first started reading it, I thought surely this was not written by a professional -- :D

[weezer]

what about orenthal's co-defendant? no appeal?

[serpentsfall]

when I first started reading it, I thought surely this was not written by a professional -- :D

Grasso salvaged some dignity by refusing to put his name on that document!

[serpentsfall]

what about orenthal's co-defendant? no appeal?

If true, that's too bad. I think he should have had his trial severed from Simpson's. He and Simpson were in no way equal participants in the planning; OJ was calling the shots, Stewart was a follower.

[William Anthony]

I think, if you go back and read, there was some scorn directed at me and a claim that Simpson's lawyer's had not mentioned some of the things I had and especially my claim about Judge J. Glass and the tapes. In any event, I may not be a rocket science but thanks to my training I was able to pick out issues that I thought would be included in the appeal, despite the scorn I received from a couple of posters, who read weekly appeals and referred to me as a wannabe lawyer.:) Wannabe or not, it appears I was right.

[William Anthony]

Grasso salvaged some dignity by refusing to put his name on that document!

It does not require every lawyer in a case to sign an appeal, smile.

[William Anthony]

If true, that's too bad. I think he should have had his trial severed from Simpson's. He and Simpson were in no way equal participants in the planning; OJ was calling the shots, Stewart was a follower.

We have all been guilty of following at some point.;)

[weezer]

I think, if you go back and read, there was some scorn directed at me and a claim that Simpson's lawyer's had not mentioned some of the things I had and especially my claim about Judge J. Glass and the tapes. In any event, I may not be a rocket science but thanks to my training I was able to pick out issues that I thought would be included in the appeal, despite the scorn I received from a couple of posters, who read weekly appeals and referred to me as a wannabe lawyer.:) Wannabe or not, it appears I was right.

tv -- where's that BS meter? :tongue:

[William Anthony]

All BS meters and perpetrators are located in Texas, according to my understanding. :)

[weezer]

page 18; line 23:

". . .recognized that a criminal defendant has a right to be tried by a jury who's members. . ."

ouch!

[William Anthony]

Page 19, lines 16 &17

[serpentsfall]

It does not require every lawyer in a case to sign an appeal, smile.

No, but in this case it needed one who was licensed to practice in Nevada which Grasso was and Galanter is not. The document being reviewed is simply Galanter's rant. I hope Yale feels better, and that OJ doesn't mind paying Yale to vent. That's all that document is.

[William Anthony]

No, but in this case it needed one who was licensed to practice in Nevada which Grasso was and Galanter is not. The document being reviewed is simply Galanter's rant. I hope Yale feels better, and that OJ doesn't mind paying Yale to vent. That's all that document is.

The document is an appeal with legal points and authorities supporting the defense's position on the issues, which I correctly foretold would be a part of the appeal. What you have said in your post is just your way to vent and your opinion of what you hope the appellate court will consider the document as, IMHO. That is all your post is, IMHO. :) I do believe that Galantar filed a pro ad hoc vice appearance with the court and thus was permitted to file the appeal.

[William Anthony]

"The Courts in Nevada and the U.S. Supreme Court have stated that speculative reasons are not race neutral reasons."

[William Anthony]

I wonder if the defense filed a video with the appeal, showing judge J. Glass' behaviors toward the defense?:)

[serpentsfall]

The document is an appeal with legal points and authorities supporting the defense's position on the issues, which I correctly foretold would be a part of the appeal. What you have said in your post is just your way to vent and your opinion of what you hope the appellate court will consider the document as, IMHO. That is all your post is, IMHO. :) I do believe that Galantar filed a pro ad hoc vice appearance with the court and thus was permitted to file the appeal.

Galanter can prepare the document but he had to get a Nevada attorney to review and approve it. Apparently he couldn't convince Grasso to do so, hence the hiring of a Nevada attorney with "I slept at Holiday Inn last night" experience with appeals.

[weezer]

The document is an appeal with legal points and authorities supporting the defense's position on the issues, which I correctly foretold would be a part of the appeal. What you have said in your post is just your way to vent and your opinion of what you hope the appellate court will consider the document as, IMHO. That is all your post is, IMHO. :) I do believe that Galantar filed a pro ad hoc vice appearance with the court and thus was permitted to file the appeal.

LOL -- you are so full of it! you didn't 'foretold' anything -- you simply regurgitated what every tv commentator and attorney said before, during and after the trial. LOL That is, of course, you believe they were coming on this board to get pointers from you. . . .:tongue:

[weezer]

I wonder if the defense filed a video with the appeal, showing judge J. Glass' behaviors toward the defense?:)

hmmm -- I bet they didn't file the audio tape with orenthal screaming "No one gets out of this room!" or "You didn't take the piece out in the hall did you?"
:eek:

[weezer]

page 24; line 5-6:

". . .Human opinion is often times formed upon circumstances meager and insignificant in there outward appearance. . ."

:punch:

[weezer]

page 26; lines 12-13:

". . .There's an objection by the prosecution at L.5 based on speculation, when the questioned called for a yes or no answer. . ."

:punch:

[weezer]

page 27, line 2-3:

". . .there's dialogue between the Court and trial counsel about refreshing a witnesses recollection. . ."

:punch:

[weezer]

page 27; Line 12:

". . .that "its too early", . . ."

:punch:

[weezer]

". . .Table of Cases and Statutes cited

:punch:

[weezer]

". . .Were the Kidnapping convictions Redundant to the Robbery Convictions? ......

:punch:

[weezer]

Aggravated Assault with a Deadly weapon?

:punch:

[weezer]

Were the Kidnapping convictions Redundant

:punch:

[William Anthony]

Some posters memories are like lost loves that can never be rekindled. I have always been scorned for my creative thinking on this forum but I have been vindicated by the issues presented in the appeal. There are some who will refuse to learn simply because the teacher is who he is. :)

[weezer]

You're not a teacher -- sadly, you've mistaken the followers for students. To continue to boast that you've been proven correct as to the appeal issues -- as if you knew something no one else did -- makes you look foolish. imo

[serpentsfall]

I found this 3 page article from September 2007 which mentions OJ's new attorney. Perhaps when Galanter says Lavergne is "a perfect lawyer for what we need done" he's referring to the color of Lavergne's skin and that he'll work for free. Or it could be that he's perfectly willing to sign his name to any legal document if that's what it takes to win a spot on OJ's defense team.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3625370&page=1

[William Anthony]

A moment to reflect on history. :)

Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
I'm all for discussing the appeal as long as the discussion is based on facts in this CASE and not some off-the-road, make-believe-lawyer fantasy.

thanks.

You may call it fantasy but others in the legal profession and the defense indicate there are good grounds for the appeal. Some who have a limited understanding of the law may want to deceive others that they have more than they do but when confusing testimony with recorded evidence, they show that they have not been trained in the law as some others who are attempting to become lawyers and had some degree of legal training. I will not stoop to a baser level because I want to keep this thread open and say that I will not say those of the type, who confuse testimony with recorded evidence, may be called make-believe intelligent. I suggest that we discuss the case without you making personal comments. Your anticipated cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


Jesus gave his life to save the world from sin but, sadly enough, some will not become students regardless of who the teacher may be. Is it no wonder that others who try to teach do not find receptive minds and open hearts?:)

[William Anthony]

I found this 3 page article from September 2007 which mentions OJ's new attorney. Perhaps when Galanter says Lavergne is "a perfect lawyer for what we need done" he's referring to the color of Lavergne's skin and that he'll work for free. Or it could be that he's perfectly willing to sign his name to any legal document if that's what it takes to win a spot on OJ's defense team.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3625370&page=1

What is it about the color of a lawyer's skin that would make you consider that is what another lawyer is referring to when the lawyer says he is a perfect lawyer for what we need done?

[serpentsfall]

What is it about the color of a lawyer's skin that would make you consider that is what another lawyer is referring to when the lawyer says he is a perfect lawyer for what we need done?

Don't play dumb. The two black attorneys are the ones who made the statement that they believed they were being denied (thanks to Galanter) an opportunity to represent OJ early in the case because of their color. Surely you see the irony. Galanter wants to present the lack of black on the jury as a potential appeal issue, so suddenly a previously unwelcome black attorney is welcomed on board. Grasso apparently tried unsuccessfully to explain Nevada law to Galanter (who is not The Magnificent One Redux.) Galanter is desperate and his legal brief belies his lack of focus and legal preparation. You, William, presented Galanter's appeal issues to this board in a far more professional manner than Galanter has managed.

[William Anthony]

Don't play dumb. The two black attorneys are the ones who made the statement that they believed they were being denied (thanks to Galanter) an opportunity to represent OJ early in the case because of their color. Surely you see the irony. Galanter wants to present the lack of black on the jury as a potential appeal issue, so suddenly a previously unwelcome black attorney is welcomed on board. Grasso apparently tried unsuccessfully to explain Nevada law to Galanter (who is not The Magnificent One Redux.) Galanter is desperate and his legal brief belies his lack of focus and legal preparation. You, William, presented Galanter's appeal issues to this board in a far more professional manner than Galanter has managed.

Unless there is a call for oral arguments on the issues, the issues will be decided based on the briefs. The only color to be considered, would be black and white and the legal requirement for the color of the caption page, if there is any, based on the parties, if there is no oral argument. I am not saying that the judges do not know the lawyers' skin color but, if they do, it is because they have experience with the appellate court, IMHO.

[tv]

tv -- where's that BS meter? :tongue:

Not to worry -- the BS meter is ready -- I had to get a bigger one to handle the load of you-know-what that floats around in the forum. ;)

[weezer]

I found this 3 page article from September 2007 which mentions OJ's new attorney. Perhaps when Galanter says Lavergne is "a perfect lawyer for what we need done" he's referring to the color of Lavergne's skin and that he'll work for free. Or it could be that he's perfectly willing to sign his name to any legal document if that's what it takes to win a spot on OJ's defense team.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3625370&page=1

if I had to guess, I would say orenthal would take anything that he thought he could get for free! :tongue:

[William Anthony]

Not to worry -- the BS meter is ready -- I had to get a bigger one to handle the load of you-know-what that floats around in the forum. ;)

If you throw you know what into your pond it will inevitably float to this forum.:)

[tv]

If you throw you know what into your pond it will inevitably float to this forum.:)

You must mean if you throw you know what into a pond (unfortunately I don't have my own pond) it will float to this forum. I don't throw BS around -- I prefer to dwell on testimony and evidence instead of flights of fancy. :)

[William Anthony]

You must mean if you throw you know what into a pond (unfortunately I don't have my own pond) it will float to this forum. I don't throw BS around -- I prefer to dwell on testimony and evidence instead of flights of fancy. :)

You seem not to want to dwell on testimony and evidence when it concerns the allegation of evidence planting but want proof. :)

[tv]

You seem not to want to dwell on testimony and evidence when it concerns the allegation of evidence planting but want proof. :)

If you're talking about your wishful thinking and wild speculation being evidence then you're correct -- I need proof.

[William Anthony]

If you're talking about your wishful thinking and wild speculation being evidence then you're correct -- I need proof.

I simply posted the evidence and commented thereon. I thought you dwelt on the evidence.:)

[tv]

I simply posted the evidence and commented thereon. I thought you dwelt on the evidence.:)

I prefer evidence that doesn't sound like the premise for a fantasy novel. :)

[William Anthony]

I prefer evidence that doesn't sound like the premise for a fantasy novel. :)

I thought you were a fan of the prosecution. I apologize. :)

[tv]

I thought you were a fan of the prosecution. I apologize. :)

You have many things to apologize but this is a start. If you can find a post I made saying I'm a fan of the prosecution please post it. I'm just a fan of seeking justice for Ron and Nicole.

[William Anthony]

You have many things to apologize but this is a start. If you can find a post I made saying I'm a fan of the prosecution please post it. I'm just a fan of seeking justice for Ron and Nicole.

I am not above apologizing when an apology is due.:)

[tv]

I am not above apologizing when an apology is due.:)

I'll take your word for it. :)

[William Anthony]

I'll take your word for it. :)

Getting an apology from some is like pulling teeth.:)

[tv]

Getting an apology from some is like pulling teeth.:)

I guess everyone has the same policy as you -- they apologize if they feel an apology is due.

[William Anthony]

I guess everyone has the same policy as you -- they apologize if they feel an apology is due.

Do you mean that you surmise there is one thing that is equally applied? :)

[William Anthony]

I guess everyone has the same policy as you -- they apologize if they feel an apology is due.

Oops, you don't even believe this should be equally applied as I read your post too fast. That is not my policy. Here is my policy.

I am not above apologizing when an apology is due.

[tv]

Do you mean that you surmise there is one thing that is equally applied? :)

I wouldn't say equally applied -- more like people making their own decisions about when they feel it's appropriate to apologize. I've never been one to demand someone apologize to me. If it doesn't come from the heart it has no meaning. :)

[tv]

Oops, you don't even believe this should be equally applied as I read your post too fast. That is not my policy. Here is my policy.

Okay. :)

[William Anthony]

I wouldn't say equally applied -- more like people making their own decisions about when they feel it's appropriate to apologize. I've never been one to demand someone apologize to me. If it doesn't come from the heart it has no meaning. :)

Sometimes being uttered from the mouth that started the need for an apology is enough to shame the heart and then sometimes not.:)

[tv]

Sometimes being uttered from the mouth that started the need for an apology is enough to shame the heart and then sometimes not.:)

I'm not even going to ask you to explain this.

[William Anthony]

I'm not even going to ask you to explain this.

I am saying that most people, although the apology might start off as insincere, feel shame for the need to apologize, realizing that they have wronged someone. However, there are those, IMHO, who have no shame and their apologies become as hollow as their heart.

[weezer]

OJ co-defendant appeals Nev. robbery conviction
By KEN RITTER – 18 hours ago

LAS VEGAS (AP) — A former golfing buddy of O.J. Simpson on Thursday appealed to overturn his conviction in an armed hotel room heist, saying he suffered "spillover prejudice" from being tried with the former NFL football star.

Clarence "C.J." Stewart, 55, also said in his appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court that crucial audio recordings were improperly admitted as evidence and that the jury foreman committed misconduct by withholding his bias toward Simpson until after the pair were convicted and sentenced.

"From the beginning of trial until its conclusion, the jury was improperly presented with 'prejudicial,' 'tainted' and 'unreliable' evidence," Stewart attorney Brent Bryson argued. "The cumulative error that infected this trial warrants reversal of these convictions."

Stewart, Simpson and four other men were accused of holding two sports collectibles peddlers at gunpoint in a Las Vegas hotel room in September 2007 and taking property that Simpson claimed had been stolen from him. Stewart and Simpson were found guilty Oct. 3 of all 12 charges against them, including kidnapping, armed robbery, conspiracy and assault with a deadly weapon.

Stewart was sentenced to 7 1/2 to 27 years in state prison, and Simpson got nine to 33 years. The other co-defendants accepted plea deals, testified against Simpson and Stewart, and received probation.

Stewart's lawyers had argued before, during and after the trial that Simpson's notoriety and conflicts between the two men's defense theories required Stewart to be tried separately.

"Simpson's infamous history is a matter of public debate," Bryson said in the appeal. "To much of the world, he is the exemplar of the wrongfully acquitted. Stewart was the victim of spillover prejudice."

Bryson referred to Simpson's acquittal in the 1994 slayings in Los Angeles of Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. Simpson was found liable in a 1997 civil court judgment and ordered to pay $33.5 million to the victims' estates.

Bryson said the most significant issue in his appeal was the judge's decision to admit recordings of a conversation between Simpson and others planning the confrontation and another recording made in the room by the man who arranged the meeting.

Bryson said the recordings, which were sold to a celebrity gossip Web site before turned over to police, could have been manipulated and that no witness authenticated them in court.

"But that appears to be what the jurors hung their hat on: the recordings," Bryson said.

Stewart's appeal also alleged bias and inconsistencies by jury foreman Paul Connelly in his pretrial juror questionnaire and comments made after the verdict.

"Some people think (Simpson) should have been given life 13 years ago," Bryson quoted Connelly as saying after the trial. "That was my opinion, but I think that's reserved for the court to decide."

Connelly did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Simpson, 61, filed an appeal separately Tuesday in which his lawyers cited insufficient evidence for conviction and improper exclusion of blacks from the jury. Stewart's appeal Thursday raised several of the same issues. Both defendants accused Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass of judicial misconduct and bias against defense lawyers.

A clerk for Glass said the judge could not comment. The judge has denied requests for a new trial, but threw out two coercion charges against both men before the sentencing on Dec. 5.

A spokesman for Clark County District Attorney David Roger said he was confident the convictions would stand.

On the Net:
Nevada Supreme Court: http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/supremecourt.html

[weezer]

anyone know how it works with orenthal's pension? I assume it goes into a fund to pay expenses on his home, etc but I'm really worried about who's paying arnelle's way with daddy in prison?

[William Anthony]

I am sure Ms. Arnelle would be able to respond appropriately to any questions asked of her.

[weezer]

I am sure Ms. Arnelle would be able to respond appropriately to any questions asked of her.

ahh -- but orenthal's co-conspirator only wanted to talk when it was to help her daddy write a book about how he butchered her step-mom. . . .the mother of two of her siblings so that she could make money off of the deal. nope. don't think she's going to be offering anything about how she's spending daddy's money.:eek:

[William Anthony]

There is only one way to know for sure, write and ask Ms. Arnelle.

[weezer]

There is only one way to know for sure, write and ask Ms. Arnelle.

nah -- I can wait till she pops up in the news again -- drunk, beating someone, helping daddy write a book on how he murdered two human beings, or visiting daddy in prison. :seeya:

[tv]

nah -- I can wait till she pops up in the news again -- drunk, beating someone, helping daddy write a book on how he murdered two human beings, or visiting daddy in prison. :seeya:

He better watch out putting Arnelle in charge of the money. She's still ticked off because he wasn't giving her mother any money -- isn't that why she threw him into the china cabinet? Maybe Marguerite can quit her job at Walmart now.

[William Anthony]

He better watch out putting Arnelle in charge of the money. She's still ticked off because he wasn't giving her mother any money -- isn't that why she threw him into the china cabinet? Maybe Marguerite can quit her job at Walmart now.

Are you seeking employment and are you willing to relocate?

[weezer]

OJ co-defendant moved to prison near Carson City
The Associated Press
Posted: 05/29/2009 02:19:01 PM PDT

LAS VEGAS—The man convicted with O.J. Simpson in an armed hotel room heist has been moved from a large southern Nevada prison to a correctional center in Carson City.
Nevada prison spokeswoman Suzanne Pardee said Friday she couldn't disclose a reason for Clarence "C.J." Stewart's move from the 3,000-bed High Desert State Prison in Indian Springs to the 1,619-inmate Northern Nevada Correctional Center.

The 55-year-old Stewart is serving 7 1/2 to 27 years and Simpson is serving nine to 33 years for kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon in the gunpoint robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers in September 2007.

Simpson is housed at Lovelock Correction Center, 90 miles northeast of Reno.

[weezer]

Interesting reading:

SATE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL

http://media.lvrj.com/documents/oj_060409.pdf

[William Anthony]

I did not find the reading interesting but rather a boilerplate response to a boilerplate motion, neither of which are going to change Simpson's current conditions, IMHO.