Goldmans vs. OJ round 8

Search

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
6,145
Tokens
Saw this on that Steve Smith show earlier. Lawyer comes up with a new idea on how to steal more money from OJ. Lawyer contacts the Goldmans and they agree to give it a go. The plan is to sue for ownership of the OJ Simpson name/trademark. Lawyer states the name OJ Simpson is something OJ Simpson can use to pay the Goldmans for their judgement against him.

Smith had on an OJ lawyer and some advocate for the other side. Advocate lawyer says it's a creative new approach to get money from OJ. OJ lawyer says there is no precedent and it doesn't stand a chance in court.

I wonder if there will be any props on this case?
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,362
Tokens
OJ should be forced to live in a flea-bag motel and have all his bank statements and earnings audited and handed over to the Goldmans and Browns. I don't know if he killed those people but he was found guilty in civil court.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
20,303
Tokens
quantumleap said:
OJ should be forced to live in a flea-bag motel and have all his bank statements and earnings audited and handed over to the Goldmans and Browns. I don't know if he killed those people but he was found guilty in civil court.

The law is stupid when someone who was clearly acquitted of a crime can still pay out when found innocent. What a crock of shit. Fuck the Goldmans & Browns.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
4,948
Tokens
EveryGamblersDream said:
The law is stupid when someone who was clearly acquitted of a crime can still pay out when found innocent. What a crock of shit. Fuck the Goldmans & Browns.[/quote

everyone knows he killed em give me a break.
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,362
Tokens
EveryGamblersDream said:
The law is stupid when someone who was clearly acquitted of a crime can still pay out when found innocent. What a crock of shit. Fuck the Goldmans & Browns.

The legal system is very complex. OJ was not "clearly" acquitted. He was acquitted but there were many pieces of evidence implicating him. Just because a person gets acquitted in criminal court doesn't mean they were not guilty of the crime. Technicalities in a court case or jury bias have been used to get many, many guilty people acquitted.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
20,303
Tokens
quantumleap said:
The legal system is very complex. OJ was not "clearly" acquitted. He was acquitted but there were many pieces of evidence implicating him. Just because a person gets acquitted in criminal court doesn't mean they were not guilty of the crime. Technicalities in a court case or jury bias have been used to get many, many guilty people acquitted.

Yes, this is true however a verdict should stand in any sort of court of law outside of a retrial.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
20,303
Tokens
Teddy kgb said:
EveryGamblersDream said:
The law is stupid when someone who was clearly acquitted of a crime can still pay out when found innocent. What a crock of shit. Fuck the Goldmans & Browns.[/quote

everyone knows he killed em give me a break.

When one can actually prove it without a shadow of a doubt with non circumstantial evidence, I'll believe it.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
666
Tokens
EveryGamblersDream said:
Teddy kgb said:
When one can actually prove it without a shadow of a doubt with non circumstantial evidence, I'll believe it.

c'mon bro, didnt they have a star witness.. remember that dog that was barking, arf , arf, what more do you want?

fuckin losers, fuck the goldmans and the brown
 

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
2,281
Tokens
burn_in_hell_Atta said:
EveryGamblersDream said:
c'mon bro, didnt they have a star witness.. remember that dog that was barking, arf , arf, what more do you want?

fuckin losers, fuck the goldmans and the brown

You're Right.....WE ALL KNOW HE DIDN"T DO IT and He's ANXIOUSLY Pursuing WHO Just Might've Killed them.....U R The LOSER !!!:pucking:
 

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
3,112
Tokens
Sorry but if you read up a little on the law you might understand. No one is "found innocent;" when was the last time you heard that said? Never. The verdict is "not guilty" for a reason...
 

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
2,281
Tokens
cklennon said:
Sorry but if you read up a little on the law you might understand. No one is "found innocent;" when was the last time you heard that said? Never. The verdict is "not guilty" for a reason...

i'm Sure You're Right ...the verdict is Not guilty ...but EVERYONE including your pathetic SELF knows He's as GULITY as HE IS BLACK !!!:pucking:
 

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
3,112
Tokens
I'm not making any judgement about whether he did it, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the argument that if he is "found innocent" in criminal court, he must be "found innocent" in civil court too.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
2,401
Tokens
EveryGamblersDream said:
The law is stupid when someone who was clearly acquitted of a crime can still pay out when found innocent. What a crock of shit. Fuck the Goldmans & Browns.


You sound like a big idiot...Fuck the Goldman and Brown's yeah okay, and O.J. is innocent, you must have been one of them people that bought into the glove dont fit.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
2,281
Tokens
passingthewind said:
You sound like a big idiot...Fuck the Goldman and Brown's yeah okay, and O.J. is innocent, you must have been one of them people that bought into the glove dont fit.
:103631605 :toast:
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,447
Tokens
quantumleap said:
The legal system is very complex. OJ was not "clearly" acquitted. He was acquitted but there were many pieces of evidence implicating him. Just because a person gets acquitted in criminal court doesn't mean they were not guilty of the crime. Technicalities in a court case or jury bias have been used to get many, many guilty people acquitted.

There is no such thing as being "clearly" acquitted in american justice. Once a jury returns a verdict of not-guilty the man is not guilty in american law.

And he was not acquitted nor was the case dismissed based on a technicality. It wasn't like he was released because they didnt properly read him his miranda rights. Based on all of the evidence the jury came back with a ruling of not-guilty. There was a long tedious drawn out trial where the prosecution presented tons of evidence. The defense did a good job of presenting evidence and discrediting the prosecution witnesses. That is all.

Just because many people don't like the jury decision does not make the decision any less "clear."
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
9,907
Tokens
O.J. Simpson to Discuss Killings
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:23 AM EST
The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Fox plans to broadcast an interview with O.J. Simpson in which the former football star discusses "how he would have committed" the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend, for which he was acquitted, the network said.
The two-part interview, titled "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened," will air Nov. 27 and Nov. 29, the TV network said.


<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> function iFrameCallback1() { var oIframe = document.getElementById("iFrame1"); var oDoc = (oIframe.contentWindow || oIframe.contentDocument); if (oDoc.document) { oDoc = oDoc.document; } document.getElementById('ads1').innerHTML = oDoc.getElementById('results').innerHTML; return true; } </SCRIPT>

Simpson has agreed to an "unrestricted" interview with book publisher Judith Regan, Fox said.
"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," the network said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."
The interview will air days before Simpson's new book, "If I Did It," goes on sale Nov. 30. The book, published by Regan, "hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed."
In a video clip on the network's Web site, an off-screen interviewer says to Simpson, "You wrote 'I have never seen so much blood in my life.'"
"I don't think any two people could be murdered without everybody being covered in blood," Simpson responds.
Simpson, who now lives in Florida, was acquitted in a criminal trial of the 1994 killings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman. Simpson was later found liable in 1997 in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Goldman family.
Messages left with Simpson and his attorney Yale Galanter were not immediately returned

Ithink it we would see a difference if it was..........

Guilty unless proofed innocent!
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
24,349
Tokens
"If I'm not mistaken he lives in Florida, and in that state they have some weird laws that protect people from having to pay any money owed in civil litigations. I heard this on the radio in regards to Todd Bertuzzi. They were saying the trade to Florida was perfect for him because as long as he stays there he will not have to pay any potential judgement rendered against him in the Steve Moore civil suit."

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

"That is exactly right, that is why all these guys flee to Florida at the first chance. I read recently that the Goldmans had received 0 dollars from their successful civil case against OJ..."

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

Too bad that doesn't include alimony.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,109,039
Messages
13,456,826
Members
99,448
Latest member
c54giving
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com