ExiledInIllinois Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Pretty rough toilet paper normally sells for about $.39 a roll.... 810093[/snapback] That be "macho wipe"... Of course 60 grit! Me, I perfer the buck roll for my rosy arse...
daquixers_is_back Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 If he was convicted civilly, does this fall under Son of Sam? 810081[/snapback] No. For one he was not found guilty of the crimes and the book if fictional. Secondly the "Son Of Sam" law has been ruled unconstitutional once by the supreme court ... so if they tried to pull that B.S. he can simply take up a lawsuit.
OnTheRocks Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 i have a friend that read the Robert Shapiro book "The Search for Justice". he told me that after reading the book, he questioned if OJ was truly guilty. he told me i should read it. i ended up throwing it away without opening the cover. i prefer to just presume he is guilty.
Zona Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 As is the case with almost all trials, there was information that was not allowed to be used during the trial. I just wonder what it was. Did it confirm or acquit? Hell, I could write a book titled "If I did It" about the murders, it doesn't mean I did it. Most likely it means I want to get paid by capitalizing on the infamy. Since my name isn't Simpson, I wouldn't make squat.
Avalanche Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 As is the case with almost all trials, there was information that was not allowed to be used during the trial. I just wonder what it was. Did it confirm or acquit? Hell, I could write a book titled "If I did It" about the murders, it doesn't mean I did it. Most likely it means I want to get paid by capitalizing on the infamy. Since my name isn't Simpson, I wouldn't make squat. 810248[/snapback] You should read "evidence dismissed" It's by the two lead investigators, There's alot of evidence that never was presented by the DA's office.
Bungee Jumper Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Secondly the "Son Of Sam" law has been ruled unconstitutional once by the supreme court ... so if they tried to pull that B.S. he can simply take up a lawsuit. 810219[/snapback] That's probably why the Browns & Goldmans pursued the civil suit. Now OJ has a lien against all future earnings, until the judgement's paid off. Which is completely different from the Son of Sam law.
Bill from NYC Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 That's probably why the Browns & Goldmans pursued the civil suit. Now OJ has a lien against all future earnings, until the judgement's paid off. Which is completely different from the Son of Sam law. 810290[/snapback] Help me out here. You are one of the smartest persons I know. Was it really proper grammar to start that last sentence with "Which," let alone a new paragraph?
John Adams Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Let's rehash the debate about taking him off the Wall of Fame.
Tcali Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Help me out here. You are one of the smartest persons I know. Was it really proper grammar to start that last sentence with "Which," let alone a new paragraph? 810298[/snapback] Bill. I think the grammar was correct in the context that it was used.-He could have used a colon after the previous sentence though to make it more correctlike;)
/dev/null Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Chewbacca is an eight foot tall Wookie If he lived on Tatooine with 3 foot tall Jawas, that still would not make sense
Shamrock Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests. Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! 810165[/snapback] South Park So many episodes, so many memories...
Just Jack Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Everyone's missing the big puicture here. OJ's not writing the book for the money, it's part of his plan to find the real killers. He believes that once the book is out, and people see how OJ thinks the crime went down, that the real killers will be forced to come forward and tell how it really went down. It's brillant!
OnTheRocks Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 You should read "evidence dismissed" It's by the two lead investigators, There's alot of evidence that never was presented by the DA's office. 810288[/snapback] i remember them saying they had less evidence when they convicted Charles Manson.
/dev/null Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 i remember them saying they had less evidence when they convicted Charles Manson. 810350[/snapback] Yeah but Chuckie didn't have Johnny Cochran
C.Biscuit97 Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 Since I'm not God and wasn't present at the scene the night of the crime, I don't believe I should past judgment on the man. I just hold on to some hope that a person just couldn't kill a women he loved in such a way and then be able to live a normal life like nothing happened. I mean how could he look at his children knowing he just beheaded their mother. Maybe I'm just naive.
daquixers_is_back Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 As is the case with almost all trials, there was information that was not allowed to be used during the trial. I just wonder what it was. Did it confirm or acquit? Hell, I could write a book titled "If I did It" about the murders, it doesn't mean I did it. Most likely it means I want to get paid by capitalizing on the infamy. Since my name isn't Simpson, I wouldn't make squat. 810248[/snapback] I think you have watched a few too many trial shows on TV. Im not sure about the OJ case inparticular, but most of the time evidence that is dropped is usually small and the DA will know ahead what evidence will be dropped. Very, very, very rarely is the evidence large enough to hurt the outcome of a case. That's probably why the Browns & Goldmans pursued the civil suit. Now OJ has a lien against all future earnings, until the judgement's paid off. Which is completely different from the Son of Sam law. 810290[/snapback] Well kinda. The civil suit ruling was that he killed Goldman, but not his wife. He just assaulted his wife. Not to mention that the rules was for less than 10 milion, so I didnt know how he did not pay that by now ... that was until I found this. While scrowling through the library of the OJ Simspon Civil Trial transcrips this stuck out in Stanza 4, starting line 13 Feb 5th. "13 MR. BAKER: Then, Your Honor, you're well aware 14 that he indicated that he believes that this is 15 speculation. And it is clear speculation on what 16 Mr. Simpson will earn in the future; and his earnings 17 in the future, I would respectfully submit, are not 18 part of his present net worth. 19 In other words, his image and likeness 20 is not part of his present net worth. What the 21 plaintiffs have attempted to do is to create an asset 22 by attempting to turn speculated income stream into a 23 balance sheet item. And I don't -- there's no 24 precedent for that. That isn't his net worth. That's 25 nothing that he can pay and punitive damage award now 26 after one is rendered. 27 As the Court or Supreme Court said in 28 Neal versus Farmers, the purpose of punitive damages 5 1 is not served by financially destroying the defendant 2 and an award is excessive if it is disproportionate to 3 defendant's ability to pay. 4 Defendant doesn't have any ability to 5 pay based upon a future earning award. 6 He has to have the ability to pay now 7 on Egan versus Mutual of Omaha 24 Cal.Ap. 3d at 804, 8 824. You've got to have the ability to pay and any 9 award that is rendered that he doesn't have the 10 ability to pay is, by definition excessive, as we put 11 forth in our papers. You can't get a loan on what 12 they're talking about. 13 If you listed that as an asset on your 14 balance sheet and took it to the bank to -- To try to 15 get a loan, they'd laugh at you. 16 This is creative accounting at its best 17 or worse, depending on your point of view. 18 But it is attempting to say that 19 Mr. Simpson has good will when all I read in the 20 L.A. Times today is there is a lot of ill will and 21 they're trying to say this good will will create 2 to 22 3 million dollars of income a year over 25 years and 23 that that then reduced to -- with their accounting 24 hocus pocus to some sort of present cash value is 24 25 and a half million dollars. 26 It should be included on his balance 27 sheet and his net worth and that would be, I would 28 suggest, attempting to destroy the defendant, which is 6 1 not the issue of punitive damages. 2 And in Adams versus Maricoma, 3 suggests -- which is our Supreme Court, talking about 4 punitive damages, suggests that public policy 5 precludes awards based on mere speculation. And we 6 don't know if Mr. Simpson will ever have a personal 7 appearance contract again. 8 We don't know if he'll ever have an 9 endorsement contract again. And all of that is what 10 they're trying to base this line item in a balance 11 sheet upon. And we believe it is fallacious and it's 12 not in accordance with any generally accepted 13 accounting principles for net worth statement." and they are right. In Neil VS Farmers, it will state that the penalty is not fair if it excedes what the defendant is worth The defense then goes onto argue that the defense team originally supplied them with a net worth list higher that time when the original court appointed them to send the finance sheet. Then they go onto argue that the value of a name is part of your net worth (him being famous) starting in line 22 "22 In terms of the value of name and 23 likeness, it's exactly the same as the good will of a 24 company. That's absolutely standard and included on 25 virtually every balance sheet of every country in the 26 world. 27 It is something that you can take to the 28 bank. It is something, the risks of the future 7 1 earnings, the discount rates are applied to them. All 2 that is figured in. All this goes to the weight of 3 the evidence. It's a standard component of net worth. 4 In marriage dissolution cases celebrity good will is 5 generally accepted as an element that gets divided up 6 between the parties." Pretty amazing case.
Recommended Posts