Nevada Case Discussion Only

[martin II]

orenthal said he put the 'sting' together. I don't usually believe him but I have to say, what he stated and the tapes just almost makes it a certainty that he in fact, did plan the whole thing.
Oj arranged to get help to collect his stuff after Riccio, the master planner had brought both parties togeather. IF riccio had not planned the caper to make himself some money the two parties would have never met.There would have been no taping and he would not have had a tape to sell to the prosecution for his freedom.Ask Beadsley. hahaha

[martin II]

okay so you believe orenthal lied. I'm okay with that. how do you suppose riccio was able to put together the group of thugs that he didn't know but they knew orenthal? maybe a newspaper ad? :D

Riccio testified that he arranged for oj and the sellers to come to his hotel room. His actions prove that that is exactly what he did. without him there would be no one in the PS hotel room and oj and everyone else would have been at the wedding after party.

[weezer]

Oj arranged to get help to collect his stuff after Riccio, the master planner had brought both parties togeather. IF riccio had not planned the caper to make himself some money the two parties would have never met.There would have been no taping and he would not have had a tape to sell to the prosecution for his freedom.Ask Beadsley. hahaha

always the orenthal apologist -- geez. riccio did not put the group of thugs and guns together. and thank goodness he made a tape of the planning and confrontation. BTW, if you've listened/read the tapes, you will understand that riccio didn't plan the room -- orenthal did. riccio didn't recruit the other thugs -- orenthal did. riccio wasn't the one giggling like a little girl before and after the armed robbery/kidnapping -- it was orenthal.

who's Beadsley?

[weezer]

Riccio testified that he arranged for oj and the sellers to come to his hotel room. His actions prove that that is exactly what he did. without him there would be no one in the PS hotel room and oj and everyone else would have been at the wedding after party.

without orenthal gathering a group of thugs with guns and storming a hotel room there would have been no armed robbery/kidnapping.

I find if laughable that you continue to blame everyone else for orenthal's bad behavior and poor choices. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

ITA. Otherwise it all seems fishy IMO. Simpson was the mastermind, but still.

Yes, if we are punishing Simpson for being dumb, then the rest should be equally punished, imho.

[William Anthony]

which means Stewart could have an argument but since galanter was soooooo happy to have the tapes come in and stated so, it would be a little hard for him now to come back and say, "Well, I didn't know it wasn't going to help so King's X." :tongue:

But Galanter did object after he found that the tapes might have been altered.

[William Anthony]

what were they going to investigate william? a story being told by someone who had no connection to the stuff and that the 'owner' had never reported stolen? a story about 'some place at sometime, someone is going to try to sell stuff that I believe is stolen stuff'? please.

He did have a connection, because the alleged thieves and he were in contact as well as he was with Simpson. LE had a duty to investigate the possible theft but did not, imho.

[William Anthony]

and orenthal was too stupid to accept a plea deal. he threw dice and lost.

Did they offer him immunity?

[weezer]

But Galanter did object after he found that the tapes might have been altered.

link to galanter objecting to the tapes, please.

[William Anthony]

not typical because orenthal was involved? Ha

Don't be concerned about Judge Glass appearing impartial -- galanter spent quite a bit of time showering her with praise.

That's my point. The case was handled atypically because he was involved.

We all knew that he was buttering her up or attempting to but she was too brittle, imho, as evidenced by the sentence.

[weezer]

He did have a connection, because the alleged thieves and he were in contact as well as he was with Simpson. LE had a duty to investigate the possible theft but did not, imho.

now you know this isn't the truth so why post it?

[William Anthony]

link to galanter objecting to the tapes, please.

You already have it and it is as easily accessible to you, so I object.

[William Anthony]

now you know this isn't the truth so why post it?

Which part do you think is untrue?

[weezer]

That's my point. The case was handled atypically because he was involved.

We all knew that he was buttering her up or attempting to but she was too brittle, imho, as evidenced by the sentence.

LOL -- yeah, that's the ticket. give it up william, the sentences were in line with what the law required. in fact, she did give him a break -- the sentence could have been much worse.

[weezer]

Which part do you think is untrue?

the whole post. . .

[weezer]

You already have it and it is as easily accessible to you, so I object.

really? when did the rules change?

[weezer]

Did they offer him immunity?

what would have qualified him for immunity? LOL the man arranged for an armed robbery and kidnapping for pete's sake. who was he going to testify against? Himself! LOL

[martin II]

what would have qualified him for immunity? LOL the man arranged for an armed robbery and kidnapping for pete's sake. who was he going to testify against? Himself! LOL

wrong
they offered oj and stewart what is called 'UNIVERSAL PLEA" This required both to agree, Stewart declined so the offer tanked for both.

[weezer]

wrong
they offered oj and stewart what is called 'UNIVERSAL PLEA" This required both to agree, Stewart declined so the offer tanked for both.

good grief martin -- orenthal was never offered immunity. :punch:

[martin II]

what would have qualified him for immunity? LOL the man arranged for an armed robbery and kidnapping for pete's sake. who was he going to testify against? Himself! LOL

OJ qualified just as riccio did but the differance was oj was the target so everyone got off but him.

[martin II]

good grief martin -- orenthal was never offered immunity. :punch:

oj and stewart were offered a universal plea which required both to agree. Stewart rejected it. So oj could not get it.That was a prosecution trick.

[martin II]

good grief martin -- orenthal was never offered immunity. :punch:

Read my post.

[martin II]

link to galanter objecting to the tapes, please.

yep just before glass shouted "sit down mr galanter" as she did many times.

[weezer]

oj and stewart were offered a universal plea which required both to agree. Stewart rejected it. So oj could not get it.That was a prosecution trick.

good grief martin:

". . .There was nothing that was palatable. Nothing acceptable," Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter said.

Co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart also rejected a deal that would have had him plead guilty to unspecified reduced charges in return for a promised sentence less than the 7 1/2 to 27 years he received, the prosecutor and defense lawyers said.

"It was a universal deal," said Stewart's lawyer, Brent Bryson. "Both defendants had to accept it. As we know, that didn't happen. . ."

http://wcco.com/national/oj.simpson.plea.2.881366.html

[weezer]

yep just before glass shouted "sit down mr galanter" as she did many times.

didn't happen --

[martin II]

The prosecution can charge normally or they can OVERCHARGE. oj was overcharged for sure. kidnapping was overcharging.

[weezer]

oj and stewart were offered a universal plea which required both to agree. Stewart rejected it. So oj could not get it.That was a prosecution trick.

no one has ever claimed orenthal was smart! well, that is for one poster I can think of -- :D I love Scotto's quote, "He may have given it more serious consideration if he'd known what was coming." :D

"Shamed star OJ Simpson rejected plea-bargain offer
Dec 8 2008

OJ SIMPSON could have settled for just three years in jail - but arrogantly rejected all plea-bargain offers, it's been claimed.

The fallen idol's pal Thomas Scotto said prosecutors made the offer in the last stages of his trial for armed robbery.

Simpson, 61, was jailed for at least 15 years on Friday.

But Scotto added: "OJ and his sister told me the prosecution offered him a deal but he and his lawyers turned it down."

Scotto said that Simpson had been adamant he would not serve time and made that point clear to his lawyers.

He added: "He may have given it more serious consideration if he'd known what was coming."

The offers were confirmed by Simpson's lawyer Yale Galanter.

He said: "There were ongoing discussions throughout the case but nothing came of them.

"None of them was very palatable to us or OJ."

Simpson's conviction came 13 years after he was cleared of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown in a jealous rage.

The former US football and movie star was found guilty of leading gun-toting thugs in the raid last year against two sports memorabilia collectors at a Las Vegas hotel.

Scotto added: "I'm still shocked OJ is going away for so long, especially because he and his legal team were so confident throughout the trial."

Meanwhile, the father of murdered Ron Goldman, killed alongside Nicole, has vowed to recover some of the memorabilia Simpson tried to obtain in the bungled heist."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2008/12/08/shamed-star-oj-simpson-rejected-plea-bargain-offer-86908-20954588/

[weezer]

The prosecution can charge normally or they can OVERCHARGE. oj was overcharged for sure. kidnapping was overcharging.

guess the overcharge accusation is moot at this point -- the jury voted and found orenthal guilty of all charges.

[martin II]

good grief martin:

". . .There was nothing that was palatable. Nothing acceptable," Simpson lawyer Yale Galanter said.

Co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart also rejected a deal that would have had him plead guilty to unspecified reduced charges in return for a promised sentence less than the 7 1/2 to 27 years he received, the prosecutor and defense lawyers said.

"It was a universal deal," said Stewart's lawyer, Brent Bryson. "Both defendants had to accept it. As we know, that didn't happen. . ."

http://wcco.com/national/oj.simpson.plea.2.881366.html


Again stewart rejected the plea so oj could not get it.final time posting this.

[weezer]

Again stewart rejected the plea so oj could not get it.final time posting this.

then you are purposely posting dishonestly. orenthal turned down the plea deal because HE was adamant that he wasn't going to spend time in prison! maybe Stewart is the one that got shafted because of orenthal's arrogance?

[martin II]

yeah -- I read that. when did orenthal report stuff stolen to ANY LE?

he did not have to for it to be stolen. fumong said it was stolen.

[weezer]

he did not have to for it to be stolen. fumong said it was stolen.

really? was that when the gun was in his face or when the thugs were shoving him around?

you have to admit, it would have been alot more credible if orenthal would have reported stuff stolen to LE. Oh, that's right. He couldn't. He stole it first from the civil judgment. Oh what a web we weave. . . .

[martin II]

then you are purposely posting dishonestly. orenthal turned down the plea deal because HE was adamant that he wasn't going to spend time in prison! maybe Stewart is the one that got shafted because of orenthal's arrogance?

I don't think that is correct. imo

[martin II]

really? was that when the gun was in his face or when the thugs were shoving him around?

you have to admit, it would have been alot more credible if orenthal would have reported stuff stolen to LE. Oh, that's right. He couldn't. He stole it first from the civil judgment. Oh what a web we weave. . . .

opinions opinions and more opinions.haha

[weezer]

I don't think that is correct. imo

often times when I post with you I think of orenthal: who do you believe? me or your lying eyes? :tongue:

[William Anthony]

the whole post. . .

The entire post is true.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- yeah, that's the ticket. give it up william, the sentences were in line with what the law required. in fact, she did give him a break -- the sentence could have been much worse.

The sentence could have been easier or harsher. The point was judge J. Glass demeanor, actions and statements in an attempt to show bias on appeal.

[William Anthony]

really? when did the rules change?

They have not. I thought you watched the trial. It is common knowledge. The link to the testimonies has been supplied. Where is the link stating Galanter did not know and was told Nevada law?

[William Anthony]

what would have qualified him for immunity? LOL the man arranged for an armed robbery and kidnapping for pete's sake. who was he going to testify against? Himself! LOL

No he could have made up a bunch of things, as I feel Riccio did and testified against all the rest.

[weezer]

They have not. I thought you watched the trial. It is common knowledge. The link to the testimonies has been supplied. Where is the link stating Galanter did not know and was told Nevada law?

why would you need a link to galanter's ignorance of Nevada law? it's fairly obvious that he did not know the law or he wouldn't have argued it --

[weezer]

No he could have made up a bunch of things, as I feel Riccio did and testified against all the rest.

YOU may feel riccio made up stuff but the fact is that everything he said was substantiated and in other cases, taped.

[weezer]

The entire post is true.

no william, the post is not true. riccio did not know orenthal's friends and fellow thugs.

[William Anthony]

why would you need a link to galanter's ignorance of Nevada law? it's fairly obvious that he did not know the law or he wouldn't have argued it --

I just asked for a link for you to back up your claim, as I am unaware of it. It may have been clever on Galantar's part as he set it up as a basis for an appeal.

[William Anthony]

YOU may feel riccio made up stuff but the fact is that everything he said was substantiated and in other cases, taped.

Really, then you must believe that Riccio opened the hotel room door with a key.

[weezer]

I just asked for a link for you to back up your claim, as I am unaware of it. It may have been clever on Galantar's part as he set it up as a basis for an appeal.

clever? LOL -- the man tried to argue something that Nevada law states quite clearly, is not a defense.

[William Anthony]

no william, the post is not true. riccio did not know orenthal's friends and fellow thugs.

Oh, I see you have made a determination that Fromong and Beardsley were not thieves or, in the possession of stolen property, if you will. In that case, you cannot believe that anyone is entitled to the property other than the two of them.

[William Anthony]

clever? LOL -- the man tried to argue something that Nevada law states quite clearly, is not a defense.

Yes, he may have been clever enough to realize that the table was stacked against him and made his argument so that it would be an appellate issue to be considered, if presented in a fashion acceptable to the appellate court, as I have tried to explain in unprofessional layman terms.

[weezer]

Yes, he may have been clever enough to realize that the table was stacked against him and made his argument so that it would be an appellate issue to be considered, if presented in a fashion acceptable to the appellate court, as I have tried to explain in unprofessional layman terms.

LOL - so now you have galanter arguing an appeal based on what? 'that law doesn't work for us so you guys need to change it.' Yep, I'm waiting for that argument -- I'm sure the appeals courts will be all over that. :punch:

[William Anthony]

LOL - so now you have galanter arguing an appeal based on what? 'that law doesn't work for us so you guys need to change it.' Yep, I'm waiting for that argument -- I'm sure the appeals courts will be all over that. :punch:

Here is the link to the Nevada statute on burglary and this is what it says.

"NRS 205.065 Inference of burglarious intent. Every person who unlawfully breaks and enters or unlawfully enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car may reasonably be inferred to have broken and entered or entered it with intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or a felony therein, unless the unlawful breaking and entering or unlawful entry is explained by evidence satisfactory to the jury to have been made without criminal intent.

[1911 C&P § 370; RL § 6635; NCL § 10320]—(NRS A 1959, 19; 1983, 718; 1989, 1207)"

I think given this law the element of criminal intent could successfully be argued that is should be applied to robbery, which is similar to grand or petit larceny. I think this is where Galantar may have been clever. Remember a key component of Due Process is fairness.

[weezer]

Here is the link to the Nevada statute on burglary and this is what it says.

"NRS 205.065 Inference of burglarious intent. Every person who unlawfully breaks and enters or unlawfully enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car may reasonably be inferred to have broken and entered or entered it with intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or a felony therein, unless the unlawful breaking and entering or unlawful entry is explained by evidence satisfactory to the jury to have been made without criminal intent.

[1911 C&P § 370; RL § 6635; NCL § 10320]—(NRS A 1959, 19; 1983, 718; 1989, 1207)"

I think given this law the element of criminal intent could successfully be argued that is should be applied to robbery, which is similar to grand or petit larceny. I think this is where Galantar may have been clever.

and I think that the planning, execution and guns prove criminal intent.

[William Anthony]

and I think that the planning, execution and guns prove criminal intent.

Perhaps, not, if the defense was allowed the claim of right defense. It seems that Prosecutor might have been aware of Galantar's strategy as he constantly engaged in speaking objections to that line of questions, saying it was not an element of the crime of robbery. An astute observation on your part as the objection should have only been, objection-relevance and not the speaking part but judge J. Glass did not admonish the prosecutor, IIRC.

[weezer]

Perhaps, not, if the defense was allowed the claim of right defense. It seems that Prosecutor might have been aware of Galantar's strategy as he constantly engaged in speaking objections to that line of questions, saying it was not an element of the crime of robbery.

I think the relevant part: 'it was not an element of the crime of robbery'

[William Anthony]

Here is an excerpt from a link I found but I chose not to supply the link, because it contains some unacceptable language but I followed your request and hope you follow mine in regard to the statement about Galantar.

“The bombshell in the testimony came when he actually admitted to the State that no, he couldn’t really say for sure that the recordings weren’t tampered with. This gave the defense all they needed to hear to object to the admissibility of the tapes.”

[William Anthony]

I think the relevant part: 'it was not an element of the crime of robbery'

The argument is whether of not it not being an element of the crime of robbery is a violation of Due Process, based on the burglary statute.

[weezer]

Here is an excerpt from a link I found but I chose not to supply the link, because it contains some unacceptable language but I followed your request and hope you follow mine in regard to the statement about Galantar.

“The bombshell in the testimony came when he actually admitted to the State that no, he couldn’t really say for sure that the recordings weren’t tampered with. This gave the defense all they needed to hear to object to the admissibility of the tapes.”

Stewart's attorney objected -- not galanter.

[weezer]

The argument is whether of not it not being an element of the crime of robbery is a violation of Due Process, based on the burglary statute.

oh geez -- william.

[William Anthony]

Stewart's attorney objected -- not galanter.

Stewart's lawyer objected more vehemently and Galantar objected more forcefully to the transcripts, which does not matter as they were evidence in the same trial.

[William Anthony]

oh geez -- william.

That's right. What is done to the least of us is done to us all.

[weezer]

Stewart's lawyer objected more vehemently and Galantar objected more forcefully to the transcripts, which does not matter as they were evidence in the same trial.

so the transcripts were used as an aide and not taken into the jury room. galanter was happy to have the tapes come in -- oops. . .

[William Anthony]

so the transcripts were used as an aide and not taken into the jury room. galanter was happy to have the tapes come in -- oops. . .

Until the question of their authentication arose. I think he was concerned about the fairness of the process or Due process---oops...

[weezer]

Until the question of their authentication arose. I think he was concerned about the fairness of the process or Due process---oops...

actually, he thought the tapes would help the defense -- they didn't.

[William Anthony]

actually, he thought the tapes would help the defense -- they didn't.

He may have thought they were properly authenticated---they weren't, imho.

[weezer]

He may have thought they were properly authenticated---they weren't, imho.

nope -- nobody had to authenticate his client's voice on the tapes.

[William Anthony]

nope -- nobody had to authenticate his client's voice on the tapes.

No, only that what was said was all that was said, which they did not do. For instance, no one leaves the room (deleted portion, unless they request to). The point is there is no way of telling. I don't think that statement will hold up on appeal as to constitute kidnapping.

[weezer]

No, only that what was said was all that was said, which they did not do. For instance, no one leaves the room (deleted portion, unless they request to). The point is there is no way of telling.

I'm going to let you play pretend all by yourself. I knew any rational discussion on the case wasn't going to last long. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

I'm going to let you play pretend all by yourself. I knew any rational discussion on the case wasn't going to last long. :seeya:

No, pretense. It is a legal principle. I simply chose the weak statement that pertained to the kidnapping charge to show that, unless the tapes are authenticated, there is no way of telling what was actually said and, as such the jury's reliance on evidence that was questionably admitted may not be sufficient to sustain a conviction. No need to get upset. I was just lightening the mood and have a firm belief that to do so is acceptable.

[William Anthony]

I have not tried to write a detailed appeal on the issue of the preclusion of the claim of right defense to the crime of robbery under the Nevada law, because I believe a paralegal should be paid for his work. However, let me see if I can more clearly explain my position.

I feel that we all can agree that breaking and entering is an element of the crime of burglary. When Simpson and others broke into the hotel room, forced themeselves in, that element was established. From there the law allows an inference that they were there to commit certain other crimes, unless there was a defense negating criminal intent if believed.

The defense was not allowed and the jury was instructed that the ownership of the property was not an element of the crime. However, in this instance, you cannot separate the crime of burglary from what ensued. Even if you have no burgliarious intent, the prosecution argued that you can have a robbery, which does not comport with my understanding of the statute.

I have looked for a definition of what constitutes an "unlawful taking", which is the first element of the codified statutory element of the crime of robbery. The statute can be interpreted to read that those things enumerated therein constitute an unlawful taking. However, the statute begins with the crime of robbery is an unlawful taking...by. Therefore, the argument is that the unlawful taking must relate to something defined in the law as an unlawful taking. The argument logically follows that criminal intent in the commission of these perfected crimes started with and followed the burglary and the defense should have been allowed to show that there was no criminal intent to commit a burglary or any other ensuing crime.

I will have to look at the charges to see which were charged and subsequently dismissed. If judge J. Glass did dismiss the burglary charge, then she may have been attempting to prevent such an argument on appeal. However, I would argue that the circumstances did not change and the denial of the claim of right defense to robbery violates Due Process.

[William Anthony]

I found that judge J. Glass dismissed two felony coercion charges and that Simpson was convicted on the burglary charge. I now understand why Galantar argued the claim of right defense and that the prosecutors objections should not have been sustained. Here is what I found on coercion,

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/202.876.html

“Coercion pursuant to NRS 207.190, if the coercion involves the use or threatened use of force or violence against the victim or the use or threatened use of a firearm or a deadly weapon.”

Therefore, the argument could be made that the dismissal of these counts shows that there was insufficient evidence to prove an element of the crime of robbery, if the statute is read to define what is an unlawful taking. I would think that the coercion charges relates to the two alleged victims. Thus, the argument would remain that "unlawful taking" has not clearly been defined, or at least I am unable to find it, as it relates to the circumstances of the crime of armed robbery.

[William Anthony]

It took some doing but I found this case and I do not have the means to Sheppardize it as good law but it explains the intent factor very well of my argument. The key words are the intent to deprive a person of his property. Therefore, I would argue that the ownership of the property was essential to the case and Simpson's statements that he would return anything that he did not belong to him negated the criminal intent and the preclusion of the claim of right defense violated due process.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fCy1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA872&lpg=PA872&dq=nevada+case+law+on+criminal+intent+as+an+elemen t+of+burglary&source=web&ots=dKlmFZL-wn&sig=N61LbQwwNuL3ud90Rw2UaQfkFY4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

[martin II]

Riccio testified as did others that the hotel room was rented by riccio so it was his room. Riccio had the key to the room and it was Riccio that opened the door to his room and invited all to enter. so i am not sure that there was any break in or forced entry. Most testified that oj was the last one to enter the room. Howeve different people gave testimony on the order that the others entered the room. It was testified that Stewart having been told that the sellers may have a gun walked to Fumong and told him to stand and stewart made some patdown of fumong.

Oj yelled at the victims 'YOU STOLE MY STUFF' fumong said 'NO OJ I DID NOT STEAL YOUR STUFF MIKE DID"

It seems that fumong knew the stuff was stolen by mike. Later, realizing it was clear he had stolen goods Fumong started claining "i paid for this stuff"
but he was never able to show paid receipts or cancelled checks to prove he ever paid anyone for the goods.

The prosecution ignored the fact that fumong was trying to sell stolen goods and he was never charged with that crime or with the crime of having the gun in his truck.

If i understand the Nevada law breaking in or forced entry is required for the charge of burglary.

[martin II]

really? was that when the gun was in his face or when the thugs were shoving him around?

you have to admit, it would have been alot more credible if orenthal would have reported stuff stolen to LE. Oh, that's right. He couldn't. He stole it first from the civil judgment. Oh what a web we weave. . . .

Not everything in ojs house was on the list given to the sheriff by the civil court judge to be taken.Some low end personal items he was allowed to keep.
imo

[martin II]

then you are purposely posting dishonestly. orenthal turned down the plea deal because HE was adamant that he wasn't going to spend time in prison! maybe Stewart is the one that got shafted because of orenthal's arrogance?

Please don't accuse me of things that are not true.

[RayStar]

I am particularly concerned that Judge J. Glass found it necessary to mention the fact that Simpson referred to the Goldmans as gold diggers on the tapes. It was as if judge J. Glass was saying that the Goldmans were off limits to joke about, imho. I don't understand how his joking played or should have played any part in the trial or sentencing. I think that adds to the feeling that the trial was about payback and that judge J. Glass was not impartial.I so agree with your post WA. Judge Glass should be removed from the bench. IMO
I don't understand how the judge could just give the evidence to the G's when it was owned legally by Fumong.
Thanks Martin II I just read your post. I was concerned that if the stuff was owned by Fumong what authority did the judge have to give it to the G's.
Guess he has no legal right to the evidence either.

[martin II]

William
This is someting i found in a CA case as it relates to Asportation and Kidnapping. Not sure if it applies to Nevada.

At trial, the People argued the jury could base its kidnapping verdict on any or all of three distinct segments of asportation of the victim. (Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pp. 62-63.) The Supreme Court found the trial court misinstructed the jury on the law as to the first segment. (Id. at pp. 64-65.)
first segment. (Id. at pp. 64-65.) The second segment, a 20-mile asportation, was sufficient to support the kidnapping verdict. (Id. at pp. 62-63, 67.) However, as to the third and final segment, a walk of 90 feet to the murder site, the Supreme Court found it insufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict. (Id. at pp. 63, 65, 67-68.) Since the jury could have based its kidnapping conviction on this legally insufficient evidence of asportation, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction. (Id. at pp. 68-69, 73-74.)

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/C036988.DOC

[martin II]

I so agree with your post WA. Judge Glass should be removed from the bench. IMO
I don't understand how the judge could just give the evidence to the G's when it was owned legally by Fumong.
Thanks Martin II I just read your post. I was concerned that if the stuff was owned by Fumong what authority did the judge have to give it to the G's.
Guess he has no legal right to the evidence either.

Raystar

Hi

It is confusing.
Since the da did not charge fumong with selling holding stolen goods it is logical to believe they decided that fumong held the goods leagally. Yet the judge overuled this issue and sent Fumongs/all the goods to a CA judge in a effort to have Fred get the property. So now the Ca judge will have to hear testimony from all involved Beadsley, fumong, Oj ,mike and maby others to determing the legal owner. But think based on The CA judges previous rulings i think he will just save himself the time and money of a lenghtly hearing and just tell fred to take the stuff and go.This would be wrong.

martin II

[martin II]

It took some doing but I found this case and I do not have the means to Sheppardize it as good law but it explains the intent factor very well of my argument. The key words are the intent to deprive a person of his property. Therefore, I would argue that the ownership of the property was essential to the case and Simpson's statements that he would return anything that he did not belong to him negated the criminal intent and the preclusion of the claim of right defense violated due process.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fCy1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA872&lpg=PA872&dq=nevada+case+law+on+criminal+intent+as+an+elemen t+of+burglary&source=web&ots=dKlmFZL-wn&sig=N61LbQwwNuL3ud90Rw2UaQfkFY4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result


It would seem that the Due Process requirement should overule and conflicting state laws.That is my opinion and there should be previous U.S. Supreme court decisions to prove this.

[martin II]

I have not tried to write a detailed appeal on the issue of the preclusion of the claim of right defense to the crime of robbery under the Nevada law, because I believe a paralegal should be paid for his work. However, let me see if I can more clearly explain my position.

I feel that we all can agree that breaking and entering is an element of the crime of burglary. When Simpson and others broke into the hotel room, forced themeselves in, that element was established. From there the law allows an inference that they were there to commit certain other crimes, unless there was a defense negating criminal intent if believed.

The defense was not allowed and the jury was instructed that the ownership of the property was not an element of the crime. However, in this instance, you cannot separate the crime of burglary from what ensued. Even if you have no burgliarious intent, the prosecution argued that you can have a robbery, which does not comport with my understanding of the statute.

I have looked for a definition of what constitutes an "unlawful taking", which is the first element of the codified statutory element of the crime of robbery. The statute can be interpreted to read that those things enumerated therein constitute an unlawful taking. However, the statute begins with the crime of robbery is an unlawful taking...by. Therefore, the argument is that the unlawful taking must relate to something defined in the law as an unlawful taking. The argument logically follows that criminal intent in the commission of these perfected crimes started with and followed the burglary and the defense should have been allowed to show that there was no criminal intent to commit a burglary or any other ensuing crime.

I will have to look at the charges to see which were charged and subsequently dismissed. If judge J. Glass did dismiss the burglary charge, then she may have been attempting to prevent such an argument on appeal. However, I would argue that the circumstances did not change and the denial of the claim of right defense to robbery violates Due Process.

William

If Riccio used the key to HIS ROOM to let he group in, was there actually breaking and entering???

[martin II]

Another issue for me is:

The jury listened to court testimony of the prosecutions witnesses. Yet they claimed they did not use it in deliberations.So the issue is how did they erase all of this testimony from their minds after the BELLS HAD BEEN RUNG and use only the tapes in their deliberations?:shrug:

[martin II]

Clarifying Nevada's Kidnapping Law

6/9/08

The Kidnapping law, although seems to `capture' many ways of defining the possibilities, leaves out the

defining clarity of `force' or `against a person's will'.

According to Wikipedia the definition of kidnapping is:

In criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away or asportati on of a person against the person's will, usually to

hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority. This is often done for ransom or

in furtherance of another crime. A majority of jurisdictions in the United States retain the "asportation"

element for kidnapping, where the victim must be confined in a bounded area against their will and

moved. Any amount of movement will suffice for the requirement, even if it is moving the abductee to a

house next door. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, however, the asportation element has been

abolished. Note that under early English common law, the asportation element required that the victim be

moved outside the realm of England or overseas in order for an abduction to be considered "kidnapping."

According to the dictionary the definition of kidnapping is:

• To steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, esp. for use as a hostage or to extract ransom.

• An act or instance or the crime of seizing, confining, inveigling, abducting, or carrying away a person by

force or fraud often with a demand for ransom or in furtherance of another crime.

• To take (any one) by force or fear, and against one's will, with intent to carry to another place.

Nevada's Causalities of Kidnapping

Two inmates are currently serving sentences of 5-20 years in Nevada Prisons because one of the two inmates

`invited' a grown man to a party. The man drove himself, by himself, of his own free will to the party. The

man was murdered by one of the inmates, however the murder was not planned. A `kidnapping' did NOT occur

as there was no `force' used to lead the victim to the location, nor prevent him from leaving in his own vehicle

at any time until he was killed.

In 2007, when the kidnapping law was challenged on the television news, the District Attorney on the OJ

Simpson case stated: "he told someone to MOVE, and in this state, that's kidnapping."

How many people are currently in prison and charged with kidnapping by over-zealous District Attorneys, who

were coerced into accepting pleas by overworked Public Defenders and Court Appointed Attorneys?

Attached are experts from 10/23/07 Las Vegas Review Journal article:

ANALYSIS: Despite witnesses, prosecutors might face tough task in Simpson kidnapping case

Teresa Werner

P.O. Box 21067

Sun Valley, NV 89433

terwer42ravahoo.com

775-338-1342

Adviso y Commissio on Admin. of Justice



Experts from Las Vegas Review Journal article:

ANALYSIS: Despite witnesses, prosecutors might face tough

task in Simpson kidnapping case

By ALAN MAIMON

REVIEW-JOURNAL

Oct. 23, 2007

FIRST-DEGREE KIDNAPPING CASES IN CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT COURT DURING 2006

57 Total cases

41 Kidnapping charges dismissed

3 Guilty pleas on first-degree kidnapping charges

1 Guilty verdict on first-degree kidnapping charges

2 Not guilty verdicts on first-degree kidnapping charges

1 Dismissal of first-degree kidnapping charges and not guilty verdict on other first-degree kidnapping charges

4 Kidnapping charges still pending

Source: Review-Journal analysis of Clark County District Court data

WHAT THE LAW SAYS

NRS 200.310

1.A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoy's, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by

any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for

the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the

person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or

valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away

or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine him from his parents, guardians, or any other person

having lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of

the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.

Despite expected guilty pleas today from two men planning to testify against him, O.J. Simpson

has little chance of being put away for life on kidnapping charges. A Review-Journal analysis of

Clark County cases from 2006 shows only two of 57 defendants similarly charged with

robbery, extortion, or carjacking and first-degree kidnapping have gotten life

sentences. In fact, kidnapping charges were dismissed more than two-thirds of the

time, and more than half of the defendants in those cases eventually got probation or

no punishment at all.

Lost in the frenzy of Simpson's arrest are questions about the legitimacy of charging the

defendants with first-degree kidnapping, a crime that carries a possible sentence of life in prison,

with possibility of parole.

According to police, Simpson and his co-defendants, two of them with handguns, barged into a

room at Palace Station and swiped sports memorabilia, some of which Simpson has claimed are

rightfully his.

On an apparent audiotape of the incident, Simpson is heard saying, "Don't let nobody out of this

room."

N

To justify the first-degree kidnapping charge, District Attorney David Roger, who is prosecuting

the case, used language in state law about holding or detaining victims against their will even for

a brief period. He opted against charging Simpson and the others with lower-level crimes such

as second-degree kidnapping or false imprisonment.

Gabriel Grasso, Simpson's local attorney, said he plans to file a motion to have the kidnapping

charges dismissed. "We're going to put the kidnapping charges to a serious test," Grasso said.

Stephanos Bibas, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who has written

about the plea bargaining process, said Roger is using a common strategy to gain leverage

in possible negotiations. "A prosecutor throws in everything the law entitles him to,

and then gives everyone a discount.... If you throw enough mud, some of it will

stick," he said.

Local defense attorney Richard Wright, who is not involved in the case, said Simpson appears to

be the subject of overzealous prosecution. "They simply loaded it up," Wright said. "This

is not what the layman views as kidnapping."'

Roger makes no apologies, however, for how he charges cases. "We allege all charges we think

we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt," he said in an interview earlier this year about his

office's general policy for charging cases. "I know some people suggest there's vindictive

prosecution, but if we're operating within the perimeters of the law, I don't think our

prosecutors are being vindictive."

The newspaper's analysis of recent cases shows Roger's office routinely pursues kidnapping

charges in robbery cases, but rarely gains convictions on them.

In the 53 cases from last year that have been resolved, only one saw a defendant convicted

of kidnapping at trial. Defendants pleaded guilty to the charge just three times. In 28

cases, the accused got probation or less.

[martin II]

Kidnapping charge was overcharging.

[martin II]

kidnapping charges in nevada.
------------

In the 53 cases from last year that have been resolved, only one saw a defendant convicted

of kidnapping at trial. Defendants pleaded guilty to the charge just three times. In 28

cases, the accused got probation or less.
---------------------------------------------

Sure is strange oj and stewart were convicted of kidnapping.

[martin II]

More on Nevada kidnapping law.


I had been taught that a necessary element of Kidnapping was the asportation of a person from a place of safety against their will to a place of less safety.
Of course that's the law school definition and any one whose been to law school knows better than to try to read specifics of what you learn over onto real life. At any rate Nevada's statute includes as one of the possible element that you might just detain the person against their will.


Nevada law on this sort of charge says that to " sustain convictions for both robbery and kidnapping arising from the same course of conduct, any movement or restraint must stand alone with independent significance from the act of robbery itself, create a risk of danger to the victim substantially exceeding that necessarily present in the crime of robbery, or involve movement, seizure, or restraint substantially in excess of that necessary to its completion"

But:
"Movement of victim, from one location to another, is required to sustain kidnapping conviction when kidnapping is charged as incidental to another offense, such as robbery, in which restraint of victim is inherent within primary offense, and victim is not physically restrained. "

and:
"Instructions setting forth statutory definition of first-degree kidnapping as a “stand-alone” offense and setting forth parameters for dual convictions for robbery and first-degree kidnapping arising from a single incident were supported by evidence; defendant clearly restrained victim whose house he broke into, and second victim who arrived at victim's house while crimes were being committed was seized, physically restrained, assaulted, and then robbed by defendant."

and:

"Defendant's acts of binding victim's hands and feet was sufficient to establish first-degree kidnapping charge, where such acts increased risk of harm to victim and had independent significance with regard to defendant's ability to commit sexual assault."

(all from current Nevada law)

So under Nevada law the Kidnapping charge works.
Until one looks into it a tad further.

The Nevada Supreme Court considered a case in 1973 (Jensen v. Sheriff, White Pine County, 89 Nev. 123, 508 P.2d 4 (1973))
and held "that evidence submitted at preliminary examination established probable cause to hold defendant, who stopped his automobile along side road, forcibly put ten-year-old girl into automobile, drove to and entered main road and traveled short distance before ordering child to exit, for trial on charge of kidnapping, rather than false imprisonment."

False Imprisonment? A different statutory crime with different elements in Nevada. OK What's the deal?
.
Well: that same Court said that "False imprisonment differs from kidnapping in that kidnapping is aggravated by removal of the imprisoned person to some other place."

Did Simpson take any one from the hotel Room. I really don't know. Haven't a clue.

[weezer]

More on Nevada kidnapping law.


I had been taught that a necessary element of Kidnapping was the asportation of a person from a place of safety against their will to a place of less safety.
Of course that's the law school definition and any one whose been to law school knows better than to try to read specifics of what you learn over onto real life. At any rate Nevada's statute includes as one of the possible element that you might just detain the person against their will.


Nevada law on this sort of charge says that to " sustain convictions for both robbery and kidnapping arising from the same course of conduct, any movement or restraint must stand alone with independent significance from the act of robbery itself, create a risk of danger to the victim substantially exceeding that necessarily present in the crime of robbery, or involve movement, seizure, or restraint substantially in excess of that necessary to its completion"

But:
"Movement of victim, from one location to another, is required to sustain kidnapping conviction when kidnapping is charged as incidental to another offense, such as robbery, in which restraint of victim is inherent within primary offense, and victim is not physically restrained. "

and:
"Instructions setting forth statutory definition of first-degree kidnapping as a “stand-alone” offense and setting forth parameters for dual convictions for robbery and first-degree kidnapping arising from a single incident were supported by evidence; defendant clearly restrained victim whose house he broke into, and second victim who arrived at victim's house while crimes were being committed was seized, physically restrained, assaulted, and then robbed by defendant."

and:

"Defendant's acts of binding victim's hands and feet was sufficient to establish first-degree kidnapping charge, where such acts increased risk of harm to victim and had independent significance with regard to defendant's ability to commit sexual assault."

(all from current Nevada law)

So under Nevada law the Kidnapping charge works.
Until one looks into it a tad further.

The Nevada Supreme Court considered a case in 1973 (Jensen v. Sheriff, White Pine County, 89 Nev. 123, 508 P.2d 4 (1973))
and held "that evidence submitted at preliminary examination established probable cause to hold defendant, who stopped his automobile along side road, forcibly put ten-year-old girl into automobile, drove to and entered main road and traveled short distance before ordering child to exit, for trial on charge of kidnapping, rather than false imprisonment."

False Imprisonment? A different statutory crime with different elements in Nevada. OK What's the deal?
.
Well: that same Court said that "False imprisonment differs from kidnapping in that kidnapping is aggravated by removal of the imprisoned person to some other place."

Did Simpson take any one from the hotel Room. I really don't know. Haven't a clue.

link to above article please.

[William Anthony]

I so agree with your post WA. Judge Glass should be removed from the bench. IMO
I don't understand how the judge could just give the evidence to the G's when it was owned legally by Fumong.
Thanks Martin II I just read your post. I was concerned that if the stuff was owned by Fumong what authority did the judge have to give it to the G's.
Guess he has no legal right to the evidence either.

I think that the legal ownership of the property will be ironed out by the California court. It is my understanding that judge J. Glass sent the property to California pursuant to a court order from California. I will refrain from the implications of the California decision on ownership, since it is not a part of the Nevada case, as of yet. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

William
This is someting i found in a CA case as it relates to Asportation and Kidnapping. Not sure if it applies to Nevada.

At trial, the People argued the jury could base its kidnapping verdict on any or all of three distinct segments of asportation of the victim. (Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pp. 62-63.) The Supreme Court found the trial court misinstructed the jury on the law as to the first segment. (Id. at pp. 64-65.)
first segment. (Id. at pp. 64-65.) The second segment, a 20-mile asportation, was sufficient to support the kidnapping verdict. (Id. at pp. 62-63, 67.) However, as to the third and final segment, a walk of 90 feet to the murder site, the Supreme Court found it insufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict. (Id. at pp. 63, 65, 67-68.) Since the jury could have based its kidnapping conviction on this legally insufficient evidence of asportation, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction. (Id. at pp. 68-69, 73-74.)

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/C036988.DOC

I will have to go back and take a look to see if I can find the Nevada case I previously posted, where the victims of a robbery were moved to another room and tied up but the court said that it was not kidnapping. Given that ruling, it is highly possible that the kidnapping conviction will be overturned, imho.

[William Anthony]

Riccio testified as did others that the hotel room was rented by riccio so it was his room. Riccio had the key to the room and it was Riccio that opened the door to his room and invited all to enter. so i am not sure that there was any break in or forced entry. Most testified that oj was the last one to enter the room. Howeve different people gave testimony on the order that the others entered the room. It was testified that Stewart having been told that the sellers may have a gun walked to Fumong and told him to stand and stewart made some patdown of fumong.

Oj yelled at the victims 'YOU STOLE MY STUFF' fumong said 'NO OJ I DID NOT STEAL YOUR STUFF MIKE DID"

It seems that fumong knew the stuff was stolen by mike. Later, realizing it was clear he had stolen goods Fumong started claining "i paid for this stuff"
but he was never able to show paid receipts or cancelled checks to prove he ever paid anyone for the goods.

The prosecution ignored the fact that fumong was trying to sell stolen goods and he was never charged with that crime or with the crime of having the gun in his truck.

If i understand the Nevada law breaking in or forced entry is required for the charge of burglary.

Here is the Nevada statute on burglary and no breaking and entering is not required, to my understanding, but intent to commit another crime is, which is where the statute I previously posted comes into play and the possible violation of Due Process. If the entry was not for the purpose of committing another crime, then there was no burglary and the defense should have been allowed to show this due to the armed robbery charge.

NRS 205.060 Burglary: Definition; penalties; venue.

1. A person who, by day or night, enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses, is guilty of burglary.

2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person convicted of burglary is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. A person who is convicted of burglary and who has previously been convicted of burglary or another crime involving the forcible entry or invasion of a dwelling must not be released on probation or granted a suspension of his sentence.

3. Whenever a burglary is committed on a vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, in motion or in rest, in this State, and it cannot with reasonable certainty be ascertained in what county the crime was committed, the offender may be arrested and tried in any county through which the vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car traveled during the time the burglary was committed.

4. A person convicted of burglary who has in his possession or gains possession of any firearm or deadly weapon at any time during the commission of the crime, at any time before leaving the structure or upon leaving the structure, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.

[1911 C&P § 369; A 1953, 31]—(NRS A 1967, 494; 1968, 45; 1971, 1161; 1979, 1440; 1981, 551; 1983, 717; 1989, 1207; 1995, 1215; 2005, 416)

[martin II]

More on Nevada kidnapping law.


I had been taught that a necessary element of Kidnapping was the asportation of a person from a place of safety against their will to a place of less safety.
Of course that's the law school definition and any one whose been to law school knows better than to try to read specifics of what you learn over onto real life. At any rate Nevada's statute includes as one of the possible element that you might just detain the person against their will.


Nevada law on this sort of charge says that to " sustain convictions for both robbery and kidnapping arising from the same course of conduct, any movement or restraint must stand alone with independent significance from the act of robbery itself, create a risk of danger to the victim substantially exceeding that necessarily present in the crime of robbery, or involve movement, seizure, or restraint substantially in excess of that necessary to its completion"

But:
"Movement of victim, from one location to another, is required to sustain kidnapping conviction when kidnapping is charged as incidental to another offense, such as robbery, in which restraint of victim is inherent within primary offense, and victim is not physically restrained. "

and:
"Instructions setting forth statutory definition of first-degree kidnapping as a “stand-alone” offense and setting forth parameters for dual convictions for robbery and first-degree kidnapping arising from a single incident were supported by evidence; defendant clearly restrained victim whose house he broke into, and second victim who arrived at victim's house while crimes were being committed was seized, physically restrained, assaulted, and then robbed by defendant."

and:

"Defendant's acts of binding victim's hands and feet was sufficient to establish first-degree kidnapping charge, where such acts increased risk of harm to victim and had independent significance with regard to defendant's ability to commit sexual assault."

(all from current Nevada law)

So under Nevada law the Kidnapping charge works.
Until one looks into it a tad further.

The Nevada Supreme Court considered a case in 1973 (Jensen v. Sheriff, White Pine County, 89 Nev. 123, 508 P.2d 4 (1973))
and held "that evidence submitted at preliminary examination established probable cause to hold defendant, who stopped his automobile along side road, forcibly put ten-year-old girl into automobile, drove to and entered main road and traveled short distance before ordering child to exit, for trial on charge of kidnapping, rather than false imprisonment."

False Imprisonment? A different statutory crime with different elements in Nevada. OK What's the deal?
.
Well: that same Court said that "False imprisonment differs from kidnapping in that kidnapping is aggravated by removal of the imprisoned person to some other place."

Did Simpson take any one from the hotel Room. I really don't know. Haven't a clue.

[William Anthony]

According to this, Fromong and Beardsley may have been guilty of burglary.

1. A person who, by day or night, enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses, is guilty of burglary.

If they had the intent to sell property that was stolen when they entered the hotel room, they may have been guilty of burglary under Nevada law.

[martin II]

All items that were put in stewarts cae was given to his lawyers office and later to le. no one else was charged with holding goods.

So why was the baseballs never recovered?
Maby some le detectives kept them.

[martin II]

According to this, Fromong and Beardsley may have been guilty of burglary.

1. A person who, by day or night, enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses, is guilty of burglary.

If they had the intent to sell property that was stolen when they entered the hotel room, they may have been guilty of burglary under Nevada law.


hmmm
this sounds right to me.

[martin II]

According to this, Fromong and Beardsley may have been guilty of burglary.

1. A person who, by day or night, enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses, is guilty of burglary.

If they had the intent to sell property that was stolen when they entered the hotel room, they may have been guilty of burglary under Nevada law.

Then they were guilty of that crime but since oj was the only target of the DA it did not matter how many crimes the others commited.imo

[martin II]

link to above article please.

nypost gives the name and links to the Navada cases

[martin II]

link to above article please.


Why are you asking for links when my post include names of the cases which you can look for. gees

[socaldiva]

[QUOTE=martin II;9150665*snip*
So why was the baseballs never recovered?
Maby some le detectives kept them.[/QUOTE]

LE is always corrupt in your world, isn't it?

[William Anthony]

Then they were guilty of that crime but since oj was the only target of the DA it did not matter how many crimes the others commited.imo

Aside from that fact, it seems those particular Nevada statutes are poorly written, imho, meaning that they are overly broad.

[William Anthony]

All items that were put in stewarts cae was given to his lawyers office and later to le. no one else was charged with holding goods.

So why was the baseballs never recovered?
Maby some le detectives kept them.

Either that or the alleged missing baseballs never existed, if Fromong failed to produce a receipt for them.

[weezer]

Why are you asking for links when my post include names of the cases which you can look for. gees

martin, the rules are that when you quote as fact, you supply a link. I would like to read the exact article(s) you quoted.

[weezer]

LE is always corrupt in your world, isn't it?

in martin's world, orenthal is never wrong and always mistreated. :no:

[weezer]

aside from that fact, it seems those particular nevada statutes are poorly written, imho, meaning that they are overly broad.

lol --

[RayStar]

in martin's world, orenthal is never wrong and always mistreated. :no:
Anything wrong with that fb? OJ is guilty of not using one of his senses! Judge Glass fits in fine with the removal of the first to letters of her maiden name! IMO

[weezer]

Anything wrong with that fb? OJ is guilty of not using one of his senses! Judge Glass fits in fine with the removal of the first to letters of her maiden name! IMO

yeah -- this post made sense -- NOT

[martin II]

I will have to go back and take a look to see if I can find the Nevada case I previously posted, where the victims of a robbery were moved to another room and tied up but the court said that it was not kidnapping. Given that ruling, it is highly possible that the kidnapping conviction will be overturned, imho.

I saw the case you speak of.

[martin II]

martin, the rules are that when you quote as fact, you supply a link. I would like to read the exact article(s) you quoted.

weezer

if you want to discuss the rules then you should post links that are requested of you.william is due links from you which you have never given.

i will look for more links that disprove your positions.


http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/f2665574-fb4f-480b-858e-56cacf6c431e

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/C036988.DOC



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=122NevAdvOpNo23&invol=2
page 12

[martin II]

in martin's world, orenthal is never wrong and always mistreated. :no:

i believe the moderator does not allow personal negative comments so try to post your objections to post without your personal attacks. how about that.imo

[weezer]

I think it would be helpful if we would argue/discuss/debate Nevada law since that's the state's laws that orenthal violated and was found guilty of.

[martin II]

oj never had any of the stuff in his personal posession as he did not take any item from the hotel. Stewart gave everything he had to his laweyer so that leaves 1-2 coppers with the missing baseballs. maby we should look in their basements or garages for those baseballs.

[martin II]

I think it would be helpful if we would argue/discuss/debate Nevada law since that's the state's laws that orenthal violated and was found guilty of.

All state law is relavent in appeals courts. appeals courts rely on other state law/cases in case you did not know that. That is why lawyers cite other state case. hahaha

[weezer]

All state law is relavent in appeals courts. appeals courts rely on other state law/cases in case you did not know that. That is why lawyers cite other state case. hahaha

I seriously doubt that the Nevada appeals court(s) give a hoot about what any other state's law is. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I think it would be helpful if we would argue/discuss/debate Nevada law since that's the state's laws that orenthal violated and was found guilty of.

Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution cannot stand, whether it be an act of Congress or a state law, which is a paraphrase of what Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, and, which may be the subject of an appeal. The link that I previously posted was a Nevada common law decision, which stated that it was not kidnapping when robbers tied the victims up and moved them to another room. There was nothing remotely similarly egregious in this case.

[weezer]

oj never had any of the stuff in his personal posession as he did not take any item from the hotel. Stewart gave everything he had to his laweyer so that leaves 1-2 coppers with the missing baseballs. maby we should look in their basements or garages for those baseballs.

or maybe one or more of the convicted felons didn't turn everything in? seems like a much more likely scenario to me.

[William Anthony]

All state law is relavent in appeals courts. appeals courts rely on other state law/cases in case you did not know that. That is why lawyers cite other state case. hahaha

When an out of state case is cited it is called, persuasive authority or source, while the state law of the crime is called primary authority or source.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secondary+Authority

[martin II]

I think it would be helpful if we would argue/discuss/debate Nevada law since that's the state's laws that orenthal violated and was found guilty of.


Weezer please

see post 335--338--339 on Nevada LAW do you need more.why are you asking for nevada cases. gees

[martin II]

When an out of state case is cited it is called, persuasive authority or source, while the state law of the crime is called primary authority or source.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secondary+Authority

Thanks for your informative post.

[William Anthony]

or maybe one or more of the convicted felons didn't turn everything in? seems like a much more likely scenario to me.

I think that I would have to go with the theories that either they never existed or LE confiscated them. I think that Fromong would have said they were missing and LE would have searched thoroughly hoping to find them in the possession of one of the defendant's. I think it is easy to say we looked but did not find or I had when you didn't. I think whoever has them might recognize that they will increase in value if sold as part of the stuff that helped convict Simpson. Maybe there were never missing, as Fromong understood how to deal in memorabilia.

[martin II]

or maybe one or more of the convicted felons didn't turn everything in? seems like a much more likely scenario to me.


low paid crooked cops high priced goods fall into their hands!!!!!

Sounds normal to me.

[William Anthony]

Thanks for your informative post.

Glad to be of service. I learn a lot from the posters here as they give plenty of things for me to consider and research and learn, which is one of the reasons I joined and am always glad to share information.

[martin II]

I seriously doubt that the Nevada appeals court(s) give a hoot about what any other state's law is. :shrug:

If what you believe is true then there is no reason for lawyers to site other state cases in their arguments.They do it all the time.
see how that works.

[weezer]

Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution cannot stand, whether it be an act of Congress or a state law, which is a paraphrase of what Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, and, which may be the subject of an appeal. The link that I previously posted was a Nevada common law decision, which stated that it was not kidnapping when robbers tied the victims up and moved them to another room. There was nothing remotely similarly egregious in this case.

By the letter of Nevada law on tht day and time that orenthal committed armed robbery and kidnapping -- as proven in a court of law.

[weezer]

Weezer please

see post 335--338--339 on Nevada LAW do you need more.why are you asking for nevada cases. gees

because that's where the appeal could/would be heard? 'gees'

[martin II]

Glad to be of service. I learn a lot from the posters here as they give plenty of things for me to consider and research and learn, which is one of the reasons I joined and am always glad to share information.

Your law experience is very helpful as it negates many OPINIONS.

[William Anthony]

because that's where the appeal could/would be heard? 'gees'

That is where controlling and persuasive authority come into play and the Supreme Court may come into play, or federal law, if you will.

[martin II]

because that's where the appeal could/would be heard? 'gees'

The post i have made helps to correct some wrong opinions even some of yours. But thanks. You may want to thank Wiilam also.

[William Anthony]

Your law experience is very helpful as it negates many OPINIONS.

I would have to disagree to some extent. Opinions are not likely to be negated by anything, unless the person has a open mind but we must stay on topic. Thanks again.

[martin II]

because that's where the appeal could/would be heard? 'gees'

NO that is what i have posted on kidnapping on nevada law that you seem not to be aware of.

[martin II]

By the letter of Nevada law on tht day and time that orenthal committed armed robbery and kidnapping -- as proven in a court of law.

The appeals court or the u.s. supreme court will have the last say ontht day oj was charged that many experts say was overcharging.

[martin II]

because that's where the appeal could/would be heard? 'gees'

Pay attention to the state supreme court and the u.s supreme court decisions.

[martin II]

By the letter of Nevada law on tht day and time that orenthal committed armed robbery and kidnapping -- as proven in a court of law.

But the conviction may not stand.Unless the fix is in all the way to the top.

[weezer]

Pinkerton v. United States, the United States Supreme Court defined coconspirator liability in terms of reasonable foreseeability and reaffirmed the concept that a conspiracy and the completion of the substantive offense are two distinct criminal acts.[24]� The Court concluded,

The criminal intent to do the act is established by the formation of the conspiracy.� Each conspirator instigated the commission of the crime.� The unlawful agreement contemplated precisely what was done.� It was formed for the purpose.� The act done was in execution of the enterprise.� The rule which holds responsible one who counsels, procures, or commands another to commit a crime is founded on the same principle.� That principle is recognized in the law of conspiracy when the overt act of one partner in crime is attributable to all. . . .� If [the overt act] can be supplied by the act of one conspirator, we fail to see why the same or other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are likewise not attributable to the others for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense.

A different case would arise if the substantive offense committed by one of the conspirators was not in fact done in furtherance of the conspiracy, did not fall within the scope of the unlawful project, or was merely a part of the ramifications of the plan which could not be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.[25]

[weezer]

Batson challenge
Bolden argues that the State dismissed minority jurors in violation of Batson v. Kentucky.[59]� In Batson, the United States Supreme Court held that �the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race.�[60]� The Court established a three-step analysis to review a prosecutor�s peremptory challenges for racial discrimination.[61]� First, the defendant must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination; second, the State must provide a race-neutral explanation for its challenge; and third, �[i]f a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide . . . whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination.�[62]� Batson�s second step �does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible.�[63]� With regard to step three, this court gives great deference to the trial court�s evaluation of whether purposeful discrimination exists.[64]

[William Anthony]

Pinkerton v. United States, the United States Supreme Court defined coconspirator liability in terms of reasonable foreseeability and reaffirmed the concept that a conspiracy and the completion of the substantive offense are two distinct criminal acts.[24]� The Court concluded,

The criminal intent to do the act is established by the formation of the conspiracy.� Each conspirator instigated the commission of the crime.� The unlawful agreement contemplated precisely what was done.� It was formed for the purpose.� The act done was in execution of the enterprise.� The rule which holds responsible one who counsels, procures, or commands another to commit a crime is founded on the same principle.� That principle is recognized in the law of conspiracy when the overt act of one partner in crime is attributable to all. . . .� If [the overt act] can be supplied by the act of one conspirator, we fail to see why the same or other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are likewise not attributable to the others for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense.

A different case would arise if the substantive offense committed by one of the conspirators was not in fact done in furtherance of the conspiracy, did not fall within the scope of the unlawful project, or was merely a part of the ramifications of the plan which could not be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.[25]

Thank you, because this takes us back to the claim of right defense being precluded and burglary. If there was no agreement to commit robbery, meaning that they were only there to reclaim property, there was no intent to commit burglary or criminal intent. If the was no criminal intent to commit burglary or robbery then there was no criminal conspiracy. I thought you might understand and thanks again.

[weezer]

NRS 200.380 Definition; penalty.

1. Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or the person or property of a member of his family, or of anyone in his company at the time of the robbery. A taking is by means of force or fear if force or fear is used to:

(a) Obtain or retain possession of the property;

(b) Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; or

(c) Facilitate escape.

Ê The degree of force used is immaterial if it is used to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property. A taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

2. A person who commits robbery is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years.

[1911 C&P § 162; RL § 6427; NCL § 10109]—(NRS A 1961, 53; 1967, 470; 1993, 253; 1995, 1187)

[weezer]

NRS 200.310 Degrees.

1. A person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the intent to keep, imprison, or confine him from his parents, guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor, or with the intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is a category A felony.

2. A person who willfully and without authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes, carries away or kidnaps another person with the intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned within the State, or for the purpose of conveying the person out of the State without authority of law, or in any manner held to service or detained against his will, is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree which is a category B felony.

[1:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.05]—(NRS A 1959, 20; 1979, 39; 1987, 495; 1995, 1184)

[weezer]

Under federal and state law, kidnapping is commonly defined as the taking of a person from one place to another against his or her will, or the confining of a person to a controlled space. Some kidnapping laws require that the taking or confining be for an unlawful purpose, such as extortion or the facilitation of a crime. A parent without legal custody rights may be charged with kidnapping for taking his or her own child, in certain circumstances.

[William Anthony]

Batson challenge
Bolden argues that the State dismissed minority jurors in violation of Batson v. Kentucky.[59]� In Batson, the United States Supreme Court held that �the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race.�[60]� The Court established a three-step analysis to review a prosecutor�s peremptory challenges for racial discrimination.[61]� First, the defendant must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination; second, the State must provide a race-neutral explanation for its challenge; and third, �[i]f a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide . . . whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination.�[62]� Batson�s second step �does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible.�[63]� With regard to step three, this court gives great deference to the trial court�s evaluation of whether purposeful discrimination exists.[64]

The Batson challenge has been extended to sex and religion, not just race, although in this case it involves both. The Third Circuit has ruled that it was unconstitutional to exclude jurors because of their religious beliefs and not unconstitutional to exclude them based on their religious affiliations, IIRC. Therefore, the standard is somewhat different in this case.

[weezer]

Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door. Unlike robbery, which involves use of force or fear to obtain another person's property, there is usually no victim present during a burglary.

[William Anthony]

Under federal and state law, kidnapping is commonly defined as the taking of a person from one place to another against his or her will, or the confining of a person to a controlled space. Some kidnapping laws require that the taking or confining be for an unlawful purpose, such as extortion or the facilitation of a crime. A parent without legal custody rights may be charged with kidnapping for taking his or her own child, in certain circumstances.

The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled on what constitutes kidnapping and this does not square with the circumstances of this case. There is precedent that this was not kidnapping.

[William Anthony]

Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door. Unlike robbery, which involves use of force or fear to obtain another person's property, there is usually no victim present during a burglary.

Correct, there must be criminal intent proven in order to convict on burglary, which is what I have previously posted thanks for the agreement. Hence, judge J. Glass' jury instruction, precluding the claim of right defense, unfairly (Due Process) deprived Simpson of the defense of criminal intent would be the argument. The counter argument is that robbery only requires general intent, or that the intent can be inferred from the crime. However, the alleged and now convicted burglary, which happened before the robbery, allows for the defense to be given. This is an argument that can be made on appeal and Galanter may have been more clever than we have given him credit. Anticipation and preparation is the crux of any lawyer's trial strategy. Sometimes, when a lawyer recognizes that the tables are stacked against him, he may be forming the basis of his appeal during the trial.

[weezer]

Correct, there must be criminal intent proven in order to convict on burglary, which is what I have previously posted thanks for the agreement. Hence, judge J. Glass' jury instruction, precluding the claim of right defense, unfairly (Due Process) deprived Simpson of the defense of criminal intent would be the argument. The counter argument is that robbery only requires general intent, or that the intent can be inferred from the crime. However, the alleged and now convicted burglary, which happened before the robbery, allows for the defense to be given. This is an argument that can be made on appeal and Galanter may have been more clever than we have given him credit. Anticipation and preparation is the crux of any lawyer's trial strategy. Sometimes, when a lawyer recognizes that the tables are stacked against him, he may be forming the basis of his appeal during the trial.

whether or not orenthal wanted the stuff in the room because he 'said' it was his is moot under Nevada law -- there is no claim of right. so whatever he thought in that little pointed head of his was wrong. in fact, I would wager that he knew he was doing something illegal or he would have called LE right then, right there and reported the items being at the hotel. he couldn't -- nothing was stolen.

The burglary was orenthal entering the room, the armed robbery was orenthal taking the stuff from the room, the kidnapping was orenthal moving the victims across the room and then keeping them from leaving.

[William Anthony]

whether or not orenthal wanted the stuff in the room because he 'said' it was his is moot under Nevada law -- there is no claim of right. so whatever he thought in that little pointed head of his was wrong. in fact, I would wager that he knew he was doing something illegal or he would have called LE right then, right there and reported the items being at the hotel. he couldn't -- nothing was stolen.

The burglary was orenthal entering the room, the armed robbery was orenthal taking the stuff from the room, the kidnapping was orenthal moving the victims across the room and then keeping them from leaving.

The Nevada law does not square with your opinion on burglary. It is not a burglary to enter a room, building or any other structure in any state. The Nevada law requires an entry with the criminal intent to commit another crime, and allows a defendant to offer a defense negating criminal intent, which Simpson was precluded (Due Process violation). The jury instruction given by judge J. Glass denied the jury the chance to consider the defense. Of Course, this is all my opinion.

[William Anthony]

While not directly on point, this Nevada case addresses specific intent, over broadness and vagueness of a statute and its effect on Due Process. I certainly hope that the appeal takes into consideration that specific intent to commit another crime is required for burglary and that the robbery statute is overly broad and vague.

[William Anthony]

I forgot to post the link. Let me see if I can find it again. Here it is.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=122NevAdvOpNo25&invol=2

[martin II]

Under federal and state law, kidnapping is commonly defined as the taking of a person from one place to another against his or her will, or the confining of a person to a controlled space. Some kidnapping laws require that the taking or confining be for an unlawful purpose, such as extortion or the facilitation of a crime. A parent without legal custody rights may be charged with kidnapping for taking his or her own child, in certain circumstances.

It is my underestanding that the Nevada Supreme Court has attatched Asportation requirement to Kidnapping charge.

[martin II]

While not directly on point, this Nevada case addresses specific intent, over broadness and vagueness of a statute and its effect on Due Process. I certainly hope that the appeal takes into consideration that specific intent to commit another crime is required for burglary and that the robbery statute is overly broad and vague.

I never heard any one on the tapes speak of a intent to do anything but retrieve stolen property.

[William Anthony]

It is my underestanding that the Nevada Supreme Court has attatched Asportation requirement to Kidnapping charge.

I think that there may be some rulings of the Nevada supreme court that appear contradictory. I did not find the previous case I cited in which moving the victims and binding them during the robbery was not kidnapping but I did find this case with these words, which I hope will shed some light and which I think Simpson's lawyers will argue.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nv&vol=122NevAdvOpNo86&invol=2

"We conclude that dual convictions for kidnapping and murder, arising out of a single course of conduct, may exist if the seizure, restraint, or movement of the victim substantially exceeds that required to complete the associated crime charged."

[martin II]

Riccio testified that Fumong was acting in a manner to give oj his stuff without problem but at that point McClinton without cause and to his surprise just pulled out his gun and started yelling at fumong. McClintons action added
additional crimes to the effort to retrieve ojs stuff.MCClinton was facing 11 years but Glass gave him probation even though the jury thouight he lied on the stand. Or did not believe his testimony.

[William Anthony]

I never heard any one on the tapes speak of a intent to do anything but retrieve stolen property.

That is why Galantar may have been more clever than given credit and why he did not argue vehemently against the admissibility of the tapes. I think he hoped he would get a fair and impartial judge that understood that the burglary and robbery charges could not be severed and, after he realized the table was stacked against him, continued to argue the claim of right as an appellate issue.

[William Anthony]

Riccio testified that Fumong was acting in a manner to give oj his stuff without problem but at that point McClinton without cause and to his surprise just pulled out his gun and started yelling at fumong. McClintons action added
additional crimes to the effort to retrieve ojs stuff.MCClinton was facing 11 years but Glass gave him probation even though the jury thouight he lied on the stand. Or did not believe his testimony.

Sometimes giving a person a gun is like pouring water on a gasoline fire.

[martin II]

McClinton had a 'Carry permit" which means that he had been given strict rules as to when and under what circumstances he could carry/use his gun.

He made a adult decision to break the carry rules by bringing his gun to the room.He was not forced to make this decision and OJ and Stewart paid for his wrong doing.Judge Glass did not give him one day in jail for his decision.

Alexander testified that the reason he brought a gun was for self protection not because anyone made him do so and he had no permit. judge Glass let him off for tesifying against OJ and Stewart.

[weezer]

McClinton had a 'Carry permit" which means that he had been given strict rules as to when and under what circumstances he could carry/use his gun.

He made a adult decision to break the carry rules by bringing his gun to the room.He was not forced to make this decision and OJ and Stewart paid for his wrong doing.Judge Glass did not give him one day in jail for his decision.

Alexander testified that the reason he brought a gun was for self protection not because anyone made him do so and he had no permit. judge Glass let him off for tesifying against OJ and Stewart.

and none of them would have been there except for orenthal james simpson.

[martin II]

and none of them would have been there except for orenthal james simpson.


And oj would not have been there if Riccio had not set the deal up by locating the 'SELLERS' with stolen goods and telling oj he would arrange for oj to confront them with his goods in his hotel room.imo

[martin II]

or maybe one or more of the convicted felons didn't turn everything in? seems like a much more likely scenario to me.

Well we know oj never had posession of any of the stuff.

[William Anthony]

And oj would not have been there if Riccio had not set the deal up by locating the 'SELLERS' with stolen goods and telling oj he would arrange for oj to confront them with his goods in his hotel room.imo

I think LE and Riccio both had accidents in their pants when they heard the tapes, which may have been altered, and he heard the offer of immunity.

[martin II]

I think LE and Riccio both had accidents in their pants when they heard the tapes, which may have been altered, and he heard the offer of immunity.

The tapes Riccio made were crime scene evidence. How did he get by with selling this evidence and then trading that evidence for immunity.

[William Anthony]

The tapes Riccio made were crime scene evidence. How did he get by with selling this evidence and then trading that evidence for immunity.

I am not sure, if the tapes were supoenaed from the media or not. I think according to the best evidence rule, they would have had to have been.

[martin II]

I am not sure, if the tapes were supoenaed from the media or not. I think according to the best evidence rule, they would have had to have been.

Riccio gave the recorder to his business partner who put them on a computer
and sold the tape to TMZ. The DA was informed the tape was on tv and Riccio did not give them up until he had a immunity deal.

I assume the DA could have demanded the tape from TMZ and or Rizzio.

[William Anthony]

Riccio gave the recorder to his business partner who put them on a computer
and sold the tape to TMZ. The DA was informed the tape was on tv and Riccio did not give them up until he had a immunity deal.

I assume the DA could have demanded the tape from TMZ and or Rizzio.

Under those circumstances and in line with the best evidence rule, they should have come from Riccio, imho.

[martin II]

Under those circumstances and in line with the best evidence rule, they should have come from Riccio, imho.

I was thinking that the DA has the authority to demand crime scene evidence
be given to them without having to give immunity to get it.

[William Anthony]

I was thinking that the DA has the authority to demand crime scene evidence
be given to them without having to give immunity to get it.

I think you are right but they also needed Riccio's testimony to attempt to authenticate the tapes.

[William Anthony]

This is what troubles me about judge J. Glass repeating the comment on the tapes about Simpson referring to the Goldman's as Gold diggers and why I think it should be included in the appeal to show bias.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR_CJC.html

“A judge must not independently investigate facts in a case and must consider only the evidence presented.”

She had ruled that the civil trial was not part of the case, to my understanding, and Simpson statements at the sentencing hearing was not evidence but yet she considered those statements prior to imposing sentence. I will look to see if the law or rules are more lax during sentencing hearing.

[William Anthony]

http://abajournal.com/news/oj_simpson_sentenced_in_two-tiered_nevada_system/

“But the Los Angeles Times points out that there's another two-tiered system in place in Vegas. "The perception is that crimes that take place inside the tourist corridor are pursued more aggressively than elsewhere in the Las Vegas Valley," blogs Richard Abowitz in the Times' blog The Movable Buffet.

"I know when my car was vandalized at my old apartment, I could not get an officer to even show up," Abowitz notes. "Whereas when I had a similar car issue in a casino lot, the resort security easily summoned police to assist me."

It seems that LE in Vegas arbitrarily decided who is owed the protection of the law, which adds credibility to my belief that LE might have prevented these crimes had the minimally did their sworn duty. It seems that more than Simpson might have a Constitutional Equal Protection claim.

[weezer]

O.J. Simpson Living the Good Life in Prison?
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
AP

O.J. Simpson does a victorious rendition of the robot at the news of his prison transfer. Just kidding. We hear that O.J. Simpson is a much happier guy these days.

Well, as happy as a guy can be when you’re in prison for felony kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges that could spell 33 years behind bars.

Still, according to Page Six, Simpson, 67, is much more content since he was transferred to the Lovelock Correction Center near Reno last month.

He reportedly benefits from such amenities as a television in his cell, although he lamented the lack of HBO, and is allowed to play checkers and cards with his fellow convict roomies.

“If I have to be in prison,” Page Six quoted him as saying, “this is the place to be.”

That’s a far cry from his days at the Clark County jail in Vegas, where he reluctantly shed 25 pounds as a direct result of the mystery meat on the menu.

“It looked like a jackalope,” he reportedly griped, referring to the fictitious creature that’s a cross between a jack rabbit and an antelope.

But at his new facility — one of the newest and smallest prisons in the Nevada state prison system – he gives the chow a whopping two thumbs up.

Aww. Looks like The Juice loves being locked up at Lovelock.

Too bad for his co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart , who remains at High Desert pending a decision where he'll serve his 7 1/2 to 27 year term.

Both men were found guilty on Oct. 3 of felony kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges stemming a gunpoint confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers in Las Vegas.

[FDInLaw]

O.J. Simpson Living the Good Life in Prison?
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
AP

O.J. Simpson does a victorious rendition of the robot at the news of his prison transfer. Just kidding. We hear that O.J. Simpson is a much happier guy these days.

Well, as happy as a guy can be when you’re in prison for felony kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges that could spell 33 years behind bars.

Still, according to Page Six, Simpson, 67, is much more content since he was transferred to the Lovelock Correction Center near Reno last month.

He reportedly benefits from such amenities as a television in his cell, although he lamented the lack of HBO, and is allowed to play checkers and cards with his fellow convict roomies.

“If I have to be in prison,” Page Six quoted him as saying, “this is the place to be.”

That’s a far cry from his days at the Clark County jail in Vegas, where he reluctantly shed 25 pounds as a direct result of the mystery meat on the menu.

“It looked like a jackalope,” he reportedly griped, referring to the fictitious creature that’s a cross between a jack rabbit and an antelope.

But at his new facility — one of the newest and smallest prisons in the Nevada state prison system – he gives the chow a whopping two thumbs up.

Aww. Looks like The Juice loves being locked up at Lovelock.

Too bad for his co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart , who remains at High Desert pending a decision where he'll serve his 7 1/2 to 27 year term.

Both men were found guilty on Oct. 3 of felony kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges stemming a gunpoint confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers in Las Vegas.Awwww. . . doesn't this just warm your heart? :rolleyes:

Laughing at Simpson's jackalope reference. Funny guy.

[weezer]

Awwww. . . doesn't this just warm your heart? :rolleyes:

Laughing at Simpson's jackalope reference. Funny guy.


I thought them saying he's 67 is pretty funny too!!!

[William Anthony]

O.J. Simpson Living the Good Life in Prison?
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
AP

O.J. Simpson does a victorious rendition of the robot at the news of his prison transfer. Just kidding. We hear that O.J. Simpson is a much happier guy these days.

Well, as happy as a guy can be when you’re in prison for felony kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges that could spell 33 years behind bars.

Still, according to Page Six, Simpson, 67, is much more content since he was transferred to the Lovelock Correction Center near Reno last month.

He reportedly benefits from such amenities as a television in his cell, although he lamented the lack of HBO, and is allowed to play checkers and cards with his fellow convict roomies.

“If I have to be in prison,” Page Six quoted him as saying, “this is the place to be.”

That’s a far cry from his days at the Clark County jail in Vegas, where he reluctantly shed 25 pounds as a direct result of the mystery meat on the menu.

“It looked like a jackalope,” he reportedly griped, referring to the fictitious creature that’s a cross between a jack rabbit and an antelope.

But at his new facility — one of the newest and smallest prisons in the Nevada state prison system – he gives the chow a whopping two thumbs up.

Aww. Looks like The Juice loves being locked up at Lovelock.

Too bad for his co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart , who remains at High Desert pending a decision where he'll serve his 7 1/2 to 27 year term.

Both men were found guilty on Oct. 3 of felony kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges stemming a gunpoint confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers in Las Vegas.

I wouldn't put much faith in the author of this article, because he may be speaking of someone other than O.J. Simpson, since Simpson is only 61.

[William Anthony]

Any appeal based on judge J. Glass' bias may give her another 15 minutes of fame.

[William Anthony]

It seems that there may be a lot of judicial corruption in Las Vegas.

http://www.nevada-ethics.org/reportsJudiciaPanelCorruptionl.html

[FDInLaw]

I thought them saying he's 67 is pretty funny too!!!

No kidding. . . poor OJ is aging fast! :eek:

[William Anthony]

No kidding. . . poor OJ is aging fast! :eek:

I think the author had poor eyesight and limited knowledge.

[FDInLaw]

I think the author had poor eyesight and limited knowledge.
Not a detail person I take it. I would suck at that job too. . . :o

[weezer]

It seems that there may be a lot of judicial corruption in Las Vegas.

http://www.nevada-ethics.org/reportsJudiciaPanelCorruptionl.html

since no corruption was charged in this CASE, no need to bring this in. imo

[One2Snoop]

Not a detail person I take it. I would suck at that job too. . . :o


Maybe the author meant to put a 1 instead of a 7. I also noticed there are several 7's in his birthdate. 07/09/1947. ;)

[weezer]

Maybe the author meant to put a 1 instead of a 7. I also noticed there are several 7's in his birthdate. 07/09/1947. ;)

LOL -- that's what I figured OR maybe orenthal's life is now measured in dog years?!

[One2Snoop]

LOL -- that's what I figured OR maybe orenthal's life is now measured in dog years?!

:eek: That would make him 777 years old LOL! (J/K)

[FDInLaw]

Maybe the author meant to put a 1 instead of a 7. I also noticed there are several 7's in his birthdate. 07/09/1947. ;)

Ugh. . . we once had a family insurance fiasco over this very thing. Some data entry person typed the wrong birth dates in doing this. It took months and several phone calls to fix. It's an easy mistake I guess. Storming into a room with some armed bandits is another thing. :D

[FDInLaw]

since no corruption was charged in this CASE, no need to bring this in. imo
So, you are suggesting that there is not a direct connection to OJ's present legal woes. In other words, the link might be an off topic bunny trail.

*wink*


:biggrin:

[weezer]

So, you are suggesting that there is not a direct connection to OJ's present legal woes. In other words, the link might be an off topic bunny trail.

*wink*


:biggrin:

yeah -- what you said. :tongue:

[FDInLaw]

Me wonders who Simpson's bunk buddy is. . . or is he getting celebrity treatment?

Lovelock is one of the newest and smallest prisons in the Nevada state prison system. It opened in 1995 and houses just under 1,500 inmates in two-bed cells.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470445,00.html

[weezer]

Me wonders who Simpson's bunk buddy is. . . or is he getting celebrity treatment?



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470445,00.html

I'm sure if he was having to share space we would have heard about it. after all, he's got that arthritis and all. . .

[FDInLaw]

Weird. It just hit me. . . I lived in Lovelock years ago. I wanted to get the heck out of there. Ironic. Strange how all our lives intertwine. Now Simpson is sitting there thinking the same thing.

Interesting note; the cancer rates are really high in Lovelock due to crop-dusting and the way the fields are burned. The Juice could sue for endangerment (?). It could give his lawyers something to do if their appeals fail.

[FDInLaw]

I'm sure if he was having to share space we would have heard about it. after all, he's got that arthritis and all. . .

What? He doesn't feel safe without his pistol packin' cronies? Come on, there must to be someone that can bunk with him. . . this is America! It's only fair! :patriot:

[martin II]

This is what troubles me about judge J. Glass repeating the comment on the tapes about Simpson referring to the Goldman's as Gold diggers and why I think it should be included in the appeal to show bias.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR_CJC.html

“A judge must not independently investigate facts in a case and must consider only the evidence presented.”

She had ruled that the civil trial was not part of the case, to my understanding, and Simpson statements at the sentencing hearing was not evidence but yet she considered those statements prior to imposing sentence. I will look to see if the law or rules are more lax during sentencing hearing.

So it seeme that Glass considered that oj tried to evade paying fred in her sentancing of oj by making the statement she made.Not necessary and not required.

[martin II]

if the appeals court agree with the appeals, what a shock that would be for some.

[martin II]

Me wonders who Simpson's bunk buddy is. . . or is he getting celebrity treatment?



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470445,00.html

Would you like to be ojs bunk budy? is this some kind of audition or request?:shrug:

[FDInLaw]

Would you like to be ojs bunk budy? is this some kind of audition or request?:shrug:
Not a personal request by any means, just curiosity. OJ is a celebrity after all. Not an unusual question I'm sure. :seeya:

[martin II]

Not a personal request by any means, just curiosity. OJ is a celebrity after all. Not an unusual question I'm sure. :seeya:


What his sleeping arrangements are relates to what? other than making some kind of sick joke, which you like to make on this issue. Go for it if that floats your boat. haha
unless your have some concern as to how he treated.

[socaldiva]

Not a personal request by any means, just curiosity. OJ is a celebrity after all. Not an unusual question I'm sure. :seeya:

I knew you weren't offering. Who would want to share a bunk with that one? He'd drone on & on & on about himself :o

[FDInLaw]

What his sleeping arrangements are relates to what? other than making some kind of sick joke, which you like to make on this issue. Go for it if that floats your boat. haha
unless your have some concern as to how he treated.It relates to OJ's sentence and whether or not he is receiving special treatment, which IMO should not be granted him. This is very relevant. No sick joke intended. I posted an honest and pertinent question, your assertions were unnecessary IMHO.

[FDInLaw]

I knew you weren't offering. Who would want to share a bunk with that one? He'd drone on & on & on about himself :o

LMBO. . . that is probably so true.

"If I killed her I would have. . . "

[FDInLaw]

LMBO. . . that is probably so true.

"If I killed her I would have. . . "


:punch: Myself for referencing the first trial.

[socaldiva]

:punch: Myself for referencing the first trial.


Aw, don't be so hard on yourself. :D:seeya:

[William Anthony]

since no corruption was charged in this CASE, no need to bring this in. imo

Corruption can occur as a result of a violation of an ethical code. Because none has been alleged does not mean that none has happened, and judging from judge J. Glass' demeanor, actions and statements that might show bias and that it is rumored to be part of the appeal, I think it is very relevant to consider information about corruption and how it occurs in Vegas in regard to the judicial system is a relevant consideration for those that question judge J. Glass' actions, demeanor and statements, while it may not be relevant to those that do not.

I do not think who, if any one, is Simpson's roommate has any bearing on the CASE. However, others may see it differently and care to contemplate the issue. I think that, unless his roommate is Stewart, it is not a part of the CASE.

[William Anthony]

:punch: Myself for referencing the first trial.

Inevitably, it was bound to happen as there is some feeling that this trial was in some manner a form of payback or karma, if you will, depending on one's point of view and considering the remarks of the jury foreman. It seems all too hard to separate the trials and just may have been too hard a thing to do for the jury in the Nevada case.

[William Anthony]

I apologize if this link has been supplied previously.

http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8946161&nav=8faN

“But the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has raised concerns about whether Glass sacrifices constitutional rights of defendants for court efficiency. “

[martin II]

:punch: Myself for referencing the first trial.

For those that saw the Vegas trial and conviction as a final PAYBACK to oj i can understand how difficult it is not to allow that idea to control ones feelings about the vegas trial.

[martin II]

I apologize if this link has been supplied previously.

http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8946161&nav=8faN

“But the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has raised concerns about whether Glass sacrifices constitutional rights of defendants for court efficiency. “

It has also been clained by some defense lawyers that Glass had a reputation of unfairly not allowing defense arguments in her courtroom claiming time and cost.imo

[martin II]

I'm sure if he was having to share space we would have heard about it. after all, he's got that arthritis and all. . .

The prison system assigns location and space based on many issues.Celebrities are usually seperated from the larger community so the question of bunk buddies and speeping arrangements seem to be a non issue.
The system does not see seperate quarters as special treatment.imo

[FDInLaw]

For those that saw the Vegas trial and conviction as a final PAYBACK to oj i can understand how difficult it is not to allow that idea to control ones feelings about the vegas trial.

The original vein of thought was OJ talking about himself. Just as the NFL would naturally come up, I'm sure a discussion ( or many) about the first trial would as well. . . it's all apart of his life, good or bad.

[William Anthony]

It has also been clained by some defense lawyers that Glass had a reputation of unfairly not allowing defense arguments in her courtroom claiming time and cost.imo

Do you mean that, if she gave the defense enough time, it would cost them a win?

[William Anthony]

The original vein of thought was OJ talking about himself. Just as the NFL would naturally come up, I'm sure a discussion ( or many) about the first trial would as well. . . it's all apart of his life, good or bad.

You may be correct but we have been lnformed per instructions to limit our discussions to the Nevada case only and I think we should put forth a conscientious effort to comply.

[FDInLaw]

The prison system assigns location and space based on many issues.Celebrities are usually seperated from the larger community so the question of bunk buddies and speeping arrangements seem to be a non issue.
The system does not see seperate quarters as special treatment.imo
Really? I've worked in corrections and I would beg to differ here, at least the inmates do not share this sentiment. Mind you, a celebrity is a real liability for a corrections facility. If anything where to happen to them the whole world would know about it. It's an injustice IMO. Inmate Joe just got jumped in the showers, but the Juice's only concern is that he does not have HBO. Seriously, why don't they save the Nevada taxpayers some money and just put OJ on house arrest since they are doing their darnedest to make him feel at home.

[William Anthony]

Really? I've worked in corrections and I would beg to differ here, at least the inmates do not share this sentiment. Mind you, a celebrity is a real liability for a corrections facility. If anything where to happen to them the whole world would know about it. It's an injustice IMO. Inmate Joe just got jumped in the showers, but the Juice's only concern is that he does not have HBO. Seriously, why don't they save the Nevada taxpayers some money and just put OJ on house arrest since they are doing their darnedest to make him feel at home.

Maybe, they are simply trying to make the punishment fit the crimes or lack thereof.

[William Anthony]

Given my recent post on the link as to the preferential treatment given to crimes committed in or about casinos, I think that, even if Simpson had committed this crime in a private home, LE would have vigorously pursed it because he is Simpson and his celebrity status worked against him.

[FDInLaw]

You may be correct but we have been lnformed per instructions to limit our discussions to the Nevada case only and I think we should put forth a conscientious effort to comply.I already :punch: myself. . . shall I do it again? Do y'all need to see viable buising? Blood?

Seriously, I'm a little concerned about you my friend. In your fervor for the thread to remain on topic you seem to have lost some reasoning skills. (Not what I would expect from such a brilliant poster.) I was told that discussion about Judge Glass's ruling about the memorabilia was OT, yet, his comments about the Goldman family were okay(confused here) . . . a little consistency would be nice. Exasperating other posters always backfires. When one feels knit picked it's difficult not to feel a little unary at best. I will put forth a conscious effort if you will in turn lighten up a bit. Agreed?

[William Anthony]

I already :punch: myself. . . shall I do it again? Do y'all need to see viable busing? Blood?

Seriously, I'm a little concerned about you my friend. In your fervor for the thread to remain on topic you seem to have lost some reasoning skills. (Not what I would expect from such a brilliant poster.) I was told that discussion about Judge Glass's ruling about the memorabilia was OT, yet, his comments about the Goldman family were okay(confused here) . . . a little consistency would be nice. Exasperating other posters always backfires. When one feels knit picked it's difficult not to feel a little unary at best. I will put forth a conscious effort if you will in turn lighten up a bit. Agreed?

I realized that you bumped yourself on the issue of his roommate and I think that was commendable and I realize that it is hard to keep the cases separate, as I stated. I don't feel that the ruling about the memorabilia is on topic as a discussion of the Nevada case, since judge J. Glass ruled it was not part of the case. However, as a part of the Nevada case, judge J. Glass made the comment about Simpson referring to the Goldmans as gold diggers and I see that as part of the case. My efforts were not to accuse but to suggest that we pay close attention to the moderator's instructions. I take the case seriously as I do the moderator's instructions but I will lighten up when something I feel is worthy of humor is posted or if I find something humorous. Thanks.

[martin II]

Really? I've worked in corrections and I would beg to differ here, at least the inmates do not share this sentiment. Mind you, a celebrity is a real liability for a corrections facility. If anything where to happen to them the whole world would know about it. It's an injustice IMO. Inmate Joe just got jumped in the showers, but the Juice's only concern is that he does not have HBO. Seriously, why don't they save the Nevada taxpayers some money and just put OJ on house arrest since they are doing their darnedest to make him feel at home.

The accomodations planned for oj has been posted in media reports as well as on the oj threads.So that is no secrete. I am sure Oj would accept your suggestion of house arrest just as other big time criminals have.But that is not a option for him as he has no say in that issue.

The penal system provides quarters for those that they believe would be in danger and oj is not the first to be seperated from the regular population so i am not sure who your complaint should be directed to.I am sure it should not be oj.

Then there is the issue of white collar criminals serving time in no wall country club style accomodations.

I think all should have access to cable tv.

[martin II]

The original vein of thought was OJ talking about himself. Just as the NFL would naturally come up, I'm sure a discussion ( or many) about the first trial would as well. . . it's all apart of his life, good or bad.

If so then maby the original vein of thought was OT.:shrug:

[William Anthony]

I already :punch: myself. . . shall I do it again? Do y'all need to see viable buising? Blood?

Seriously, I'm a little concerned about you my friend. In your fervor for the thread to remain on topic you seem to have lost some reasoning skills. (Not what I would expect from such a brilliant poster.) I was told that discussion about Judge Glass's ruling about the memorabilia was OT, yet, his comments about the Goldman family were okay(confused here) . . . a little consistency would be nice. Exasperating other posters always backfires. When one feels knit picked it's difficult not to feel a little unary at best. I will put forth a conscious effort if you will in turn lighten up a bit. Agreed?

I think you misunderstand. I do believe that his comments about the Goldmans being gold diggers were irrelevant to the case by judge J. Glass' prior rulings. However, she chose to repeat them and, consequently made them part of the case. The fact that she chose to repeat them makes them relevant on the issue of her bias on appeal, imho. I don't think Simpson's lodgings after the case is part of the case and not subject to be an issue on appeal, except that the evidence may have been insufficient to afford him any lodgings in the state of Nevada. I do not think the relevant question is who may be his roommate, absent some sort of statement he may make to the roommate about the Nevada case, but the questions are whether or not he should have a roommate based upon the Nevada case and how long and for what, if it is ruled that he should have one.

[weezer]

Facts:

1. the MEMORABILIA is what got orenthal into trouble in the first place: relevant

2. the reference to the Goldmans by orenthal was made in court and is part of the evidence/testimony: relevant

3. there is and has been NO charges of court corruption in this CASE: irrelevant

4. orenthal has been accused of bribing a witness and making new 'buddies' within the penal system by purchasing 'goodies' for them so his living arrangements and possible roommate: relevant

imo

[William Anthony]

Facts:

1. the MEMORABILIA is what got orenthal into trouble in the first place: relevant

2. the reference to the Goldmans by orenthal was made in court and is part of the evidence/testimony: relevant

3. there is and has been NO charges of court corruption in this CASE: irrelevant

4. orenthal has been accused of bribing a witness and making new 'buddies' within the penal system by purchasing 'goodies' for them so his living arrangements and possible roommate: relevant

imo

Facts

1. We have been instructed that this thread is about the Nevada Case Only.

2. Judge J. Glass ruled that ownership of the property and the civil case were irrelevant to the Nevada case.

3. Judge J. Glass', after ruling that the above things were irrelevant, then commented on Simpson calling the Goldmans gold diggers, making her comment relevant to the Nevada case.

4. Judge J. Glass' has been accused of being biased and it is part of the case to consider, if the bias came from corruption.

5. There are no charges that Simpson bribed any one and a lack of evidence to support an accusation. Thus, it is irrelevant to the Nevada case.

6. In fact, the accusation of bribery was held in regard to the civil case, which judge J. Glass ruled was irrelevant to the Nevada case.


I think we should be careful before judge J. Glass has us held for contempt of court. My attempt to lighten the mood.

[William Anthony]

the attempt doesn't work as long as you continue to claim carp that didn't happen. there are no corruption charges against the court and/or LE.

you can decide what is to be discussed on this board in the Nevada case when you come back with your moderator badge -- :tongue: -- in the meantime, the memorabilia that was at the base of orenthal being found guilty as a felon AND his statements in testimony where he ridiculed the Goldmans are up for discussion. imo

Part of the appeal is that judge J. Glass was partial. I think it reasonable to consider why that particular accusation was made in regard to the Nevada case.

You seem to have become angry at the moderator's instructions that this is about the "Nevada case only". I am simply seeking to keep the forum open and perhaps the moderator may entertain a request to open another thread, linking the Nevada case to other cases in which Simpson was a defendant. There was no statement by Simpson as testimony in the Nevada case. There is no need to take this tone with me for my concern, when all you need to do is state your disagreement without the personal attack. I expect and appreciate your cooperation in the future. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

there is no 'tone' to my post! you continue to post carp that has absolutely nothing to do with the CASE in NEVADA -- there is and has not been charges of corruption. for you to insist that the memorabilia has nothing to do with the CASE in NEVADA is ignorant.

still waiting for you to show your moderator badge. No? then back off and let the rest of us post without your interruptions and nonsense.

thanks.

You seem to deny the obvious. I have said that the memorabilia is relevant only in that it was allegedly stolen during a robbery. The ownership thereof and the civil case were not by the judge's decision, which is what the original comment entailed. There is no need for the hostility and I ask that you change your tone and respect the moderator's instructions. Thanks again.

Here is an except from the Nevada code of judicial conduct.

"Commentary Canon 3B(5)



A judge must refrain from speech, gestures or other conduct that could reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment and must require the same standard of conduct of others subject to the judge’s direction and control.

A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, in addition to oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media and others an appearance of judicial bias. A judge must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial."

My most recent concern was about the speculation of Simpson's roommate and another poster returned to the discussion about the ownership of the memorabilia, which was not a part of the Nevada case. Thanks again.

[weezer]

You seem to deny the obvious. I have said that the memorabilia is relevant only in that it was allegedly stolen during a robbery. The ownership thereof and the civil case were not by the judge's decision, which is what the original comment entailed. There is no need for the hostility and I ask that you change your tone and respect the moderator's instructions. Thanks again.

Here is an except from the Nevada code of judicial conduct.

"Commentary Canon 3B(5)



A judge must refrain from speech, gestures or other conduct that could reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment and must require the same standard of conduct of others subject to the judge’s direction and control.

A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, in addition to oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media and others an appearance of judicial bias. A judge must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial."

My most recent concern was about the speculation of Simpson's roommate and another poster returned to the discussion about the ownership of the memorabilia, which was not a part of the Nevada case. Thanks again.

the memorabilia wasn't 'alledgedly' stolen -- the memorabilia WAS stolen by orenthal james simpson as he committed -- and was found guilty of -- the felony offense of ARMED ROBBERY.

you can rattle on all day about how unfair Judge Glass was to the convicted felon orenthal james simpson -- the fact is, there has been no charge of corruption -- just a bunch of whining by a losing lawyer and his convicted felon client.

there's no need for you to be concerned about speculation with regard to orenthal's prison facilities or roommate(s). I'm sure the REAL moderator will inform us if we go too far afield.

[William Anthony]

the memorabilia wasn't 'alledgedly' stolen -- the memorabilia WAS stolen by orenthal james simpson as he committed -- and was found guilty of -- the felony offense of ARMED ROBBERY.

you can rattle on all day about how unfair Judge Glass was to the convicted felon orenthal james simpson -- the fact is, there has been no charge of corruption -- just a bunch of whining by a losing lawyer and his convicted felon client.

there's no need for you to be concerned about speculation with regard to orenthal's prison facilities or roommate(s). I'm sure the REAL moderator will inform us if we go too far afield.

As it pertains to the Nevada case, there was no finding as to whether the memorabilia was originally stolen or from whom. The issue now is there any legal resources to overturn the convictions to include bias on the part of judge J. Glass and the appeal may be amended, if corruption is found and even if it is not there is the question of Equal Protection of the Laws.

As to the remainder of your post, I will refrain from responding due to my respect for the moderator and my desire to keep the thread open. Thanks.

[martin II]

Facts

1. We have been instructed that this thread is about the Nevada Case Only.

2. Judge J. Glass ruled that ownership of the property and the civil case were irrelevant to the Nevada case.

3. Judge J. Glass', after ruling that the above things were irrelevant, then commented on Simpson calling the Goldmans gold diggers, making her comment relevant to the Nevada case.

4. Judge J. Glass' has been accused of being biased and it is part of the case to consider, if the bias came from corruption.

5. There are no charges that Simpson bribed any one and a lack of evidence to support an accusation. Thus, it is irrelevant to the Nevada case.

6. In fact, the accusation of bribery was held in regard to the civil case, which judge J. Glass ruled was irrelevant to the Nevada case.


I think we should be careful before judge J. Glass has us held for contempt of court. My attempt to lighten the mood.


Thanks for the accurate information.

[William Anthony]

Thanks for the accurate information.

You are quite welcome.

[William Anthony]

Here is another link on the Nevada courts.

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?cat=-1&dt_end_m=&dt_end_y=&dt_st_m=&op=search&ss=recusal

"...the Nevada Supreme Court was heavily criticized, and the state legislature passed a resolution calling on the court to consider measures that would "foster public confidence and trust in the court system."

[weezer]

As it pertains to the Nevada case, there was no finding as to whether the memorabilia was originally stolen or from whom. The issue now is there any legal resources to overturn the convictions to include bias on the part of judge J. Glass and the appeal may be amended, if corruption is found and even if it is not there is the question of Equal Protection of the Laws.

As to the remainder of your post, I will refrain from responding due to my respect for the moderator and my desire to keep the thread open. Thanks.

obviously the memorabilia was deemed to have been stolen by convicted felon orenthal james simpson during his armed robbery.

please post the part of the appeal that includes charges of bias by Judge Glass.

please post the part of the appeal OR any charges filed that articulate corruption on the part of the Court or LE.

[weezer]

Here is another link on the Nevada courts.

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?cat=-1&dt_end_m=&dt_end_y=&dt_st_m=&op=search&ss=recusal

"...the Nevada Supreme Court was heavily criticized, and the state legislature passed a resolution calling on the court to consider measures that would "foster public confidence and trust in the court system."

please post a link to ANY charges of corruption in this CASE by the Court or LE. If there are none, your accusations are off-topic and being used to incite.

[William Anthony]

obviously the memorabilia was deemed to have been stolen by convicted felon orenthal james simpson during his armed robbery.

please post the part of the appeal that includes charges of bias by Judge Glass.

please post the part of the appeal OR any charges filed that articulate corruption on the part of the Court or LE.

On bias of judge J. Glass, which I believe was previously posted

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Jackie_Glass

“There has been also been assertions from those who serve in the legal community and those who observe the courts that there could be bias on Judge Glass's part on handling of the Simpson case as the alledged bias could result in Simpson's conviction being overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court[6]. “

On corruption,

the appeal may be amended, if corruption is found and even if it is not there is the question of Equal Protection of the Laws.

The armed robbery charge does not automatically contain a crime of theft. It does contain an element of unlawful taking. Until another court decides ownership of the property, which is not an element of the Nevada case, and irrelevant for further discussion as part of the Nevada case as indicated by judge J. Glass, although her comment about Simpson calling the Goldmans gold diggers seemed to violate her own rule.

Please provide a link to your statement that there was testimony to the effect that Simpson called the Goldmans, gold diggers?

[William Anthony]

please post a link to ANY charges of corruption in this CASE by the Court or LE. If there are none, your accusations are off-topic and being used to incite.

Incite whom? Please read my comments thoroughly and you will see what I actually said before you make accusations? Thanks, in anticipation for your cooperation. However, let me explain further. When a judge acts in a manner that calls into question his/her impartiality, then the system is corrupted.

[weezer]

Co-defendant who went free in OJ Simpson case jailed on probation violation in Las VegasBy KEN RITTER | Associated Press Writer
4:51 PM EST, January 8, 2009
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A former O.J. Simpson co-defendant who was given probation after testifying against the fallen football star has been jailed and could be sent to state prison for failing a drug test, his lawyer said Thursday.

Charles Cashmore, 41, was taken into custody on New Year's Eve and faces a hearing before the judge who let him and three other men remain free after sentencing Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart to prison.

"He violated probation," attorney Edward Miley said, citing a state Division of Parole and Probation report that he said showed Cashmore had methamphetamine in his system. "The state intends to impose the suspended sentence."

In December, Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass handed Cashmore a suspended one-to-three-year sentence, allowing him to remain free on three years' probation if he abided by strict behavioral rules.



A hearing before the judge had was not immediately scheduled, Miley said.

Cashmore, a journeyman laborer, was the first of four accomplices to take a plea deal in the case. He pleaded guilty in October 2007 to a reduced charge, felony accessory to robbery.

He testified that he met Simpson for the first time minutes before joining Simpson and four other men in the ill-fated hotel room confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers in September 2007. He said two other men in the group brought guns.

That undercut Simpson's insistence that no one brought guns. Simpson said he was only trying to retrieve personal mementos and family heirlooms that had been stolen from him after his acquittal on murder charges in the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, in Los Angeles.

The Las Vegas jury found Simpson and Stewart guilty Oct. 3 of all 12 charges against them, including kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

Glass sentenced 61-year-old Simpson to nine to 33 years in state prison. Stewart, 54, was sentenced to 7½ to 27 years.

Three other admitted accomplices who turned the state's evidence in the case — Michael McClinton, Walter Alexander and Charles Ehrlich — each pleaded guilty to felony charges and were sentenced to probation.

[weezer]

On bias of judge J. Glass, which I believe was previously posted

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Jackie_Glass

“There has been also been assertions from those who serve in the legal community and those who observe the courts that there could be bias on Judge Glass's part on handling of the Simpson case as the alledged bias could result in Simpson's conviction being overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court[6]. “

On corruption,

the appeal may be amended, if corruption is found and even if it is not there is the question of Equal Protection of the Laws.

The armed robbery charge does not automatically contain a crime of theft. It does contain an element of unlawful taking. Until another court decides ownership of the property, which is not an element of the Nevada case, and irrelevant for further discussion as part of the Nevada case as indicated by judge J. Glass, although her comment about Simpson calling the Goldmans gold diggers seemed to violate her own rule.

Please provide a link to your statement that there was testimony to the effect that Simpson called the Goldmans, gold diggers?

read this s-l-o-w-l-y: THERE ARE NO CHARGES AGAINST JUDGE GLASS OR ANY LE. your continued forays into that area are silly and are not part of this case.

orenthal's comment about the Goldmans was on the tapes -- duh.

[weezer]

Incite whom? Please read my comments thoroughly and you will see what I actually said before you make accusations? Thanks, in anticipation for your cooperation. However, let me explain further. When a judge acts in a manner that calls into question his/her impartiality, then the system is corrupted.

here's the deal william -- I don't have to prop up your absurd accusations. your assertion that Judge Glass is corrupt because she repeated something the convicted felong orenthal james simpson said is outrageous. the fact that you tried to tie those statements into some article written about Nevada corruption is ignorant.

[William Anthony]

Co-defendant who went free in OJ Simpson case jailed on probation violation in Las VegasBy KEN RITTER | Associated Press Writer
4:51 PM EST, January 8, 2009
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A former O.J. Simpson co-defendant who was given probation after testifying against the fallen football star has been jailed and could be sent to state prison for failing a drug test, his lawyer said Thursday.

Charles Cashmore, 41, was taken into custody on New Year's Eve and faces a hearing before the judge who let him and three other men remain free after sentencing Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart to prison.

"He violated probation," attorney Edward Miley said, citing a state Division of Parole and Probation report that he said showed Cashmore had methamphetamine in his system. "The state intends to impose the suspended sentence."

In December, Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass handed Cashmore a suspended one-to-three-year sentence, allowing him to remain free on three years' probation if he abided by strict behavioral rules.



A hearing before the judge had was not immediately scheduled, Miley said.

Cashmore, a journeyman laborer, was the first of four accomplices to take a plea deal in the case. He pleaded guilty in October 2007 to a reduced charge, felony accessory to robbery.

He testified that he met Simpson for the first time minutes before joining Simpson and four other men in the ill-fated hotel room confrontation with two sports memorabilia dealers in September 2007. He said two other men in the group brought guns.

That undercut Simpson's insistence that no one brought guns. Simpson said he was only trying to retrieve personal mementos and family heirlooms that had been stolen from him after his acquittal on murder charges in the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, in Los Angeles.

The Las Vegas jury found Simpson and Stewart guilty Oct. 3 of all 12 charges against them, including kidnapping, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

Glass sentenced 61-year-old Simpson to nine to 33 years in state prison. Stewart, 54, was sentenced to 7½ to 27 years.

Three other admitted accomplices who turned the state's evidence in the case — Michael McClinton, Walter Alexander and Charles Ehrlich — each pleaded guilty to felony charges and were sentenced to probation.

I see no testimony that Simpson called the Goldmans, gold diggers.

[weezer]

I see no testimony that Simpson called the Goldmans, gold diggers.

oh so maybe you would like to consider the tapes as EVIDENCE -- if that's the case, then the EVIDENCE proved convicted felon orenthal james simpson called the Goldmans the disparaging name.

[William Anthony]

read this s-l-o-w-l-y: THERE ARE NO CHARGES AGAINST JUDGE GLASS OR ANY LE. your continued forays into that area are silly and are not part of this case.

orenthal's comment about the Goldmans was on the tapes -- duh.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/corruption

“4. corruption - moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles; "the luxury and corruption among the upper classes"; "moral degeneracy followed intellectual degeneration"; "its brothels, its opium parlors, its depravity"; "Rome had fallen into moral putrefaction"
depravation, depravity, degeneracy, putrefaction
immorality - the quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct; "the immorality of basing the defense of the West on the threat of mutual assured destruction"

Violating the code of judicial conduct.

[William Anthony]

oh so maybe you would like to consider the tapes as EVIDENCE -- if that's the case, then the EVIDENCE proved convicted felon orenthal james simpson called the Goldmans the disparaging name.

You are quite correct, which contradicts your previous statement and I will not use the "I" word that you have chosen to use in a disparaging manner, which I think may be to incite, and only say that I am glad you understand.

[William Anthony]

here's the deal william -- I don't have to prop up your absurd accusations. your assertion that Judge Glass is corrupt because she repeated something the convicted felong orenthal james simpson said is outrageous. the fact that you tried to tie those statements into some article written about Nevada corruption is ignorant.

I have never said that judge J. Glass is corrupt. I have said that the defense claimed she is biased, which would corrupt the cannons of judicial responsibilities. I have also provided two links, IIRC, that show that casino's receive preferential treatment and that may be because they contribute to Judge's campaigns. I have only said that the appeal may be amended to include a charge of corruption. If I might, I suggest you read post #50 on this thread as it relates to an appeal. Thanks.

[weezer]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/corruption

“4. corruption - moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles; "the luxury and corruption among the upper classes"; "moral degeneracy followed intellectual degeneration"; "its brothels, its opium parlors, its depravity"; "Rome had fallen into moral putrefaction"
depravation, depravity, degeneracy, putrefaction
immorality - the quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct; "the immorality of basing the defense of the West on the threat of mutual assured destruction"

Violating the code of judicial conduct.

you crack me up -- just because convicted felon orenthal james simpson's lawyers whined, doesn't make it so. unless you are able to post a link that shows corruption charges were made in this CASE, your accusations are moot.

The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. .

[weezer]

I have never said that judge J. Glass is corrupt. I have said that the defense claimed she is biased, which would corrupt the cannons of judicial responsibilities. I have also provided two links, IIRC, that show that casino's receive preferential treatment and that may be because they contribute to Judge's campaigns. I have only said that the appeal may be amended to include a charge of corruption. If I might, I suggest you read post #50 on this thread as it relates to an appeal. Thanks.

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.

[William Anthony]

you crack me up -- just because convicted felon orenthal james simpson's lawyers whined, doesn't make it so. unless you are able to post a link that shows corruption charges were made in this CASE, your accusations are moot.

The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. .

The appeal is not a moot issue, nor are the grounds for the appeal. I think that, if you will read the portion of the cannon of judicial conduct I provided, you may see that judge J. Glass' conduct, to include statements, as some legal scholars think in the other link I provided, evidence some bias which corrupts the validity of the legal process. Whether that corruption was due to her personal bias, if the court determines there was some bias, or another form of corruption remains to be seen and we are allowed per the moderator's instructions to have discussions about the appeal, which to my knowledge has yet to be filed and we may not know all it includes.

[weezer]

You are quite correct, which contradicts your previous statement and I will not use the "I" word that you have chosen to use in a disparaging manner, which I think may be to incite, and only say that I am glad you understand.

I understand you completely - always have. You do try to incite and you do bait. I think we are all glad that the boards are being monitored more closely -- maybe some of the nonsense will stop and we can get back to debating the issues.

with that being said, this is off-topic so let's move on.

[William Anthony]

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.

[William Anthony]

I understand you completely - always have. You do try to incite and you do bait. I think we are all glad that the boards are being monitored more closely -- maybe some of the nonsense will stop and we can get back to debating the issues.

with that being said, this is off-topic so let's move on.

Thank you and I remain of the opinion that neither Simpson's cellmate nor the ownership of the property are issues in the Nevada case, since the case was over at the time he got a cellmate and judge J. Glass' ruling was that ownership of the property was not an issue in the Nevada case.

[William Anthony]

is there ANYTHING, ANYWHERE that charges corruption by this Court? No? then we should be discussing facts and not made-up, make-believe lawyer fantasies.

imo

I thought I have explained it to you. However, if you are not satisfied, then so be it. The appearance of partiality by a judge corrupts the validity of the judicial process.

[weezer]

Thank you and I remain of the opinion that neither Simpson's cellmate nor the ownership of the property are issues in the Nevada case, since the case was over at the time he got a cellmate and judge J. Glass' ruling was that ownership of the property was not an issue in the Nevada case.

odd that you now claim you are of the opinion that ownership of the property was not an issue when you have claimed exactly opposite that in order to provide convicted felon orenthal james simpson a defense. :D :shrug:

[weezer]

I thought I have explained it to you. However, if you are not satisfied, then so be it. The appearance of partiality by a judge corrupts the validity of the judicial process.

and you're surprised that the convicted felon and his lawyers believe the judge was impartial? LOL --

wait, wait. didn't galanter say what a great judge Glass was and how priviledged he was to have been in front of her? please don't tell me he didn't mean it.

[William Anthony]

odd that you now claim you are of the opinion that ownership of the property was not an issue when you have claimed exactly opposite that in order to provide convicted felon orenthal james simpson a defense. :D :shrug:

You fail to understand. I said judge J. Glass claimed that the ownership was not an issue and gave the jury an instruction on that but then in sentencing referred to Simpson's statement about the ownership and repeated that he called the Goldman's, gold diggers. This is what I said.

"...I remain of the opinion that neither Simpson's cellmate nor the ownership of the property are issues in the Nevada case, since the case was over at the time he got a cellmate and judge J. Glass' ruling was that ownership of the property was not an issue in the Nevada case."

That has been my stance. What becomes an issue on appeal is why judge J. Glass seemingly violated her own ruling. I am also of the opinion that to deny Simpson the claim of right defense is a Violation of his Constitutional rights, which I think may and should be part of the basis of an appeal.

[weezer]

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.

I don't have to be in the 'legal profession' to understand that the appeal has to be based on fact. I will not stoop to a baser level because I also want to keep this thread open and say that I will not say those of the type, the ones who are on the fringes of the 'legal profession' but pretend to be more, may be called wannabe's. I suggest that we discuss the case without you making personal comments. your anticipated cooperation will be greatly appreciated. thanks.

[William Anthony]

and you're surprised that the convicted felon and his lawyers believe the judge was impartial? LOL --

wait, wait. didn't galanter say what a great judge Glass was and how priviledged he was to have been in front of her? please don't tell me he didn't mean it.

That just goes to show how good a lawyer he is, if he made you believe he was sincere but I don't think his buttering-up was enough to soften the gruff exterior of Judge J. Glass when she imposed sentence.

[weezer]

You fail to understand. I said judge J. Glass claimed that the ownership was not an issue and gave the jury an instruction on that but then in sentencing referred to Simpson's statement about the ownership and repeated that he called the Goldman's, gold diggers. This is what I said.

"...I remain of the opinion that neither Simpson's cellmate nor the ownership of the property are issues in the Nevada case, since the case was over at the time he got a cellmate and judge J. Glass' ruling was that ownership of the property was not an issue in the Nevada case."

That has been my stance. What becomes an issue on appeal is why judge J. Glass seemingly violated her own ruling. I am also of the opinion that to deny Simpson the claim of right defense is a Violation of his Constitutional rights, which I think may and should be part of the basis of an appeal.

your argument is circular. hmmm, wonder where I've heard that? at the time of sentencing, Judge Glass was within the law to consider the abuse, murder, civil and road rage trials. She was within the law to consider ALL past behavior so I'm guessing her repeating convicted felon orenthal james simpson's words is not a big deal. and since Judge Glass sentenced convicted felon orenthal james simpson within the guidelines required by law, I think she'll be okay on appeal.

which one do you want william? the memorabilia wasn't an issue or it was? seems to me you can't make up your mind.

[weezer]

That just goes to show how good a lawyer he is, if he made you believe he was sincere but I don't think his buttering-up was enough to soften the gruff exterior of Judge J. Glass when she imposed sentence.

riiiiight. . .:punch:

[William Anthony]

I don't have to be in the 'legal profession' to understand that the appeal has to be based on fact. I will not stoop to a baser level because I also want to keep this thread open and say that I will not say those of the type, the ones who are on the fringes of the 'legal profession' but pretend to be more, may be called wannabe's. I suggest that we discuss the case without you making personal comments. your anticipated cooperation will be greatly appreciated. thanks.

Of course, a person does not have to be in the legal profession to be a want-to-be. It is however helpful to understand that an appeal is not normally based on a review of the facts but the record is reviewed to see if there are clearly erroneous and harmful errors of law, so that want-to-be(s) do not provide misleading information and some training might prevent that. I agree with you post and am glad to see that you are not opposed to my suggestion about discussing the case. Thanks for your cooperation in this sensitive matter.

[FDInLaw]

If you go back and look, my initial posts about memorabilia are still here despite WA's concerns (and reporting?). . . DW has not made an official statement, but I assume the topic is fair game. I brought it up yesterday because I'm tired of being knit picked every time I post in here. A quick call to my Mom is less painful and that's just plain ridiculous. Why don't we all stop playing mod, let DW do his/her job, and stick to posting? Are we not all adults here?

[weezer]

If you go back and look, my initial posts about memorabilia are still here despite WA's concerns (and reporting?). . . DW has not made an official statement, but I assume the topic is fair game. I brought it up yesterday because I'm tired of being knit picked every time I post in here. A quick call to my Mom is less painful and that's just plain ridiculous. Why don't we all stop playing mod, let DW do his/her job, and stick to posting? Are we not all adults here?

I agree completely right up to the point that the NG's start posting carp that didn't, couldn't, and won't happen. you know, make-believe stuff. :D

[William Anthony]

your argument is circular. hmmm, wonder where I've heard that? at the time of sentencing, Judge Glass was within the law to consider the abuse, murder, civil and road rage trials. She was within the law to consider ALL past behavior so I'm guessing her repeating convicted felon orenthal james simpson's words is not a big deal. and since Judge Glass sentenced convicted felon orenthal james simpson within the guidelines required by law, I think she'll be okay on appeal.

which one do you want william? the memorabilia wasn't an issue or it was? seems to me you can't make up your mind.

We have had this discussion on what judge J. Glass was allowed to consider and many cases were provided with the latest decision proving you wrong. You may think that she will be okay on appeal but I am not sure as I review all the possible issues on appeal, including conviction on some of the charges. I acknowledge that the ownership was not a part of the trial but the question remains on appeal whether that ownership should have been a part. The ownership of the property is being decided in a California court and, if there are those interested in discussing that case, then a request to the moderator is in order, imho. However, the denial of the claim of right defense, which would include the belief of theownership of the memorabilia, is a part of the discussion of an appeal. I hope you can understand and appreciate the difference.

[William Anthony]

If you go back and look, my initial posts about memorabilia are still here despite WA's concerns (and reporting?). . . DW has not made an official statement, but I assume the topic is fair game. I brought it up yesterday because I'm tired of being knit picked every time I post in here. A quick call to my Mom is less painful and that's just plain ridiculous. Why don't we all stop playing mod, let DW do his/her job, and stick to posting? Are we not all adults here?

I simply stated my concerns, according to my understanding of post #50, and my desire to have the rules enforced in order to keep the thread open. If you feel comfortable making those types of posts, then by all means continue to do so, while allowing me to express my concerns. It did not call for a debate or insults. Let's get back to discussing the case, which the appeal is a part of, and thanks in anticipation for your cooperation.

[weezer]

Of course, a person does not have to be in the legal profession to be a want-to-be. It is however helpful to understand that an appeal is not normally based on a review of the facts but the record is reviewed to see if there are clearly erroneous and harmful errors of law, so that want-to-be(s) do not provide misleading information and some training might prevent that. I agree with you post and am glad to see that you are not opposed to my suggestion about discussing the case. Thanks for your cooperation in this sensitive matter.

I've grown tired of your nonsense and baiting. :seeya:

[weezer]

We have had this discussion on what judge J. Glass was allowed to consider and many cases were provided with the latest decision proving you wrong. You may think that she will be okay on appeal but I am not sure as I review all the possible issues on appeal, including conviction on some of the charges. I acknowledge that the ownership was not a part of the trial but the question remains on appeal whether that ownership should have been a part. The ownership of the property is being decided in a California court and, if there are those interested in discussing that case, then a request to the moderator is in order, imho. However, the denial of the claim of right defense, which would include the belief of theownership of the memorabilia, is a part of the discussion of an appeal. I hope you can understand and appreciate the difference.

I absolutely understand and appreciate the difference -- it seems the problem lies in YOUR comprehension and understanding. 'claim of right' was NOT a defense and is NOT a part of the appeal in this CASE.

[William Anthony]

your argument is circular. hmmm, wonder where I've heard that? at the time of sentencing, Judge Glass was within the law to consider the abuse, murder, civil and road rage trials. She was within the law to consider ALL past behavior so I'm guessing her repeating convicted felon orenthal james simpson's words is not a big deal. and since Judge Glass sentenced convicted felon orenthal james simpson within the guidelines required by law, I think she'll be okay on appeal.

which one do you want william? the memorabilia wasn't an issue or it was? seems to me you can't make up your mind.

Here.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2004/08/the_prior_convi.html

“As a result of the decision in Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), a "prior conviction" exception has been built into the Sixth Amendment's application in Apprendi and Blakely. That is, both Apprendi and Blakely state that its rule requiring certain facts to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant only applies to facts "other than the fact of a prior conviction."

Hence, since the civil trial was by a preponderance of the evidence standard it was impermissible for judge J. Glass to consider the civil trial.