Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

O.J. Simpson ordered to surrender earnings
AP ^ | Monday, February 23, 2004

Posted on 02/23/2004 10:17:11 AM PST by cateizgr8

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

BRIDGETON, Missouri (AP) -- O.J. Simpson has been ordered to hand over any earnings from a private autograph-signing event to the mother of Ronald Goldman because of a civil verdict that found Simpson liable for his slaying.

Simpson, served with the court papers Saturday before he left the St. Louis suburb of Bridgeton, suggested he would not pay anything to Ronald Goldman's mother, Sharon Rufo.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 02/23/2004 10:17:11 AM PST by cateizgr8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Britton J Wingfield
ping
2 posted on 02/23/2004 10:17:35 AM PST by cateizgr8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: cateizgr8
"Simpson was acquitted of murder charges in the 1994 stabbing deaths of his wife..."

...because of moronicly stupid jury and lunetic justice system that can be bought by the rich and famous.
4 posted on 02/23/2004 10:22:30 AM PST by observer5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cateizgr8
When I first read this I thought it was an order to surrender his earrings.
5 posted on 02/23/2004 10:23:39 AM PST by theDentist (Boston: So much Liberty, you can buy a Politician already owned by someone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: observer5
I agree...I also believe "they" were afraid of another "Rodney King like riot" if he had been found guilty.
6 posted on 02/23/2004 10:25:41 AM PST by cateizgr8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: observer5
A finding of a criminal jury, not guilty, is not a finding of innocence. When will O.J. understand that the free ride is over; he too, even he, black athlete extraordinaire and Grade B film personage, is actually subject to the law?
7 posted on 02/23/2004 10:26:43 AM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cateizgr8; observer5
It was a farce. What I learned back in 1994 (and I was 13) was, that O.J.´s acquittal was due to a mainly black jury, which has blackmailed the white jurors: either you vote for acquittal, or we will be jurors forever!
8 posted on 02/23/2004 10:29:36 AM PST by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Michael81Dus
The race card was pulled & that sick SOB got away with murder! He had cut his wife's throat so deep that she had be practically decapitated.
10 posted on 02/23/2004 10:34:45 AM PST by cateizgr8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
He is, is he? We'll see how much money he turns over. No, I doubt law applies to him. Similarly, did Al Sharpton, democrat running for President of the United States ever pay one dime of the judgement against him for slander? No, after stalling for 5 years some of his "supporters" stepped forward and payed it for him.

Former NYC mayor David Dinkins (D) forgot to pay his taxes for four years until he got caught because he was running for mayor. Did he get in any trouble, no he simply used the I forgot excuse and moved on.

11 posted on 02/23/2004 10:38:06 AM PST by marlon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cateizgr8
I wonder how much a OJ autograph is worth. I have one from years & years ago. It's on an old restaurant ticket with other signatures, Pete Rose, Bubba #00 and others that I can't read.
12 posted on 02/23/2004 10:38:31 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cateizgr8
It´s a dam-ed thing to pull the race/minority card. It happens everywhere - in some countries with arms, in others through the media and lobbyists.
13 posted on 02/23/2004 10:40:20 AM PST by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam
Probably quite a bit. I only hope that he ends up lonely, broke, starving & living in a dumpster.
14 posted on 02/23/2004 10:41:06 AM PST by cateizgr8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: blam
If he had been fried on the chair, it would be 150+ - but now, that he´s still alive and signs autographs... maybe 0.50??
15 posted on 02/23/2004 10:42:26 AM PST by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cateizgr8
Bump
16 posted on 02/23/2004 10:42:45 AM PST by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cateizgr8
Too bad Cecil (Cedric the Entertainer) from the movie "Barbershop" wasn't on the jury.

They's three things you gotta understand. Number one: Rodney King deserved to get the crap beat out of him for driving around doped up and drunk. Number two: O.J. was guilty. Number three: Rosa Parks didn't do nothing. She sat down on the bus cause she was tired.

And his best line of the movie: "F*** Jesse Jackson.

Was I surprised when I saw this movie last night on DVD.

Funniest thing I have seen in a long time!

17 posted on 02/23/2004 10:47:34 AM PST by N. Theknow (John Kerry is nothing more than Ted Kennedy without a dead girl in the car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
I'll have to check that out :)
18 posted on 02/23/2004 10:52:13 AM PST by cateizgr8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: observer5
"...because of moronicly stupid jury..."

Oh, make no mistake...that jury wasn't "stupid", just extremely prejudiced.
19 posted on 02/23/2004 10:56:43 AM PST by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cateizgr8

20 posted on 02/23/2004 10:57:56 AM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: observer5
Be that as it may, I'm still troubled by the entire civil proceeding and the verdict. To me, going into the tort court and showing your "not guilty" verdict by a jury of peers should be sufficient to end things right then and there.

It may have been a wrong verdict. It may have been a result of the race card. Yet, to me, something's not quite right here. What if you were accused of a crime, found innocent, then sued and forced to give all your earnings for the rest of your life to the accuser? You might say, well, it's justice for OJ, but would it be justice for you?

I'm always on the lookout for the first step of a slippery slope, because you can always count on the Unintended Consequences. Something in the way the whole OJ saga played out tells me this country is now "Of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers."

21 posted on 02/23/2004 11:03:24 AM PST by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
When I first read this I thought it was an order to surrender his earrings.

Me, too! You beat me to it.

22 posted on 02/23/2004 11:06:51 AM PST by pax_et_bonum (Always finish what you st)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cateizgr8
Wow, I heard about this on the local news, but didn't realize it was happening. Bridgeton is basically right-next-door to me.

Oh, and OJ's a BIG FAT MURDERER. Period.

23 posted on 02/23/2004 11:35:59 AM PST by atomicpossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Deth
Be that as it may, I'm still troubled by the entire civil proceeding and the verdict. To me, going into the tort court and showing your "not guilty" verdict by a jury of peers should be sufficient to end things right then and there.

Burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not guilty does not equal innocent.

Burden of proof in a civil case is a "preponderance of the evidence," or more likely than not.
24 posted on 02/23/2004 11:36:11 AM PST by FoxInSocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Deth; cateizgr8
"They" weren't afraid of anything. The jury was racist and was sending a message.
I swear, on the life of everyone whom I love, that a black male juror flashed a black power sign (raised, clenched fist) to OJ after the verdict was read. I saw this live on the news (you will NEVER see it, unless a freeper-type has it on tape).

Civil trials have a different standard of proof than criminal. Criminal trials require all jurors to believe, beyond a reasonble doubt, the accused is guilty. Civil trials require a majority of the jurors to believe a perponderence of evidence shows the accused is liable - a much lower standard that is confusing, but still valid.
25 posted on 02/23/2004 11:37:57 AM PST by ibbryn (this tag intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cateizgr8
Randi Rhodes must be outraged. She still thinks OJ is innocent.
26 posted on 02/23/2004 11:39:04 AM PST by PJ-Comix (Saddam Hussein was only 537 Florida votes away from still being in power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FoxInSocks
Yeah, what you said.
27 posted on 02/23/2004 11:39:34 AM PST by ibbryn (this tag intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus
it was unspoken, yet understood, that if Simpson were convicted, there would be mayhem in the form of riots. The case came just on the tail of the Rodney King riots.
28 posted on 02/23/2004 11:42:42 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ibbryn
One of the alternate jurors, when asked if they had found OJ not guilty because he was black said, "So what if we did?"
29 posted on 02/23/2004 11:46:56 AM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
If Simpson had been tried in Santa Monica, he would have been tried in front of a jury of his peers(rich white people). It was moved downtown where the jurors would be 90%
minorities, many not well educated. They could give a damn about the rules of evidence, or truth;neither did that jackass Ito, who let the defence run roughshod over the trial.
30 posted on 02/23/2004 11:47:57 AM PST by international american (Dimpled chads for sale...buy one, get one free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
Another said "That man too pretty to spend the rest of his life in jail"
31 posted on 02/23/2004 11:49:51 AM PST by international american (Dimpled chads for sale...buy one, get one free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ibbryn; FoxInSocks
I understand how the concept. I'm saying that it smacks faintly of double jeopardy to be subject to tort litigation following that verdict. Owing to the gravity of the original proceeding, it really should indemnify one to followup suits like this. It's a wide door to harassment litigation.

It may be perceived as 'justice' in the OJ instance... but what about the next one?

32 posted on 02/24/2004 12:09:43 PM PST by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Deth
It's really two different cases, even though they arise out of the same incident.

A criminal case was brought by the State (California, in this case) against O.J. Simpson for violating a criminal statute.

A civil case was brought by those who were wronged, or on their behalf, to seek compensation for their damages. The Browns and Goldmans weren't represented in the criminal trial, and didn't have an opportunity to put on evidence.

Or something like that.
33 posted on 02/24/2004 12:39:12 PM PST by FoxInSocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson