Will Simpson be in court as a plaintiff

[William Anthony]

Here is what I found on surreptitious taping.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.650.html

It seems that Simpson may be entitled to a part, if not all, of Mike's earnings from the sale of the tapes.

[Redmama]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Here is what I found on surreptitious taping.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.650.html

It seems that Simpson may be entitled to a part, if not all, of Mike's earnings from the sale of the tapes.

Then, wouldn't it just go to the Goldmans?

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by Redmama

Then, wouldn't it just go to the Goldmans?

I think that we are both speaking hypothetically and it depends on the wording of the court order. IIRC, the order was written so that it included his future earnings and any monies he retrieved would be more in the line of damages like from a personal injury, which are not taxable as earnings.

[slipnslide]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Here is what I found on surreptitious taping.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.650.html

It seems that Simpson may be entitled to a part, if not all, of Mike's earnings from the sale of the tapes.

Pardon me, but who is this Mike that you speak of?

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by slipnslide

Pardon me, but who is this Mike that you speak of?

Good catch. I meant Tom. I guess I am like the others-blame it on Mike.

[slipnslide]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Good catch. I meant Tom. I guess I am like the others-blame it on Mike.

Thanks for clarifiying.

[socaldiva]

It looks like one of the reasons Simpson is asking for a new trial is because there weren't any blacks on the jury panel. I doubt there are any blacks in his neighborhood either, yet that never seems to bother him.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by socaldiva

It looks like one of the reasons Simpson is asking for a new trial is because there weren't any blacks on the jury panel. I doubt there are any blacks in his neighborhood either, yet that never seems to bother him.

now THAT'S funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[William Anthony]

No other Blacks in Simpson's neighborhood? LE rushed to judgment? There is a rich Black man, who was married to a blue-eyed blond White woman who was murdered, and there are no other Blacks in the neighborhood, doesn't that proof he is guilty? Did he not know that he did not have those rights? Didn't he know that by living in that neighborhood he gave up all his Constitutional rights? Some have far too dim a view of the America I have become proud of in my adult life. I see it as sad rather than funny when some express the views that there is something wrong with a Black living and marrying where he wants and who he chooses and imply that automatically equates to a desire to be White. White acceptance is not always the motive. Equality is sometimes the cause. It has been said that the White man and the Black woman were the only two free people in America. I hope that is no longer the standard we live by and, if it is, then it is time for change, reform just isn't good enough.

[socaldiva]

I see that once again, a certain poster is posting in reference to my post even though he's agreed in the past not to.

Coming soon, an excuse.....and if the past predicts the future, he will blame me. Sounds rather OJish don't ya think?

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

now THAT'S funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dunno, it looks like some think it's A-Ok to denounce your race. Nothing wrong with using the race card when it suits your needs, then scurrying back to your friends & neighborhood, who happen to be of a different race.

[Reckless]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

No other Blacks in Simpson's neighborhood? LE rushed to judgment? There is a rich Black man, who was married to a blue-eyed blond White woman who was murdered, and there are no other Blacks in the neighborhood, doesn't that proof he is guilty? Did he not know that he did not have those rights?

Wow, circular non-logic at it's finest. It's pure bs and only stupid people believe circular file fodder.

[Reckless]

Originally Posted by socaldiva

It looks like one of the reasons Simpson is asking for a new trial is because there weren't any blacks on the jury panel. I doubt there are any blacks in his neighborhood either, yet that never seems to bother him.

LMAO! You got that right.

[William Anthony]

I have never posted that I would not post in reference to any posters post, especially those who place racists post on the board.

[William Anthony]

To those who do not know there is a thing called freedom of association. I do believe some may not want it that way and it seems that they believe in segregation. Reform did not work. Perhaps, change will work. It seems like the Bible may be fulfilling and the bottom is rising to the top, thanks to the sentiments of some, who continue to hold stupid and archaic notions about race. Were those Whites, who associated with Simpson denying their race, and, because they did, should they have lost their Constitutional rights?

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by Reckless

Wow, circular non-logic at it's finest. It's pure bs and only stupid people believe circular file fodder.

I had some suspicions when I first saw your avatar as to you being a racist. I am glad to see that I am wrong. However, I do believe that the majority of the members feel the same way about gender discrimination. I do not think that you should post in a manner that implies that the two particular females have stupid beliefs, even though their thinking is circular or illogical or as you say bs, which is usually a manner of showing a limited vocabulary. Even if I might find truth in your assessment of these two females, I must say that they have the right, just as you do, to voice stupid opinions. You must not call them stupid, because to so do is truly reckless.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by Reckless

Wow, circular non-logic at it's finest. It's pure bs and only stupid people believe circular file fodder.

It appears that change defeated reform. Although, I must admit that at near the end there seemed to be an agreement that reform was not good enough as one changed from reform to wanting to mavericky change Washington. Seriously, let's hope that America has learned that long-held notions about race are no longer acceptable and that America is moving in the direction toward those lofty words written in the Constitution, or placed another way, is cashing the check it long ago wrote and not continuing to act in a reckless manner.

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by socaldiva

It looks like one of the reasons Simpson is asking for a new trial is because there weren't any blacks on the jury panel. I doubt there are any blacks in his neighborhood either, yet that never seems to bother him.

Whether your assertion bothers him or not is Irrelevant!

What is relevant is whether there were any Blacks in the jury pool and how Nevada law operated to their exclusion and did Nevada's method of exclusion deprive Simpson of a Constitutional right to a fair trial.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

Whether your assertion bothers him or not is Irrelevant!

What is relevant is whether there were any Blacks in the jury pool and how Nevada law operated to their exclusion and did Nevada's method of exclusion deprive Simpson of a Constitutional right to a fair trial.

looks like a question you need to bring up with galaner and grasso since they are the ones that accepted the jury and left the two black jurors sitting as alternates.

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

looks like a question you need to bring up with galaner and grasso since they are the ones that accepted the jury and left the two black jurors sitting as alternates.

No, I'll wait, Weezer! Galanter is egotistical enough as it is, but to his benefit, he probably got as good as anyone else was going to get trying a case like this in Nevada. I doubt that Simpson was going to walk even if he could reincarnate the great Clarence Darrow to represent him in Nevada. My understanding is that it is a tough state and to your satisfaction tends to be merciless towards defendants tried there.

However, it will be interesting to see if his lawyers try to make anything out of striking the Blacks from the jury. That bothers me for sure and with this issue coupled with the remarks of the jury foreman regarding his beliefs that Simpson escaped justice in 1995, and his alleged prior disciplinary actions for racial animosity at a previous job could give Simpson another bite at the apple (new trial). Since we don't know what if any coercion went on in the jury room, given what we now know about him we'd best have another trial to redeem the integrity of the state's judicial system. It's a long shot but what the heck! Simpson has nothing at this time to lose.

Also, there appears to be something disconcerting about not offering an opportunity for Simpson to reach a plea agreement while immediately offering such agreements to the other ex-felons, and unscrupulous characters, involved in this otherwise sordid comical affair. It may not rise to a level of a cause of action, however it really makes the state look retributory, like they wanted to take down Simpson exclusively, and would go so far as to grossly over charge him and old poor C.J. Stewart.

I know that those type of ethical considerations usually don't phase you, Weezer. But pettyness is unbecoming for a state to be engaged in, WEEZ!

[martin II]

[quote=Big Ben;9137972]No, I'll wait, Weezer! Galanter is egotistical enough as it is, but to his benefit, he probably got as good as anyone else was going to get trying a case like this in Nevada. I doubt that Simpson was going to walk even if he could reincarnate the great Clarence Darrow to represent him in Nevada. My understanding is that it is a tough state and to your satisfaction tends to be merciless towards defendants tried there.

However, it will be interesting to see if his lawyers try to make anything out of striking the Blacks from the jury. That bothers me for sure and with this issue coupled with the remarks of the jury foreman regarding his beliefs that Simpson escaped justice in 1995, and his alleged prior disciplinary actions for racial animosity at a previous job could give Simpson another bite at the apple (new trial). Since we don't know what if any coercion went on in the jury room, given what we now know about him we'd best have another trial to redeem the integrity of the state's judicial system. It's a long shot but what the heck! Simpson has nothing at this time to lose.

Also, there appears to be something disconcerting about not offering an opportunity for Simpson to reach a plea agreement while immediately offering such agreements to the other ex-felons, and unscrupulous characters, involved in this otherwise sordid comical affair. It may not rise to a level of a cause of action, however it really makes the state look retributory, like they wanted to take down Simpson exclusively, and would go so far as to grossly over charge him and old poor C.J. Stewart.

I know that those type of ethical considerations usually don't phase you, Weezer. But pettyness is unbecoming for a state to be engaged in, WEEZ![/QUOTE

Big Ben

A very well articulated post especially your last paragraph.

Nevada da was after simpson and only simpson. It is nothing but a payback check.

[weezer]

LOL -- orenthal james simpson took a group of thugs and guns to a hotel room in Las Vegas. At the point of those guns, he ordered that no one leave the room and then he had his goons load up everything -- including the victims' sunglasses and cell phone -- and absconded with the goods. no one made him. he got caught. orenthal james simpson was found guilty in a Court of Law. now he needs to pay the penalty for breaking the law.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

LOL -- orenthal james simpson took a group of thugs and guns to a hotel room in Las Vegas. At the point of those guns, he ordered that no one leave the room and then he had his goons load up everything -- including the victims' sunglasses and cell phone -- and absconded with the goods. no one made him. he got caught. orenthal james simpson was found guilty in a Court of Law. now he needs to pay the penalty for breaking the law.

OJ did not TAKE any men or guns anyplace.

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

LOL -- orenthal james simpson took a group of thugs and guns to a hotel room in Las Vegas. At the point of those guns, he ordered that no one leave the room and then he had his goons load up everything -- including the victims' sunglasses and cell phone -- and absconded with the goods. no one made him. he got caught. orenthal james simpson was found guilty in a Court of Law. now he needs to pay the penalty for breaking the law.

There apparently will never be any mitigating circumstances in America when it relates to O.J. Simpson! Yours is a reflection of so many of the media brainwashed who now salivate with anticipation as sentencing day comes near. However, despite your feigned righteous indignation, there was nothing about this case that truly reflects kidnapping or armed robbery in the normal sense of the word. If this was truly that type of crime all participants, especially the guy that set the conspiracy in motion (Riccio) should have stood trial as well and not been granted immunity from prosecution.

Weezer, you don't know of anyone who has ever planned a kidnapping, lured a kidnapping victim to a certain location, eagerly participated in the act of kidnapping, planned and carried out the intentional taping of that kidnapping for later sale for the titillation of listeners and voyeurs like yourself, and then later joyously celebrated the kidnapping in the midst of frivolety at a house party and then the prosecutors decided not to charge that eager participant with the crime of kidnapping. If you know of such then by all means share it with us. The thought of such biased prosecution is completely absurd.

Yet, in Clark County, the Prosecutor's zeal to gain a conviction caused him to choose to selectively over-charge a targeted defendant. In a case involving a kidnapping any Appellate Court should certainly see the error and take that fact into consideration in whether to allow this verdict to stand.

Again, this is not the Sovereign State of Weezerdom, this is the Sovereign State of Nevada. They have now become an embarrassment as they attempt to pass this over-charged case off as being fair justice. It is anything but that, it is a travesty of justice. Nevada has gone too far, Weezer!

[weezer]

Like I said:

orenthal james simpson took a group of thugs and guns to a hotel room in Las Vegas. At the point of those guns, he ordered that no one leave the room and then he had his goons load up everything -- including the victims' sunglasses and cell phone -- and absconded with the goods. no one made him. he got caught. orenthal james simpson was found guilty in a Court of Law. now he needs to pay the penalty for breaking the law.

and I would add:

nothing anyone else did or didn't do makes orenthal's part in this crime less.

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

Like I said:

orenthal james simpson took a group of thugs and guns to a hotel room in Las Vegas. At the point of those guns, he ordered that no one leave the room and then he had his goons load up everything -- including the victims' sunglasses and cell phone -- and absconded with the goods. no one made him. he got caught. orenthal james simpson was found guilty in a Court of Law. now he needs to pay the penalty for breaking the law.

and I would add:

nothing anyone else did or didn't do makes orenthal's part in this crime less.

Well, that's typical of you. As I said I wouldn't expect anymore or any less. However, the circumstances of the Court allowing all of the other "thugs" to accept a plea, just leaves an unpleasant odor around the whole case.

That foul odor is strong, especially around the initiator (Riccio) who, as I understand, brought the initial idea of the kidnapping directly to Simpson and then received immunity from being charged as a kidnapper himself. This kidnap conspirator also received $150, 000 for his preplanned audio recording of the kidnap incident from that TV clown-lawyer, Harvey Levin, of TMZ. Very strange, I'd say!

[martin II]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

Well, that's typical of you. As I said I wouldn't expect anymore or any less. However, the circumstances of the Court allowing all of the other "thugs" to accept a plea, just leaves an unpleasant odor around the whole case.

That foul odor is strong, especially around the initiator (Riccio) who, as I understand, brought the initial idea of the kidnapping directly to Simpson and then received immunity from being charged as a kidnapper himself. This kidnap conspirator also received $150, 000 for his preplanned audio recording of the kidnap incident from that TV clown-lawyer, Harvey Levin, of TMZ. Very strange, I'd say!

I have always seen Riccio as the master manipulator of oj and the leader of all activities. The da did not seem to care about illegal taping even of le investigating the case.
there are some that consider themselves extreme law and order types until le has them in their clutches. Then they run to defense lawyers to pray for help.

[weezer]

the facts of THIS case speak for themselves and orenthal helped it along by memoralizing his planning and participation on audio tapes.

just as a reminder --

1. riccio was the one who went to LE NOT orenthal
2. nobody got off scott free -- orenthal's 'thugs' are all facing sentences
3. the tape recording was not illegal

[William Anthony]

The tape recording was illegal.

Here is the link that started the thread.

http://law.onecle.com/nevada/crimes/200.650.html

Here is what it says with emphasis in bold on the relevant portions.

"Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

There can be no invasion of privacy if the other person(s) authorize the taping. In short, one can not authorize his invasion of privacy of another.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

the facts of THIS case speak for themselves and orenthal helped it along by memoralizing his planning and participation on audio tapes.

just as a reminder --

1. riccio was the one who went to LE NOT orenthal
2. nobody got off scott free -- orenthal's 'thugs' are all facing sentences
3. the tape recording was not illegal

to clarify the recording and whether or not it was illegal, the statute says 'conversations by [b]other[b] people -- riccio was a party to the conversations so. . . .

[tv]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

to clarify the recording and whether or not it was illegal, the statute says 'conversations by [b]other[b] people -- riccio was a party to the conversations so. . . .

That's the way I understood the law also. It doesn't say if the person recording the conversation is a part of the conversation he still has to ask yet another person involved in the conversation if it's okay. Riccio said he always tapes business dealings. I wonder if he knew the laws regarding it wherever these deals took place?

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

the facts of THIS case speak for themselves and orenthal helped it along by memoralizing his planning and participation on audio tapes.

just as a reminder --

1. riccio was the one who went to LE NOT orenthal
2. nobody got off scott free -- orenthal's 'thugs' are all facing sentences
3. the tape recording was not illegal

nonsense

[weezer]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

That's the way I understood the law also. It doesn't say if the person recording the conversation is a part of the conversation he still has to ask yet another person involved in the conversation if it's okay. Riccio said he always tapes business dealings. I wonder if he knew the laws regarding it wherever these deals took place?

I doubt seriously that he has enough smarts to think about that part of it. I do think he is telling the truth about the reasons for taping his business deals -- and sure enough, without those tapes, orenthal (like he managed with the road rage case) would have AGAIN lied/cheated his way out of having to pay for his bad/criminal behavior. imo

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

That's the way I understood the law also. It doesn't say if the person recording the conversation is a part of the conversation he still has to ask yet another person involved in the conversation if it's okay. Riccio said he always tapes business dealings. I wonder if he knew the laws regarding it wherever these deals took place?

Riccio made illegal recordings and the da did not care.HE has not been charged with breaking the state law.the da used these illegal recordings in court.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

to clarify the recording and whether or not it was illegal, the statute says 'conversations by [b]other[b] people -- riccio was a party to the conversations so. . . .

the taper must notify one of the people being taped. period.

[tv]

Originally Posted by martin II

the taper must notify one of the people being taped. period.

It doesn't say that. It just says that one of the parties must be aware and Riccio was one of the parties.

[tv]

Originally Posted by fbgweezer

I doubt seriously that he has enough smarts to think about that part of it. I do think he is telling the truth about the reasons for taping his business deals -- and sure enough, without those tapes, orenthal (like he managed with the road rage case) would have AGAIN lied/cheated his way out of having to pay for his bad/criminal behavior. imo

I think you're right -- he's all about self-preservation. He may have made illegal recordings in other places but I think he did it within the law this time.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

Riccio made illegal recordings and the da did not care.HE has not been charged with breaking the state law.the da used these illegal recordings in court.

you are wrong.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

I think you're right -- he's all about self-preservation. He may have made illegal recordings in other places but I think he did it within the law this time.

I believe you are exactly right.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II

the taper must notify one of the people being taped. period.

riccio (the 'taper') was one of the people being taped. geez martin. period.