Nevada Case Discussion Only

[tv]

Are you familiar with the term investigation? LE did not say they investigated and concluded it was a civil matter. They said they did not want to get involved in any weird celebrity case.LE knows a civil matter from a criminal matter. After 13 years I'd be surprised if the statute of limitations hasn't run out. If OJ Simpson thought he had been robbed in CA then he should have reported it in CA at the time he alleges it happened.

[William Anthony]

LE knows a civil matter from a criminal matter. After 13 years I'd be surprised if the statute of limitations hasn't run out. If OJ Simpson thought he had been robbed in CA then he should have reported it in CA at the time he alleges it happened.

What makes you think LE knows the difference in which something would be handled without doing an investigation? I don't ever think he claimed to have been robbed as opposed to being a victim of a theft.

[serpentsfall]

I am one of those that believe crimes should be handle by LE. Let me give you another example. I am at a coffee shop and start a discussion with the police, telling them that 10 years ago I killed someone that was never reported missing, as they were homeless, tell them how I did it and where I buried the body. Is it your belief that LE should just sit by finishing their coffee as I leave?

I believe that would qualify as a first-hand report of a crime for which there is no statute of limitations. What Riccio did was the equivalent of running a proposed plot of the Riccio production of a "Cops"-like show by LE in order to solicit their opinion and hopefully participation. LE said no thanks - bad idea. To place Riccio in the starring role of "good samaritan" is laughable.

[William Anthony]

I believe that would qualify as a first-hand report of a crime for which there is no statute of limitations. What Riccio did was the equivalent of running a proposed plot of the Riccio production of a "Cops"-like show by LE in order to solicit their opinion and hopefully participation. LE said no thanks - bad idea. To place Riccio in the starring role of "good samaritan" is laughable.

What date did Fromong and Beardsley come in possession of the alleged stolen property. When was that property stolen from Simpson? Was there only one time the property was stolen? Was there different times when the property was stolen from different locations? Did LE investigate to determine any of this?

[serpentsfall]

What makes you think LE knows the difference in which something would be handled without doing an investigation? I don't ever think he claimed to have been robbed as opposed to being a victim of a theft.

I don't think OJ thought of himself as being the victim of a theft; he seems to have felt he had been double-crossed. The subtle difference is that you have to realize at some point that you yourself crossed a line before you can be double-crossed by someone else.

[William Anthony]

I don't think OJ thought of himself as being the victim of a theft; he seems to have felt he had been double-crossed. The subtle difference is that you have to realize at some point that you yourself crossed a line before you can be double-crossed by someone else.

You might think he thought it was a double cross but he alleged it was a theft. Riccio's discussion with LE amounted to a report of a crime.

[martin II]

if I'm not mistaken, those are exactly the things orenthal had to give up --


I don't think so because thwey were too low on the value scale.

[serpentsfall]

What date did Fromong and Beardsley come in possession of the alleged stolen property. When was that property stolen from Simpson? Was there only one time the property was stolen? Was there different times when the property was stolen from different locations? Did LE investigate to determine any of this?

Well, since you're so adamant that we stick to issues of the Nevada case, I guess I should remind you that the only theft of the items that matters to the State of Nevada is the time it was stolen from the hotel room in Las Vegas. Anything that went on before has been ruled immaterial, whether you and/or OJ agree or not. Debating whether or not Nevada law is good law or bad law is moot if we're sticking to issues of this case. The law is what it is and I for one am not persuaded by any of your arguments that there is anything so wrong with the law or so different about this case that rises to the level of being an appealable issue.

[serpentsfall]

You might think he thought it was a double cross but he alleged it was a theft. Riccio's discussion with LE amounted to a report of a crime.

LE heard what he said to them and from their first-hand position determined you are mistaken in your interpetation of the issue.

[William Anthony]

Well, since you're so adamant that we stick to issues of the Nevada case, I guess I should remind you that the only theft of the items that matters to the State of Nevada is the time it was stolen from the hotel room in Las Vegas. Anything that went on before has been ruled immaterial, whether you and/or OJ agree or not. Debating whether or not Nevada law is good law or bad law is moot if we're sticking to issues of this case. The law is what it is and I for one am not persuaded by any of your arguments that there is anything so wrong with the law or so different about this case that rises to the level of being an appealable issue.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to express it as I am. You don't have to remind me about the ownership of the property, as you must realize my point was more in the line of Due Process. The theft or non-theft of the property was brought up by other posters, who may adhere to your, imho, sound advice on the topics of the discussions relevant to the Nevada case. My point on the other hand dealt with the testimony that LE did not due their duty after receiving a report, which Simpson may have a cause of action for a violation of his Equal Protection, which I don't think he will pursue. However, the point is not what the law is but whether or not an argument can be made that, as the law was, it violated the Due Process of Simpson and others who were convicted. I only hope that my arguments are being noticed and may be adopted so that they may be persuasive to some appellate judges. You have any answers to my questions in post #210?

[William Anthony]

LE heard what he said to them and from their first-hand position determined you are mistaken in your interpetation of the issue.

My interpretation is that they received a report of a crime, be it a theft of property or possession of stolen property, which they were obligated to investigate.

[martin II]

Are you familiar with the terms "nosy neighbor" or "busybody"? In spite of your good intentions, you're adding 2 plus 2 and getting 3 because all you know is what you saw and heard. Riccio testified that LE listened to what he had to say, left the room for awhile and after they came back they told him ownership of the items was a civil matter.

i think that is what Riccio testtified that the FBI did. not la le.

[martin II]

I don't think OJ thought of himself as being the victim of a theft; he seems to have felt he had been double-crossed. The subtle difference is that you have to realize at some point that you yourself crossed a line before you can be double-crossed by someone else.


When oj entered the PSH room he accused FUMONG of stealing his stuff. 'YOU STOLE MY STUFF" was his words. This indicates that he thought Fumong had stolen his stuff and he was a victim.imo

[William Anthony]

I think I see the source of some confusion. Under a claim of right defense, the person does not have to prove the property was his, only that he reasonably believed the property was his, if the defense is to be successful.

[serpentsfall]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to express it as I am. You don't have to remind me about the ownership of the property, as you must realize my point was more in the line of Due Process. The theft or non-theft of the property was brought up by other posters, who may adhere to your, imho, sound advice on the topics of the discussions relevant to the Nevada case. My point on the other hand dealt with the testimony that LE did not due their duty after receiving a report, which Simpson may have a cause of action for a violation of his Equal Protection, which I don't think he will pursue. However, the point is not what the law is but whether or not an argument can be made that, as the law was, it violated the Due Process of Simpson and others who were convicted. I only hope that my arguments are being noticed and may be adapted so that they may be persuasive to some appellate judges.

You're spitting in the wind, William, and I think you know it. Simpson's right to Due Process doesn't supersede society's right to be protected from thugs who think might makes right. The remedy in place to address the burglary vs. robbery in the same incident issue is to not allow the penalty for the burglary to be consecutive. As long as the penalty is always less than and runs concurrent with the robbery conviction the result will always be harmless error of the law to the defendant. Therefore, its not an appealable issue.

[serpentsfall]

When oj entered the PSH room he accused FUMONG of stealing his stuff. 'YOU STOLE MY STUFF" was his words. This indicates that he thought Fumong had stolen his stuff and he was a victim.imo

And still it doesn't matter under Nevada law.

[martin II]

I believe that would qualify as a first-hand report of a crime for which there is no statute of limitations. What Riccio did was the equivalent of running a proposed plot of the Riccio production of a "Cops"-like show by LE in order to solicit their opinion and hopefully participation. LE said no thanks - bad idea. To place Riccio in the starring role of "good samaritan" is laughable.

If le had been operating properly they could have told Riccio look, forget the cameras and all that stuff. Tell us who has these stolen goods and where we can find him. For all they knew Riccio could have been tipping them off to a major fencing operation of all kinds of stolen goods in la.

[martin II]

And still it doesn't matter under Nevada law.

my post was in response to you suggesting that oj did not see himself as a victim.

[serpentsfall]

I think I see the source of some confusion. Under a claim of right defense, the person does not have to prove the property was his, only that he reasonably believed the property was his, if the defense is to be successful.

And when the burglary is a lesser crime in concert with others during the same incident there is a remedy in place to protect the defendant's due process: they can't tack on any additional penalty for the burglary. The issue becomes non-appealable "harmless error".

[William Anthony]

You're spitting in the wind, William, and I think you know it. Simpson's right to Due Process doesn't supersede society's right to be protected from thugs who think might makes right. The remedy in place to address the burglary vs. robbery in the same incident issue is to not allow the penalty for the burglary to be consecutive. As long as the penalty is always less than and runs concurrent with the robbery conviction the result will always be harmless error of the law to the defendant. Therefore, its not an appealable issue.

Is something wet hitting you in the face? I beg to differ there is nothing in the Constitution that says society has the right to be safe, except in the rights to life, liberty, which has been expanded to include various other rights, and pursuit of happiness. Therefore, the liberty right found in the Constitution does supersede society's right and the Due Process right was established to ensure that an individuals right to liberty weighs more than society's rights to be protected. Hence, the presumption of innocence. You may think that there is no remedy available, because of a concurrent sentence. However, my argument is that there can be no robbery without the burglary and that the claim of right defense is applicable to burglary and that intent/defense should carry over to the robbery charge, as a logical consequence. It is totally inconsistent to say that one had the specific intent to commit burglary or, if you will, the claim of right defense, which was ruled by Judge J. Glass as not a part of the trial, without offering a defense to the charge and that defense would have to apply by a logical extension to the crime of robbery.

[martin II]

Because it's YOUR off topic scenario.


well this is on topic

Was the stuff Fumong was trying to sell at PSH on the original turnover sheet/list?

[serpentsfall]

my post was in response to you suggesting that oj did not see himself as a victim.

I know. He should have told it to the CA civil court in his interrogatories. Goldman's attorney probably would have gotten it back for him.

[serpentsfall]

Is something wet hitting you in the face? I beg to differ there is nothing in the Constitution that says society has the right to be safe, except in the rights to life, liberty, which has been expanded to include various other rights, and pursuit of happiness. Therefore, the liberty right found in the Constitution does supersede society's right and the Due Process right was established to ensure that an individuals right to liberty weighs more than society's rights to be protected. Hence, the presumption of innocence. You may think that there is no remedy available, because of a concurrent sentence. However, my argument is that there can be no robbery without the burglary and that the claim of right defense is applicable to burglary and that intent/defense should carry over to the robbery charge, as a logical consequence. It is totally inconsistent to say that one had the specific intent to commit burglary or, if you will, the claim of right defense, which was ruled by Judge J. Glass as not a part of the trial, without offering a defense to the charge and that defense would have to apply by a logical extension to the crime of robbery.

Well, Professor William, I guess we'll just have to wait and see if Judge Jackie Glass knows how to interpret the laws of Nevada or not and whether the Nevada Supreme Court agrees with her. Till then the issue is just you stating your opinion of what ought to be on a message board. Have at it.

[William Anthony]

Well, Professor William, I guess we'll just have to wait and see if Judge Jackie Glass knows how to interpret the laws of Nevada or not and whether the Nevada Supreme Court agrees with her. Till then the issue is just you stating your opinion of what ought to be on a message board. Have at it.

That is a very astute observation as to what you, I and others are doing. However, let me say this. You specifically intended to commit burglary to commit robbery but, if you reasonably believed that the property that you took was yours, then you cannot be convicted of burglary, if the trier of facts believes your defense. However, you are not allowed to say that you believed the property was yours or the jury is not allowed to consider that when it comes to the robbery charge, because it does not matter under our law, if the property was unlawful taken, meaning that you cannot take back your property but you can commit burglary to take it back. Now, do you see the inconsistency? Excuse me for being a professor in trying to make my argument clear?

[serpentsfall]

Are you familiar with the term investigation? LE did not say they investigated and concluded it was a civil matter. They said they did not want to get involved in any weird celebrity case.

Gee, I don't recall hearing any of the LE Riccio talked to testify at trial. I only remember Riccio's testimony about what they allegedly said. Nothing self-serving about Riccio's personality. Got a link?

[martin II]

And when the burglary is a lesser crime in concert with others during the same incident there is a remedy in place to protect the defendant's due process: they can't tack on any additional penalty for the burglary. The issue becomes non-appealable "harmless error".

Who can tack on additional penalty and when?

[serpentsfall]

That is a very astute observation as to what you, I and others are doing. However, let me say this. You specifically intended to commit burglary to commit robbery but, if you reasonably believed that the property that you took was yours, then you cannot be convicted of burglary, if the trier of facts believes your defense. However, you are not allowed to say that you believed the property was yours or the jury is not allowed to consider that when it comes to the robbery charge, because it does not matter under our law, if the property was unlawful taken, meaning that you cannot take back your property but you can commit burglary to take it back. Now, do you see the inconsistency? Excuse me for being a professor in trying to make my argument clear?

What makes you think OJ intended to commit burglary to commit robbery? The jury rightfully determined he intended to commit robbery to commit burglary. He intended to take the items by force. Once he had enveigled the victims to the room he used force to rob them of the items he knew would be there and burgled some extas while he was there as well.

[martin II]

There's nothing wrong with the links fbgweezer. They work for me. I guess they don't work if someone doesn't want them too. :rolleyes:

Because your computer opened the link you know All other computers will do the same. right? WOW

[William Anthony]

Gee, I don't recall hearing any of the LE Riccio talked to testify at trial. I only remember Riccio's testimony about what they allegedly said. Nothing self-serving about Riccio's personality. Got a link?

Yes, the link is here and ask tvdinner.

I found this. Riccio says LE said they didn't want to get involved in another weird celebrity case so it appears that they didn't say they didn't want to get involved because of OJ Simpson.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/10993046.html Tvdinner's response to Redmama.

[William Anthony]

What makes you think OJ intended to commit burglary to commit robbery? The jury rightfully determined he intended to commit robbery to commit burglary. He intended to take the items by force. Once he had enveigled the victims to the room he used force to rob them of the items he knew would be there and burgled some extas while he was there as well.

Link, please!!! to the jury rightfully determined that he intended to commit robbery to commit burglary? I thought you had read the definition of burglary under the Nevada law. I hope you are right as to what you claim the jury rightfully determined as it is contradictory to the Nevada statute.

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)

[martin II]

What makes you think OJ intended to commit burglary to commit robbery? The jury rightfully determined he intended to commit robbery to commit burglary. He intended to take the items by force. Once he had enveigled the victims to the room he used force to rob them of the items he knew would be there and burgled some extas while he was there as well.

oj did not know who was trying to sell his stuff prior to walking into the PSH room. He did not enveigled anyone to a room. Riccio did that.

[serpentsfall]

Who can tack on additional penalty and when?

Meaning when sentences run consecutively instead of concurrently.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by serpentsfall View Post
What makes you think OJ intended to commit burglary to commit robbery? The jury rightfully determined he intended to commit robbery to commit burglary. He intended to take the items by force. Once he had enveigled the victims to the room he used force to rob them of the items he knew would be there and burgled some extas while he was there as well.

You don't bugle extras. You burgle "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."

[tv]

oj did not know who was trying to sell his stuff prior to walking into the PSH room. He did not enveigled anyone to a room. Riccio did that.martin, if you know, when did OJ Simpson realize the alleged stolen items were allegedly stolen?

[William Anthony]

martin, if you know, when did OJ Simpson realize the alleged stolen items were allegedly stolen?

We may never know as LE did not investigate.

[William Anthony]

Meaning when sentences run consecutively instead of concurrently.

That is not a way of adding on an additional penalty. It is a different way to punish for crimes.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/71874/concurrent_vs_consecutive_sentences.html?cat=17

[serpentsfall]

Yes, the link is here and ask tvdinner.

Tvdinner's response to Redmama.

A) That article still doesn't sound like Riccio went to LE in order to file a theft report and

B) FBI made a report of the interview. I don't see the "weird celebrity" quote being cited as part of the FBI report. It's what Riccio said they said.

C) No FBI or LAPD officers testified about the discussions at trial, and a newspaper article is not evidence. Even if Linda Deutsch co-wrote it.

[tv]

We may never know as LE did not investigate.Simpson had been blabbing for years after the civil trial about giving his stuff away to keep it from Fred Goldman so I'm sure it had been a long while.

[William Anthony]

A) That article still doesn't sound like Riccio went to LE in order to file a theft report and

B) FBI made a report of the interview. I don't see the "weird celebrity" quote being cited as part of the FBI report. It's what Riccio said they said.

C) No FBI or LAPD officers testified about the discussions at trial, and a newspaper article is not evidence. Even if Linda Deutsch co-wrote it.

Perhaps, you need to go back and read my post that started the discussion, again, but there may not be any need to, as I am sure that you know, that silence implies consent in the legal context.

[William Anthony]

Simpson had been blabbing for years about giving his stuff away to keep it from Fred Goldman so I'm sure it had been a long while.

You are making the assumption that the items were one in the same. We may never know, since LE did not investigate.

[tv]

You are making the assumption that the items were one in the same. We may never know, since LE did not investigate.I think when they heard it had been 13 years they decided it was a civil matter. According to a brief search that I did on the statute of limitations for felony theft in CA, the limitation is 3 years.

[William Anthony]

Has anyone considered that, if LE had investigated, found where Fromong and Beardsley got the items, investigated that person and so forth that Simpson could have been charged with a crime, according to this link, or it may have revealed that they were items recently stolen from Simpson? We may never know, because LE did not investigate.

http://www.assetprotectionbook.com/a2_asset_protection_sectors_corporate_directors.ht m

[William Anthony]

I think when they heard it had been 13 years they decided it was a civil matter. According to a brief search that I did on the statute of limitations for felony theft in CA, the limitation is 3 years.

What gave them the right to decide without investigating to confirm their suspicions? What are the statutes of limitation on receiving stolen property or interstate transportation of stolen property?

[tv]

What gave them the right to decide without investigating to confirm their suspicions. What are the statutes of limitation on receiving stolen property or interstate transportation of stolen property?I can't answer that. You'll have to do your own searches.

[William Anthony]

I can't answer that. You'll have to do your own searches.

Oh well, You cannot transport stolen property until you come in possession of it, or you cannot be in possession of it, in this case, unless it was transported to you. When would those statutes of limitations be tolled? I mean if you are truly interested in finding information rather than just expressing opinions. Let me try to answer-nothing gave them that right.

[tv]

Oh well, You cannot transport stolen property until you come in possession of it, or you cannot be in possession of it, in this case, unless it was transported to you.
How profound.

[William Anthony]

How profound.

Oh well, You cannot transport stolen property until you come in possession of it, or you cannot be in possession of it, in this case, unless it was transported to you. When would those statutes of limitations be tolled? I mean if you are truly interested in finding information rather than just expressing opinions. Let me try to answer-nothing gave them that right.

Not so profound as I forgot one possibility. You can be in possession from the time it was stolen, if you are the thief. I love to hear the answer-I can't answer that, when I am deposing someone and have them stuck. My standard response is answer with the truth.

[martin II]

martin, if you know, when did OJ Simpson realize the alleged stolen items were allegedly stolen?

i would guess sometime after the civil trail. Or after he fired Gilbert as a product selling agent.

[martin II]

I think when they heard it had been 13 years they decided it was a civil matter. According to a brief search that I did on the statute of limitations for felony theft in CA, the limitation is 3 years.


Riccio never testified that he told le the goods were stolen 13 ago.Where did you get that from?

[tv]

Riccio never testified that he told le the goods were stolen 13 ago.Where did you get that from?Like you, I'm guessing an approximate number of years from the civil trial.

[martin II]

martin, if you know, when did OJ Simpson realize the alleged stolen items were allegedly stolen?

Actually not being oj it is impossible for me to know when he realized something.

[martin II]

Like you, I'm guessing an approximate number of years from the civil trial.

oj had a business where he signed various posters and garments and Gilbert would sell them to retailers and others. The split was oj 60% Gilbert 40%.
At some point Gilbert demanded a larger %.They could not agree and oj fired him from that activity and started using another sellesman which did not please Gilbert because now he was getting zero. I think there were other things they continued to do togeather. imo

[weezer]

oj had a business where he signed various posters and garments and Gilbert would sell them to retailers and others. The split was oj 60% Gilbert 40%.
At some point Gilbert demanded a larger %.They could not agree and oj fired him from that activity and started using another sellesman which did not please Gilbert because now he was getting zero. I think there were other things they continued to do togeather. imo

as I remember it, Gilbert said he and orenthal had the split when Gilbert was stuck by the IRS for ALL the monies -- orenthal refused to shoulder the burden of taxes on his share and would not reiumburse Gilbert. I don't feel sorry for Gilbert since he was in cahoots with orenthal in hiding the money and he knew the character of the person he was dealing with.

[tv]

Actually not being oj it is impossible for me to know when he realized something.I think common sense would point to his alleged realization happening more than three years before the time of the Vegas robbery.

[weezer]

i would guess sometime after the civil trail. Or after he fired Gilbert as a product selling agent.

LOL -- orenthal actually told the exact time he knew -- on the tapes he laughed about everyone running around emptying the rockingham house and hiding stuff in cars, his family and friends homes, storerooms, etc., so that the items wouldn't be taken the next day when the order was served. That might have been a good time to report them stolen don't you think? oh, that's right. he couldn't.

[tv]

LOL -- orenthal actually told the exact time he knew -- on the tapes he laughed about everyone running around emptying the rockingham house and hiding stuff in cars, his family and friends homes, storerooms, etc., so that the items wouldn't be taken the next day when the order was served. That might have been a good time to report them stolen don't you think? oh, that's right. he couldn't.William says we can't be sure he was talking about the same items...riiiight. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

William says we can't be sure he was talking about the same items...riiiight. :rolleyes:

well obviously it wasn't 'stuff' he cared about since he told the rest of the thugs he didn't care what they did with it. anyone remember him saying on the tapes which 'stuff' he believed was his to give away and which 'stuff' he needed to return?

[William Anthony]

Like you, I'm guessing an approximate number of years from the civil trial.

Another astute observation. We are all guessing, because LE failed to investigate.

[William Anthony]

William says we can't be sure he was talking about the same items...riiiight. :rolleyes:

Have you not admitted that we are only guessing, not only as to when but what was stolen when. We do so because LE failed to investigate.

[tv]

Have you not admitted that we are only guessing, not only as to when but what was stolen when. We do so because LE failed to investigate.
William, whether you admit or not you know the items in question are the same items he talked about letting people carry away to keep them out of Fred Goldman's hands. If OJ Simpson really wanted LE to investigate he should have reported the items as stolen at the time. Instead, he keeps his mouth shut and then allows Riccio to mention the items to LE years later. The only thing he's the victim of is his own greed.

[martin II]

I think common sense would point to his alleged realization happening more than three years before the time of the Vegas robbery.

Whose common sense???
Realization and moving on that info are two different things. No one here knows what he did with that info.He could have just waited because he knew that two crooks like Rizzio and Beadsley would eventually meet.hahaha

[weezer]

Whose common sense???
Realization and moving on that info are two different things. No one here knows what he did with that info.He could have just waited because he knew that two crooks like Rizzio and Beadsley would eventually meet.hahaha

or he thought he could use guns and robbed the owners. oh that's right. he did. hahaha

[weezer]

William, whether you admit or not you know the items in question are the same items he talked about letting people carry away to keep them out of Fred Goldman's hands. If OJ Simpson really wanted LE to investigate he should have reported the items as stolen at the time. Instead, he keeps his mouth shut and then allows Riccio to mention the items to LE years later. The only thing he's the victim of is his own greed.

I'm not real sure orenthal knew about riccio talking to LE until after the fact. :shrug:

[martin II]

as I remember it, Gilbert said he and orenthal had the split when Gilbert was stuck by the IRS for ALL the monies -- orenthal refused to shoulder the burden of taxes on his share and would not reiumburse Gilbert. I don't feel sorry for Gilbert since he was in cahoots with orenthal in hiding the money and he knew the character of the person he was dealing with.

I think Gilbert means he was stuck for his share of taxes. But i guess that is the story he told.

[tv]

Whose common sense???
Realization and moving on that info are two different things. No one here knows what he did with that info.He could have just waited because he knew that two crooks like Rizzio and Beadsley would eventually meet.hahaha

Maybe he waited because he knew he had enough thug friends that he could always get a group of them together and use force to get back the things he had given away to keep them from Fred Goldman after the civil judgment. hahaha

[martin II]

I'm not real sure orenthal knew about riccio talking to LE until after the fact. :shrug:

Well i am because according to Riccio oj agreed that he should tell the FBI and LA LE.

[tv]

I'm not real sure orenthal knew about riccio talking to LE until after the fact. :shrug:

I've never been clear on that. I thought Riccio said Simpson knew but I don't know if he meant before or after.

[martin II]

I've never been clear on that. I thought Riccio said Simpson knew but I don't know if he meant before or after.

See Riccios testimony.

[tv]

Well i am because according to Riccio oj agreed that he should tell the FBI and LA LE.
When did he tell LA LE?

[martin II]

When did he tell LA LE?

After he told the FBI.
Did you listen to the vegas trial testimony?

[weezer]

Well i am because according to Riccio oj agreed that he should tell the FBI and LA LE.

I believe you are wrong about this but if you have a link. . .

[weezer]

I've never been clear on that. I thought Riccio said Simpson knew but I don't know if he meant before or after.

hmmm -- then that would mean that orenthal also knew about the taping. oh what a tangled web we weave. . .

[weezer]

". . .The FBI reports, written Aug. 21 and Sept. 19, said Riccio told agents he had been approached by Beardsley, who wanted to sell thousands of Simpson items.

The documents said Riccio described Beardsley as a fanatic and said Riccio contacted Simpson about the items. Simpson said his belongings were stolen from his Florida house by his former agent, Mike Gilbert, and others who had worked for him.

"Riccio and Simpson want to do a television broadcast confronting Beardsley regarding the items that were stolen," one report said. "Simpson wanted Riccio's assistance in setting up the operation and helping obtain interviews for Simpson through various media outlets after the fact."

Beardsley told police he had been robbed by Simpson and a group of men wielding guns. Simpson has denied there were any guns involved. He said Riccio set up the meeting and he planned to surprise Beardsley and retrieve his property.

Simpson told the AP he went to the hotel room after being alerted by Riccio that Beardsley and another collectibles dealer, Fromong, were trying to sell his possessions. Simpson knew both dealers. . ."

[tv]

After he told the FBI.
Did you listen to the vegas trial testimony?I listened to most of it but I didn't commit it all to memory and as you know I've been away from this thread for a while. If you prefer not to answer a question that you think I should already know the answer to it's okay.

[tv]

hmmm -- then that would mean that orenthal also knew about the taping. oh what a tangled web we weave. . .

It wouldn't surprise me at all if OJ Simpson knew about the taping. We already know he'll do anything to make a buck.

[weezer]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if OJ Simpson knew about the taping. We already know he'll do anything to make a buck.

I've wondered why he would be so stupid to pull what he did but I think the answer is contained in riccio's statement to the FBI: ". . ."Riccio and Simpson want to do a television broadcast confronting Beardsley regarding the items that were stolen," one report said. "Simpson wanted Riccio's assistance in setting up the operation and helping obtain interviews for Simpson through various media outlets after the fact.". . .

I think we're right -- there isn't anything orenthal wouldn't do for money!

[tv]

I've wondered why he would be so stupid to pull what he did but I think the answer is contained in riccio's statement to the FBI: ". . ."Riccio and Simpson want to do a television broadcast confronting Beardsley regarding the items that were stolen," one report said. "Simpson wanted Riccio's assistance in setting up the operation and helping obtain interviews for Simpson through various media outlets after the fact.". . .

I think we're right -- there isn't anything orenthal wouldn't do for money!

So it's possible that getting back the items wasn't the primary goal. He may have been trying to make money off the confrontation itself. Now, that sounds like our slimey little Orenthal! :D

[martin II]

Meaning when sentences run consecutively instead of concurrently.

Not sure your reply answers my question.

[martin II]

hmmm -- then that would mean that orenthal also knew about the taping. oh what a tangled web we weave. . .

If oj knew Riccio was making tapes i doubt he would have had much to say,

[martin II]

I have been informed that the moderators rules on CASE DISCUSSION ONLY are still in force.

[martin II]

I believe you are wrong about this but if you have a link. . .

see riccios testimony.

[tv]

I have been informed that the moderators rules on CASE DISCUSSION ONLY are still in force.No one is discussing any case other than the Vegas case. Who are you admonishing?

[tv]

If oj knew Riccio was making tapes i doubt he would have had much to say,You mean he wouldn't have implicated himself like he did?

[William Anthony]

William, whether you admit or not you know the items in question are the same items he talked about letting people carry away to keep them out of Fred Goldman's hands. If OJ Simpson really wanted LE to investigate he should have reported the items as stolen at the time. Instead, he keeps his mouth shut and then allows Riccio to mention the items to LE years later. The only thing he's the victim of is his own greed.


There is nothing for me to admit, except I don't know what items and what time Simpson alleges they were stolen, because LE failed to investigate. If they had, they might have informed Simpson that the items he alleged were stolen were not in the possession of Fromong or Beardsley, or that they were.

[William Anthony]

or he thought he could use guns and robbed the owners. oh that's right. he did. hahaha

No one has determined who the owners are.

[William Anthony]

Maybe he waited because he knew he had enough thug friends that he could always get a group of them together and use force to get back the things he had given away to keep them from Fred Goldman after the civil judgment. hahaha

Again, you make assumptions but we will never know, because LE did not investigate.

[William Anthony]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if OJ Simpson knew about the taping. We already know he'll do anything to make a buck.

It would not surprise me if you believe Simpson did the taping.

[William Anthony]

So it's possible that getting back the items wasn't the primary goal. He may have been trying to make money off the confrontation itself. Now, that sounds like our slimey little Orenthal! :D

That sounds like a statement of a slimy little con man named Riccio wanting to minimize his criminal conduct to me.

[William Anthony]

Let me assure you that I am not trying to be a professor and only want to have an informed discussion, so, in regard to the claim of right defense and its applicability to the crime of burglary under the Nevada statute, what does the term, the defendant reasonably believed that the property was the defendant's property, mean?

[martin II]

No one is discussing any case other than the Vegas case. Who are you admonishing?

Two days ago a poster said she would start posting on all cases when reminded of the rule she indicated she would proceed anyway. you must have missed that.

In the last few days the thread has reverted back to some oj bashing, name calling and gossip. you got a idea why?

my post was not a admonishment mearly a notice.

[martin II]

It would not surprise me if you believe Simpson did the taping.

i think a poster does believe that and that oj entered the PSH alone,beat the crap out of the criminals and walked out with his stuff.

[martin II]

You mean he wouldn't have implicated himself like he did?

no
i mean he would have not had much to say.
Thats what i posted earlier and meant. not what you are trying to say i meat.

[martin II]

It would not surprise me if you believe Simpson did the taping.

that may be the next INFORMED' opinion or guess.

[William Anthony]

i think a poster does believe that and that oj entered the PSH alone,beat the crap out of the criminals and walked out with his stuff.

I think some would say that the thought of Simpson one day being born caused the Great Depression. :)

[serpentsfall]

Let me assure you that I am not trying to be a professor and only want to have an informed discussion, so, in regard to the claim of right defense and its applicability to the crime of burglary under the Nevada statute, what does the term, the defendant reasonably believed that the property was the defendant's property, mean?

If burglary were the only, or most serious, crime committed I'd be backing you all the way. Am I not correct in understanding that burglary was the only offense to which the claim of right defense (aka guilty, but with an excuse) applied in this case? Simpson had two charges that involved burglary: Count 3 - Conspiracy to commit burglary and Count 4 - Burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon. He wasn't charged with "simple" burglary.

[William Anthony]

If burglary were the only, or most serious, crime committed I'd be backing you all the way. Am I not correct in understanding that burglary was the only offense to which the claim of right defense (aka guilty, but with an excuse) applied in this case? Simpson had two charges that involved burglary: Count 3 - Conspiracy to commit burglary and Count 4 - Burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon. He wasn't charged with "simple" burglary.

Is the definition of burglary any different. How can you commit burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon, without committing burglary? So, you are backing me all the way, if burglary was the only offense. Yet, judge J. Glass said that it did not matter, who owned the property and sustained the prosecutions objections to the defense. I happen to believe that judge J. Glass was correct in it did not matter who owned the property. Show me in the statute or case law where it says that if a person commits a burglary with a deadly weapon that they cannot offer a defense that would negate criminal intent, if believed by the jury. Are you able to answer the question in my prior post to which you responded with this one?

[martin II]

I think some would say that the thought of Simpson one day being born caused the Great Depression. :)

it is strange how oj can cause such hatred in people that have no connection to him. maby the answer lies in the ldea that some develop a need to hate.

[martin II]

count 4 seems to say he commited burglary and had a weapon when he commited burglary.

[William Anthony]

Some may believe that it is unreasonable to believe in God, while still realizing that people can reasonably believe in God. That is the difference and that is what the claim of right is.

[serpentsfall]

Is the definition of burglary any different. How can you commit burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon, without committing burglary? So, you are backing me all the way, if burglary was the only offense. Yet, judge J. Glass said that it did not matter, who owned the property and sustained the prosecutions objections to the defense. I happen to believe that judge J. Glass was correct in it did not matter who owned the property. Show me in the statute or case law where it says that if a person commits a burglary with a deadly weapon that they cannot offer a defense that would negate criminal intent, if believed by the jury. Are you able to answer the question in my prior post to which you responded with this one?

Oh please. You're arguing simply for argument's sake now. Yes, if simple burglary - the crime of entering a building with the intent to rob or commit another crime - was the only thing OJ & Co. did, I'd defend your argument. Bringing a firearm to any crime always raises the seriousness of the offense, hence an increased penalty. You surely don't think "I think this personal property is mine and I'm here to get it back " is or should be a defense to using a firearm against another unarmed human being, do you? I'm not going to waste my time looking up case law for you; you'll just have to wait and see what happens if and when Simpson appeals. There was no way the judge could allow Gallanter to offer their proposed defense to burglary as being valid against all the charges.

[William Anthony]

Oh please. You're arguing simply for argument's sake now. Yes, if simple burglary - the crime of entering a building with the intent to rob or commit another crime - was the only thing OJ & Co. did, I'd defend your argument. Bringing a firearm to any crime always raises the seriousness of the offense, hence an increased penalty. You surely don't think "I think this personal property is mine and I'm here to get it back " is or should be a defense to using a firearm against another unarmed human being, do you? I'm not going to waste my time looking up case law for you; you'll just have to wait and see what happens if and when Simpson appeals. There was no way the judge could allow Gallanter to offer their proposed defense to burglary as being valid against all the charges.

I have no problem researching case law to support my positions, while you just seem to be happy throwing out opinions. You were the one, who stated that they read appellate opinions weekly. I would think that one, who did that, would be interested in understanding what they read, meaning the legal reasoning to support the opinion. You are assuming that the alleged thieves would be unarmed. I, on the other hand, would not be willing to make that assumption. If Simpson was guilty of bringing guns to the room, it may very well be that he suspected anyone capable of stealing property and selling it in a clandestine manner would be capable of having firearms. The proposed defense is applicable to the burglary statute, which Nevada case law says burglary and kidnapping are specific intent crimes. I can tell that you are beginning to buy my argument as you are seemingly becoming irritated. However, set aside your emotions. The argument would be that Simpson could not have the specific intent to commit burglary, because he did not have the criminal intent to commit any other crime and the robbery statute is vague and over broad as it comes to "unlawful taking". How can one negate criminal intent, if he/she is not allowed to argue that he/she reasonably believed the property they were reclaiming belonged to them. I think that judge J. Glass is correct in that ownership was not an issue. The issue was whether or not Simpson reasonably believed the property was his, imho. Please, supply any link to a legal theory that one can rob himself of his own property, other than this case?

[William Anthony]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20081104_spilbor.html

[serpentsfall]

it is strange how oj can cause such hatred in people that have no connection to him. maby the answer lies in the ldea that some develop a need to hate.

Hate is a strong word, but I'm sure there are some zealots out there who do. Personally, I find intriguing how many people make excuses for and defend OJ's bad behavior.

[Kayleighjo]

it is strange how oj can cause such hatred in people that have no connection to him. maby the answer lies in the ldea that some develop a need to hate.

I know! Just as strange how O.J. can cause such worship from people that have no connection to him. Maybe the answer lies in the idea that some develop a need to protect their own.

[serpentsfall]

I have no problem researching case law to support my positions, while you just seem to be happy throwing out opinions. You were the one, who stated that they read appellate opinions weekly. I would think that one, who did that, would be interested in understanding what they read, meaning the legal reasoning to support the opinion. You are assuming that the alleged thieves would be unarmed. I, on the other hand, would not be willing to make that assumption. If Simpson was guilty of bringing guns to the room, it may very well be that he suspected anyone capable of stealing property and selling it in a clandestine manner would be capable of having firearms. The proposed defense is applicable to the burglary statute, which Nevada case law says burglary and kidnapping are specific intent crimes. I can tell that you are beginning to buy my argument as you are seemingly becoming irritated. However, set aside your emotions. The argument would be that Simpson could not have the specific intent to commit burglary, because he did not have the criminal intent to commit any other crime and the robbery statute is vague and over broad as it comes to "unlawful taking". How can one negate criminal intent, if he/she is not allowed to argue that he/she reasonably believed the property they were reclaiming belonged to them. I think that judge J. Glass is correct in that ownership was not an issue. The issue was whether or not Simpson reasonably believed the property was his, imho. Please, supply any link to a legal theory that one can rob himself of his own property, other than this case?

OJ wasn't robbed of his memorabilia at gunpoint. If he suspected the victims had firearms (which he did, by the way, know Fromong often carried a gun) he should have gone the civil court route to getting his items back rather than chance putting himself and his band of merry men at a substantial risk of harm. Did you not listen to the testimony and the judge's instruction on the law? Tell it to the hand.

[William Anthony]

Hate is a strong word, but I'm sure there are some zealots out there who do. Personally, I find intriguing how many people make excuses for and defend OJ's bad behavior.

To question whether someone should have been convicted of crimes is not the same as defending that person's bad behavior.

[William Anthony]

OJ wasn't robbed of his memorabilia at gunpoint. If he suspected the victims had firearms (which he did, by the way, know Fromong often carried a gun) he should have gone the civil court route to getting his items back rather than chance putting himself and his band of merry men at a substantial risk of harm. Did you not listen to the testimony and the judge's instruction on the law? Tell it to the hand.

No, I did not listen to judge J. Glass' instructions to the jury but I did read them and saw some potential errors, imho. I did listen to her when she referred to Simpson calling the Goldmans gold diggers. I did see some of over the line, imho, conduct. Perhaps, that may have been the preferable course of conduct for Simpson to have taken. However, it does not mean that some of his convictions and the trial did not violate his and others Due Process rights. Pardon me if I am unable to tell the hand from the face? So, are you saying that they could steal and sell Simpson's property and that was okay, because they did not use guns, or are you saying that they had committed no crime?

[serpentsfall]

I have no problem researching case law to support my positions, while you just seem to be happy throwing out opinions. You were the one, who stated that they read appellate opinions weekly. I would think that one, who did that, would be interested in understanding what they read, meaning the legal reasoning to support the opinion. You are assuming that the alleged thieves would be unarmed. I, on the other hand, would not be willing to make that assumption. If Simpson was guilty of bringing guns to the room, it may very well be that he suspected anyone capable of stealing property and selling it in a clandestine manner would be capable of having firearms. The proposed defense is applicable to the burglary statute, which Nevada case law says burglary and kidnapping are specific intent crimes. I can tell that you are beginning to buy my argument as you are seemingly becoming irritated. However, set aside your emotions. The argument would be that Simpson could not have the specific intent to commit burglary, because he did not have the criminal intent to commit any other crime and the robbery statute is vague and over broad as it comes to "unlawful taking". How can one negate criminal intent, if he/she is not allowed to argue that he/she reasonably believed the property they were reclaiming belonged to them. I think that judge J. Glass is correct in that ownership was not an issue. The issue was whether or not Simpson reasonably believed the property was his, imho. Please, supply any link to a legal theory that one can rob himself of his own property, other than this case?

I'm not irritated, I've just got better things to do than play mental ping-pong with you. You're trying to pull apart the charges and arrange them to fit your own argument. Since you acknowledge that Judge Glass was correct in determining that ownership was not an issue, ergo it doesn't matter who OJ or you or Galanter thought owed the items because ownership is not an issue, which negates the defense. In other words, you're spinning. Unlike you, the jury clearly believed the evidence showed tht OJ DID have a specific intent to commit the other, more serious crimes. If he prosecutors had chosen not to charge OJ with the burglary the result of his sentence would be the same: therefore there was no harmful error.

[serpentsfall]

To question whether someone should have been convicted of crimes is not the same as defending that person's bad behavior.

You're not coming across as questioning whether he should have been convicted; you're questioning whether the laws should be changed to accommodate his excuse. Laws should not be spun differently for the benefit of or for one man simply because a segment of society thinks his notoriety is undeserved.

[William Anthony]

I'm not irritated, I've just got better things to do than play mental ping-pong with you. You're trying to pull apart the charges and arrange them to fit your own argument. Since you acknowledge that Judge Glass was correct in determining that ownership was not an issue, ergo it doesn't matter who OJ or you or Galanter thought owed the items because ownership is not an issue, which negates the defense. In other words, you're spinning. Unlike you, the jury clearly believed the evidence showed tht OJ DID have a specific intent to commit the other, more serious crimes. If he prosecutors had chosen not to charge OJ with the burglary the result of his sentence would be the same: therefore there was no harmful error.

Good to know that you are not irritated. Perhaps, then I can persuade you as to the seriousness of judge J. Judy preventing the defense, not the materiality of who owned the property. The root of the claim of right defense lies in a defendant's reasonable believe that the property was his. Hence, that belief/intent/purpose negates any criminal intent. It was this defense that Judge J. Glass prevented. You do not see any jury instruction on burglarious intent. A false conviction cannot be harmful error, imho. Here is the defense in a nutshell. Simpson did not have the specific intent to commit burglary, because he did not have the intent to commit robbery or any other crime, which judge J. Glass prevented the jury form considering. It does not matter whether he owned the property or not, only that he reasonably believed he did.

[William Anthony]

You're not coming across as questioning whether he should have been convicted; you're questioning whether the laws should be changed to accommodate his excuse. Laws should not be spun differently for the benefit of or for one man simply because a segment of society thinks his notoriety is undeserved.

You may not have understood my argument. I have said that we as citizens are deprived when one person is deprived of his Constitutional rights. I have said that Simpson and others may have been so deprived. It was this case that brought the statute to my attention. No one is spinning the law differently. I have pointed to the vagueness, ambiguity and over breath of the statute and the inconsistency in the robbery statute as it varies from state to state and put forth an argument for the uniformity of the law. If the defendant had been someone else and my attention was drawn to the statute, I would argue the same points. Can you say the same?

[serpentsfall]

Good to know that you are not irritated. Perhaps, then I can persuade you as to the seriousness of judge J. Judy preventing the defense, not the materiality of who owned the property. The root of the claim of right defense lies in a defendant's reasonable believe that the property was his. Hence, that belief/intent/purpose negates any criminal intent. It was this defense that Judge J. Glass prevented. You do not see any jury instruction on burglarious intent. A false conviction cannot be harmful error, imho. Here is the defense in a nutshell. Simpson did not have the specific intent to commit burglary, because he did not have the intent to commit robbery or any other crime, which judge J. Glass prevented the jury form considering. It does not matter whether he owned the property or not, only that he reasonably believed he did.

And that would be great if the ownership of the property were at issue. I've not seen anything that convinces me that the claim of right defense is ALWAYS considered an appropriate defense in any burglary. I think it is likely more a matter of interpetation of the underlying facts of each specific case since 205.060 doesn't make exception for any and every "I thought it was mine" defense. In fact, in reading the statute it wasn't OJ's taking back of the items that constituted the burglary, it was that he did it under false pretenses.

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.

[serpentsfall]

You may not have understood my argument. I have said that we as citizens are deprived when one person is deprived of his Constitutional rights. I have said that Simpson and others may have been so deprived. It was this case that brought the statute to my attention. No one is spinning the law differently. I have pointed to the vagueness, ambiguity and over breath of the statute and the inconsistency in the robbery statute as it varies from state to state and put forth an argument for the uniformity of the law. If the defendant had been someone else and my attention was drawn to the statute, I would argue the same points. Can you say the same?

Do you really think there is anything so special about this case that no defendant has appealed the issue before? Or that it merits the overturning of the verdict in this case? The law is apparently not vague to the people who practice law in the state of Nevada. Maybe Galanter should have backed out and ceded complete defense of the case to an attorney familiar with Nevada law. I just don't see any wrong in need of righting in this case (except I think Stewart should prevail on the separate trial and admissibility of the tapes issues). Sorry.

[William Anthony]

And that would be great if the ownership of the property were at issue. I've not seen anything that convinces me that the claim of right defense is ALWAYS considered an appropriate defense in any burglary. I think it is likely more a matter of interpetation of the underlying facts of each specific case since 205.060 doesn't make exception for any and every "I thought it was mine" defense. In fact, in reading the statute it wasn't OJ's taking back of the items that constituted the burglary, it was that he did it under false pretenses. Correction-the statute says or to obtain by false pretense.

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.

It was not the ownership of the property but the belief/intent that was crucial and which was prevented. "with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony", I thought it was your theory that Simpson committed burglary, because he intended to rob them. Simpson never contacted them but Riccio did and opened the door, IIRC. The only one who entered under false pretense was Riccio. Simpson never claimed that he was there to buy memorabilia. Riccio said they wanted to. Simpson did not obtain anything by false pretense. He entered and took property he allegedly believed was his. You seem to forget that the property must be taken by false pretense. Are you saying the statute is vague?

[William Anthony]

Do you really think there is anything so special about this case that no defendant has appealed the issue before? Or that it merits the overturning of the verdict in this case? The law is apparently not vague to the people who practice law in the state of Nevada. Maybe Galanter should have backed out and ceded complete defense of the case to an attorney familiar with Nevada law. I just don't see any wrong in need of righting in this case (except I think Stewart should prevail on the separate trial and admissibility of the tapes issues). Sorry.

I do not know whether it has been argued before but I did supply a link that would support that it has in some aspects. If people simply give up and say the court has ruled and that's that, then the policy of separate but equal wouldn't have been overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, women and Blacks would still not be allowed to vote, sue in courts and abortions would be illegal. Perhaps, the law is vague to those who practice in Nevada, as the case law I provided said that the court would not hesitate to review the general intent crimes when it comes to co-conspirator liability. The court may well be inclined to review such an argument.

[tv]

That sounds like a statement of a slimy little con man named Riccio wanting to minimize his criminal conduct to me.
William, I think martin has dictated that no bashing is allowed. I would say that includes Riccio.

[William Anthony]

William, I think martin has dictated that no bashing is allowed. I would say that includes Riccio.

I think that Martin was reminding some of the rules against bashing family members. Riccio made sure that he was a part of the Nevada case and, as such, is entitled to bashing just like Simpson.

[William Anthony]

Correction to post #2144. The statute says to obtain by false pretense.

[William Anthony]

William, I think martin has dictated that no bashing is allowed. I would say that includes Riccio.

Off topic. You aren't going to get me with the dog. :)

[tv]

I think that Martin was reminding some of the rules against bashing family members. Riccio made sure that he was a part of the Nevada case and, as such, is entitled to bashing just like Simpson.I thought when martin made his remark about oj bashing he knew of a specific rule that DW had made. Just trying to get up to speed.

[William Anthony]

I thought when martin made his remark about oj bashing he knew of a specific rule that DW had made. Just trying to get up to speed.

Read posts ##2090 AND 1907 and they should bring you up to speed.

[serpentsfall]

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.

Not all burglaries are created equal. If OJ had broken into Fromong's home and taken memorabilia he thought was his, I can see a right of defense being appropriate to the facts of that case because the only thing immediately placed at risk in a case like that would be the items taken. The intended crime would have been a larceny or grand larceny of an item or items the defendant could reasonably believed was his.

On the other hand, if the intent of the burglary was to commit an assault I'm not seeing how the right of defense could apply. I'm not sure how physical harm to someone equates to the loss of property. "I beat up the wrong person in error" as a defense doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Therefore I think an interpretation that a "right of defense" is always available as a defense to a robbery charge is doubtful. When a gun is involved, or if kidnapping is involved as part of the "false pretenses" I'm even more doubtful that its applicable.

[weezer]

I think that Martin was reminding some of the rules against bashing family members. Riccio made sure that he was a part of the Nevada case and, as such, is entitled to bashing just like Simpson.

since arnelle, christy, and orenthal's sister are heard on the tapes, does that mean we can discuss them also?

[serpentsfall]

It was not the ownership of the property but the belief/intent that was crucial and which was prevented. "with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony", I thought it was your theory that Simpson committed burglary, because he intended to rob them. Simpson never contacted them but Riccio did and opened the door, IIRC. The only one who entered under false pretense was Riccio. Simpson never claimed that he was there to buy memorabilia. Riccio said they wanted to. Simpson did not obtain anything by false pretense. He entered and took property he allegedly believed was his. You seem to forget that the property must be taken by false pretense. Are you saying the statute is vague?

What's vague about luring two victims to a hotel room for the express purpose of tricking them in order to pull off a "sting"? The victims were lured to the room under false pretenses because OJ & Co intended to take property in their possesion from them through the use of intimidation &/or force. If that wasn't clear to you from listening to the tapes I don't know what you were listening to.

[William Anthony]

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.

Not all burglaries are created equal. If OJ had broken into Fromong's home and taken memorabilia he thought was his, I can see a right of defense being appropriate to the facts of that case because the only thing immediately placed at risk in a case like that would be the items taken. The intended crime would have been a larceny or grand larceny of an item or items the defendant could reasonably believed was his.

On the other hand, if the intent of the burglary was to commit an assault I'm not seeing how the right of defense could apply. I'm not sure how physical harm to someone equates to the loss of property. "I beat up the wrong person in error" as a defense doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Therefore I think an interpretation that a "right of defense" is always available as a defense to a robbery charge is doubtful. When a gun is involved, or if kidnapping is involved as part of the "false pretenses" I'm even more doubtful that its applicable.

There was no evidence that Simpson knew Fromong was involved prior to entering the room. So, to break into his home is a little far fetched, imho. To think that he would have the property at his home is also a little far fetched, imho.

So, now you believe the intent was to commit assault and/or kidnapping, correct? I don't know how beating up the wrong person in error equates to this case. What false pretense, unless you are talking about Riccio. They did not obtain the property by false pretense. I have also supplied you the link with the case law on kidnapping, which I think very likely the Nevada supreme court will reverse. The fact is that Fromong and Beardsley were in possession of property Simpson alleged was his. What wrong person in error are you speaking of?

[weezer]

There was no evidence that Simpson knew Fromong was involved prior to entering the room. So, to break into his home is a little far fetched, imho. To think that he would have the property at his home is also a little far fetched, imho.

So, now you believe the intent was to commit assault and/or kidnapping, correct? I don't know how beating up the wrong person in error equates to this case. What false pretense, unless you are talking about Riccio. They did not obtain the property by false pretense. I have also supplied you the link with the case law on kidnapping, which I think very likely the Nevada supreme court will reverse. The fact is that Fromong and Beardsley were in possession of property Simpson alleged was his. What wrong person in error are you speaking of?

anyone remember hearing on the tape where orenthal told his thugs "This is mine. You can do whatever you want with it but this doesn't belong to me and I need to return it."?

[martin II]

Hate is a strong word, but I'm sure there are some zealots out there who do. Personally, I find intriguing how many people make excuses for and defend OJ's bad behavior.

discussine both sides of behavior and discussing law does not have to be in defense of anyone. otherwise we would all just run up 1,000 pages of hate oj opinions and that would be a waste of time.

[William Anthony]

What's vague about luring two victims to a hotel room for the express purpose of tricking them in order to pull off a "sting"? The victims were lured to the room under false pretenses because OJ & Co intended to take property in their possesion from them through the use of intimidation &/or force. If that wasn't clear to you from listening to the tapes I don't know what you were listening to.

The statute.

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.

The question is was the entry made under false pretense or was the property obtained under false pretense, which is sufficient to convict for burglary. If you entered under false pretense to obtain property but did not use false pretense to obtain the property are you guilty of burglary? If you entered by not using false pretense but used false pretense to obtain property are you guilty of burglary?

[William Anthony]

anyone remember hearing on the tape where orenthal told his thugs "This is mine. You can do whatever you want with it but this doesn't belong to me and I need to return it."?

Didn't he say that in the room?
Was that before or after he gave back the cell phone?

[William Anthony]

since arnelle, christy, and orenthal's sister are heard on the tapes, does that mean we can discuss them also?

Were they called as witness or defendants? Was there an oath they took to do a sworn duty they failed to fulfill? Was there any testimony that they failed to do their duty?

[martin II]

What's vague about luring two victims to a hotel room for the express purpose of tricking them in order to pull off a "sting"? The victims were lured to the room under false pretenses because OJ & Co intended to take property in their possesion from them through the use of intimidation &/or force. If that wasn't clear to you from listening to the tapes I don't know what you were listening to.

Riccio said that Beadsley had told him that the seller had thousands oj items
and that is why other people were asked to come to help in hauling all the expected stuff away. That is why Riccio was surprised in the parking lot when Fumong unloaded only a few boxes and this caused Riccio to continue to ask Fumong,THATS ALL YOU GOT. WHERE IS THE OTHER ITEMS.The reason for the others was not to show force but to help with the expected load.imo

[martin II]

anyone remember hearing on the tape where orenthal told his thugs "this is mine. You can do whatever you want with it but this doesn't belong to me and i need to return it."?

no
martinii

[martin II]

since arnelle, christy, and orenthal's sister are heard on the tapes, does that mean we can discuss them also?

Several pages back the moderator announced that musings about family member is not allowed. i think that is directed to all here.

[martin II]

I'm not irritated, I've just got better things to do than play mental ping-pong with you. You're trying to pull apart the charges and arrange them to fit your own argument. Since you acknowledge that Judge Glass was correct in determining that ownership was not an issue, ergo it doesn't matter who OJ or you or Galanter thought owed the items because ownership is not an issue, which negates the defense. In other words, you're spinning. Unlike you, the jury clearly believed the evidence showed tht OJ DID have a specific intent to commit the other, more serious crimes. If he prosecutors had chosen not to charge OJ with the burglary the result of his sentence would be the same: therefore there was no harmful error.

then do them

[serpentsfall]

The statute.

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.

The question is was the entry made under false pretense or was the property obtained under false pretense, which is sufficient to convict for burglary. If you entered under false pretense to obtain property but did not use false pretense to obtain the property are you guilty of burglary? If you entered by not using false pretense but used false pretense to obtain property are you guilty of burglary?

Seriously, William. Your reading comprehension skills suck. If the person enters any (check one from the list, in this case - room) with the intent to commit (check one from the list: in this case none apply, so go to "or") or to obtain money or property by false pretenses (in this case: property), is guilty of burglary. It's not the defendant's entry that was made under false pretenses, its that they used false pretenses (telling the victims they'd be meeting with an interested buyer in the room) in order to obtain the property.

[tv]

Read posts ##2090 AND 1907 and they should bring you up to speed.


Thank you for your kind assistance, William. martin's post seems to indicate that someone has disrupted the thread in the last couple of days. If that's the point you were trying to make then I'll step aside and let you have your thread back. Others, especially fbgweezer and serpentsfall, are making a great contribution to the case discussion. I'll be checking back in for updates and to read their posts but I promise you'll hardly know I'm here. :seeya:

[martin II]

Seriously, William. Your reading comprehension skills suck. If the person enters any (check one from the list, in this case - room) with the intent to commit (check one from the list: in this case none apply, so go to "or") or to obtain money or property by false pretenses (in this case: property), is guilty of burglary. It's not the defendant's entry that was made under false pretenses, its that they used false pretenses (telling the victims they'd be meeting with an interested buyer in the room) in order to obtain the property.

That is considered to be rude language..

[serpentsfall]

Riccio said that Beadsley had told him that the seller had thousands oj items
and that is why other people were asked to come to help in hauling all the expected stuff away. That is why Riccio was surprised in the parking lot when Fumong unloaded only a few boxes and this caused Riccio to continue to ask Fumong,THATS ALL YOU GOT. WHERE IS THE OTHER ITEMS.The reason for the others was not to show force but to help with the expected load.imo

Well, Riccio wasn't exactly an up-front with all the facts team player now was he? The other items were family photos that Fromong did not profess to own - some singer's manager owned them. Did you miss the parts where OJ wanted them to "look intimidating"? Simpson & Co didn't know who was going to be in that room or what they'd be walking into; they knew Fromong sometimes carried a gun and hoped Gilbert would be there. Riccio could have told OJ in the lobby that the other guys weren't needed but he didn't. OJ could have asked if all the guys were going to be needed, but he didn't. If OJ thought what he was doing was OK, why would he have a problem making multiple trips or asking the hotel bellhops to come haul the stuff out for him? After all, since he and Riccio originally wanted it known publicly that he'd retrieved his stuff, why not make a big production of the return of his stuff from the evil thieves?

[martin II]

Thank you for your kind assistance, William. martin's post seems to indicate that someone has disrupted the thread in the last couple of days. If that's the point you were trying to make then I'll step aside and let you have your thread back. Others, especially fbgweezer and serpentsfall, are making a great contribution to the case discussion. I'll be checking back in for updates and to read their posts but I promise you'll hardly know I'm here. :seeya:

nothing i have said was meant for you.since the thread was reduced it is my opinuion that sticking to cade discussions only gave the moderator a opportunity to keep it open because there was not a lot of bashing and personal negative comments directed at each other. i noticed that in the last days there has been a increase in the old type posting which may cause us to closed.imo

you use to a favorite poster for me and i told you that until you announced you put me on ignore. hahaha

[weezer]

Didn't he say that in the room?
Was that before or after he gave back the cell phone?

I can see where you might be confused. in the hotel room, he told his victims that he would return anything that wasn't his. my question is -- after the armed robbery, does anyone remember hearing on the tapes -- the tapes where he tells his thugs and co-defendants that he doesn't care what they do with the stuff -- does anyone remember hearing him say "I don't care what you do with this stuff -- it's mine. But this other stuff isn't mine and I need to give it back."

[serpentsfall]

Didn't he say that in the room?
Was that before or after he gave back the cell phone?

I don't recall OJ himself giving back any cell phone. He sent one of his co-defendants to do it. If everything was so up-and-up, why didn't OJ take it back and clear the air? He was the person who knew the victims personally, who had sang to Fromong's sick mother. He seemed willing enough to try to make it up to Beardsley soon after the incident hit the news; why not take Fromong's phone back to him? If all he wanted was Gilbert's number, what was the hurry - why the need to take Fromong's phone at all? Everything Simpson did indicates he knew what he and his posse did was wrong and that a quick getaway was in his best interest.

[weezer]

Were they called as witness or defendants? Was there an oath they took to do a sworn duty they failed to fulfill? Was there any testimony that they failed to do their duty?

so you're saying that anyone that didn't testify in the trial isn't up for discussion? guess that must mean the FBI report huh? or maybe we could argue that as good citizens arnelle, christy and orenthal's sister had a moral and/or ethical obligation to inform LE of what was being planned?

[weezer]

Riccio said that Beadsley had told him that the seller had thousands oj items
and that is why other people were asked to come to help in hauling all the expected stuff away. That is why Riccio was surprised in the parking lot when Fumong unloaded only a few boxes and this caused Riccio to continue to ask Fumong,THATS ALL YOU GOT. WHERE IS THE OTHER ITEMS.The reason for the others was not to show force but to help with the expected load.imo

and stupid orental thought they were going to have 'thousands' of items in a hotel room? LOL

I guess they were going to use the guns for balance?

[martin II]

Well, Riccio wasn't exactly an up-front with all the facts team player now was he? The other items were family photos that Fromong did not profess to own - some singer's manager owned them. Did you miss the parts where OJ wanted them to "look intimidating"? Simpson & Co didn't know who was going to be in that room or what they'd be walking into; they knew Fromong sometimes carried a gun and hoped Gilbert would be there. Riccio could have told OJ in the lobby that the other guys weren't needed but he didn't. OJ could have asked if all the guys were going to be needed, but he didn't. If OJ thought what he was doing was OK, why would he have a problem making multiple trips or asking the hotel bellhops to come haul the stuff out for him? After all, since he and Riccio originally wanted it known publicly that he'd retrieved his stuff, why not make a big production of the return of his stuff from the evil thieves?

At thepalsm hotel pool Riccio told of of the thousands of oj items the sellers werebringing and that they would need help. oj then looked for hauling load help.
there must be many situations where people retrieve goods stolen from them and it is easy for people to disect every move and offer legal alternatives as to exactly what should have been done every step of the way and have negative comments about what was done. The situation was dynamic and choices were on the spot.
The situation now is evaluate the court action and possible appeal possibilities.

[William Anthony]

Seriously, William. Your reading comprehension skills suck. If the person enters any (check one from the list, in this case - room) with the intent to commit (check one from the list: in this case none apply, so go to "or") or to obtain money or property by false pretenses (in this case: property), is guilty of burglary. It's not the defendant's entry that was made under false pretenses, its that they used false pretenses (telling the victims they'd be meeting with an interested buyer in the room) in order to obtain the property.

Ah, I see and you think that my reading comprehension sucks. Look at this sentence. "It's not the defendant's entry that was made under false pretenses, its that they used false pretenses (telling the victims they'd be meeting with an interested buyer in the room) in order to obtain the property."

Now lets look at the statute.

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.

The first element a person and the second is entry. The entry was not made under false pretenses with the exception of Riccio, who received immunity. The obtaining of property was not made under false pretense, as Simpson told them what they were there for. I asked simple questions about the way the statute was worded. If your theory now is that Simpson committed burglary through false pretense it fails. If you enter under false pretenses, according to your interpretation, and do not attempt to obtain the property through false pretense, as Simpson did, you cannot be guilty of burglary. There is no doubt that Simpson told them he was taking the property and had assistance doing so. The problem is when one thinks there is only one way of interpreting a statute and theirs is always the correct one. I don't think you have a reading comprehension problem but I am not sure about your arrogance.

[serpentsfall]

I can see where you might be confused. in the hotel room, he told his victims that he would return anything that wasn't his. my question is -- after the armed robbery, does anyone remember hearing on the tapes -- the tapes where he tells his thugs and co-defendants that he doesn't care what they do with the stuff -- does anyone remember hearing him say "I don't care what you do with this stuff -- it's mine. But this other stuff isn't mine and I need to give it back."

In the hotel room, if there wasn't an armed robbery taking place, there would have been no need for Simpson to have taken anything that he didn't think belonged to him. There would have been no hurry, just some old friends hashing out a misunderstanding. Who in their right mind thinks it's legal to take things you know don't belong to you just because you promise to give it back? How long would it have taken to jot down Gilbert's number from Fromong's phone and hand him his phone back? Why not take 15 minutes and separate the items? Help Fromong, with his bad heart, put his stuff back in his car for him?

[martin II]

and stupid orental thought they were going to have 'thousands' of items in a hotel room? LOL

I guess they were going to use the guns for balance?

Fumong told riccio and Riccio told oj the seller said he a thousand or about a thousand of oj items and they they would need help in hauling the items.i don't know what is stupid about that.o9ne box could contain 200 500 posters.
When they,riccio and fumong were laying oput the stuff in the room he asked both again wghere is the rest of the stuff. fumong responded that he wanted to see how this batch went first befor bringing the rest. hahaha

[martin II]

In the hotel room, if there wasn't an armed robbery taking place, there would have been no need for Simpson to have taken anything that he didn't think belonged to him. There would have been no hurry, just some old friends hashing out a misunderstanding. Who in their right mind thinks it's legal to take things you know don't belong to you just because you promise to give it back? How long would it have taken to jot down Gilbert's number from Fromong's phone and hand him his phone back? Why not take 15 minutes and separate the items? Help Fromong, with his bad heart, put his stuff back in his car for him?

oj could have ignored his anger at finding out who the sellers were and just ordered a five course dinner for everyone and smoked some cuban cigars and made it a fun gathering in your world right. hahaha.

[William Anthony]

In the hotel room, if there wasn't an armed robbery taking place, there would have been no need for Simpson to have taken anything that he didn't think belonged to him. There would have been no hurry, just some old friends hashing out a misunderstanding. Who in their right mind thinks it's legal to take things you know don't belong to you just because you promise to give it back? How long would it have taken to jot down Gilbert's number from Fromong's phone and hand him his phone back? Why not take 15 minutes and separate the items? Help Fromong, with his bad heart, put his stuff back in his car for him?

Have you considered the possibility that Simpson heard someone say put the gun away and thought that the situation had escalated to a point he had not intended and wanted to leave out of there so no one would get harmed. Ah, you see you really don't understand the intricacies of the law. Without doing any research and I am sure that the robbery statute in California is worded that it is required to permanently deprive the owner of his property. I am willing to bet it is the same in Florida, the two states where Simpson resided. I will look it is a quick research.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0812/SEC13.HTM

It seems that the California robbery statute is akin to Nevada's. I will research the case law.

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/393/1018/545281/

“California case law has interpreted § 487 as "[n]ecessarily requir[ing] a finding that the accused intended to steal[.]" People v. Jaramillo, 16 Cal.3d 752, 129 Cal.Rptr. 306, 548 P.2d 706, 709 (1976) (en banc); see People v. Davis, 19 Cal.4th 301, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 965 P.2d 1165, 1167-68 (1998); People v. Campbell, 63 Cal.App.3d 599, 133 Cal.Rptr. 815, 824 (1976); cf. United States v. Perez-Corona, 295 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that, because case law interpreting the state criminal statute required only knowledge, the conduct proscribed by the statute fell outside the definition of theft offense, which requires intent to deprive the owner of property). Further, the California Supreme Court has interpreted § 484(a) — the general theft statute to which § 487 refers in defining grand theft — as itself requiring the intent permanently to deprive the owner of possession. See Davis, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 965 P.2d at 1167-68 (stating the general rule that intent to steal is required for conviction under § 484 and that "[t]he intent to steal ... is the intent, without a good faith claim of right, to permanently deprive the owner of possession"). Therefore, just as the generic definition of theft offense requires "intent to deprive the owner of rights and benefits of ownership," Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d at 1205, § 487(c) allows for conviction only where the defendant had an intent to deprive the owner of possession. Section 487(c) thus does not fail the categorical test based on any lack of the requisite intent.”

[martin II]

so you're saying that anyone that didn't testify in the trial isn't up for discussion? guess that must mean the FBI report huh? or maybe we could argue that as good citizens arnelle, christy and orenthal's sister had a moral and/or ethical obligation to inform LE of what was being planned?

Again i don't know why you are having such a problem with this.

The moderator warned that musings about family member was not allowed.
fini.

[serpentsfall]

Ah, I see and you think that my reading comprehension sucks. Look at this sentence. "It's not the defendant's entry that was made under false pretenses, its that they used false pretenses (telling the victims they'd be meeting with an interested buyer in the room) in order to obtain the property."

Now lets look at the statute.

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.

The first element a person and the second is entry. The entry was not made under false pretenses with the exception of Riccio, who received immunity. The obtaining of property was not made under false pretense, as Simpson told them what they were there for. I asked simple questions about the way the statute was worded. If your theory now is that Simpson committed burglary through false pretense it fails. If you enter under false pretenses, according to your interpretation, and do not attempt to obtain the property through false pretense, as Simpson did, you cannot be guilty of burglary. There is no doubt that Simpson told them he was taking the property and had assistance doing so. The problem is when one thinks there is only one way of interpreting a statute and theirs is always the correct one. I don't think you have a reading comprehension problem but I am not sure about your arrogance.

Pfft. That a person (defendant) would be involved is a given, so that's not necessarily a first element. Entry in and of itself is not an element; entry with an intent to do something illegal is. Simpson wasn't operating under false pretenses when he came in the door: he knew exactly why he was there. It was the victims who didn't understand, until too late, why they were there: they had been lured there under false pretenses to be robbed. Of course Simpson was clear that he was taking the property - the matter wasn't up for debate. If the victims had any thought of saying "no" the words "nobody leaves this room" and the sight of guns quickly nixed that idea. Simpson did commit burglary through false pretenses: he and Riccio set up a sting in order to take property away from someone else.

[weezer]

Have you considered the possibility that Simpson heard someone say put the gun away and thought that the situation had escalated to a point he had not intended and wanted to leave out of there so no one would get harmed. Ah, you see you really don't understand the intricacies of the law. Without doing any research and I am sure that the robbery statute in California is worded that it is required to permanently deprive the owner of his property. I am willing to bet it is the same in Florida, the two states where Simpson resided. I will look it is a quick research.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0812/SEC13.HTM

It seems that the California robbery statute is akin to Nevada's. I will research the case law.

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/393/1018/545281/

“California case law has interpreted § 487 as "[n]ecessarily requir[ing] a finding that the accused intended to steal[.]" People v. Jaramillo, 16 Cal.3d 752, 129 Cal.Rptr. 306, 548 P.2d 706, 709 (1976) (en banc); see People v. Davis, 19 Cal.4th 301, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 965 P.2d 1165, 1167-68 (1998); People v. Campbell, 63 Cal.App.3d 599, 133 Cal.Rptr. 815, 824 (1976); cf. United States v. Perez-Corona, 295 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that, because case law interpreting the state criminal statute required only knowledge, the conduct proscribed by the statute fell outside the definition of theft offense, which requires intent to deprive the owner of property). Further, the California Supreme Court has interpreted § 484(a) — the general theft statute to which § 487 refers in defining grand theft — as itself requiring the intent permanently to deprive the owner of possession. See Davis, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 965 P.2d at 1167-68 (stating the general rule that intent to steal is required for conviction under § 484 and that "[t]he intent to steal ... is the intent, without a good faith claim of right, to permanently deprive the owner of possession"). Therefore, just as the generic definition of theft offense requires "intent to deprive the owner of rights and benefits of ownership," Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d at 1205, § 487(c) allows for conviction only where the defendant had an intent to deprive the owner of possession. Section 487(c) thus does not fail the categorical test based on any lack of the requisite intent.”

well, had he shut his ranting, raving, foul mouth long enough, he would have heard his co-defendant saying they had to get out of there 'right now.'

[martin II]

I don't recall OJ himself giving back any cell phone. He sent one of his co-defendants to do it. If everything was so up-and-up, why didn't OJ take it back and clear the air? He was the person who knew the victims personally, who had sang to Fromong's sick mother. He seemed willing enough to try to make it up to Beardsley soon after the incident hit the news; why not take Fromong's phone back to him? If all he wanted was Gilbert's number, what was the hurry - why the need to take Fromong's phone at all? Everything Simpson did indicates he knew what he and his posse did was wrong and that a quick getaway was in his best interest.


Facts.
In the room mc clinton is heard yelling bag up all of this s***
oj then said DON'T TAKE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE or I ONLY WANT WHAT IS MINE.

Alexander picks up Fumongs cell from the bed and Fumong says that is MY cell.

Oj says to Alexander give him his cell back. Alexander holds the phone as everyone leaves.
Oj tells him to give the cell back and leaves with the others.
Alexander testified that out side the room in the hall , he became confused as to what door he had just exited and he just left with the cell phone.


Back at the Plams Cashmore had the joe montana items in his car and he was told to take them back to Fumong. he said ok but then decided not to return them thinking that he could just sell them for himself. I think stewart later took them from cashmore and gave them to his lawyer.imo

[serpentsfall]

There was no evidence that Simpson knew Fromong was involved prior to entering the room. So, to break into his home is a little far fetched, imho. To think that he would have the property at his home is also a little far fetched, imho.

So, now you believe the intent was to commit assault and/or kidnapping, correct? I don't know how beating up the wrong person in error equates to this case. What false pretense, unless you are talking about Riccio. They did not obtain the property by false pretense. I have also supplied you the link with the case law on kidnapping, which I think very likely the Nevada supreme court will reverse. The fact is that Fromong and Beardsley were in possession of property Simpson alleged was his. What wrong person in error are you speaking of?

If you can't deal in hypotheticals, you shouldn't put them forth yourself.

A sting wouldn't be a sting without some sort of false pretense.

[martin II]

well, had he shut his ranting, raving, foul mouth long enough, he would have heard his co-defendant saying they had to get out of there 'right now.'

Who said that?

[William Anthony]

Pfft. That a person (defendant) would be involved is a given, so that's not necessarily a first element. Entry in and of itself is not an element; entry with an intent to do something illegal is. Simpson wasn't operating under false pretenses when he came in the door: he knew exactly why he was there. It was the victims who didn't understand, until too late, why they were there: they had been lured there under false pretenses to be robbed. Of course Simpson was clear that he was taking the property - the matter wasn't up for debate. If the victims had any thought of saying "no" the words "nobody leaves this room" and the sight of guns quickly nixed that idea. Simpson did commit burglary through false pretenses: he and Riccio set up a sting in order to take property away from someone else.

I see that you really do not understand and believe that you have the ability to dictate the law on what you read and comprehend. Not only is a person the first element but it must be shown (for the sake of non repetition, proof must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt) that the person accused is the person, who made entry. That entry must also be proven. The intent becomes a question of fact for the trier of fact. So, you now admit that Simpson did not gain entry under false pretense. Riccio lured Fromong and Beardsley there under false pretense. The evidence is that Simpson was there to reclaim property he alleged was stolen and that was the sting. He entered with that thought in mind, according to him. The entry was made through a key that Riccio had and who made the call to the alleged thieves, telling them he had a buyer for the memorabilia. You may be arguing a conspiracy to commit burglary theory, which I am not sure the evidence supports that. Pay close attention to paragraph 20 of my link to California case law.

[William Anthony]

If you can't deal in hypotheticals, you shouldn't put them forth yourself.

A sting wouldn't be a sting without some sort of false pretense.

Tell that to LE that have people with outstanding warrants show up to claim Christmas gifts, only to be arrested.

[William Anthony]

well, had he shut his ranting, raving, foul mouth long enough, he would have heard his co-defendant saying they had to get out of there 'right now.'

And he agreed. Your point being?

[serpentsfall]

Facts.
In the room mc clinton is heard yelling bag up all of this s***
oj then said DON'T TAKE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE or I ONLY WANT WHAT IS MINE.

Alexander picks up Fumongs cell from the bed and Fumong says that is MY cell.

Oj says to Alexander give him his cell back. Alexander holds the phone as everyone leaves.
Oj tells him to give the cell back and leaves with the others.
Alexander testified that out side the room in the hall , he became confused as to what door he had just exited and he just left with the cell phone.


Back at the Plams Cashmore had the joe montana items in his car and he was told to take them back to Fumong. he said ok but then decided not to return them thinking that he could just sell them for himself. I think stewart later took them from cashmore and gave them to his lawyer.imo

However, when participating as part of a group of thugs in the commission of a crime you're equally liable. OJ could easily have said slow down, gentlemen! Lets sort this out, no hurry, nothing wrong is going on here, lets get a bellhop and leave our numbers at the front desk in case anybody has any questions about why we came in with nothing and are going out with boxes of stuff. But he didn't do that, did he?

I think you're mistaken about Fromong's phone; OJ wanted it because he wanted Gilbert's phone number but said he'd give it back. Alexander returned to the hotel later and couldn't find the room; he didn't try to return it before they left the hotel. It would be nice if the trial transcripts were available.

[weezer]

Again i don't know why you are having such a problem with this.

The moderator warned that musings about family member was not allowed.
fini.

who's bashing? haven't you wondered why the women weren't witnesses in the trial? they were heard on the tapes discussing/laughing the plan and/or the crime --

I would have thought at the very least the defense would have called one or all to show orenthal's 'claim of right' thoughts. :eek:

[William Anthony]

who's bashing? haven't you wondered why the women weren't witnesses in the trial? they were heard on the tapes discussing/laughing the plan and/or the crime --

I would have thought at the very least the defense would have called one or all to show orenthal's 'claim of right' thoughts. :eek:

The fact remains that they were not called and not a part of the Nevada case.

[weezer]

Facts.
In the room mc clinton is heard yelling bag up all of this s***
oj then said DON'T TAKE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE or I ONLY WANT WHAT IS MINE.

Alexander picks up Fumongs cell from the bed and Fumong says that is MY cell.

Oj says to Alexander give him his cell back. Alexander holds the phone as everyone leaves.
Oj tells him to give the cell back and leaves with the others.
Alexander testified that out side the room in the hall , he became confused as to what door he had just exited and he just left with the cell phone.


Back at the Plams Cashmore had the joe montana items in his car and he was told to take them back to Fumong. he said ok but then decided not to return them thinking that he could just sell them for himself. I think stewart later took them from cashmore and gave them to his lawyer.imo

man have you twisted that to unidentifiable! :D

[weezer]

The fact remains that they were not called and not a part of the Nevada case.

neither was the FBI but we keep discussing them --

[William Anthony]

You will note that California has made intent to steal an element of robbery. In other words, not the minimal general intent that Nevada has. In other words, California recognizes the claim of right defense.

[serpentsfall]

Have you considered the possibility that Simpson heard someone say put the gun away and thought that the situation had escalated to a point he had not intended and wanted to leave out of there so no one would get harmed. Ah, you see you really don't understand the intricacies of the law. Without doing any research and I am sure that the robbery statute in California is worded that it is required to permanently deprive the owner of his property. I am willing to bet it is the same in Florida, the two states where Simpson resided. I will look it is a quick research.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0812/SEC13.HTM

It seems that the California robbery statute is akin to Nevada's. I will research the case law.

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/393/1018/545281/

“California case law has interpreted § 487 as "[n]ecessarily requir[ing] a finding that the accused intended to steal[.]" People v. Jaramillo, 16 Cal.3d 752, 129 Cal.Rptr. 306, 548 P.2d 706, 709 (1976) (en banc); see People v. Davis, 19 Cal.4th 301, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 965 P.2d 1165, 1167-68 (1998); People v. Campbell, 63 Cal.App.3d 599, 133 Cal.Rptr. 815, 824 (1976); cf. United States v. Perez-Corona, 295 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that, because case law interpreting the state criminal statute required only knowledge, the conduct proscribed by the statute fell outside the definition of theft offense, which requires intent to deprive the owner of property). Further, the California Supreme Court has interpreted § 484(a) — the general theft statute to which § 487 refers in defining grand theft — as itself requiring the intent permanently to deprive the owner of possession. See Davis, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 965 P.2d at 1167-68 (stating the general rule that intent to steal is required for conviction under § 484 and that "[t]he intent to steal ... is the intent, without a good faith claim of right, to permanently deprive the owner of possession"). Therefore, just as the generic definition of theft offense requires "intent to deprive the owner of rights and benefits of ownership," Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d at 1205, § 487(c) allows for conviction only where the defendant had an intent to deprive the owner of possession. Section 487(c) thus does not fail the categorical test based on any lack of the requisite intent.”

Simpson says he didn't hear that. Simpson wouldn't lie about what transpired in that room would he? This is a Nevada case; California law isn't applicable so I'm not reading. Have I considered the possibility that things got out of hand and went beyond what OJ anticipated? Yeah, I have. And the fact that things can, and often do, go awry during a robbery is pretty much common knowledge. That's what the judge was saying to Simpson at sentencing. He should have taken his attorneys advice and dropped the sting idea. But for whatever reason he couldn't, wouldn't, didn't. He broke the law. I sincerely wish he hadn't gotten himself into this mess, but he did.

[William Anthony]

However, when participating as part of a group of thugs in the commission of a crime you're equally liable. OJ could easily have said slow down, gentlemen! Lets sort this out, no hurry, nothing wrong is going on here, lets get a bellhop and leave our numbers at the front desk in case anybody has any questions about why we came in with nothing and are going out with boxes of stuff. But he didn't do that, did he?

I think you're mistaken about Fromong's phone; OJ wanted it because he wanted Gilbert's phone number but said he'd give it back. Alexander returned to the hotel later and couldn't find the room; he didn't try to return it before they left the hotel. It would be nice if the trial transcripts were available.

And none of this changes whether his Due Process rights were violated. The FBI could have investigated or they could have gone along with Simpson and judge J. Glass could have told the prosecution they were being over zealous or judge J. Glass did not have to comment on Simpson calling the Goldmans, gold diggers.

[weezer]

And he agreed. Your point being?

my point was correcting your inaccurate scenario:

Originally Posted by William Anthony
Have you considered the possibility that Simpson heard someone say put the gun away and thought that the situation had escalated to a point he had not intended and wanted to leave out of there so no one would get harmed.

[weezer]

And none of this changes whether his Due Process rights were violated. The FBI could have investigated or they could have gone along with Simpson and judge J. Glass could have told the prosecution they were being over zealous or judge J. Glass did not have to comment on Simpson calling the Goldmans, gold diggers.

I don't think we're suppose to talk about the FBI -- they weren't part of this case. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Simpson says he didn't hear that. Simpson wouldn't lie about what transpired in that room would he? This is a Nevada case; California law isn't applicable so I'm not reading. Have I considered the possibility that things got out of hand and went beyond what OJ anticipated? Yeah, I have. And the fact that things can, and often do, go awry during a robbery is pretty much common knowledge. That's what the judge was saying to Simpson at sentencing. He should have taken his attorneys advice and dropped the sting idea. But for whatever reason he couldn't, wouldn't, didn't. He broke the law. I sincerely wish he hadn't gotten himself into this mess, but he did.

Since you read appeals weekly, I am sure you have heard of persuasive authority. I am sure you know that California and Nevada are in the same circuit. If you have considered this, then you have considered that Simpson's actions could have been to deescalate the situation. Whether he should have taken his attorney's advice or not does not mean that he was convicted without a deprivation of his Constitutional rights.

[William Anthony]

I don't think we're suppose to talk about the FBI -- they weren't part of this case. :shrug:

Ah, but they were due to Riccio's testimony.

[serpentsfall]

oj could have ignored his anger at finding out who the sellers were and just ordered a five course dinner for everyone and smoked some cuban cigars and made it a fun gathering in your world right. hahaha.

Or he could have brought a camera to the room instead of guns, taken pictures of the vicitms and everything they had and said "see ya in civil court, guys, unless you want to talk about voluntarily giving this stuff back!"

[William Anthony]

my point was correcting your inaccurate scenario:

Originally Posted by William Anthony
Have you considered the possibility that Simpson heard someone say put the gun away and thought that the situation had escalated to a point he had not intended and wanted to leave out of there so no one would get harmed.

You do understand the difference between a scenario and a possibility, don't you?

[William Anthony]

Or he could have brought a camera to the room instead of guns, taken pictures of the vicitms and everything they had and said "see ya in civil court, guys, unless you want to talk about voluntarily giving this stuff back!"

And they could have laughed all the way to the bank, thinking what a clod Simpson was-at least he will have pictures of his stuff.

[serpentsfall]

Since you read appeals weekly, I am sure you have heard of persuasive authority. I am sure you know that California and Nevada are in the same circuit. If you have considered this, then you have considered that Simpson's actions could have been to deescalate the situation. Whether he should have taken his attorney's advice or not does not mean that he was convicted without a deprivation of his Constitutional rights.

This was a state, not a federal crime. I don't anticipate seeing Yale Galanter arguing on behalf of Simpson in front of the US Supreme Court. I don't even think Simpson has any issues that are going to make it to the Nevada Supreme Court. Poor Stewart. Nobody seems to care much about his Constitutional rights, but I think he has some legitmate appeals issues.

[weezer]

Ah, but they were due to Riccio's testimony.

so if the tapes were admitted as evidence (witness), then what's the difference?

[serpentsfall]

And they could have laughed all the way to the bank, thinking what a clod Simpson was-at least he will have pictures of his stuff.

So you think they'd know they could prevail in civil court? You think Beardsley would be laughing if the CA judge had a picture of him wearing OJ's Hall of Fame ring?

[weezer]

You do understand the difference between a scenario and a possibility, don't you?

ah -- where you posted 'coulda, woulda, shouda', I posted fact.

[William Anthony]

This was a state, not a federal crime. I don't anticipate seeing Yale Galanter arguing on behalf of Simpson in front of the US Supreme Court. I don't even think Simpson has any issues that are going to make it to the Nevada Supreme Court. Poor Stewart. Nobody seems to care much about his Constitutional rights, but I think he has some legitmate appeals issues.

You really do need to read more appeals. It does not matter that this is a state trial, if the Constitutional objections were made and rulings from the same circuit are cited as persuasive authority, meaning a higher court has ruled on the issue and this is how they have ruled. You do realize that the federal appellate (circuit) court is an intermediate court between the state supreme court and the United States Supreme Court.

[weezer]

And they could have laughed all the way to the bank, thinking what a clod Simpson was-at least he will have pictures of his stuff.

as opposed to them laughing about orenthal's present living arrangments? LOL

[serpentsfall]

And none of this changes whether his Due Process rights were violated. The FBI could have investigated or they could have gone along with Simpson and judge J. Glass could have told the prosecution they were being over zealous or judge J. Glass did not have to comment on Simpson calling the Goldmans, gold diggers.

La La La La...I'm not listening to any broken records.

[William Anthony]

so if the tapes were admitted as evidence (witness), then what's the difference?

What involvement do you think they have in either aiding or preventing the crime that deserves bashing, other than you don't like them because they are related to Simpson?

[William Anthony]

La La La La...I'm not listening to any broken records.

Let's discuss the Nevada case without insults. Can you do that?

[William Anthony]

as opposed to them laughing about orenthal's present living arrangments? LOL

Money is more powerful than hate to some.

[serpentsfall]

You really do need to read more appeals. It does not matter that this is a state trial, if the Constitutional objections were made and rulings from the same circuit are cited as persuasive authority, meaning a higher court has ruled on the issue and this is how they have ruled. You do realize that the federal appellate (circuit) court is an intermediate court between the state supreme court and the United States Supreme Court.

Wow. I just don't think they're going to find OJ's defense as new and fascinating as you do.

[William Anthony]

ah -- where you posted 'coulda, woulda, shouda', I posted fact.

Now, I understand you were in the room. Let's not forget that the expert could not say the tapes were accurate.

[serpentsfall]

Money is more powerful than hate to some.

Feeling disrespected has been known to drive some to commit murder, but I digress.

[William Anthony]

Wow. I just don't think they're going to find OJ's defense as new and fascinating as you do.

You didn't think that a person was the first element of the burglary statute or that entry was an element, either.

[William Anthony]

Feeling disrespected has been known to drive some to commit murder, but I digress.

Who was convicted of such, since you digressed?

[martin II]

man have you twisted that to unidentifiable! :D

maby you need for once read the hearing and trial testimony and listen to the tapes.

[weezer]

What involvement do you think they have in either aiding or preventing the crime that deserves bashing, other than you don't like them because they are related to Simpson?

hey -- I was trying to help you out with your argument. any/all of those women could have helped prove orenthal's state of mind that you feel should have been a defense to the crimes. don't you even wonder a little bit why the defense didn't at least call them? they could have testified to at least the 'conspiracy' . . .

I remember on one of the tapes one of them (christy?) saying 'I know all about it. He told me all about it.'

[weezer]

maby you need for once read the hearing and trial testimony and listen to the tapes.

I did and I don't recognize your little scenario! :tongue:

[serpentsfall]

Let's discuss the Nevada case without insults. Can you do that?

Then stop insulting my intelligence with what you think the law says or should say. Can you do that? You've made it clear you're not a licensed Nevada attorney. If Simpson has any appealable issues they will be heard and can be discussed then. Judge Glass explained the law as it pertains to this case. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean Simpson has somehow had his Constitutional rights violated. Stating over and over what the laws should be and whose law is better, CA or NV, has nothing to do with this case, only what William the layman like the rest of us THINKS the case is about. Weezer, Martin, tvdinner and I know ad nauseum your position on the topic of right defense in regard to burglary. This board used to be brimming with posters, but for some reason reason most have "left the building". Either its because they realize there really is nothing more to discuss regarding Simpson/Stewart until an appeal is filed or they got tired of tuning in to hear what's on the daily "William and Martin Rule The World" soap box. I guess I'm just not that into you, William.

[weezer]

Then stop insulting my intelligence with what you think the law says or should say. Can you do that? You've made it clear you're not a licensed Nevada attorney. If Simpson has any appealable issues they will be heard and can be discussed then. Judge Glass explained the law as it pertains to this case. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean Simpson has somehow had his Constitutional rights violated. Stating over and over what the laws should be and whose law is better, CA or NV, has nothing to do with this case, only what William the layman like the rest of us THINKS the case is about. Weezer, Martin, tvdinner and I know ad nauseum your position on the topic of right defense in regard to burglary. This board used to be brimming with posters, but for some reason reason most have "left the building". Either its because they realize there really is nothing more to discuss regarding Simpson/Stewart until an appeal is filed or they got tired of tuning in to hear what's on the daily "William and Martin Rule The World" soap box. I guess I'm just not that into you, William.

:beer:

[serpentsfall]

maby you need for once read the hearing and trial testimony and listen to the tapes.

You give me a link to a transcript of the trial testimony and I'll read it. I recorded most of the trial but its pretty cumbersome and time consuming to go back looking for specific testimony. I'd love to have the trial transcript.

[William Anthony]

Then stop insulting my intelligence with what you think the law says or should say. Can you do that? You've made it clear you're not a licensed Nevada attorney. If Simpson has any appealable issues they will be heard and can be discussed then. Judge Glass explained the law as it pertains to this case. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean Simpson has somehow had his Constitutional rights violated. Stating over and over what the laws should be and whose law is better, CA or NV, has nothing to do with this case, only what William the layman like the rest of us THINKS the case is about. Weezer, Martin, tvdinner and I know ad nauseum your position on the topic of right defense in regard to burglary. This board used to be brimming with posters, but for some reason reason most have "left the building". Either its because they realize there really is nothing more to discuss regarding Simpson/Stewart until an appeal is filed or they got tired of tuning in to hear what's on the daily "William and Martin Rule The World" soap box. I guess I'm just not that into you, William.

There is no need for me to insult your intelligence. I just take notice of it that's all. In case you don't know the moderator has said that it is alright to discuss the appeal and it is in that vein that I discuss issues I see in regard to the Nevada case. I support my arguments with case law and you espouse your statements, not opinions, with only what you think will happen and claim that something is not "appealable". I see that you really don't comprehend my posts, as I have never said which law is better only that they should be uniform. You speak as if reading some appeals makes you a professional but your posts show otherwise, imho. I have not heard Martin complain and it seems that you now think yourself qualified to speak for him. It seems that once you are placed in a position that you cannot counter, you become insulting. This board was never brimming with posters since I have been here. There were a few more that wanted to discuss the criminal and civil trials, who got tired of being insulted by some of those you have named. In any event, the moderator, by requests and a movement started by another poster, who, imho, was the most insulting poster I encountered, had the other threads closed. Perhaps, you may find other soap boxes more suited to your particular tastes. I really don't understand how you can express sympathy for Simpson and then digress to someone committing murder for being disrespected. I question why you started posting but I think I know. :) I can assure you that I am no more into you than you are me.

[William Anthony]

hey -- I was trying to help you out with your argument. any/all of those women could have helped prove orenthal's state of mind that you feel should have been a defense to the crimes. don't you even wonder a little bit why the defense didn't at least call them? they could have testified to at least the 'conspiracy' . . .

I remember on one of the tapes one of them (christy?) saying 'I know all about it. He told me all about it.'

No, since they were not there at the time that entry was made, I do not think they could have told what his state of mind was. I know that you have heard of the exclusion of evidence based on it being cumulative. All of the witnesses, testified that he was there to reclaim his property that had been stolen, which that particular jury chose to ignore.

[William Anthony]

Let's Discuss the Nevada Case Without Insults and in Line With the Moderator's Instructions, So That We Can Keep the Thread Open.

[serpentsfall]

There is no need for me to insult your intelligence. I just take notice of it that's all. In case you don't know the moderator has said that it is alright to discuss the appeal and it is in that vein that I discuss issues I see in regard to the Nevada case. I support my arguments with case law and you espouse your statements, not opinions, with only what you think will happen and claim that something is not "appealable". I see that you really don't comprehend my posts, as I have never said which law is better only that they should be uniform. You speak as if reading some appeals makes you a professional but your posts show otherwise, imho. I have not heard Martin complain and it seems that you now think yourself qualified to speak for him. It seems that once you are placed in a position that you cannot counter, you become insulting. This board was never brimming with posters since I have been here. There were a few more that wanted to discuss the criminal and civil trials, who got tired of being insulted by some of those you have named. In any event, the moderator, by requests and a movement started by another poster, who, imho, was the most insulting poster I encountered, had the other threads closed. Perhaps, you may find other soap boxes more suited to your particular tastes. I really don't understand how you can express sympathy for Simpson and then digress to someone committing murder for being disrespected. I question why you started posting but I think I know. :) I can assure you that I am no more into you than you are me.

Stop hiding behind the moderator to justify yourself, William. Its getting old. Your posts are so full of double speak I don't know how anybody could follow them. I really don't think you mean to, but you come off like a person who so likes to hear the sound of his own voice that he says the same things over just to fill the air. To have uniformity in the laws would require states and localities to give up their rights; no need to enact state and local law lets just let everything be done and handed down from the federal level! Everybody operates under the same wording, the same interpretation of the laws. Even most franchised restaurants have menus that are somewhat varied to appeal to the tastes of a specific location! You're not likely to ever hear Martin complain about you; without you he'd have nobody to tag team with! I don't mean that as a slam, Martin, but the two of you have had a "got your back" thing going on this board for some time. I noticed 10 viewers showing as lurking on this thread as I type this. Why don't they post here? I'm not alone in feeling sympathetic for Simpson even though I do believe he is a murderer. He's got to live with himself and his choices. You bring a lot to the table, William (and so does Martin). But you're not an attorney and you're not the board moderator so I for one as a poster would appreciate it if you would stop acting like you're the ultimate authority on what is and isn't valuable input on this board. I don't know why you feel the need to twist people's opinions into something they didn't say until you can make them justify your own positions, but I'm clearly not the only poster who grows tired of playing mental ping pong with you.

[serpentsfall]

Let's Discuss the Nevada Case Without Insults and in Line With the Moderator's Instructions, So That We Can Keep the Thread Open.

Why shout, William? Who exactly do you think is listening anyway? Eventually this Simpson saga is going to end. OJ Simpson is slipping out of the nation's conscience and will soon cease to be relevant. It's almost like you're having trouble letting go. Close this thread unless and until an appeal is filed? You seem to shudder at the very thought. Why is that?

[martin II]

Then stop insulting my intelligence with what you think the law says or should say. Can you do that? You've made it clear you're not a licensed Nevada attorney. If Simpson has any appealable issues they will be heard and can be discussed then. Judge Glass explained the law as it pertains to this case. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean Simpson has somehow had his Constitutional rights violated. Stating over and over what the laws should be and whose law is better, CA or NV, has nothing to do with this case, only what William the layman like the rest of us THINKS the case is about. Weezer, Martin, tvdinner and I know ad nauseum your position on the topic of right defense in regard to burglary. This board used to be brimming with posters, but for some reason reason most have "left the building". Either its because they realize there really is nothing more to discuss regarding Simpson/Stewart until an appeal is filed or they got tired of tuning in to hear what's on the daily "William and Martin Rule The World" soap box. I guess I'm just not that into you, William.


Claiming to read appeals in ohio no less makes you no more a legal expert on nevada law than anyone here. your obvious bias indictes to me that you read with bias intact.

no one is forcing you to spend your valuable time posting here but you. maby there is nothing to read but the option of how you spend your time is yours.

It seems that the more legal case law that is posted the more rude you get.

This is a discussion board which means that what you think is only part of that. the other part comes from others. At least that is how it has been for the years i have posted here.

Stop using my name in your post to others for starters as your post have become too rude. imo

[martin II]

Why shout, William? Who exactly do you think is listening anyway? Eventually this Simpson saga is going to end. OJ Simpson is slipping out of the nation's conscience and will soon cease to be relevant. It's almost like you're having trouble letting go. Close this thread unless and until an appeal is filed? You seem to shudder at the very thought. Why is that?


I see no sane reason why you come in and out posting, become angry and then suggest the thread be closed.

Posters have enjoyed posting on this subject when it was one thread, deveopled into several and reduced to one. some of us enjoy posting and i resent you continuing to request that the thread be closed.

use your option not to post if that is how you feel.

[William Anthony]

Why shout, William? Who exactly do you think is listening anyway? Eventually this Simpson saga is going to end. OJ Simpson is slipping out of the nation's conscience and will soon cease to be relevant. It's almost like you're having trouble letting go. Close this thread unless and until an appeal is filed? You seem to shudder at the very thought. Why is that?

Let's Discuss the Nevada Case Without Insults and in Line With the Moderator's Instructions, So That We Can Keep the Thread Open.

[weezer]

"Quote: Originally Posted by martin II
In the oj simpson Nevada case A notice of appeal has been filed."

since there has not been a link from the poster making the statement (as asked for) I assume that there has not been an appeal filed.

[martin II]

"Quote: Originally Posted by martin II
In the oj simpson Nevada case A notice of appeal has been filed."

since there has not been a link from the poster making the statement (as asked for) I assume that there has not been an appeal filed.

i received confidential information that a NOTICE OF APPEAL had been filed.
you seem not to understand the differance from a notice of appeal and the actual appeal.

[weezer]

The Criminal Appeal Process

To begin the appeal process, a written notice of appeal is filed with the clerk of the court in which the proceeding took place. In Nevada, a person must file a notice of appeal with the District Court Clerk within 30 days of the conclusion of the underlying case. Once a notice of appeal is filed, transcripts of the underlying proceedings are prepared. All parties are notified once the record on appeal has been filed with the Appellate Court.

From the date the record was filed, the appellant has a specified period of time within which to file an opening brief. In Nevada, the time is typically 120 days. A “brief” is a written argument that an attorney prepares for the court. It details the issues raised by the appellant, including challenges to the District Court ruling or findings, and refers to applicable statues (laws) and previous case decisions to support a position. The respondent is then given an opportunity to file a brief in response and then the appellant my file a reply brief.

On some occasions, a panel of justices will hear oral arguments. A member of the panel will then prepare and file an opinion, which is a written statement of the Court’s decision.

[weezer]

What is an Appeal?

An appeal is a request to a higher (appellate) court for that court to review and change the decision of a lower court. Because post-trial motions requesting trial courts to change their own judgments or order new jury trials are so seldom successful, the defendant who hopes to overturn a guilty verdict must usually appeal. The defendant may challenge the conviction itself or may appeal the trial court's sentencing decision without actually challenging the underlying conviction. An appeal is based on the record and transcripts of what happened in the lower court. There is no new evidence presented and no new testimony heard. The Appellate Court will make its decision based on what happened in the lower court and on arguments before the Appellate Court.

In the State of Nevada there is only one appellate court, the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court reviews all appeals in the State of Nevada. This means that the Court has an extremely large case load. In order to handle this large case load the Court has established an expedited process for some criminal appeals.

Those criminal convictions that do not carry a life sentence must appeal using the Fast Track process. This is an appeal limited to 10 pages in which the appellant lays out issues before the Court. If need be, the Court will ask the parties to expand on their briefs and go further in depth on the issues.

If a Defendant is convicted and sentenced to a life sentence, an appellant must surpass the Fast Track and file a full brief.

[martin II]

the criminal appeal process

to begin the appeal process, a written notice of appeal is filed with the clerk of the court in which the proceeding took place. In nevada, a person must file a notice of appeal with the district court clerk within 30 days of the conclusion of the underlying case. Once a notice of appeal is filed, transcripts of the underlying proceedings are prepared. All parties are notified once the record on appeal has been filed with the appellate court.

From the date the record was filed, the appellant has a specified period of time within which to file an opening brief. In nevada, the time is typically 120 days. A “brief” is a written argument that an attorney prepares for the court. It details the issues raised by the appellant, including challenges to the district court ruling or findings, and refers to applicable statues (laws) and previous case decisions to support a position. The respondent is then given an opportunity to file a brief in response and then the appellant my file a reply brief.

On some occasions, a panel of justices will hear oral arguments. A member of the panel will then prepare and file an opinion, which is a written statement of the court’s decision.

and
martinii

[weezer]

and
martinii

there's no 'and' --

evidently the person who gave you the 'confidential information' didn't know you can't keep a secret. but thanks for sharing.

[One2Snoop]

In case anyone missed it, Deepwater has updated this announcement as of today....

UPDATED: Reasons for closing the OJ forum AND VICTORY CONDITIONS FOR RE-OPENING IT
I have gotten too many complaints about the poor quality of the discussion on this forum and the unwelcoming atmosphere.

I will leave one thread open for case discussion only on the chance that the discussion can still be saved.

I thought I should put down the "Victory Conditions" necessary for those of you who would like to see it re-opened:

1. Stop reporting posts that don't have anything wrong with them
2. Start resolving disagreements in a civil fashion elsewhere: not on the boards
3. Start putting nebbish/annoying posters on your ignore list: it's good tool, like caller ID, use it!
4. Keep using links to bolster the discussion
5. Do stay on topic, but don't launch a full scale attack on the poor person who says gthe equivalent of "Hey, how'ya doin'?"
5. Stop attacks, snide remarks, bullying: for example anything even remotely like this is unacceptable:
a) "As any fool should know...";
b) "If you had been following the discussion, which you obviously haven't, I discussed that in detail in a post in Feb. of 1982"
c) "What are you DOING here? Go to InSession!"
d) Anything nasty about the victims or the victims' families: this includes the Goldmans
e) Remember how much more powerful and lasting IS THE PRINTED word than the spoken word, even here.

I hope this helps make the tone of the discussion more welcoming.

--Deepwater

[martin II]

there's no 'and' --

evidently the person who gave you the 'confidential information' didn't know you can't keep a secret. but thanks for sharing.

The confidential part was not to give the source which i have not done.

[martin II]

In case anyone missed it, Deepwater has updated this announcement as of today....

UPDATED: Reasons for closing the OJ forum AND VICTORY CONDITIONS FOR RE-OPENING IT
I have gotten too many complaints about the poor quality of the discussion on this forum and the unwelcoming atmosphere.

I will leave one thread open for case discussion only on the chance that the discussion can still be saved.

I thought I should put down the "Victory Conditions" necessary for those of you who would like to see it re-opened:

1. Stop reporting posts that don't have anything wrong with them
2. Start resolving disagreements in a civil fashion elsewhere: not on the boards
3. Start putting nebbish/annoying posters on your ignore list: it's good tool, like caller ID, use it!
4. Keep using links to bolster the discussion
5. Do stay on topic, but don't launch a full scale attack on the poor person who says gthe equivalent of "Hey, how'ya doin'?"
5. Stop attacks, snide remarks, bullying: for example anything even remotely like this is unacceptable:
a) "As any fool should know...";
b) "If you had been following the discussion, which you obviously haven't, I discussed that in detail in a post in Feb. of 1982"
c) "What are you DOING here? Go to InSession!"
d) Anything nasty about the victims or the victims' families: this includes the Goldmans
e) Remember how much more powerful and lasting IS THE PRINTED word than the spoken word, even here.

I hope this helps make the tone of the discussion more welcoming.

--Deepwater

Thanks

it is my opinion that bashing defendants families members should receive the same respect as victims famalies.

[William Anthony]

In case anyone missed it, Deepwater has updated this announcement as of today....

UPDATED: Reasons for closing the OJ forum AND VICTORY CONDITIONS FOR RE-OPENING IT
I have gotten too many complaints about the poor quality of the discussion on this forum and the unwelcoming atmosphere.

I will leave one thread open for case discussion only on the chance that the discussion can still be saved.

I thought I should put down the "Victory Conditions" necessary for those of you who would like to see it re-opened:

1. Stop reporting posts that don't have anything wrong with them
2. Start resolving disagreements in a civil fashion elsewhere: not on the boards
3. Start putting nebbish/annoying posters on your ignore list: it's good tool, like caller ID, use it!
4. Keep using links to bolster the discussion
5. Do stay on topic, but don't launch a full scale attack on the poor person who says gthe equivalent of "Hey, how'ya doin'?"
5. Stop attacks, snide remarks, bullying: for example anything even remotely like this is unacceptable:
a) "As any fool should know...";
b) "If you had been following the discussion, which you obviously haven't, I discussed that in detail in a post in Feb. of 1982"
c) "What are you DOING here? Go to InSession!"
d) Anything nasty about the victims or the victims' families: this includes the Goldmans
e) Remember how much more powerful and lasting IS THE PRINTED word than the spoken word, even here.

I hope this helps make the tone of the discussion more welcoming.

--Deepwater

Does this mean the other threads are re-opened or that it is now possible to speak of those involved in the other trials?

[weezer]

The confidential part was not to give the source which i have not done.

like I said, thanks for sharing. did they tell you know if it was stewart or simpson that filed?

[One2Snoop]

Does this mean the other threads are re-opened or that it is now possible to speak of those involved in the other trials?

DW's post doesn't say anything about re-opening the other threads. I interpret her post to say these are the conditions I've set in order to re-open the other threads. As far as talking about people in the other trial you'll need to direct that question to DW.

[William Anthony]

DW's post doesn't say anything about re-opening the other threads. I interpret her post to say these are the conditions I've set in order to re-open the other threads. As far as talking about people in the other trial you'll need to direct that question to DW.

Thanks.

[William Anthony]

Does anyone know if the rest of the potential jurors were questioned to the same degree about their religious beliefs as the two female Black jurors that were excused?

[William Anthony]

In an effort to direct the posting to it proper purpose, I think the purpose of this thread is to allow discussions of opinions related to the Nevada case. It is not to stalk, harass and keep track of how other posters spend their time or to make unwarranted attacks that might be construed as an attempt to get the thread closed. I think, if the moderator will read the recent posts, the moderator will discover that the recent down slide in the caliber of posting occurred after the return of some posters, who have previously voiced their desire to see the thread closed. This is not an accusation against anyone. It is just a reminder that we should not allow our personal desires or our personal feelings about other posters to dictate the manner in which we post. Thanks.

[martin II]

I come in and out because I'm not emotionally tied to this thread like you, and especially William (who rarely misses a day) seem to be. Do you realize you've never posted on a day when William has not also posted? I find that interesting for some reason. I can take it or leave it. I'm not so sure you two can say the same. So many posts, so little difference to the world.

I've done a count of the posters who have posted since the thread reopened. You seem not to notice how many of your co-posters have not found posting with you and William to be a positive experience. But since you're content to have the board to yourselves that doesn't really matter, does it?

What makes you think you have more of a right to post here than I do? Because you've been posting longer? That only means you've already had had plenty of opportunity to express your opinions. You and William take the liberty of speaking on each others behalf so often its hard to separate the two of you.

I'm not here to harass you, but I'm tired of seeing you guys bully people, and their opinions, off this board.

if the thread is open 24/7 i will post as i see fit regardless of my location.
otherwise
see moderators new directive.

[martin II]

Does anyone know if the rest of the potential jurors were questioned to the same degree about their religious beliefs as the two female Black jurors that were excused?

I listened to most of the jury being questioned during the vegas trial and do not remember the question of religion comming up until the two black jurors were questioned.

[serpentsfall]

In an effort to direct the posting to it proper purpose, I think the purpose of this thread is to allow discussions of opinions related to the Nevada case. It is not to stalk, harass and keep track of how other posters spend their time or to make unwarranted attacks that might be construed as an attempt to get the thread closed. I think, if the moderator will read the recent posts, the moderator will discover that the recent down slide in the caliber of posting occurred after the return of some posters, who have previously voiced their desire to see the thread closed. This is not an accusation against anyone. It is just a reminder that we should not allow our personal desires or our personal feelings about other posters to dictate the manner in which we post. Thanks.

Sure sounds like an accusation to me. I must have missed the post from Deepwater appointing you assistant moderator. It would be easier to stay on topic if anything other than a theoretical "what should the appeal issues be" guessing game with one poster as final arbitor of what is and isn't relevant the only thing deemed to be "on topic". What's left to discuss about the Nevada case that hasn't already been covered? Anybody have access to the trial transcript?

[martin II]

Sure sounds like an accusation to me. I must have missed the post from Deepwater appointing you assistant moderator. It would be easier to stay on topic if anything other than a theoretical "what should the appeal issues be" guessing game with one poster as final arbitor of what is and isn't relevant the only thing deemed to be "on topic". What's left to discuss about the Nevada case that hasn't already been covered? Anybody have access to the trial transcript?

A theoretical question of what the appeal issues can or should be is just as valid as a theoritical question of why oj and his group did what they did or why judge glass made the decisions she made in the case. It is also as valid as opinions drawn from past appeal decisions in various states other than Nevada.imo

[martin II]

like I said, thanks for sharing. did they tell you know if it was stewart or simpson that filed?

Simpson but i would guess stewarts has also been filed.

[weezer]

Simpson but i would guess stewarts has also been filed.

really? I would have expected stewart's to be filed first.

[martin II]

really? I would have expected stewart's to be filed first.

Don't misunderstand.
i don't know whose notice of appeal was filed first. I don't know when either was filed. I was only told that Simpsons was filed.

[weezer]

Don't misunderstand.
i don't know whose notice of appeal was filed first. I don't know when either was filed. I was only told that Simpsons was filed.

ahh - okay -- thanks

[William Anthony]

Sure sounds like an accusation to me. I must have missed the post from Deepwater appointing you assistant moderator. It would be easier to stay on topic if anything other than a theoretical "what should the appeal issues be" guessing game with one poster as final arbitor of what is and isn't relevant the only thing deemed to be "on topic". What's left to discuss about the Nevada case that hasn't already been covered? Anybody have access to the trial transcript?

I don't think you have missed anything as it relates to posts about or from me. I do think it behooves us all to act in accordance with the rules by not being rude, uncivil or offensive so that those posters who want to have a such discussions about the issues and possible issues involved in or a result of the Nevada case may do so in a cordial and welcoming atmosphere and I do not think it requires a moderator or assistant moderator to do their part to make sure this is done, otherwise your posts about Martin and me may be viewed in the manner of which you speak.

[William Anthony]

I think that there are those posters, who think everything was done according to Hoyle, and, consequently there should be no appeal and will disagree with the basis of the appeal. I think there are others, who feel that all the issues which they believe should be included in the appeal will not be, and, consequently, wish to express their opinions in that area. Imho, all should be able to voice and civilly discuss the reasons why they have reached their opinions, to include any issues that are involved in the Nevada case and is not limited to the issues of an appeal.

[William Anthony]

I listened to most of the jury being questioned during the vegas trial and do not remember the question of religion comming up until the two black jurors were questioned.

I will have to go back and look for the link to the jury questions to see how the two females answered that question on the form. Perhaps, something in their answers alerted the prosecution to their suspicions. If you are correct that they were the only jurors questioned about their religion, it may add wood to the fire of the Batson challenge on appeal.

[martin II]

I will have to go back and look for the link to the jury questions to see how the two females answered that question on the form. Perhaps, something in their answers alerted the prosecution to their suspicions. If you are correct that they were the only jurors questioned about their religion, it may add wood to the fire of the Batson challenge on appeal.

I must run to a meeting and will look also when i return.

[martin II]

Re: family members--oj simpson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendents families are innocent victims too. I didn't get complaints about bashing OJ's family, only nicole's. And there were some really libelous things said about the Goldmans. Please understand I am trying to create a pleasant atmosphere for discussion. Fair is fair.

--D

[martin II]

i post to please and express my opinion and so i thank you for expressing yours! Rude is telling a poster what they should have said. Right????
:shrug:

test post only.

[serpentsfall]

So does anybody know if there is a transcript of the Nevada trial available anywhere? If not, hopefully one will become available after an appeal is filed.

[martin II]

So does anybody know if there is a transcript of the Nevada trial available anywhere? If not, hopefully one will become available after an appeal is filed.

The company that did the first trial transcript has not done one for the vegas trial.

[martin II]

So does anybody know if there is a transcript of the Nevada trial available anywhere? If not, hopefully one will become available after an appeal is filed.

There seems to be some kind of server problem acting irratic on this thread again.
i sent pm to mod about the problem but not sure it went through.

would you pm her about problem

i cannot open last page as it sends my post to lower pages as it did with your above post.
can you open the last page post and then see your post there?
thanks.
martinii

[weezer]

anyone know what's up with the thread? did we finally break it?

[martin II]

anyone know what's up with the thread? did we finally break it?

maby

it has been sending my pos all over the place. haha
think it is a server problem

did you get my pm?

notify the mod

[serpentsfall]

anyone know what's up with the thread? did we finally break it?

If so, it was unintentional.

[weezer]

LOL -- I think I may be in withdrawal.

If so, it was unintentional.

[RainStorm]

anyone know what's up with the thread? did we finally break it?

On my computer it appears the moderator disappeared every post of two certain posters on this thread. I think the website's software is having a little trouble adjusting to that, especially since they posted the most.

It seems to have been a global delete. I can't find any of their posts anywhere on CL.

[weezer]

Oh my! :beer::beer:

On my computer it appears the moderator disappeared every post of two certain posters on this thread. I think the website's software is having a little trouble adjusting to that, especially since they posted the most.

It seems to have been a global delete. I can't find any of their posts anywhere on CL.

[martin II]

Oh my! :beer::beer:

Did anyone here notify the moderator??

[martin II]

On my computer it appears the moderator disappeared every post of two certain posters on this thread. I think the website's software is having a little trouble adjusting to that, especially since they posted the most.

It seems to have been a global delete. I can't find any of their posts anywhere on CL.

I think your assessment may be correct.
haha:cool:

[tv]

Whew! Getting to the end of this thread is like following a maze! I think I'm going to have to start leaving bread crumbs! :eek:

[weezer]

Whew! Getting to the end of this thread is like following a maze! I think I'm going to have to start leaving bread crumbs! :eek:

but you found us and that's the important thing! I've looked high and low for anything about an appeal having been filed but can't find a thing. anybody seen anything?

[martin II]

but you found us and that's the important thing! I've looked high and low for anything about an appeal having been filed but can't find a thing. anybody seen anything?

120 Days after 3 days after sentencing is the deadline i believe. i am trying to get more info.

[serpentsfall]

but you found us and that's the important thing! I've looked high and low for anything about an appeal having been filed but can't find a thing. anybody seen anything?

I think it would be safe to assume the NV Supreme court will consider Simpson's case "high profile"! Stewart's previous filings are here.

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/highProfile/

Thread seems to be working OK now. A path seems to have been blazed thru the maze!

[weezer]

I think it would be safe to assume the NV Supreme court will consider Simpson's case "high profile"! Stewart's previous filings are here.

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/highProfile/

Thread seems to be working OK now. A path seems to have been blazed thru the maze!

what would that mean for it be considered 'high profile'? would it fast-track it?

[tv]

Yes, the thread seems to be working fine now. I guess it just needed a little tweaking. I haven't seen a thing about an appeal either.

[serpentsfall]

what would that mean for it be considered 'high profile'? would it fast-track it?

They don't seem to leave decisions online very long. I think they leave "high profile" aka cases with high public interest online longer but its not likely high profile equates with fast-tracked. I haven't read this yet, but here are the rules

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

[weezer]

They don't seem to leave decisions online very long. I think they leave "high profile" aka cases with high public interest online longer but its not likely high profile equates with fast-tracked. I haven't read this yet, but here are the rules

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

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

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