O.J. Simpson Seeks Dismissal of Suit

[kskiska]

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) - O.J. Simpson has asked a California court to dismiss a lawsuit seeking the publicity rights to his name, image and likeness to pay millions of dollars owed to relatives of his slain ex-wife and her friend.

Fred Goldman, whose son, Ron Goldman, was killed alongside Simpson's ex-wife Nicole in 1994, filed a petition last month in Santa Monica Superior Court seeking control of the publicity rights to O.J. Simpson's name and likeness.

(snip)

In seeking the petition's dismissal, Simpson argued that he is not subject to matters in the California court because he lives in Florida.

(snip)

Goldman's petition said Simpson has made money from autographs and appearances but hasn't paid a dime of the estimated $38 million he owed from the wrongful death suit and interest on the amount awarded.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6144233,00.html

[Kagemusha]

1. That's just wrong. I'm sorry - that's just wrong.

Go after his money, sure. But you cannot repo a man's name, face and likeness and use it for your own profit no matter what debt he owes you!

My god, what would the world come to if you could!

[hlthe2b]

7. Support for a multiple murderer?

He should have lost more than his "name, face, and likeness" long ago... Seems like a minimal exchange for the loss of ones son! :shrug:

[Kagemusha]

10. Take his life, but not his identity.

Even send him to Guantanamo and apply the worst you can imagine to him, but leave him his name. Let the world know that his existence belonged to him, and not another.

[pitohui]

13. er, are we forgetting the man was innocent?

are we forgetting this the man framed by ramparts, later proved to have framed many?

the jury said he was not guilty and i agree, the evidence does not suggest this was a crime committed by one person

[hlthe2b]

16. oh boy....

:popcorn:

[theHandpuppet]

42. Yeah, me too

Pass the popcorn.

:eyes:

[calimary]

137. No kidding.

:eyes:

[Phillycat]

60. Shove over

:popcorn:

[Javaman]

211. Quite bogarting the popcorn...

:popcorn:

[ronnykmarshall]

267. I'll make some more ......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuhOj2dQTrk

[davidinalameda]

20. and a civil court disagreed

he was found liable in the wrongful death suit

[LiberalFighter]

138. Standards of proof are different

In a criminal case prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil case the standard is lower. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs must show only a preponderance of evidence.

[susanna]

161. And they did.

Pay up, OJ.

[msanthrope]

21. And the same court system you trumpet also found him

liable, which is why he pays.

[pitohui]

22. civil court is bullshit

i wish upon you the lovely experience of learning for yourself why

[Kagemusha]

24. Well what am I supposed to say? Just saying, your ID is sacrosanct

Doesn't matter what kind of money a court says you owe. In America, people don't get numbers tattoed on their arms for being unable to pay their debts either. Some things are just beyond the pale for punishment. Yeah, you can say in abstract "he deserves it", and people on this thread are because they genuinely believe him guilty, something I'm unwilling to spark an argument; the rulings are what they are. But selling OJ into slavery wouldn't be much of an answer either. And frankly, stripping him of his name and identity, and making the name and likeness of O.J. Simpson work for Fred Goldman for free for the rest of his life, and possibly beyond, is darn close to it.

[pitohui]

27. thanks kagemusha

i agree, nice post

[mondo joe]

57. But he's not stripped of his name or ID.

Just the money to be made from either AS A COMMODITY - not as a matter of identity.

[Hepburn]

220. I totally agree.

It seems like the 13th Amendment outlawed this kind of servitude. All I can see coming out of something like this is a very dangerous principle. My opinion has nothing to do with the OJ case. GEEEEEEEEZ....what if ANY creditor could force someone to work for free to pay a debt??? Not a good thing ~~ it smacks of debtors prison IMO and that was one reason that the colonists came to America. And with the new BK laws? People...if this is OK, we are looking to having this technique used against the poorest members of our society.

Besides...all Goldman is doing, IMO, is looking to profit from his son's death and that makes me want to :puke:

[msanthrope]

25. Well, with such sage legal commentary,

you've certainly carried the argument!!!! (rolling eye smilie, here)

[jayfish]

107. The Burden Of Proof In Civil Court Is Much Lower Than in Criminal.

I believe that the language is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court and "by a preponderance of the evidence" in civil court. I never really got into Mike Malloy all that much, but one of the things that he said has stuck with me for a while. "I'm not here to educate you".

Jay

[saigon68]

40. Yes, getting sued in a civil court these days

Is like the death of a thousand cuts

[Lindacooks]

103. Gee, I'm struggling in the crushing grip of your reasoning ability.

NOT.

[BootinUp]

39. Not that I want to

argue details or anything, but there is certainly a strong case for O.J. having committed that crime, and the jury appears to have aquitted based on suspicion of law enforcement rather than a consideration of the physical evidence that was gathered and the motive and opportunity.

Anyways, people can differ but I believe your view is in the minority.

[NOLADEM]

41. You can't be serious.

Where is the sarcasm tag?

Jesus, what an idiotic comment.

By your logic, NO ONE can be guilty of murder in the LAPD's jurisdiction because they have been guilty of planting evidence in the past.

The man's blood was found mixed in with the victims' at the scene.
Victims' blood was found in his house, and on his clothes.
Both victims' blood was splattered in his vehicle.
The murderer wore expensive shoes the same size and make as OJ was wearing that day. Weird, huh?
When caught, he ran on national TV with a gun to his head, after leaving a suicide apologizing.

The guy was as guilty as a person can be. The not guilty verdict was racial payback by a black jury, who were trying to right the many wrongs done to them by the LAPD.

But, to incenuate he was innocent is insane! He was found not guilty, NOT factually innocent. HUGE difference.

Also, he was found guilty in a civil court.

Oh, and please update us: How is the search for the 'real killers' coming? And what exculpatory evidence has come to light?

You disgrace the memory of the victims when you float such bullshit. These two people were brutally murdered by a man who had a history with the victim of domestic violence. He got off ONLY because he was more famous than he was black.

And please, enlighten me, what evidence suggests this was done by more than one person. Did they find any unidentified footprints in their blood at the crime scene? Were there any witnesses saying such? Was there unidentified DNA evidence at the scene? Are there other LA area murders where the perp wore $3000 Bruno Maglis?

[gaspee]

44. Thre thing that always struck me

Was that the dog, an Akita-- bred as guard and watch dogs for centuries, did not alert on an intruder. I've never known an Akita who didn't alert on a stranger on their property. The evidence was pretty damning, but the dog pretty near convinced me of his guilt.

[NOLADEM]

133. Not true.

The dog was described by neighbors as 'plantively wailing' at the time of the attack.

There was enough other evidence for all but the most morally corrupted and jaded to find a guilty verdict.

[raccoon]

55. You took the words right out of my mouth,

"How is the search for the 'real killers' coming? "

[barrytonmi]

162. Beginning to sound like a Repug...

I thought the Repugs were the only ones that called people insane and idiots when someone says something they disagree with. Now I find it in my own party. That's more discouraging than this thread.:(

[DiverDave]

203. SING IT, Brother (or sister)!

Nail, meet hammer.

The murderer got off. period.

Anybody thinks he was "framed" I got a bridge to sell ya, tolls go to buyer.

[Hepburn]

222. You, IMO, need to review...

...the forensics on the blood spatter evidence in the case. The forensics are what PROVED that OJ could NOT have done it. It was clearly planted. I have been involved as legal counsel on enough murder cases to know what I am talking about ~~ trust me. Ask any crim defense atty about the blood spatter evidence in this case. Yes, the blood was mixed...but take a look at the sock again. The pattern evidences a transfer that was done WHEN THERE WAS NO FOOT OR ANKLE IN THE SOCK. Sorry...but that says "PLANTED" to me. There is simply NO other explanation for this.

My theory is that OJ was at the scene....but AFTER the fact. And he lied about not being there at all and that is where the whole mess went side-ways. Once he made that statement, he could not back off of it. That is how the blood got in the Bronco and the same with those "ugly ass" shoes. Take a look at the pics of his body and hands...and tell me HOW a man is in a knife fight with a guy 20 years his junior and does NOT have one mark on his body???

BTW: The theory is that his oldest son ~~ by his first marriage and I cannot think of his name right now ~~ is the murderer and this is supported by a lot of people who have discussed this case for many years.

[DiverDave]

264. Do you honestly believe that with the

media offering 100's of thousands of dollars for ANY proof that it was a frame/cover up, that 1 of the HUNDREDS of people that had to know about a plant would not have come forward?

Not a chance in hell, the reason they didn't get such a person is because THERE WAS NO FRAME UP!

Jeez, That ANYONE believes he didn't do it just blows my mind.

[marshall]

51. You're mixing up the two cases

The case you are referring to was the criminal case. This current move comes out of the civil case, in which Simpson was found culpable for the deaths.

[0007]

54. cough cough!

[AngryAmish]

59. Jury said he did it

[Megahurtz]

70. Bullshit.....

He wasn't innocent. Give me a fucking break.:eyes:

[AngryOldDem]

92. You MUST be joking. n/t

[Marnieworld]

95. Are you forgetting the man was found liable?

There was another trial with another jury and he was found responsible for the deaths based on additional evidence not presented in the original trial? The Goldmans were awarded damages and he hasn't paid a dime of them. They are only seeking what a jury found them entitled to.

edit for spelling.

[Lindacooks]

102. Not guilty does NOT mean he was innocent.

All it means is the people on the jury committed nullification.

[LostinVA]

109. I wish people would learn what verdicts mean

I agree with another poster: I wish we had Innocent, Guilty, and Not Proven.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

166. Innocent, Guilty, and Not Guilty By Virtue of Wealth and/or Fame

Actually, a person is presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury of his peers. At least until * signs the bill that makes him dictator.

[MISSDem]

129. puhleeze

[Boneman]

144. I live near where this occurred and studied the murder and

trial exhaustively. No way did OJ kill that woman. I say this even though I can't stand OJ. The girl was hit by LAPD in my opinion. The LAPD Rampart Division is nothing but a bunch of thugs. Always has been.

[kath]

165. Oh, Jeebus.

[LostinVA]

168. Oh boy

I would laugh if this wasn't so scary.

[calico1]

190. Oh my...what's that I hear?

Is that the Twilight Zone theme?

[LostinVA]

195. OMG! I see dead Rod Serlings!!!

[martymar64]

269. Rampart is a loooong way from Brentwood

Rampart is all the way across town. It wasn't a hit. OJ killed them and his money along with Johnny Cochran, jury nullification and the ineptitude of the prosecutorial team and "Judge" Ito got him off. If you want a good rundown of the case and what went wrong, read Vincent Bugliosi's book. I'll believe Bugliosi, the man that put Charlie Manson away, before I'll believe you.

[philosophie_en_rose]

150. Sorry. He was found liable. And owes a huge judgment.

This is not about a criminal proceeding.

[Javaman]

210. He was not guilty. Big difference between that and innocent. nt

[ronnykmarshall]

268. Yeah! YEAH!!

and Dan White killed George Moscone and Harvey Milk 'cuz he ate too many Twinkies!!!

[Richard Steele]

14. An ordinary man, no. But OJ's "likeness" is a COMMODITY.

A commodity with a certain real dollar value.

I have no problem with this valuable commodity being turned over
to those OJ owes money to as partial payment of the debt.
Frankly, I think he should be jailed for CONTEMPT, for
completely ignoring the COURT ORDER to pay them in
the first place.

[Kagemusha]

29. Not knowing the details of the case - if that's true, take his money.

Take the money he rightfully owes under the law. But in America, even celebrities are human beings.

Give you an example. If Fred Goldman owns OJ's likeness, OJ can never sue Fred Goldman for defamation if Goldman has OJ portrayed as committing acts of violent crime, or better yet, genocide or other war crimes. Fred Goldman could sue Fred Goldman for doing so, but not surprisingly, Fred Goldman will not sue himself. OJ's name will become Goldman's personal toy, to flush down the toilet any way he wishes, without repercussions whatsoever, because OJ cannot go to a court and ask that his likeness be treated as that of a human being. Because OJ doesn't have a legal likeness anymore. Fred Goldman has OJ's legal likeness. And Fred Goldman can do whatever inhuman things he may wish to do with that likeness without any fear of legal consequences, because OJ has no standing to have a court treat him as a human being acting in defense of his own name.

That's not America. That's NOT America.

[kestrel91316]

147. This is about Fred Goldman being able to collect the profits

from commercial use of OJ's name, likeness, etc rather than OJ collecting those profits. So if some company were to want to make OJ t-shirts they would have to pay the royalties to Goldman rather than OJ.

I like the idea of that.

[barrytonmi]

163. Yeah, me too...

then Fred Goldman couldn't collect anything. After all, it's not like OJ has any kind of a career left. If the Goldman family had acted in a different way, I would have felt sorry for them. But Dad and sister got their faces in every newspaper and on every newscast they could and I was pretty fed up with them very soon. The civil court ruled that there was reason to believe that OJ was "probably" responsible; not that he was responsible. The civil court is a travesty and should be disbanded. Not guilty is not guilty, no matter how you look at it. If the prosecution in the criminal case hadn't been so anxious to write books and get their names in the papers, they might have done a better job. If Mark Furman had been a better cop, he wouldn't have planted evidence. Now, tear me apart if you want, but that's my opinion.

[LostinVA]

169. Come back and talk about the Goldman's after your brother or son

is brutally murdered by a millionaire who gets away with it.

The Goldman's were not and are not fame whores.

For shame.

Finally figured out how to use the internet, eh Juice?

[mondo joe]

196. You really need a remedial civics lesson.

You don't understand the difference between civil and criminal charges, nor the different burdens of proof.

[Poll_Blind]

32. I agree...it's crazy. It's like something out of a Terry Gilliam movie.

Hopefully I'm just misunderstanding some aspect of this. :shrug:

PB

[mondo joe]

206. Here's what you are misunderstanding.

As a celebrity, OJ's name and likeness are assets which translate into cash - cash, like he owes the Goldmans.

He's not coming up with the cash so they seek to control the asset.

[LostinVA]

43. Then he needs to pay up

I just found out last year that he's never paid a cent of the civil suit. Total arrogance. If me or you did that... oi. Rich people have their own justice in this world, that's for sure.

[Kagemusha]

49. What I'm hearing is that he's 'hiding his money'. Legal loopholes.

Here's the thing though. To use a silly, outdated example, let's say a defendant is a blacksmith and is levied a financial penalty in civil court. The plaintiff has every right to garnish the profits of the blacksmith's trade. He is not, however, empowered to seize the blacksmith's workshop, tools, and work materials, and liquidate them, depriving the blacksmith of his livelihood and any reasonable opportunity to pay the entirety of the penalty over his lifetime (or at least much more of it than liquidation and destitution will lead to).

In this case, OJ's name and likeness are his tools for earning money. Even if they were something that could be stripped away in America - and my understanding is that they are not - it'd still be like liquidating the blacksmith's entire shop rather than merely garnishing his wages. Now, one might argue he deserves it; in fact, many would. However, that's not the way the law's apparently written.

Now whether OJ is skirting the law with loopholes or what, I don't know because I have no idea how much he's "earning" and where it's going. Maybe a law written so that a person with 1/10th of his wealth would not be driven into destitution allows OJ to skim with 10x the barely-over-destitution level. That's unfortunate but, I never felt that the jury award was anywhere remotely near what OJ could have realistically paid at the time. (Maybe over his lifetime, if he'd worked for the sole purpose of paying the award, but forcing him to work is a power that was tossed out with the Emancipation Proclamation. And even then, I doubted it.) But the award was upheld on appeal, presumably because even this award would not reduce OJ to the shirt on his back under the laws this stuff operates under. Um well, maybe, maybe not.

It's really too bad about him not having paid a cent but, the rule of law cuts both ways.

[LostinVA]

50. He's not hiding his money -- he has said publicly, more than, once,

That Fred Goldman will never see a dime of the money.

The NFL pension is hidden in a legal loophole -- nothing else.

The civil case was a long time ago.

[Kagemusha]

53. Ah, so just the pension...

which technically isn't wages, I take it?

It's too bad for Fred Goldman but, I fail to see what he can legally do about it.

[LostinVA]

61. Legally he can sue OJ to pay up -- which is what he's doing

As another poster said, this si exactly like a court garnishing your wages. I don't understand why you think Fred Goldman can't do anything about it -- Simpson is breaking the law. There's a,lt Goldman can do -- and he's doing it.

It isn't just wages, it's assets. Under CA law, a pension used to be exempt from garnishment under court judgments. That's since been changed.

[Kagemusha]

65. Well I'm not sure which "this" you mean but...

If the CA law change applies to the OJ judgment then, great, I want his NFL pension to get garnished to whatever degree is humanely warranted. I don't see why Goldman would fail in getting such a court ruling in his favor.

This seizing OJ's publicity rights (as I said, taking the whole smithy and tools and work materials and keeping them or selling them for pennies or whatever you like) thing just doesn't seem consistent with the entire principle of garnishing. That's all. I hope that the pension does get garnished and this comes to a sane conclusion.

[mondo joe]

69. OJ's "publicity rights" are an asset, so of course they are

on the table, just like any other asset would be.

[Kagemusha]

71. Did they change the law where you can't repo houses for this too?

I heard of that CA law at the time of the civil judgment itself. I'm way out of my league here but, I don't think all assets ARE on the table to begin with. Besides, garnishing is always of the benefit from the asset, not seizure of the asset itself, or it wouldn't be garnishing...

There's a reasonable interpretation of all these laws but, I'm hoping a sane judge says what that is.

[Megahurtz]

84. A pension is still exempt from garnishments,

and I understand he's getting a Federal pension (disability I think) which is most certainly exempt, even in California. Not that I give a damn about O.J. anyway.

Where did you get the idea that the law has changed, and that a Federal pension is no longer exempt?

You might be thinking about private pensions maybe?

Whatever State law cannot override Federal law, not with Federal pensions.

[LostinVA]

89. His NFL pension -- I had read quite a while ago CA was changing the law

What Federal pension? I'm talking about his humongous NFL pension he gets every month.

[Megahurtz]

93. I could be wrong, but

I heard that his NFL pension is a Federal pension, and that it's disability. If that's true no one can touch it, not even in California.

A Federal pension is something you can get if you had a Federal job. I don't know hy NFL would fall under that, but this is what I heard.

Anyway, if you know where I can look up that California law or have a link I am curious to see it. If that were true the Goldmans and the Browns would already be garnishing his pension, which apparently they are unable to do.

[LostinVA]

94. I had read the law would be changed BECAUSE of the Simpson case

So, Simpson wouldn't be affected by it. However, I can't find any info about whether or not it was changed.

[Megahurtz]

97. Hmmmm I'm curious....

Maybe I'll try to see if I can find anything....Although something tells me that if someone tried to change that law, it wouldn't work. O.J. obviously has such a huge pension that he certainly would be able to pay them and still have money to live, but if a law like this passed, than it would affect people with tiny pensions who use that as their only means of survival. O.J. should definitely pay, but this would be a bad precident for others.

[LostinVA]

98. That's why I'm thinking the idea was probably dropped n/t

[FredScuttle]

62. Hold on a second...

Isn't that what Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center are known for? Bankrupting hate organizations and seizing their property and assets?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Donald

[Kagemusha]

64. What can I say? Hate groups don't get NFL pensions.

I know a poster above says OJ is breaking the law... he probably isn't, point in fact.

[FredScuttle]

66. "he probably isn't, point in fact"?

Which is it? Is he in contempt of the civil decision ordering him to pay Fred Goldman $33 million or not?

[Kagemusha]

67. Reply #61 makes my last reply inoperative, it looks like

I hadn't heard that California had altered the laws on civil judgments to permit the garnishing of pensions. Assuming that applies to OJ in the present, OJ may well be in contempt of the civil decision. But OJ wouldn't have been before the change in the law.

I would hope that the law is now clear enough on this that the issue's settled once and for all. Guess we'll find out soon.

[ernestv]

179. I find it hard to believe....

That with everything that is going on in this country and the world, this much attention is being paid to O. J. Simpson... UNBELIEVABLE!!!

[Patchuli]

181. That is a trifle compared to the wrong done by OJ

Personally, he should have paid a *much* bigger price than mere money and to date, he's paid NOTHING. He's lucky he is walking free. It is an obscenity that he walks free. He should not be allowed to profit on his earlier feats until he pays what he owes.

[colorado_ufo]

228. Inclined to agree with you,

but think that he should not have been allowed to leave California without paying the debt, or making arrangements to regularly pay the debt. Seems like any income he gets should be garnished.

[DaDeacon]

266. Prove it in "CRIMINAL" court.

Prove it in "CRIMINAL" court! Sorry hate to remind you that he was found not guilty.

[greccogirl]

2. I hope they win.

O.J. is never going to pay a dime and he has to pay somehow for what he did.

[Human Torch]

9. But look at all of the time he's spent looking for the real killer...

...that's got to be worth something, right? He doesn't know where the real killer is yet, but he's narrowed it down to killers who love golf...and dammit, one course at a time, through iron will and the process of elimination, I believe OJ WILL find the real killer.

Especially if he walks in front of a mirror.

:patriot:

[greccogirl]

214. EXACTLY

[bluestateguy]

3. How's that investigation going into finding the real killers?

He said he would look for them. How's that coming along?

[DRoseDARs]

6. Well, there's lots of golf courses in Florida and they've lots of holes...

The real killers could be hiding in any one of them! :shrug:

[Branjor]

48. Yes....

he said that finding the real killer or killers would be a "life goal", so he must be working real hard on it.

[Lindacooks]

4. Figures that Simpson hasn't paid a dime.

Cold blooded killer that he is.

[babylonsister]

5. When he pays the money from the civil suit, or even starts to pay

it, we'll talk. I think he's a stone cold killer myself.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

8. The Man Is A Killer

He DESERVES whatever HORRIBLE fate he has coming to him. It can't get here soon enough.

He's a Fucking Killer of 2 people, and he's insulting those he MURDERED by being a coward and sliming out of even paying financially for his crimes.

I hope they get at least something out of this Scumbag.

[pitohui]

12. he was ruled innocent in court of law w. trial by jury

why should he pay a dime?

i'm sorry, this is ridiculous, as far as i can see, the man has committed no crime other than the crime of not being liked by la pd and the media

may it happen to you and yours if you think a man should pay forever for something he didn't do

[msanthrope]

17. He was also ruled liable. That's why he pays. n/t

[hlthe2b]

18. First of all, no one is EVER ruled "INNOCENT" in an American

court of law. One is declared "NOT GUILTY" which is very very different...

Oh, well, why bother... you believe what you will.... :shrug:

[pitohui]

23. yeah he was ruled NOT GUILTY

the man killed no one, you know it, i know it

if he was white, there would never have been a trial

sorry, there's only one progressive view of this trial and it ain't the black man is guilty cuz he married a blonde

[Solo_in_MD]

34. Lets review this shall we...

A very rich man avoided conviction in a criminal case that seemed pretty clear to most of us that he should have lost. While he avoids being found guilty in criminal court, in civil court with a different set of standards, he is found responsible. He then uses legal chicanery to avoid payment of a legal judgement.

You support him and say that is the only correct progressive view?

[gaspee]

46. How about

The ABUSIVE ex-husband (notice no mention of color) slaughtered his former punching bag. I believe he's guilty and no straw-man argument is ever going to change my mind. The physical evidence is overwhelming and damning.

And if you want to talk a "progressive" point of view, how about this? How many poor black men are in prison because they couldn't afford a good lawyer. The rich never pay for their crimes in this society. The right lawyer will get off even the most guilty. And if you can't afford the right lawyer, have a nice time in jail, innocent or guilty.

That trial was utter bullshit. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

[LostinVA]

47. Agree with you 100% -- this case was nothing unusual, unfortunately

A woman getting killed by her abusive ex. Happens every day, to women from all walks of life. The only reason this was an unusual case was because it was a celebrity... and they rarely go to prison, =unless they are Tommy Chong (great example: Robert Blake). The crime had nothing to do ABOUT RACE. NOTHING. The Defense just made the trail about that, and not about the abuse and murder of Nicole Brown, and the slaughter of Ron Goldman.

And, you're right: cry for the poor black men wrongly incarcerated. And then, cry for the poor of all races and genders who are wrongly incarcerated, because they can't afford a "DReam Team."

I, personally, believe there is nothing unprogressive abort believing in Simpson's guilt. It's saying "Enough!" to violence against women.

[calico1]

78. It's funny how some people still try and

defend OJ as a persecuted Black man. Give me a break. He belonged to a Whites only golf club and most of his friends were White. He only remembered he was Black during the trial.:eyes:

[LostinVA]

79. And forgot he was black right after it

[Raster]

58. Bullshit. OJ is a lying, murdering thug. He was found "not guilty" by

the skin of his teeth by a racially biased jury. And for all practical purposes, OJ is whiter than I am.

[Marnieworld]

99. You must be joking

You can't be serious. Are you familiar with forensic science? Ever watch CSI or CourtTv? Are you aware that all of this in reference to the civil trial? There is no other logical explanation for what happened. Just examine the shoe evidence. Do you think it's just a giant coincedence that the killer wore his shoes in his size?

[LostinVA]

112. And that very few pairs of said shoes were made -- VERY FEW

Especially in size 12. Just like the murder gloves.

I betcha all the photos of him in the shoes were a huge Photo conspiracy among photographers, the NFL, etc.... right?

[Marnieworld]

117. You're right because the NFL is sooooooo racist

Obvious :sarcasm:

Does racism exist? Of course- personal and institutional. Has it been part of the history of the LAPD? You betcha. And it really sucks. But it is not an explanation for all of the evidence in that trial. Even if Furman actually found a way to steal a glove from the crime scene, and place it, even coincedentally at a location that coincided with a witness statement later that there was a loud sound after the murder at that location, that can't negate all of the other evidence. To toss it all out defies logic. To assume a vast conspiracy between many cops, and many people in the medical examiner's office, forensic office, limo driver,neighbors, defies logic. Not even 1950 Alabama could have pulled it off. You'd also have to believe it was a coincedence that he cut his hand in the same way one would holding a slippery bloody knife, just like the cuts found on many proven killer's hands. You'd have to believe that all samples were tainted or contaminated, all evidence planted. Because even if just one but is legitimate he would be guilty.

I know that you agree with me. I just feel like ranting about this. I stil am amazed when anyone defends him.

[LostinVA]

121. I think it was Petrocelli that said

The Defense wanted it both ways: to say the forensic and law enforcement personnel were bunglers, inept... and to also claim they were masterminds of incredible proportions, and succeeded in pulling off this incredible framing of Simpson.

Very few murder cases have alot of real evidence. This one did. Regardless of what some ill-informed posters think.

[Lindacooks]

104. BS

Oh, and by the way - he beat her. Do you know how many women are killed every year by the men who abuse them?


Grow up.

[calico1]

73. He was found not guilty by a jury of morons.

The prosecutors did deserve to lose the case for the shitty job they did. But that doesn't mean he is innocent. The name "OJ Simpson" is a commodity. Do you ever watch HSN? There is a vendor there who sells makeup and jewelry who goes by the name "Adrienne." Her real name is Adrien Arpel and for years she had makeup salons in NY and other cities. She later sold the business to her partner. Because the salons were under the "Adrien Arpel" name she could not continue to use the name for her new business ventures, even though it is her real name! That is why she goes by "Adrienne" when she is on HSN.

As far as I am concerned OJ Simpson is also a commercial commodity and I hope they win against him. At least that way his victim's families can get some monetary compensation.

[Megahurtz]

86. Why? Because all it takes is a "Preponderance of Evidence"

in Civil Court, which there was plenty.

Good God, so you think that if a lame-duck jury says he's innocent,
that automatically means he didn't do it???:crazy:

[earth mom]

130. Take off your blinders. OJ is guilty as sin.

He was found guilty at one trial. He beat Nicole previously and was know for his jealousy! The akita dog did not alert on him! The evidence is there!

Give up your hero worship and see the dude for what he is: a sociopathic murderer! :puke:

[kestrel91316]

148. Sorry. He wasn't "ruled innocent". A verdict of "not guilty"

was returned. IIRC, there is actually a legal difference there. Juries do not "rule innocence". I think a defendent, if found not guilty, can petition the court for a finding of factual innocence, but OJ never did this.

[kestrel91316]

149. Also, OJ was sued in civil court and lost. He was found legally

liable for the two wrongful deaths, and the plaintiff was awarded damages. The defendant has to PAY UP.

[Deja Q]

253. And the juror who said his name, had she been white, would have been

lynched afterward.

Not for saying the "I" word as much as fluffing his name and correcting herself before fluffing it worse. Had a white person fluffed it, the honky would be stoned to death as an evil racist.

There was no shadow of a doubt he did it. The jury was politicizing the issue; not to be surprised as the whole event was a hyped up media circus to start with.

[msanthrope]

11. Good for Fred Goldman---

OJ slithered off to Florida to escape paying the judgment of the California court. Florida's protective homestead acts allow that bastard to live in a mansion, without paying a frakin' dime of the judgment lawfully rendered against him. His 'property' is protected.

Well, now, Fred Goldman has found a piece of OJ's property that he can't protect in Florida. If OJ doesn't want to pay with his house, he can pay with his likeness, his image. It's property.

[pitohui]

15. yeah and his child's death is a gold mine apparently

i would be embarrassed to be trying to profit from the death of my family member but that's me, maybe they think different out west

[msanthrope]

19. Yes. Fred Goldman must be living large on the money that

OJ hasn't paid. (sarcasm off)

And you have no idea what you would do if a family member of yours was murdered by a multi-millionaire, so why don't you have some compassion for the man?

Or do you really see OJ as the victim here?

[pitohui]

26. hello, of course he's a victim (not THE victim but A victim)

the mother of his children was killed, hello, a woman he once loved and probably had not worked through all his crap with, hello, plus his life was fucked up by all this bullshit

i could tell a personal story here, but i won't, i'll just say, if you think oj did it, why did the cops have to plant blood (already corrupted with DNA preservative fluid) on the scene?

[msanthrope]

33. Funny, how all this "planted" evidence was still used in the

civil trial, and not excluded from the criminal one...just because a defense attorney claims evidence was planted doesn't mean it was.

I mean, can you name one piece of evidence that the court excluded because it was 'planted'? No, you can't, because there wasn't any--just conjectures from the defense team that the criminal jury was stupid enough to listen to.

Note, too, in the civil trial--same evidence, but OJ's lawyers don't try the "planted evidence" defense. I always found that amusing--if you have "planted evidence", then why aren't you claiming that in the civil trial? Oh, yeah---the civil jury wasn't composed of fools.

[bananas]

37. yeah, it's real "funny" how kangaroo courts do that...

[bananas]

38. Funny how that Nazi cop Furhmann kept taking the fifth

when it was fucking goddamn obvious he had been lying his ass off the whole trial.

[Megahurtz]

90. Seriously who gives a shit about a Nazi Cop.

Just because there was a Nazi Cop involved doesn't mean O.J. didn't kill them.
Gee don't ya think possibly two or more scenarios could be happening at the same time?:think:

[jayfish]

115. I'll Take The Word Of Barry Scheck Any...

fucking day of the week over anyone on the prosecution side of that case. Maybe we should put all of the people freed by the Innocence Project back on death-row, seeing as all of the judges who felt compelled to free them must have been stupid fools. Oh and who are you to disparage people you have never met who took a year out of their lives to sit at a sham of a trial? You know, the one that listened to ALL of the evidence. You must have an advance degree jurorology or something. A court excluding evidence that the defense claims was false or tainted? :rofl: You must be joking. This is prison America we live in not some legal Utopia overflowing in justice and fairness. Oh and OJ's civil counsel was not the same as his criminal counsel. They decided to defend their case differently. Hence, they didn't attempt to suppress any evidence. The two courts that awarded Simpson custody of his children must have been stupid fools too.

Jay

[LostinVA]

116. Thank the gods for

Ignore.

[jayfish]

119. Do It!

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Jay

[smirkymonkey]

82. OJ was A victim?

Wow - that's a stretch by any measure.

[LostinVA]

83. Poor, poor domestic abuser.... poor, poor murdererer...

[toopers]

36. You have forgotten . . .

Fred stated publicly that if OJ will admit his guilt (which is obvious) that he would not try and collect any money from OJ. This is not about money. This is about making a murderer pay for his crime anyway you can.

[calico1]

77. Yeah. Poor, poor, persecuted OJ!

I am sure Goldman's tears and anger during the first trial was just bullshit. :eyes:

[Demobrat]

28. In this case owning his name is the same thing as

garnishing his wages to pay his debt. I hope Goldman wins and every penny OJ makes goes directly to him, until the amount he was awarded is paid off. If any one of us didn't make a court-ordered payment that's exactly what would happen.

[judaspriestess]

30. Our justice system should have the same declaration as England

"NOT PROVEN". Thats what happend. It was not proven. The only other alternative is not guilty. which most of us know the asshole killed his ex-wife and Goldman. Many people have gotten away with murder and were also considered not guilty. Hope he rots in hell along with all the repukes.

[pitohui]

31. you mean scotland

that ain't england, that was scotland

and "we" don't know anything, the jury that heard the evidence said otherwise

[Solo_in_MD]

35. OJ has has been held legally responsible for their deaths

Deal with it. He is not a convicted murder since the criminal jury did not convict him but the civil one did find him responsible. That made him legally responsible for their deaths.

It was also dramatic proof of equality in this country...rich man's justice is not just for whites.

[KansDem]

74. I often wondered about the jury's verdict...

Three hours to deliberate a mound of evidence. Three hours...

Simpson jury reaches a verdict

I won't question the jury's verdict, but three hours is an awfully short amount of time to review the evidence of a nine-month trial.

I once sat on a jury that deliberated almost that long on a child-neglect case that took only half a day.

But he is responsible for their deaths, so he needs to pay up. If he won't, and he hasn't, then I hope Mr. Goldman prevails.

Perhaps it's time to stop looking for the killers on the world's golf courses.

[calico1]

75. I remember seeing one of the jurors

interviewed after the trial. She said she wasn't interested in all that DNA talk and that she was just tired of the long trial and wanted to go home. :eyes:

[LostinVA]

80. In saw that, too -- I think it was "Dateline"

Because I remember Diane Sawyer.

[sampsonblk]

45. Not being Guilty seems awful expensive!

What's wrong with this picture?

Will the Goldmans ever get it?

[mondo joe]

56. You seem to be confusing 2 cases. The Goldmans won the civil case.

Got it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Sounds like double jeopardy to me.

[mondo joe]

68. Thus proving that you don't know what Double Jeopardy is.

:-)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. Double Jeopardy...

double jeopardy-

Law.
the subjecting of a person to a second trial or punishment for the same offense for which the person has already been tried or punished.

[calico1]

81. Again, you are confusing the criminal trial

with the civl trial. After being declared not guilty he could not be tried again in CRIMINAL court. He could and was tried in civil court.

[jayfish]

120. It Might Be Legal But It Certainly Violates The Spirit Of The Amendment.

Jay

[mondo joe]

123. You appear to be at odds with history and precedent.

But there you go.

Courts distinguished criminal proceedings from civil proceedings based on the different purposes served by each.

Criminal trials are punitive in nature, and serve both deterrence and retribution.

Civil trials, however, serve to compensate injured persons for losses incurred.

Based on your (mis)understanding no one could ever take someone to civil court after the criminal proceeding, whether the defendant was found innocent or even guilty.

[jayfish]

124. Not Really,...

as you said "Courts distinguished criminal proceedings from civil proceedings", not the Fifth.

Jay

[calico1]

126. Then you need to study the law more.

In a civil case there is no chance for jail time. It is all about monetary compensation. Very different from a criminal trial.

[barrytonmi]

164. Nope, I think it's wrong...

same deaths, same defendant, same case, same evidence. Only in California... The civil court did the same thing to Robert Blake. Being found not guilty in a criminal case should preclude any attempt to gain financial reward in a civil suit. Glad I don't live there.

[LostinVA]

170. Two different things -- and, I'm glad you don't live here either

And, I'm also glad for ignore.

[LostinVA]

171. Wait a second -- your profile says you DO live here

Hmmm....

[calico1]

186. Well, you may think it's wrong

but the law allows civil suits including for wrongful deaths, which is what this was. Take it up with Congress and the Supreme Court.

[Hepburn]

229. Well, there most certainly is...

...on a CIVIL contempt, a person in violation of the order coming out of a CIVIL court most certainly can be locked up. All the citor has to do is show: 1. A valid court order; 2. Actual knowledge of the order; 3. Ability to comply; and 4. Willful disobedience. A person can be sent to the gray bar hotel in a civil matter....look at Susan McDougal.

[calico1]

263. Thank you. n/t

[Marnieworld]

100. sounds like you don't understand the difference b/t civil and criminal

court.

[kestrel91316]

151. This is what happens when the schools stop teaching civics........

[calico1]

189. Man, you are so right about that.

I can't believe some of the comments I am reading here!

[sampsonblk]

134. YOU seem to be confusing the two cases

Surely you understand the differences between the two cases, and surely you already understand why a Not Guilty man should not be subject to a follow lawsuit that seeks to punish him for a crime the legal system cannot prove he committed.

[mondo joe]

136. Incorrect.

If Double Jeopardy applied, it would not matter if he was found guilty or not guilty - he could not be tried again.

But it doesn't.

The civil trial is not an adjunct to the criminal trial, as you seem to think.

[sampsonblk]

142. Maybe you're right on paper...

but we both know two trials is two trials. Not only that, you also know the burden of proof in the civil trial is only 50%. So its fairly easy to win a judgment in a civil trial. Its still wrong.

[mondo joe]

146. Right "on paper"?

I still don't see why it's wrong other than that you say so. You have no legal principle to back it up. For that matter, you have no principle to back it up - just your say so.

[sampsonblk]

158. I know you are going to get it this time

I believe that if a man is found not guilty in a criminal trial, then he should be subject to no further leagal problems concerning the case. This is no elaborate legal argument, just the way I see it. Interestingly enough, there are a lot of people who feel the same, until the Simpson case is brought up.

[mondo joe]

159. We agree - you don't have a legal argument.

You have a personal feeling.

Fortunately, law is supposed to be a set of consistent principles -- not a feeling.

[kestrel91316]

152. You might want to contact the appeals courts and the SCOTUS.

They seem to be under the mistaken impression that civil law and criminal law are separate.

[Godspeed_Democrats]

52. Two words

Mark Furman

Lied on the stand. Caused this case to go in favor of OJ.

[Marnieworld]

101. but they should have dismissed his testimony not the whole case

You could extract all Furman evidence and testimony and still convict. There are thousands in jail right now with much less evidence. Watch "Forensic Friday" on CourtTV tonight and I am willing to bet every episode, every case ending with a conviction will be with much much less evidence.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

194. One word.

Murderer.

[zalinda]

72. A civil trial and a criminal trial are totally different

In a criminal trial, you have to prove the person guilty, or not guilty by reasonable doubt. In a civil trial, you just have to take him to court and hope you get a "reasonable" jury. The standards in a civil trial are very low. I would say that OJ probably lost in the civil trial before it even started.

I DO NOT know whether or not OJ did it, but there was just too many things that didn't make sense at the trial. I know, I watched it every day. I was really into Dr Quincy, and now CSI, so I was looking at the trial from that view point. There was at least 3 different police departments that trampled through the scene. The scene was in chaos, arguments on who had jurisdiction. Ice cream melting by the door, which could have given an exact time of death was ignored, no one bothered to take a picture. As far as the "beatings" go, it was more he said, she said, the cops testified, but that aspect was really played up in the media.

Please remember, just about EVERYONE connected to the case wrote a book and made money off of it. This was a case that was mainly tried in the media, and the media said he was guilty. There were too many unanswered questions for me. I can't remember what they were right now, but at the time, these things bugged me, as they did for a forensic student that I discussed the case with.

OJ may have done it, or may have not, we may really never know. One thing is for sure, it stopped him from making as much money as he had been making before, and he had lawyers to pay. I doubt very much, if he is as rich as everyone seems to think he is.

zalinda

[Raster]

85. The beatings were far more than "he said, she said." There are

photographs of her swollen, bruised face. The cops were called to their residence numerous times because of his spousal abuse issues. He even admitted he had an abuse problem. I also paid very close attention to BOTH trials. The civil suit did not receive anywhere near the publicity that the criminal trial did. And that's too bad, because the civil trial was minus Johnnie Cochran's theatrics, Mark Furman's lies and Greta Van Sustren's legal vixen blow-by-blow. It was heavy on real evidence and forensic science. The forensic evidence was vetted over and over again. The preponderance of evidence clearly indicated Simpson's responsibility for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

[calico1]

88. I have always felt that had the criminal trial had

the civil suit lawyer, judge and jury they would have easily won. The civil suit was conducted with the seriousness that the criminal trail should have been. It's a shame.

[LostinVA]

91. Agreed -- Petrocelli was a GREAT lawyer

Methodical, didn't grandstand, refused to take the bait.

Ito became a joke, and don't even get me started about some members of the jury. Oh boy.

[calico1]

96. Like I said in an earlier post...

The jurors were for the most part morons. Not at all interested in learning about the scientific evidence. Too boring! The prosecution screwed up big time though. They should have been picker in selecting jury members. There should have been more educated members, like in the civil trial. The jury in the civil trial understood the importance of DNA evidence and they weren't all in a rush to go home because they were sick and tired of the time jury duty was taking from them.:eyes:

[Marnieworld]

106. Best of all OJ had to take the stand

He couldn't refuse like in a criminal case. That sealed the deal. He was pathetic under questioning.

[LostinVA]

110. And, of course none of it was televised

But yeah -- he crumbled like stale bread... what an arrogant, pathetic liar.

[zalinda]

128. And of course, since it wasn't televised

how could I have seen it.

I only stated my opinion on what I saw in the criminal trial. I never said he was innocent, I said there was problems with the trial, and questions that needed to be answered. I also said that I couldn't say he was guilty, by what I saw in the trial. Get a grip people. This is old news, history. Nothing that I or any of you say is going to change what happened.

Put your energy into fighting injustices that are happening now.

zalinda

[Marnieworld]

105. Not only that

But Nicole kept a diary and detailed the incidents. There were family and friends who witnessed the abuse. She, like so many abused women, predicted what would happen to her and said he'd be responsible. There is nothing "He Said, She said" about those 9-11 calls. She said "He's going to kill me." You can hear him violently breaking in.

If the police were to frame him because he was black and all LAPD just hate black people, :eyes: , then why did they let him off easy the many times they were called to intervene? They asked for pictures and autographs just like a bunch of football fans with a major celebrity all pro player. For years they dealt with him with kid gloves. Were they just waiting for someday he'll kill her and then we'll go after him? It's ludicrous.

If the pictures of him wearing the Bruno Magli shoes were found during the criminal trial it would have had a different outcome, unless of course the LAPD went into his closet, found the shoes, brought them back to the crime scene and walked around in them. That's no more ridiculous than the other impossible to frame scenarios others believe.

Just amazing.

[LostinVA]

87. I think we really do know he did it -- there is an OVERabundance of eviden

And, the standards in a civil trail are absolutely not "very low." They are less strict than in a criminal trial, for obvious reasons, but not low. And, there was even MORE evidence against Simpson presented in the civil trail than in the criminal trial -- where there was an incredible amount of evidence against the defendant. The humongous direct and circumstantial evidence against this guy was unusual for a murder trial -- because the murderer was even more arrogant and disorganized than many.

There's a HUGE difference between the reality of the evidence and that dumb circus of a criminal trial -- the civil case was very, very different. Notice you're not bringing that up.

And, great way to slander a domestic abuse victim by saying "beatings." This tells me all I need to know about you and your agenda. "He said, she said." ARE YOU FRIGGING SERIOUS?! What an INSULT to every person who has been abused by a spouse -- especially a famous and charismatic one. Ugh.

You are on ignore. Because, trying to prove Simpson innocent of murder of one thing, but sating Nicole LIED about being BRUTALLY beaten nd emotionally abused by her husband is another. The man was also a fucking stalker. Jesus.

And, saying OJ isn't RICH?! Look at his lifestyle, look at the tens of thousands of dollars he gets every month from his pension. Yeah, he's really eating Ramen every night in his cold water flat.

Sickening.

[calico1]

108. "Beatings?"

So you think maybe she beat herself up or that she did some elaborate makeup on herself to make it look like she was beaten? And the 911 calls before her murder. You think it was all bullshit on her part too? Maybe she paid someone to sound just like OJ screaming at her? Amazing.

[LostinVA]

111. Seems Zalinda doesn't want to discuss anything factual we bring up

Hmmmm...

[calico1]

113. What is really sad is that we have people

on DU who are this dismissive about what was obvious and clear evidence. She was at the very least an abused wife. The word "beatings" in quotes really pissed me off. I would expect that from a freeper. But not from someone posting here.:-(

[LostinVA]

114. "Beatings" didn't piss me off

It enraged me -- and, I'm not being melodramatic. What kind of person can hear the 911 tapes, see the photos, hear how the cops (including FUHRMAN) sucked up to Simpson while his wife was inside battered and scared and write "beatings," "he said, she said." I think they are one the wrong site. Jesus, this makes me mad. And, supposedly this poster is a female... which is just extra salt rubbed into the wound.

[Marnieworld]

118. It makes you wonder if that person thinks

that there is an acceptable, common level of violence towards women? Like she was only hit or knocked around not really a full-blown "beating". It implies that she was exagerating more than lying I think. That is so sad that there is a mentality that some violence is just no big deal. She wasn't bruised too much. She wasn't completely mangled so no big deal. Everyone gets smacked around once in a while right? Jeez!

[LostinVA]

122. I know -- unbelievable n/t

[calico1]

125. No, you are right.

Enraged is a better word. And this is supposed to be a message board for progressive thinking people. And you have someone who is I think a woman, questioning whether the beatings were even real or not. Something I'd expect from a God damned Freeper. Certainly not from a progressive thinking person and least of all a woman. :mad:

[zalinda]

127. I only stated what the cops said

but then, there are some people here who like to blame the messenger.

Not only have I been a victim of abuse, I've also witnessed it. But before you think that it is totally the man's fault, you should also know that I've seen a woman bait a man to beat her. Abuse is not always cut and dried, and that was what was brought out in the trial. There are always 2 sides to a story, it's not always that the guy is a bastard and did it for no reason. OJ may have beat her for no reason, or she could have pressed his buttons hoping that he would so she could play the victim. I've seen both sides. Should a man beat a woman for any reason? Absolutely not. But, this isn't a perfect world, and it does happen more than it should.

As for my abuse, it only happened once with this particular man. I didn't know he had a violent streak, or I would have found a different way to say we were through.

And for all of you who got the thrill of calling me a freeper, or un-progressive, I guess that is your point of view. I can live with that.

zalinda

[Evergreen Emerald]

141. Zalinda...you have it all wrong

You cannot goad someone into hitting you. Just as you cannot entice someone into raping you. Abusers are responsible for their own actions. If they get angry, they are to walk away--they don't blame the "goader."

You suggest that perhaps she pressed buttons so OJ would beat her. Ohmygod. That is a stunning, and frankly unhealthy and dangerous statement. He is responsible for his own actions.

You have it all wrong Zalinda--I hope it is not at your peril.

[zalinda]

154. You may think that it is true, but I have seen the opposite

I had a neighbor who's husband had just gotten out of jail for check fraud. I met him a few times, but was not friendly with him. He wanted to make up to his family for being in jail and took a job as a hod carrier (he brings bricks and mortar to the brick layers), this is a back breaking, low paying job, but he was trying.

One night, she went out after he came home (he was watching the kids, giving her a break). About 3 in the morning I received a phone call from him, did I know where she was, was she with me, and what should he do. I was in her phone book since we were friendly and sometimes had coffee together. I went over there (quick walk in apartment complex)and tried to calm him down. He was scared out of his mind. There was no way to get in touch with her and she hadn't called him. About 6 in the morning, she came in. Her make-up was smeared, and her hair was uncombed like she had just gotten up. He sprinted to her side trying to find out if she was okay and what had happened. I would have left, but they were blocking the door. She started yelling at him on how he was a big disappointment as a man, she pushed every button she could think of. This went on for about 3 minutes or so, it's hard to tell when you are in a situation like this. In an instant, he had her against the wall, with his hands around her throat. He was telling her to shut up, and she kept on goading him. She said he didn't have the balls to strangle her and that he was a failure. I stepped in and started talking to him as fast as I could, getting his attention away from her. I asked him if he really wanted to go back to jail, because she had to belittle him. I had to physically touch him to get his attention, because it was like he had gone on auto pilot. He finally let her go and walked out the door, crying. She was laughing her ass off.

Until you have actually seen it, don't tell me it's always the man's fault. Saying he should walk away is one thing, but doing it is another. This was a very emotional scene, from the very beginning. If I had had a fling, I certainly wouldn't come home looking like I just rolled out of bed. You can say the car wouldn't start, or you got talking to a friend or anything to assuage the situation. She didn't do any of this, she was confrontational from the start.

And as for rape, it is not the same thing. Rape is anger, entitlement, control, period. It is not a highly emotional exchange between 2 people.

NOTHING is absolute when it involves people. Do women sometimes "invite" violence, yes. Do ALL women invite violence, no. And that is my point, nothing is black or white when it comes to people interacting. We don't know what either of them are thinking or feeling, or what they think of themselves. Many women who are abused stay in the situation, not because they are afraid that he will kill them, but because they some how think they deserve it.

As progressives we cannot think in absolutes, that is repub thinking. There are ALWAYS exceptions to the norm, and we must acknowledge them or they remain hidden.

zalinda

[Evergreen Emerald]

155. there is black and white when it comes to DV

Frankly, when there is a disagreement on this forum, suggesting that my thinking is freeper-like thinking, is simply insulting and reducing the argument to name-calling. I do not discuss issues with people who call names. By the way, name calling makes me angry, but I would never resort to violence.

There are some things that are black and white. There is no grey domestic violence.

Having said that: I believe that abused females (yes the majority of victims are female) have issues as well: fear is one (can't discount it), they believe they deserve it is another, they were raised with it and choose men with the same qualities as their father thereby ensuring the cycle of abuse, they need the monetary support the abuser provides. All of those things are likely issues in the DV relationship. None of those justify assault. I can tell you stories that would make your hair curl about domestic violence--and no matter what actions the abused takes, none of them justify assault.

Complex relationships? Perhaps. But, the bottom line IS black-and-white. Domestic violence is never justified.

[zalinda]

156. I never said it was justified, but it happens

and the man is taking all the blame for the situation now, and earlier it was the woman (she was a bad wife, women need to be hit to keep them in line, etc, etc) That has been a big hindrance in getting women and men the help that they need. Placing the blame on one sex or the other is the problem. And, there are situations where it is just THIS relationship that is abusive, and when they are with other people there are no problems. That is why it is not a black or white situation. Relationships are complex, in any form. Whether it is romantic, or friendship or family. Violence happens, and when it does, placing blame does not solve the problem. Finding out what caused the violence to erupt will help to solve the problem. All parties have to go to therapy, not just the one who was violent.

Violence, now more than ever, has become one of the solutions to solving a problem. Want someone to tell you something, torture them. Want to stop bullies, kill them. Violence over the last few years has become glorified. When Mike Tyson can still make a living AND be respected, that tells you something. People now take what they want, when they want it. Is it right? NO. But to treat it like it is an either or situation, will not solve the problem.

zalinda

[Evergreen Emerald]

160. That is a load of bull.

No one is justified in hitting--and no matter how much you say you are not justifying it--you are. To say that it can be the woman's fault for "goading" is sick thinking that reinforces the notion that the woman can make him stop hitting by her behaivor. That is simply not the case. You said earlier that rape is about power and control--well so is domestic violence. You say that blaming does not solve anything!? What? The first step in fixing the problem is defining it.

[zalinda]

167. Domestic violence is not just a man beating a woman

no matter how much you want to say it is. Violence is violence whether it is against some one you know, or don't know. There is no justifying it, but it is a reality. To say it is all the man's fault is bull. How do I know, it's because I've seen it. I told you about what happened with the neighbor. Do you think she was innocent, in that scene? She knew exactly what she was doing. Who really was in control in that situation? It happens more than we know, or care to admit.

My sister and her husband had a similar type of dance. They would fight and argue all the time. Whether or not it got violent, I couldn't tell you because just the arguing was distressing enough that I would not go to visit her. I did tell her she could move in with me any time she wanted to leave him, but I did not pry into her relationship with her husband. One holiday season, I was at my father's and my sister and her husband came over and the fighting started. It ended late in the night with my sister walking out of the house and her husband following her. When I asked my dad why they stay together, he said that this was just the thing that they do, and that in the morning they would be all lovey dovey. Sure enough, when I got up the next morning she was sitting on his lap, and you would never think that anything happened.

What you are thinking of domestic violence is a man beating the crap out of a woman just because she's there. That's not all there is. There are all variations out there, and they are all sick. But when you focus on just the man's behavior, you may not be focusing on what the woman is doing. Just because YOU haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Believe it or not, there are actually women in the world who think that if a man doesn't hit her, he doesn't love her. Sick, yes, but true.

And if you think that no one can get you to be violent, then you are deluding yourself. Everyone has a breaking point. I am not saying that every man is an innocent, nor am I saying that every woman has a part to play in it. What I am saying is that, yes, violence is wrong. Yes, the majority of beatings that a women bears are brought on by violent men trying to control the woman. But, there is a significant amount of violence that is brought about by both participants and to not acknowledge that, is to sweep it under the rug.

Just about everyone has hit back in anger, and it doesn't even have to be what you are angry with. How many parents have spanked their child in anger? How many have hit their animal when it did something that it wasn't supposed to do? How many have kicked a tire on their car? How many have hit or kicked a vending machine? How many have thrown a rock at something?

This is not a perfect world, and we are not perfect people. Should anyone hit another person, of course not. But to say that ALL men are scum and ALL women are innocent, is to put blinders on the problem.

zalinda

[calico1]

173. You know....

The more you try to excuse wife beaters, the more credibility you lose. Have you noticed how no one is agreeing with you on this? You should have quit a few posts ago. This message board is probably not the best place to be blaming the victims of domestic abuse for getting beaten and as in Nicole Brown Simpson's case, killed.

[Evergreen Emerald]

174. I am so surprised!

I am surprised that someone on a progressive board would actually believe those things. The comparison of domestic violence to kicking a tire is very telling! It just goes to show you that domestic violence permeates our society on every level and every political persuasion.

[zalinda]

176. And not EVERY case of domestic violence

has to do with a man kicking the crap out of a woman. Talk to a cop and you'll get an entirely different picture. My uncle was a cop in Detroit, so he went to a lot of domestic disturbance calls. When does kicking a tire escalate into hitting a person? Is it okay if one guy beats up another guy? What if it's both guys fighting each other? What if it's two women fighting? Violence IS violence. It doesn't matter what kind it is. I'm more interested in why any violence is tolerated, and why man feels that he must show that he is better than someone else with violence.

You like to pick out a certain line in what I've written and say that that is my viewpoint, when in fact I've written paragraphs. THAT is telling. I'm sorry, but I don't assume that I know everything. I only know what I've heard and what I've witnessed. And I don't have a fixed viewpoint. I know that just about every situation is complex, and that there is not an easy answer to it. I know that whenever you talk about people in terms of absolutes, you will find that it may not always be the case.

zalinda

[LostinVA]

188. Jesus, you're back on Ignore

SICKENING.

[zalinda]

175. No, I'm not surprised

that there are some people on this board that can't see the other side. After all, there are those here who still think dems don't have a spine.

zalinda

[patrick t. cakes]

177. just read all your posts

you should be embarrassed.
your actually trying to justify domestic abuse.
wow.

[calico1]

178. Oh don't worry..just wait.

She'll respond with yet another excuse for wife beaters. :eyes:

[zalinda]

191. If that's what you think then you are misreading the posts

because domestic abuse is not just beating the crap out of someone. It is much more, and it could be just mental.

Look, if some poor woman has the crap beat out of her for no reason, put the asshole away for good. Okay, now someone is going to point out that I said "no reason". While the majority of you are looking at the abuse as all or nothing, I'm looking at it as shades of gray. Those women who end up in shelters did not ask for the abuse, and and there is no excuse for it. But for every woman who has ended up in a shelter there is also a woman who only knows violence as a way to live her life. These women do not end up in shelters. These women are the ones who only maybe the cops know, or are hidden. These are the women who maybe start the violence, or who get some sort of sick need staying with the abusers. These women need help too, but to deny that they exist is to deny them help. I know women like this. They don't think they need help. Because the violence doesn't put them in the hospital, they deny that there is a problem. And the problem goes on to the next generation, as the children watch the drama play out. Yes, it happens mostly in poor areas. And, yes, a lot of the times drugs and alcohol are involved, but does that make it less important?

zalinda

[LostinVA]

187. You are unbelievable

You re either totally clueless, or.... I honestly don't have a word for it.

And, I just LOVE how you turned around the framing: so that we who condemn domestic violence absolutely are the ones acting like Freepers. Niiiiiiiiice. Proud of yourself over that, huh?

" Do women sometimes "invite" violence, yes." Unbelievable. If you really HAVE been abused, and still think this, you need some serious therapy. If you really haven't been abused, then shame on you.. SHAME ON YOU. This thinking is just not archaic, it's literally evil. Or sociopathic, for those who don't believe in evil.

[LostinVA]

185. Oh boy

[cali]

207. Sickening.

I spent 10 years as a Victims' Advocate. Please don't spew that shit. Yes there are pathological relationships, but no matter what kind of goading a woman might engage in, there's no, and I mean ZERO excuse for a man beating up on her. That simply cannot be over emphasised. Your post is pathetic. Truly sad.

[Freddie Stubbs]

131. Uses of his image like this:

[BootinUp]

132. lol.brutal.

[cosmicone]

135. It is moot

OJ has declared bankruptcy and his future earnings cannot be attached to pay a pre-bankruptcy judgement.

That is the law.

[msanthrope]

157. Not true at all. Bankruptcy does not discharge

"all" pre-bankruptcy judgments. Taxes, wages, child support, and many other civil judgments are exempt, or easily challenged. Many creditors win the adversarial cases they file. Bankruptcy is not a lock to make your civil liabilities go away.....as I've had to counsel clients many times......

[breakaleg]

139. I understand the families want OJ to be prevented from making money

in the future. But if they were to win this, they would essentially profit from the success of the man they beleive killed their kids. That's wrong. On one hand you condemn their killer and they you profit from his likeness?

[mondo joe]

140. How would that be different than any damages award?

Faulty product killed your husband? How could you profit from their business?

[breakaleg]

143. The difference is this..

In a faulty product award, it's like they asked to be able to run the company directly. So instead of just taking money, they now go on to produce, manage and profit from the very product that caused the damage they are objecting to.

[mondo joe]

145. Seems like hair splitting to me.

You take their money or you take their asset. Either way you profit from the company that hurt you.

[gulliver]

153. OJ is an idiot.

All he has to do is write a book with the truth in it called "I Did It. (And I'm Sorry)"

Then he could give 1% of the net profits (not even gross) from the book and movie deal to Goldman to retire the lawsuit debt.

It would dwarf Harry Potter.

[LostinVA]

172. You're completely right

His image with his fans is ruined anyway, and no way his kids are going to believe his story in a few years. Goldman has always said that he would drop the civil judgment if Simpson admitted he did it. There are no laws in Florida stopping him from writing such a book -- he is stupid.

[ernestv]

180. I find it hard to believe....

That with everything that is going on in this country and the world, this much attention is being paid to O. J. Simpson... UNBELIEVABLE!!!

[LostinVA]

182. See the "Hide Thread" option? Use it

No one made you come in and read the whole thread. I'm seriously fed up with posters implying that we have to focus 24/7, 365 on things that YOU approve of. Screw it. I can discuss and think about all levels of stuff, from the enemies attack our country from within, to O.J. Simpson, to who might win Project Runway.

And, I personally think domestic abuse and murder are very, very important things.

Egads.

on edit: You waited around FIVE YEARS to post this???

[ernestv]

200. hey that' s good advice...

I think I will use that "hide thread" button...
thanks

[calico1]

183. Well, perhaps you would like to provide a list

of approved topics. I am sure all DU'ers will appreciate some guidance on what we can post about and for how long. :sarcasm: Oh and since this is such a waste of a topic, why on Earth did you post on this thread?

:eyes:

[Seabiscuit]

184. Fred Goldman is one greedy, obnoxious bastard.

He and O.J. were made for each other. They'll both spend the rest of their days twisting in the winds of their own petards.

[mondo joe]

192. I'm confident Goldman would have accepted a criminal conviction.

Nothing about greed there. Just wanting to see his son's murderer be accountable.

[Seabiscuit]

201. Oh? So why all these years of pursuing money, money, money, money,

MONEY??? He's been at it relentlessly for over a decade.

[mondo joe]

205. Because that is his only remaining avenue left to see his son's murderer

punished.

Duh.

[calico1]

208. Pretty obvious to most people.

It must kill them to see OJ playing golf, living the good life, etc. To make him pay financially is the only way left to punish him. It's not about the money, it's about making him pay in some way.

[Seabiscuit]

215. Since OJ was acquitted in the criminal trial you can NOT refer to him

as Goldman's "son's murderer".

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for your egregious behavior and attitude.

[Hepburn]

236. Goldman has received some proceeds of...

...the civil judgment. Care to tell us what charity he donated these proceeds to if he was solely interested in making OJ pay and not in gaining financially from his sons death?

:shrug:

[mondo joe]

242. I don't know, I'm not his accountant.

And it's not my concern.

[Hepburn]

244. Well, apparently,..

...you know him well enough to make the statement that it is not about greed. You must be close to have facts to base this opinion on. All I can do is step back and take a look at how the man acts. So far, he has kept all the money he has received ~~ like on the sale of Simpson's personal property. I don't know of any charities to which he has made contributiions, but I guess he would only give that info to an accountant, right? :shrug:

[mondo joe]

247. It's not at all unusual to sue for damages. I don't know why you

or anyone would assume it's about greed.

Is thathow you feel about people who sue for damages in general? Or just in this case?

[Hepburn]

252. Most people who sue for damages...

...do so for the exact purpose of getting money. Fred Goldman is an obnoxious, publicity hound on top of wanting moeny. He hits me as going after the publicity and the money.

And, please, don't expand the issue to anything other than Goldman going after O.J. But since you asked: Each case is distinctly different...but, yes, people who sue for damages are usually doing this just to get the money. Matter of fact, after practicing law for all the years I have, usually that is the ONLY reason someone goes to court. Fred Goldman is no saint. From watching him, he is motivated by publicity and money. Do you really think most litigants are going to court to right a wrong? LOL....

[mondo joe]

256. I think when someone is responsible they should pay.

And I don't see any reason for the damages to not become the posession of the litigant -- that was rather the point of the decision, afterall, they suffered damages.

[Hepburn]

260. Huh?

Damages are already the personality of the litigant who has won an award of the same. Where did you get that a damage award is the property of the losing defendant?

:shrug:

What is at issue here is HOW DAMAGES CAN BE COLLECTED ~~ not who owns them. The decision as to whether or not OJ owes civil damages to the Goldman family has been settled by a jury in Santa Monica long ago. The issue is whether Fred Goldman can use a certain instrumentality to collect the judgment. I say, no. I say this because it sets a dangerous precedent. And I would say the same whether or not I believe OJ to be guilty or innocent. The fact that I think Fred Goldman is a pompous ass also does not enter into the discussion.

The problem that I see is that what Goldman wishes to do could be used by collection agencies and others creditors ~~ especially now since BK laws have changed ~~ to literally crush a small debtor who could not defend against tactics like this. What is being taken away in a permanent nature is the ability of one to earn any living. So, if this is allowed, could OJ be sanctioned by the court with a contempt citation if he refused to go out and sign autographs which brought in money? How about signing an autograph for free? Would that be contemtp of the court order?

It would create a hell of a mess in enforcement and..to me...it smacks too much as being violative of the 13th Amendment.

[mondo joe]

261. You misunderstood me - please allow me to rephrase.

I'm simply saying that when the litigant is awarded financial compensation,I fully expect him or her to get the money and use it as they see fit. I don't have any expectation that they will or should give it away.

[Hepburn]

262. Let me give you a few facts, OK?

Unless there is an insurance policy or a deep pocket company or governmental agency involved, winning plaintiffs rarely collect. You can expect what you expect, but the reality is that most judgments go unpaid.

And, in most awards, the vast percentage of the award goes for:

Attorneys fees
Expert witnesses
Other costs (such as exhibits)
Court costs (such as court reporters and transcripts)

All of the above is paid BEFORE the litigant sees any money.

In Goldman's case, he has said repeatedly that it is not the money that he is after. Normally, I have no expectations on how anyone spends sums he/she receives on a judgment. However, when someone repeatedly says that it is not the money he/she is after, that does raise my level of interest as to what is done with the money. So, I would like to see if Fred puts the money where his mouth has been. If he had said nothing, I would not be interested in the least. However, Fred Goldman has broadcasted wherever and whenever he can that it is not the money he is after.

Edit to correct typo.

[LostinVA]

193. Yeah, how dare he want to see justice done for his murdered son

Especially from the killer who is walking around free -- and refuses to obey a court judgment. I mean, what a greedy, obnoxious bastard.

Jeebus. Unbelievable.

Come back after your child is slaughtered and the killer walks free.

[Cameron27]

197. You've done a very good job in this thread LostinVA

and I haven't bothered to post because you've said everything for me. (only in much more articulate way.:-) )

edited for CLARITY (fer chrissakes...ROFL)

[LostinVA]

199. Hey -- don't slag yourself

Look at all of my "edits." It sucks to post and then realize you spelled something wrong or left out a word. D'oh!

And, thanks for the compliment!

[Seabiscuit]

202. What an insanely repugnant post! Leave my child out of this,

you pussilanimous *^#@&!.

OJ was ACQUITTED, BTW. He was never convicted of killing anyone. Some idiots, not just Shrub, have no respect for the law.

Unbefuckinglievable.

[mondo joe]

204. But he was helld legally responsible in the civil trial.

So there you go.

[calico1]

209. There are several people on this thread that

either do not understand the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial, or they just feel that because THEY don't believe in civil trials the verdict in OJ's civil trial should be considered null by everyone. Thank goodness that the Browns and Goldmans had another avenue to get some justice.

[Seabiscuit]

213. As an attorney, I know the difference between civil and criminal trials,

and know that no one acquitted of a murder charge should ever be referred to as a "killer" under any circumstances.

The civil trial was just about money, money, money, money for greedy Mr. Goldman.

[calico1]

224. This is a message board not a court.

Many people, including most on this thread believe that OJ did it. People have a right to their opinion. Now if we were in court I would agree that certain protocol be followed. But this is a message board. I can and will refer to OJ as a cold blooded killer.

[Seabiscuit]

235. Calling someone a killer is NOT an opinion, it's a statement of fact.

And re: the OJ case, a false one at that.

Watch out, OJ now has the right to sue you for libel.

[calico1]

249. Your statement makes no sense.

"Calling someone a killer is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact."

You are saying it's fact because I said so? It is my opinion and the opinion of millions of people. We watched the trial, heard the testimony and saw the evidence. And it's our opinion that he did it. You don't have to agree but no matter how much you argue with me you are not going to get me to change my mind so why don't you drop it? Note that I haven't tried to argue with you to change your opinion. I think your are taking your profession a bit far. You are not arguing a case. This is a message board. Not a court.

Oh, and I'm really worried about being sued by OJ. Not.:eyes:

[mondo joe]

226. Of course the civil trial was about money - the only means

of punishment left to him for the murderer of his son.

[Seabiscuit]

237. OJ was not found liable for killing anyone in the civil trial.

He was only found liable for battery on Nicole Brown Simpson. Period.

[mondo joe]

239. LOL!!! Then why was Goldman awarded?

O.J. Simpson is liable for the 1994 death of Ronald Goldman and committed battery against his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, a civil trial jury ruled February 4, 1997.

The Superior Court jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the Goldman family and to Ron Goldman's biological mother.

The jury ruled against Simpson on each of the eight technical questions of liability it was asked to consider. It effectively found Simpson liable for his ex-wife's death, though the Brown family did not seek such a verdict.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/

[Seabiscuit]

212. "So there you go"????

That is absolutely no basis for calling him a "killer".

Not just no respect for the law, no knowledge of the law either.

[mondo joe]

227. No basis other than the fact that a court held him responsible.

[Hepburn]

231. Please note:

In the civil case, OJ was only found liable for a BATTERY of Nicole and not on the wrongful death of Nicole. So, no court has found him liable in any manner for her death.

[Seabiscuit]

233. Bingo! Thanks for that ray of light in this damp, dark swamp.

[mondo joe]

240. He was found liable for the death of Ronald Goldman.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/

O.J. Simpson is liable for the 1994 death of Ronald Goldman and committed battery against his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, a civil trial jury ruled February 4, 1997.

The Superior Court jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the Goldman family and to Ron Goldman's biological mother.

The jury ruled against Simpson on each of the eight technical questions of liability it was asked to consider. It effectively found Simpson liable for his ex-wife's death, though the Brown family did not seek such a verdict.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/04/jury.questions/index.html

[Hepburn]

245. Like I said:

OJ has NEVER been held legally responsible for the death of Nicole Brown Simpson.

[mondo joe]

248. No, just for the death of Ronald Goldman.

Hey, maybe while he was murdering Ronald Goldman the Real Killer snuck up on Nicole.

[Hepburn]

254. Have you ever spent time on any message board...

...where the sole topic is about the OJ Simpson case? There are several theories about who killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. It is accepted by many who have studied this case thoroughly that the most likely suspect is OJ's oldest son by his first marriage.

I happen to buy into that theory and have for a very long time. The forensic evidence did not fit and could not be fit together. And, that thoroughly explains the reason that OJ has not spent time looking for the "real killer."

I do not believe OJ was the killer, but I do believe that he was at the scene after the fact and lied to authorties about this.

[mondo joe]

255. No, I haven't spent a lot of time on any all-OJ board.

That is on my list of things to do somewhere after carving out my own eardrums with a butter knife.

And while there are a lot of interesting theories, OJ has been found liable.

[Hepburn]

257. No need to be snippy....

...when I inquired into your knowledge of the case. I have a ton of knowledge about the case. Sorry you felt a need to be defensive. I thought you might wish to discuss issues about which you seem to feel so strongly.

I guess there is no need to further converse with some who has so many strong opinions, but does not respect the opinion of others.

Bye....

[Seabiscuit]

232. "responsible" for a money judgment does not equal "killer"

For that label, you might just want a criminal conviction, eh?

And, as noted above, OJ was not found "responsible" for "killing" anyone in the civil trial.

[mondo joe]

241. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence...

Question 1: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?
Yes or No

YES

http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/04/jury.questions/index.html

[Hepburn]

258. Please note:

What you quoted is NOT the definition of murder, OK?

[Seabiscuit]

217. .

.

[Seabiscuit]

216. I apparently have

bumped into a hit squad of ignorant, OJ-hating fanatics in this thread.

[greccogirl]

218. No, you've

bumped into people who aren't stupid and know O.J. murdered them. The evidence was OVERWHELMING. The jury was made up of racist idiots.

[Seabiscuit]

221. Thank you for confirming my point.

Ignorance must be bliss.

[nini]

259. Actually, the verdict was correct - the prosecution blew the case

there's a big difference there.

OJ most likely did kill those two, but in our legal system it's up to the prosecuting lawyers to prove it - they failed to counter the defense lawyers bullshit adequately - so he walked.

don't blame the jury and accuse them of being racist - even if they are - they were able to acquit because of the fault of the prosecution. Be angry at the lame prosecutors.

[calico1]

265. On this I agree.

I think the prosecution and the police both blew the case big time. For a case they had to know would be so high profile the sent out two rookies to collect evidence. Remember the guy stepping in the blood? I also remember a few comentators saying that the prosecution first decided how the murders happened and then tried to fit the evidence around it, rather than the other way around. And they should have held out for more jury members that were more educated and therefore more likely to understand the DNA evidence. And Marcia Clark and Judge Ito were just loving that limelight! Ugh. Disgusting behavior. I will always think OJ was responsible for what happened but you are right. It's the prosecution's job to prove the case and they screwed it up big time.

[calico1]

223. .......

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.


You have a right to like OJ and defend him but there is no need to make a sweeping insult against those who disagree. No one has insulted you.

[Seabiscuit]

225. I don't like OJ in the least.

And I am not defending OJ. I'm defending common sense and the factual and legal record.

When you assume such falsehoods you make an ass out of u and me.

As I mentioned in my original post, I think Fred Goldman and OJ deserve each other.

And OJ was effectively defended in his criminal trial, where he won an acquittal.

[mondo joe]

230. Oh no, a squad of lying-murderer haters.

:eyes:

[Seabiscuit]

234. "murderer"??????

:wtf:

Anyone making that statement is either thoroughly disingenous or ignorant at best.

[mondo joe]

238. It's funny that you think you can read Goldman's mind,

but I can't say OJ is a murderer.

[calico1]

250. Funny, isn't it?

:eyes:

[yurbud]

198. can you believe people were transfixed by this trial but

most don't even bother to wonder about the real reason we're in Iraq, or how Bush managed to get ree-elected with the lowest voter approval rating of any President since Truman, or which policies were responsible for the lights going out in the Northest and California?

We should replace Uncle Sam as our symbol with Britney Spears or Paris Hilton.

[Hepburn]

219. Fred Goldman is an asshole...

...and that has NOTHING to do with the OJ case.

He is an arrogant, pompus prick.

[LostinVA]

243. Links? Proof? Quotes?

[Hepburn]

246. Personal experience. n/t

[Deja Q]

251. If Simpson would grow up and pay the guy,

instead of stabbing him in the back too...

He's one sick mofo.