Goldmans Sue

[fbgweezer]

thats true.

Now all we have to do is prove he did not declare all of his income. i have no idea as to what he declared, do you?
martin II

nope -- unfortunately, we don't -- YET. :D

[martin II]

if orenthal is hiding money in order not to pay the judgment an IF it can be proved that he is not declaring income, he will in fact be in trouble (be still my heart) and could possibly wind up in jail.

i think that if the irs did a audit of oj's returns and decided that he owed more money, they would send him a bill like they do most people and he would have to make a payment at that time or make a payment agreement to pay if off.imo
martin II

[martin II]

nope -- unfortunately, we don't -- YET. :D

tazzy says she has ojs return in front of her so i guess she knows what income he declared.imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Case Law: laws created by earlier judicial decisions regarding the same arguments. Our legal system follows the doctrine of stare decisis which means to rely on earlier decisions where the same points arise again. For example, in the judgment collection field we often make reference to cases such as Young v. Keele [188 Cal.App.3d 1090, 233 Cal.Rptr. 850] which allows a judgment collector “the widest scope for inquiry concerning property and business affairs of the debtor” during a judgment debtor examination.

http://www.judicialrevenue.com/ufta.html

[martin II]

nope -- unfortunately, we don't -- YET. :D

i think the important issue at this time is whether the trustee will allow Mr Goldman to bid on the rights to the book and if so will he be able to out bid any other publishing company or movie house or friend of oj simpson that MAY bid.imo

martin II

[martin II]

Case Law: laws created by earlier judicial decisions regarding the same arguments. Our legal system follows the doctrine of stare decisis which means to rely on earlier decisions where the same points arise again. For example, in the judgment collection field we often make reference to cases such as Young v. Keele [188 Cal.App.3d 1090, 233 Cal.Rptr. 850] which allows a judgment collector “the widest scope for inquiry concerning property and business affairs of the debtor” during a judgment debtor examination.

http://www.judicialrevenue.com/ufta.html

i am waiting on tazzy to post ojs return so we can all stop guessing about
his declared income.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Case Law: laws created by earlier judicial decisions regarding the same arguments. Our legal system follows the doctrine of stare decisis which means to rely on earlier decisions where the same points arise again. For example, in the judgment collection field we often make reference to cases such as Young v. Keele [188 Cal.App.3d 1090, 233 Cal.Rptr. 850] which allows a judgment collector “the widest scope for inquiry concerning property and business affairs of the debtor” during a judgment debtor examination.

http://www.judicialrevenue.com/ufta.html

i think most lawyers know about Fraudulent transfer and so should oj.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

i think the important issue at this time is whether the trustee will allow Mr Goldman to bid on the rights to the book and if so will he be able to out bid any other publishing company or movie house or friend of oj simpson that MAY bid.imo

martin II

what makes you think any publishing company or movie house would want the rights? I think the public has spoken about what kind of reception the book would receive. IMO, the ONLY person that could publish the book "I Did It" is Fred Goldman and my guess is he doesn't care if it makes money -- heck, he might be giving it away. LOL

[fbgweezer]

i think most lawyers know about Fraudulent transfer and so should oj.

martin II

actually, I posted the link for you. thought you might want to do some research. . .

[martin II]

Yes I have. I actually have a copy right here. And, it says that he is committing FRAUD.
:tongue:

That's not true. Provide a link to prove it.

Why would he hide it if it didn't matter?

tazzy hi
can you please post the doc. that says OJ Simpson commited fraud on his tax return.

martin II

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8870160]actually, I posted the link for you. thought you might want to do some research. . .[/QUOTE


NO need to research this, most know what it is.

MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

i think most lawyers know about Fraudulent transfer and so should oj.

martin II

It's illegal to beat your wife. It's illegal to commit murder. It's illegal to steal cable. Never stopped Orenthal.

[fbgweezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;8870160]actually, I posted the link for you. thought you might want to do some research. . .[/QUOTE


NO need to research this, most know what it is.

MARTIN ii

you crack me up! your posts proved that you don't but if you're opposed to educating yourself to the facts, so be it.

[fbgweezer]

tazzy hi
can you please post the doc. that says OJ Simpson commited fraud on his tax return.

martin II

you're baiting -- everyone else understands that :tongue: meant she was joking.

[martin II]

you're baiting -- everyone else understands that :tongue: meant she was joking.

oh

i didn't notice that.
i have no reason or desire to bait anyone here so please stop making those type charges. here i am trying again to have a conmversation with you and it ends with you making a charge that i am baiting tazzy. you do make it difficult. imo

martin II

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;8870168]

you crack me up! your posts proved that you don't but if you're opposed to educating yourself to the facts, so be it.


weezer
not concerned about what you personally think about what my post proved to you.

i believe my education on various subjects is where it should be and i do know how to find additional info when i need to.
imo

martin II

[tazzybaby]

Sorry....I got busy and didn't realize all this was going on. I was joking. That's why I put the :tongue: on there. I will not do this in the future. I thought it was obvious. My bad.

:cool:

[martin II]

Sorry....I got busy and didn't realize all this was going on. I was joking. That's why I put the :tongue: on there. I will not do this in the future. I thought it was obvious. My bad.

:cool:

tazzy
sorry i did not notice.

i take what you say serious.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Sorry....I got busy and didn't realize all this was going on. I was joking. That's why I put the :tongue: on there. I will not do this in the future. I thought it was obvious. My bad.

:cool:

I thought it was funny.

[martin II]

If it (the taxes) weren't paid in his name then it is FRAUD. He stated that he was doing it to earn income. But, yet, it doesn't show on his records. Hmmm....yes, that's fraud. imo

tazzy hi

what dsocuments do you have that proves as you say" BUT,YET IT DOSENT SHOW ON HIS RECORDS"

what records are you looking at?? can you share these 'RECORDS' with us??

martin II

[martin II]

Well, Martin has proven you wrong, Limakey. Simpson did try to settle with the Goldman's as the link I provided before shows. So, I guess that should prove to you that he did it. Especially since you know for sure he wouldn't pay for it if he didn't do it.

And, here's my link:

he acknowledged that "it's all blood money" but said that he needed it to help him "get out of debt and secure my homestead."

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-11-23#tv1

That's not spending it on the kids. He uses that to try and get sympathy. Open your eyes, Limakey!

My issue is with a man who tries to profit from a murder that he committed. He is a snake in the grass to do that. Especially since he has children who were affected.

It is fraud, Limakey. He hasn't been charged because they haven't been able to "prove" it yet. Simpson is good at breaking the law. He's got a lot of attorney's to help him also. But, Fred isn't giving up. Since Simpson is using the laws (by the way I am mad that those laws allow him to do that, but I'm more mad that a person would be so low to use them like that) to hide what money he makes, then Fred is using what he can to fight back. You seem okay with him hiding the money but you seem mad that Fred is going after it. A witch hunt, huh? Well, what do we call what Simpson is doing? Okay? I think not!! You have twisted logic on this subject...imo

Where is it written that Sydney and Justin want blood money? Why would they be suffering by their dad simply using what he has from his pensions to live a modest life style? Wouldn't it be better for them to lead as normal a life as possible? How can it be normal when their father is in the news for trying to profit from their mothers muder???


tazzy

Any money oj had to pay to secure his homestead is money spect to secure the homestead for the kids at they will inherit it after he is gone so i see absolutely no problem with what you say he did
martinII

[socaldiva]

tazzy

Any money oj had to pay to secure his homestead is money spect to secure the homestead for the kids at they will inherit it after he is gone so i see absolutely no problem with what you say he did
martinII

If Orenthal didn't squander his money, he could have secure his "homestead" with his pension. He didn't have to stoop to blood money, but he did. I'd say he's greedy.

[fbgweezer]

If Orenthal didn't squander his money, he could have secure his "homestead" with his pension. He didn't have to stoop to blood money, but he did. I'd say he's greedy.

he has given so many different stories on what happened to the book money: paid bills, paid tax obligations, etc.

I've not been able to justify any monies from orenthal's "confession" being used to secure a future for his two, older grown children from his previous marriage. One of which is believed by many to be implicated in the clean-up after the murders. IMO

and it seems that Nicole was smart enough to provide for her children in her will --

[Martyrdom]

Orenthal James Simpson ain't nuthin' but one big murderin' scam artist who openly admits that he "lies pretty effectively".

He's kind of slinky the way he gets through the loopholes but he's dumb enough to be thinkin' that people actually believe what he's sayin'.

Ain't no way that the LBA company being created right at the time of the bloody book deal is any kind of coincidence. Man, it was completely planned out and no way did he ever bet on the fact that Fred Goldman would come after him with all he's got this way and win so far.

That lyin' daugther Arnelle of his oughta learn better by now. :no:

[martin II]

Orenthal James Simpson ain't nuthin' but one big murderin' scam artist who openly admits that he "lies pretty effectively".

He's kind of slinky the way he gets through the loopholes but he's dumb enough to be thinkin' that people actually believe what he's sayin'.

Ain't no way that the LBA company being created right at the time of the bloody book deal is any kind of coincidence. Man, it was completely planned out and no way did he ever bet on the fact that Fred Goldman would come after him with all he's got this way and win so far.

That lyin' daugther Arnelle of his oughta learn better by now. :no:

I guess you are saying that is how you really feel.:shrug:

martin II

[tazzybaby]

tazzy

Any money oj had to pay to secure his homestead is money spect to secure the homestead for the kids at they will inherit it after he is gone so i see absolutely no problem with what you say he did
martinII

So you think it's okay for OJ to make money at the expense of their own murdered mother and their families to secure a home for them? They don't even live there any more. I believe Justin is now going to college.

[n.n]

tazzy

Any money oj had to pay to secure his homestead is money spect to secure the homestead for the kids at they will inherit it after he is gone so i see absolutely no problem with what you say he did
martinII

Amen to that.
Also, providing his kids a good education is not squandering money. And -- had he not been unjustly accused he sure had some millions more to spend which instead went to lawyers.

[fbgweezer]

Orenthal James Simpson ain't nuthin' but one big murderin' scam artist who openly admits that he "lies pretty effectively".

He's kind of slinky the way he gets through the loopholes but he's dumb enough to be thinkin' that people actually believe what he's sayin'.

Ain't no way that the LBA company being created right at the time of the bloody book deal is any kind of coincidence. Man, it was completely planned out and no way did he ever bet on the fact that Fred Goldman would come after him with all he's got this way and win so far.

That lyin' daugther Arnelle of his oughta learn better by now. :no:

Yah, I don't like him either. :D

[fbgweezer]

Amen to that.
Also, providing his kids a good education is not squandering money. And -- had he not been unjustly accused he sure had some millions more to spend which instead went to lawyers.

what does this have to do with his grown children from his previous marriage? why would they benefit from Nicole's death?

[tazzybaby]

what does this have to do with his grown children from his previous marriage? why would they benefit from Nicole's death?

Yes, I'd like to know that too! They still have their mother and an inheritance from her (including a homestead). He could put all monies into their trust to secure their financial legacy if that was his true intentions.

[n.n]

Orenthal James Simpson ain't nuthin' but one big murderin' scam artist who openly admits that he "lies pretty effectively".

He's kind of slinky the way he gets through the loopholes but he's dumb enough to be thinkin' that people actually believe what he's sayin'.

Ain't no way that the LBA company being created right at the time of the bloody book deal is any kind of coincidence. Man, it was completely planned out and no way did he ever bet on the fact that Fred Goldman would come after him with all he's got this way and win so far.

That lyin' daugther Arnelle of his oughta learn better by now. :no:

Sure ... but there are quite a few people who do believe what he says in a "fictional" story. Seems like they believe every word he says, if it fits into their mindset.

[Martyrdom]

I guess you are saying that is how you really feel.:shrug:

martin II

You honestly tryin' to tell me that you're believin' that LBA is legit?

If you wanna support the criminal trial cause you believe that justice was done then alrighty, but don't go pretendin' that Orenthal is on the up and up with this one. :punch:

[martin II]

Yes, I'd like to know that too! They still have their mother and an inheritance from her (including a homestead). He could put all monies into their trust to secure their financial legacy if that was his true intentions.

oj was involved in the book for what it seems like two basic reasons.

1. was to make money for himself to pay for what ever he thought he needed
to pay for. bills , mortage taxes etc. whatever.
2. To have the rights to that book and any profits from HC publishing the book
go to LBA, the company set up for all of his kids benefit.

considering that he has been blackballed from working in his previous fields of work, i assume that agreeing to the book with HC was the only way he had to make the money required to continue his life and to create something for his kids.
I don't think he is in a position to be concerned about all the moral issues some believe are so important. imo

martin II

[martin II]

You honestly tryin' to tell me that you're believin' that LBA is legit?

If you wanna support the criminal trial cause you believe that justice was done then alrighty, but don't go pretendin' that Orenthal is on the up and up with this one. :punch:

i am not trying to tell you anything. just understanding how you say you feel based on your post. imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

oj was involved in the book for what it seems like two basic reasons.

1. was to make money for himself to pay for what ever he thought he needed
to pay for. bills , mortage taxes etc. whatever.
2. To have the rights to that book and any profits from HC publishing the book
go to LBA, the company set up for all of his kids benefit.

considering that he has been blackballed from working in his previous fields of work, i assume that agreeing to the book with HC was the only way he had to make the money required to continue his life and to create something for his kids.
I don't think he is in a position to be concerned about all the moral issues some believe are so important. imo

martin II

Okay, well, the judge seems to think differently. So, to me, that seems that it's more than just a moral issue. It means it is a legal issue. Which means, if OJ lost, then he did something illegal. Like, try to put money into an account without paying the judgement first. Or, IMO, create the account as a cover account that he could then use to get more strippers and drugs (I would say more cable but he just steals that). So, in a court of law he lost.

[fbgweezer]

Sure ... but there are quite a few people who do believe what he says in a "fictional" story. Seems like they believe every word he says, if it fits into their mindset.

just the part where he says, "I Did It"

[fbgweezer]

I don't think he is in a position to be concerned about all the moral issues some believe are so important.

Now this made me laugh! Ain't it the truth though.

[martin II]

Okay, well, the judge seems to think differently. So, to me, that seems that it's more than just a moral issue. It means it is a legal issue. Which means, if OJ lost, then he did something illegal. Like, try to put money into an account without paying the judgement first. Or, IMO, create the account as a cover account that he could then use to get more strippers and drugs (I would say more cable but he just steals that). So, in a court of law he lost.

Tazzy hi

As far as i know the judge has ruled that money from oj's past royalties from movies must go to fred. those royalties were in a oj bank and they totaled i think the amount was $29.00

maby you can tell me what bank account did oj put money in to hide and buy strippers and drugs from?

What judge has ruled that oj has done any of the things you claim he has/is doing that has been ruled a fraud.?

Did the bankruptcy judge rule that LBA was a scam company? or did he rule that LBA simply need to be liquidated to raise money to pay the legal creditors.which Mr Goldman is not.imo
martin II

[martin II]

just the part where he says, "I Did It"

weezer

i guess you have decided to change the title of the book.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

Tazzy hi

As far as i know the judge has ruled that money from oj's past royalties from movies must go to fred. those royalties were in a oj bank and they totaled i think the amount was $29.00

maby you can tell me what bank account did oj put money in to hide and buy strippers and drugs from?

What judge has ruled that oj has done any of the things you claim he has/is doing that has been ruled a fraud.?

Did the bankruptcy judge rule that LBA was a scam company? or did he rule that LBA simply need to be liquidated to raise money to pay the legal creditors.which Mr Goldman is not.imo
martin II

are you saying Fred Goldman isn't a legal creditor?

[fbgweezer]

weezer

i guess you have decided to change the title of the book.

martin II

Yep -- thought it more aptly described his role.

[martin II]

are you saying Fred Goldman isn't a legal creditor?

not to LBA. unless you have proof of some service or goods given to LBA by Mr Goldman.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Tazzy hi

As far as i know the judge has ruled that money from oj's past royalties from movies must go to fred. those royalties were in a oj bank and they totaled i think the amount was $29.00

maby you can tell me what bank account did oj put money in to hide and buy strippers and drugs from?

What judge has ruled that oj has done any of the things you claim he has/is doing that has been ruled a fraud.?

Did the bankruptcy judge rule that LBA was a scam company? or did he rule that LBA simply need to be liquidated to raise money to pay the legal creditors.which Mr Goldman is not.imo
martin II

No one can tell you what bank account OJ put money into to hide and buy strippers and drugs from. He denies it all. But, we know it happened because we saw it (ie search in his home - drugs found, video of OJ with strippers, video of OJ admitting to past drug use)

I said illegal, not fraud. He tried to funnel money into an account without paying the Goldman's first. We're waiting for a final ruling. The link to that has been posted here before but I'll go ahead and put IMO in case you can't find it.

[tazzybaby]

not to LBA. unless you have proof of some service or goods given to LBA by Mr Goldman.
martin II

LBA didn't earn that money. Simpson did. Simpson is trying to slip the money on the by and by right past Mr Goldman. That's why the judge didn't dismiss Mr Goldman's suit.

[socaldiva]

Orenthal James Simpson ain't nuthin' but one big murderin' scam artist who openly admits that he "lies pretty effectively".

He's kind of slinky the way he gets through the loopholes but he's dumb enough to be thinkin' that people actually believe what he's sayin'.

Ain't no way that the LBA company being created right at the time of the bloody book deal is any kind of coincidence. Man, it was completely planned out and no way did he ever bet on the fact that Fred Goldman would come after him with all he's got this way and win so far.

That lyin' daugther Arnelle of his oughta learn better by now. :no:

:beer: :beer:

[martin II]

LBA didn't earn that money. Simpson did. Simpson is trying to slip the money on the by and by right past Mr Goldman. That's why the judge didn't dismiss Mr Goldman's suit.

tazzy hi

The bankruptcy judge has appointed a trustee to liquidate the assets of LBA
and use that money to pay the legal creditors of LBA. According to the article
posted here a few weeks ago.

LBA Creditors are companies /people that have given services, products or money to LBA and have not been paid for these services/products/money by LBA.

So the question then becomes very simple. what products/services has Mr Goldman given to LBA that he had not been paid for.imo

If the answer is NONE, then he is not considered a LBA creditor. imo

martin II

[Martyrdom]

:beer: :beer:

I'm drinkin' those on up and comin' back for seconds:D

[fbgweezer]

tazzy hi

The bankruptcy judge has appointed a trustee to liquidate the assets of LBA
and use that money to pay the legal creditors of LBA. According to the article
posted here a few weeks ago.

LBA Creditors are companies /people that have given services, products or money to LBA and have not been paid for these services/products/money by LBA.

So the question then becomes very simple. what products/services has Mr Goldman given to LBA that he had not been paid for.imo

If the answer is NONE, then he is not considered a LBA creditor. imo

martin II

do you know what creditors LBA had and whether or not Mr. Goldman was one? I can't imagine LBA had any debt since it was a bogus company set-up to allow orenthal to funnel money to himself in the name of his children. He absolutely is shameless. IMO

[martin II]

LBA didn't earn that money. Simpson did. Simpson is trying to slip the money on the by and by right past Mr Goldman. That's why the judge didn't dismiss Mr Goldman's suit.

TAZZY HI

Mr Goldman asked the judge to just give him the assets of LBA (the title to the book) to settle a judgement he has against OJ SIMPSON and just forget about the legal creditors of LBA. you think that will work?
imo
martin II

[martin II]

do you know what creditors LBA had and whether or not Mr. Goldman was one? I can't imagine LBA had any debt since it was a bogus company set-up to allow orenthal to funnel money to himself in the name of his children. He absolutely is shameless. IMO

LBA was required to give the bankrutycy judge all corporate records and a full list of all LBAs debits/liabilities/creditors. LBA did have debt owed to these creditors and the bankruptcy court knows who they are and why and how the debt was made.

I would assume that notices have gone out to all of these creditors and they may have already had a creditors meeting with the judge appointed trustee who has control of LBA assets (if in fact the assets are going to be liquidated) and is the person that will sell the assets.

Freds judgement is against OJ SIMPSON not LBA. The legal creditors will not allow a non creditor like fred to become a creditor based on hi judgement against someone not involved on LBA. Creditors have rights.

so how do you believe Fred could get to be a LBA creditor if he has had no business dealing with LBA.?
martin II

[tazzybaby]

do you know what creditors LBA had and whether or not Mr. Goldman was one? I can't imagine LBA had any debt since it was a bogus company set-up to allow orenthal to funnel money to himself in the name of his children. He absolutely is shameless. IMO

Exactly! And, Martin, do you know why they filed for bankruptcy? They were a fairly new company and as Weezer just pointed out why would they have debt?

My point is.....it's all a game. We understand that. You, deep down underneath understand that.

[fbgweezer]

Exactly! And, Martin, do you know why they filed for bankruptcy? They were a fairly new company and as Weezer just pointed out why would they have debt?

My point is.....it's all a game. We understand that. You, deep down underneath understand that.

LOL - he does understand it but if we gave him orenthal on video and audio doing the things he has done, martin would continue to defend him because as we know:

"Originally Posted by martin II
I don't think he is in a position to be concerned about all the moral issues some believe are so important."

[martin II]

Exactly! And, Martin, do you know why they filed for bankruptcy? They were a fairly new company and as Weezer just pointed out why would they have debt?

My point is.....it's all a game. We understand that. You, deep down underneath understand that.

tazzy hi

i am dealing with what i think is the legal situation in the banruptcy court.
not runaway emotions based on hatred of oj.

martinII

[martin II]

LOL - he does understand it but if we gave him orenthal on video and audio doing the things he has done, martin would continue to defend him because as we know:

"Originally Posted by martin II
I don't think he is in a position to be concerned about all the moral issues some believe are so important."


tazzy hi

AS FRED GOLDMANS lawyers seem to say, 'it's not personal it's only about business." or making free money.



Fred has used the law in many law suites to try to get some free money from OJ. Don't tell me oj cannot respond by using the laws that are available to him to protect his assets and the assets of his children.that make no sense.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

LOL - he does understand it but if we gave him orenthal on video and audio doing the things he has done, martin would continue to defend him because as we know:

"Originally Posted by martin II
I don't think he is in a position to be concerned about all the moral issues some believe are so important."

weezer

how does it help oj to try to live by some moral standards that some strangers that he does not know think are important. He is doing things for himself and his children.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Exactly! And, Martin, do you know why they filed for bankruptcy? They were a fairly new company and as Weezer just pointed out why would they have debt?

My point is.....it's all a game. We understand that. You, deep down underneath understand that.

weezer does know not what debt LBA had/made.obviously the judge agree that Lba had legitimate debt otherwise why would he appoint a trustee to sell the assets for the benefit of the legal creditors.

LBAS lawyers knew what they were doing when they filed barkruptcy for LBA.
martin II

[martin II]

Exactly! And, Martin, do you know why they filed for bankruptcy? They were a fairly new company and as Weezer just pointed out why would they have debt?

My point is.....it's all a game. We understand that. You, deep down underneath understand that.

tazzy hi

LBA filed banrkuptcy because Mr Goldmans was trying to make a end run on their assets(the book title) with that friend of theirs judge goldbergs unfair rulings in freds favor.

Fred and Judge goldberg were playing hard ball with LBA assets and LBA lawyers decided to play hardball back.

you do know that the creditors can decide to take the book title as a group
for their debt and then sell the book for their own profit. This would leave fred
on the sidelines again with no money.

martinii

[martin II]

LOL - he does understand it but if we gave him orenthal on video and audio doing the things he has done, martin would continue to defend him because as we know:

"Originally Posted by martin II
I don't think he is in a position to be concerned about all the moral issues some believe are so important."

waiting on you to show me fred is a LBA creditor.

[tvdinner]

tazzy hi

AS FRED GOLDMANS lawyers seem to say, 'it's not personal it's only about business." or making free money.

Fred has used the law in many law suites to try to get some free money from OJ. Don't tell me oj cannot respond by using the laws that are available to him to protect his assets and the assets of his children.that make no sense.
imo
martin IIFree money? I think not. Fred Goldman has paid the ultimate price...the loss of his child. It's not about getting money; it's about hitting Simpson where it hurts -- his wallet.

Fred Goldman isn't to blame for Simpson's current problems. The idea that Simpson is trying to secure his children's futures is silly. If he really cared about his children and their futures he wouldn't have slaughtered their mother.

[martin II]

Free money? I think not. Fred Goldman has paid the ultimate price...the loss of his child. It's not about getting money; it's about hitting Simpson where it hurts -- his wallet.

Fred Goldman isn't to blame for Simpson's current problems. The idea that Simpson is trying to secure his children's futures is silly. If he really cared about his children and their futures he wouldn't have slaughtered their mother.

tv
we don't know if oj slaughered anyone. some think he did and some think he did not. imo.
as tazzy said lba did not earn that money.so i say fred did not earn any money from the book. so yes Fred is trying to get some free money from a book he had nothing to do with.imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

tazzy hi

AS FRED GOLDMANS lawyers seem to say, 'it's not personal it's only about business." or making free money.



Fred has used the law in many law suites to try to get some free money from OJ. Don't tell me oj cannot respond by using the laws that are available to him to protect his assets and the assets of his children.that make no sense.
imo
martin II

again with the bashing of victims and families. :no:

[fbgweezer]

weezer

how does it help oj to try to live by some moral standards that some strangers that he does not know think are important. He is doing things for himself and his children.imo
martin II

moral standards are moral standards but I'm not surprised that you would even argue that point. orenthal has been taking care of orenthal after murdering the mother of his children. IMO

[fbgweezer]

tazzy hi

LBA filed banrkuptcy because Mr Goldmans was trying to make a end run on their assets(the book title) with that friend of theirs judge goldbergs unfair rulings in freds favor.

Fred and Judge goldberg were playing hard ball with LBA assets and LBA lawyers decided to play hardball back.

you do know that the creditors can decide to take the book title as a group
for their debt and then sell the book for their own profit. This would leave fred
on the sidelines again with no money.

martinii

is that what you think will happen martin? can you post any link that shows that Mr. Goldman is not a creditor?

[fbgweezer]

waiting on you to show me fred is a LBA creditor.

waiting on you to show me Mr. Goldman is not a creditor.

[fbgweezer]

tv
we don't know if oj slaughered anyone. some think he did and some think he did not. imo.
as tazzy said lba did not earn that money.so i say fred did not earn any money from the book. so yes Fred is trying to get some free money from a book he had nothing to do with.imo
martin II

okay then -- if LBA didn't earn the money, then that must mean orenthal did and as we all know, orenthal has a multi-million dollar judgment against him for murdering two human beings. Right?

[tvdinner]

weezer

how does it help oj to try to live by some moral standards that some strangers that he does not know think are important. martin II

martin, there are general moral standards that most people try to live by. It's how we remain a civilized society. I'm not surprised that Simpson thinks he's not required to lived by those standards. He is doing things for himself and his children.imo Exactly, it's always about him.

[socaldiva]

Free money? I think not. Fred Goldman has paid the ultimate price...the loss of his child. It's not about getting money; it's about hitting Simpson where it hurts -- his wallet.

Fred Goldman isn't to blame for Simpson's current problems. The idea that Simpson is trying to secure his children's futures is silly. If he really cared about his children and their futures he wouldn't have slaughtered their mother.


:beer: :beer:

[socaldiva]

*snip*

how does it help oj to try to live by some moral standards that some strangers that he does not know think are important.

Orenthal sure seemed to care about what "some strangers that he does not know" when he wrote in his suicide letter "I can't live with people pointing at me" or words to that effect. I think the difference now is that he knows society is done with him & he can't buy his way back, so why pay. He only does things that have a benefit to him. No morals. imo

[socaldiva]

waiting on you to show me Mr. Goldman is not a creditor.

The other day Bob asked you for a link & you accused him of baiting. Why is it different when you ask for links?

[2L8 4A D8]

Hi Tazzy! Forgive my question, but what is Martin talking about re: "I don't understand why Fred would reject $7,000,000 back in the 1990s. That money would be worth a lot more by now. And please don't tell me Fred does not want the money. imo"

Hello? "I don't understand why Fred would reject $7,000,000 back in the 1990s?" OJ didn't commit the murders until June 12, 1994, right? Either a TYPO has been made or maybe I've read something wrong! Please advise. Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!

This happened around the civil trial not the criminal trial. Is that what you're asking?

:seeya:

No! This is not what I was asking!

Martin was talking about 1990. About OJ offering Fred Goldman $7,000,000 for Goldman's half of his $16,750,000 of the total $33,500,000 Civil Trial (Monetary) Verdict between Goldman and the Brown's. However, OJ didn't even know Ron Goldman or his Father Fred Goldman in 1990 AND OJ didn't murder Nicole and Ron until 6-12-94, 4 years later than 1990!

Martin is now stating that YOU posted the link (?) of $7,000,000 which happened in 1990! So, who made the typo? You, the link or Martin?

I hope that this helps!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

okay then -- if LBA didn't earn the money, then that must mean orenthal did and as we all know, orenthal has a multi-million dollar judgment against him for murdering two human beings. Right?

i was not involved in the HC contract with LBA but obviously HC lawyers agreed that LBA was a legal partner in a regular HC book contract that they sign with companies frequently imo

Your opinion on what LBA did is your opinion has nothing to do with the law.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

martin, there are general moral standards that most people try to live by. It's how we remain a civilized society. I'm not surprised that Simpson thinks he's not required to lived by those standards. Exactly, it's always about him.

tv
i cannot make moral judgement for another person based on mine.imo
martin II

[martin II]

waiting on you to show me Mr. Goldman is not a creditor.

weezer
i have already given my opinion on the requirements to be considered a creditor based on bankruptcy laws. I have not seen the creditors list as i am not sure it has been made public but if you have thel list you can inform all of us. or you can make a agrument as to why you think he is. imo
martin II

[tazzybaby]

TAZZY HI

Mr Goldman asked the judge to just give him the assets of LBA (the title to the book) to settle a judgement he has against OJ SIMPSON and just forget about the legal creditors of LBA. you think that will work?
imo
martin II

I guess it will work if they consider LBA a legitimate receiver of Simpson's book money. Who are the legal creditors of LBA?

[martin II]

I guess it will work if they consider LBA a legitimate receiver of Simpson's book money. Who are the legal creditors of LBA?

tazzy hi
i have not seen a creditors list and don't believe it is made public. if anyone knows that MR Goldman has been made a creditor i would like to see the judges decision.

otherwise here is a link to general info available to anyone.

it is my understanding that LBA was required to give the judge/trustee a list of their creditors and docs to support that list.

do you know of any business transaciton between LBA and Mr Goldman?

http://www.moranlaw.net/glossary.htm#Creditor

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

i am dealing with what i think is the legal situation in the banruptcy court.
not runaway emotions based on hatred of oj.

martinII


lol....I don't hate OJ. I hate what he does and what he's done. There is a difference. And, is that why you get so mad at everyone for not leaving OJ alone? It is a legal demand that he pays the civil judgement. But, you seem okay that he doesn't. You seem okay that he uses the law to not pay something that he is legally suppose to pay.

And, legal or not you know what's going on.

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

AS FRED GOLDMANS lawyers seem to say, 'it's not personal it's only about business." or making free money.



Fred has used the law in many law suites to try to get some free money from OJ. Don't tell me oj cannot respond by using the laws that are available to him to protect his assets and the assets of his children.that make no sense.
imo
martin II

Free money? That seems like (with that phrase "free") that you're letting your emotions get in the way.

OJ has used the law from the very beginning to NOT pay what he is LEGALLY suppose to pay.

[martin II]

I guess it will work if they consider LBA a legitimate receiver of Simpson's book money. Who are the legal creditors of LBA?

tazzy hi

there seems to be a legal firewall between LBA and OJ.imo
martin ii

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi

LBA filed banrkuptcy because Mr Goldmans was trying to make a end run on their assets(the book title) with that friend of theirs judge goldbergs unfair rulings in freds favor.

Fred and Judge goldberg were playing hard ball with LBA assets and LBA lawyers decided to play hardball back.

you do know that the creditors can decide to take the book title as a group
for their debt and then sell the book for their own profit. This would leave fred
on the sidelines again with no money.

martinii

Martin, how in the world would LBA have any creditors at all? It is a trustee account for the kids, remember? So, what kind of freakin' company is this?

[tazzybaby]

Free money? I think not. Fred Goldman has paid the ultimate price...the loss of his child. It's not about getting money; it's about hitting Simpson where it hurts -- his wallet.

Fred Goldman isn't to blame for Simpson's current problems. The idea that Simpson is trying to secure his children's futures is silly. If he really cared about his children and their futures he wouldn't have slaughtered their mother.

Great Post!!

:seeya:

[Kate Sachel]

weezer
i have already given my opinion on the requirements to be considered a creditor based on bankruptcy laws. I have not seen the creditors list as i am not sure it has been made public but if you have thel list you can inform all of us. or you can make a agrument as to why you think he is. imo
martin II

Here's why I think Fred is a creditor of LBA;

Fred Goldman was awarded a judgment against OJ Simpson, who has failed to pay which means that Fred can pursue additional collection avenues. Now, if a person who has a judgment against them (OJ Simpson) tranfers assets to another person or company in an attempt not to pay, then the judgment creditor (Fred Goldman) can legally sue the third party who now retains possession of the assets (in this case it would be LBA).

Kate

[tazzybaby]

tv
we don't know if oj slaughered anyone. some think he did and some think he did not. imo.
as tazzy said lba did not earn that money.so i say fred did not earn any money from the book. so yes Fred is trying to get some free money from a book he had nothing to do with.imo
martin II

But, the money was made by Simpson. Simpson owes the Goldman's so it's not FREE money. It is owed to him.

[fbgweezer]

But, the money was made by Simpson. Simpson owes the Goldman's so it's not FREE money. It is owed to him.

man, oh, man -- I wouldn't want to give up my child for FREE money from orenthal or anyone else!

[fbgweezer]

Here's why I think Fred is a creditor of LBA;

Fred Goldman was awarded a judgment against OJ Simpson, who has failed to pay which means that Fred can pursue additional collection avenues. Now, if a person who has a judgment against them (OJ Simpson) tranfers assets to another person or company in an attempt not to pay, then the judgment creditor (Fred Goldman) can legally sue the third party who now retains possession of the assets (in this case it would be LBA).

Kate

thanks Kate. I think most folks agree --

[tazzybaby]

No! This is not what I was asking!

Martin was talking about 1990. About OJ offering Fred Goldman $7,000,000 for Goldman's half of his $16,750,000 of the total $33,500,000 Civil Trial (Monetary) Verdict between Goldman and the Brown's. However, OJ didn't even know Ron Goldman or his Father Fred Goldman in 1990 AND OJ didn't murder Nicole and Ron until 6-12-94, 4 years later than 1990!

Martin is now stating that YOU posted the link (?) of $7,000,000 which happened in 1990! So, who made the typo? You, the link or Martin?

I hope that this helps!

JMO and MOO!!

Ooooohhhhhh......lol I was way off!

That is definately a typo. The stupid link isn't working any more. And, I don't think the link said that. I think I would of noticed but I could be wrong. So sorry, but I don't think I cleared up much...lol I do know that I didn't say that.

:seeya:

[tazzybaby]

tazzy hi
i have not seen a creditors list and don't believe it is made public. if anyone knows that MR Goldman has been made a creditor i would like to see the judges decision.

otherwise here is a link to general info available to anyone.

it is my understanding that LBA was required to give the judge/trustee a list of their creditors and docs to support that list.

do you know of any business transaciton between LBA and Mr Goldman?

http://www.moranlaw.net/glossary.htm#Creditor


I don't think anyone has that list. I'd like to see it if they did. Like I stated previously, I don't understand HOW there could be any creditors. From what OJ was stating was that this was a trustee account for his kids and to "establish a legacy" for them. How could there be true creditors? What was he paying bills from there? That doesn't seem like a trust to establish a legacy for his kids to me.

[tazzybaby]

Here's why I think Fred is a creditor of LBA;

Fred Goldman was awarded a judgment against OJ Simpson, who has failed to pay which means that Fred can pursue additional collection avenues. Now, if a person who has a judgment against them (OJ Simpson) tranfers assets to another person or company in an attempt not to pay, then the judgment creditor (Fred Goldman) can legally sue the third party who now retains possession of the assets (in this case it would be LBA).

Kate

I completely agree!

:beer:

[fbgweezer]

went looking for creditors and found this website -- very interesting reading:

Following are excerpts from various newspaper and other publications relating to the efforts by the judgment creditors in the O.J. Simpson civil trial to seize and sell O.J.'s assets and apply the sale proceeds to their judgments which aggregate $33.5 million. The publications illustrate both the procedures that creditors can use to reach O.J.'s assets, along with the effect of the exemptions which California law provides to judgment debtors.

http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/cohen/cletranscripts/oj-news1.htm

[martin II]

lol....I don't hate OJ. I hate what he does and what he's done. There is a difference. And, is that why you get so mad at everyone for not leaving OJ alone? It is a legal demand that he pays the civil judgement. But, you seem okay that he doesn't. You seem okay that he uses the law to not pay something that he is legally suppose to pay.

And, legal or not you know what's going on.

tazzy hi
your beef may be with the legal system and the way some laws are written.
people have a right to take advantage of the laws to protect themselves and their assets. oj is no different. imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

tazzy hi
your beef may be with the legal system and the way some laws are written.
people have a right to take advantage of the laws to protect themselves and their assets. oj is no different. imo
martin II

I don't think Orenthal is "taking advantage of the laws", he is evading a judgement. Nothing legal about that. imo

[martin II]

went looking for creditors and found this website -- very interesting reading:

Following are excerpts from various newspaper and other publications relating to the efforts by the judgment creditors in the O.J. Simpson civil trial to seize and sell O.J.'s assets and apply the sale proceeds to their judgments which aggregate $33.5 million. The publications illustrate both the procedures that creditors can use to reach O.J.'s assets, along with the effect of the exemptions which California law provides to judgment debtors.

http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/cohen/cletranscripts/oj-news1.htm

weezer
most of this info in your link, is dated 1997 and is based on ca law.

this is 2007 and the LBA bankruptcy is filed in Florida.

so far what has been made public that i know about is that the judge has assigned the case to a trustee and ordered that all LBA assets be liqudated to satisfy LBA creditors claims.
imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

weezer
most of this info in your link, is dated 1997 and is based on ca law.

this is 2007 and the LBA bankruptcy is filed in Florida.

so far what has been made public that i know about is that the judge has assigned the case to a trustee and ordered that all LBA assets be liqudated to satisfy LBA creditors claims.
imo
martin II

hello? the judgment is in California.

[martin II]

hello? the judgment is in California.

and it has been for 12 years and Mr Goldman has received $29.00 from oj s movie royalties. I guess Oj must have left that money in that bank account for Mr Goldman. That is according to previous post on this subject. imo

martin II

[fbgweezer]

and it has been for 12 years and Mr Goldman has received $29.00 from oj s movie royalties. I guess Oj must have left that money in that bank account for Mr Goldman. That is according to previous post on this subject. imo

martin II

you really should read the articles in the links I provided -- you'd realize :eek: that orenthal lost much more than $29

[socaldiva]

you really should read the articles in the links I provided -- you'd realize :eek: that orenthal lost much more than $29

The Heisman Trophy comes to mind ;)

[martin II]

you really should read the articles in the links I provided -- you'd realize :eek: that orenthal lost much more than $29

weezer
Bottom line
All of these decisions and opinions are about mr Goldmans attempts at getting money from mr Sinpson.
How much money has Mr Goldman received from Oj Simpson in the last 12 years as a result of the judgement he has against OJ Simpson.IMO
MARTIN ii

[fbgweezer]

weezer
Bottom line
All of these decisions and opinions are about mr Goldmans attempts at getting money from mr Sinpson.
How much money has Mr Goldman received from Oj Simpson in the last 12 years as a result of the judgement he has against OJ Simpson.IMO
MARTIN ii

LOL --- here's the problem martin, you don't get the 'bottom line' --

"I don't think Fred Goldman gives two tinker's damns about collecting his money. I think he's out to make O.J. Simpson miserable." Quote from previous articles link supplied above

[fbgweezer]

weezer
Bottom line
All of these decisions and opinions are about mr Goldmans attempts at getting money from mr Sinpson.
How much money has Mr Goldman received from Oj Simpson in the last 12 years as a result of the judgement he has against OJ Simpson.IMO
MARTIN ii

speaking of orenthal's losses:
http://www.chronicledirect.com/trial/oj.html

"A New Hampshire intellectual property attorney, William B. Ritchie, challenged the validity of O.J.'s trademarks under a federal statute that bars immoral, deceptive, or scandalous subject matter. Ritchie argued that because of the whole sequence of events from 1994 through 1997, O.J.'s very name had become immoral and scandalous and thus could not be protected as a trademark. Ritchie convinced the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that he had standing to challenge O.J.'s trademarks under the Lanham Act. O.J. has since abandoned his trademarks." (emphasis mine)

[FlowerPower]

I don't think Orenthal is "taking advantage of the laws", he is evading a judgement. Nothing legal about that. imo


I completely agree! What kind of example is he creating for his children? It's okay to not fulfill your obligations? He should be an example for them not an embarassment! How can the laws be used this way? And, how can anyone think it's okay to use the laws this way? This is absurd!

:flamemad:

[martin II]

speaking of orenthal's losses:
http://www.chronicledirect.com/trial/oj.html

"A New Hampshire intellectual property attorney, William B. Ritchie, challenged the validity of O.J.'s trademarks under a federal statute that bars immoral, deceptive, or scandalous subject matter. Ritchie argued that because of the whole sequence of events from 1994 through 1997, O.J.'s very name had become immoral and scandalous and thus could not be protected as a trademark. Ritchie convinced the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that he had standing to challenge O.J.'s trademarks under the Lanham Act. O.J. has since abandoned his trademarks." (emphasis mine)

if you like you can see latest CA judges ruling on Mr Goldmans attempt in court to take OJs intellectual property/trademark.imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

if you like you can see latest CA judges ruling on Mr Goldmans attempt in court to take OJs intellectual property/trademark.imo
martin II

this doesn't have anything to do with Mr. Goldman's efforts.

[martin II]

if you like you can see latest CA judges ruling on Mr Goldmans attempt in court to take OJs intellectual property/trademark.imo
martin II

it sure would be nice if court doc to this case had been posted.

can you prove that oj has given up his trademark?

i will ask tazzy if she has the link to the latest CA judge ruling that it would be unconstutitional to give Mr Goldman Mr Sinmpsons intellectual rights and trademark.imo

i am going out and do not have time to look it up but we did discuss this before.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

speaking of orenthal's losses:
http://www.chronicledirect.com/trial/oj.html

"A New Hampshire intellectual property attorney, William B. Ritchie, challenged the validity of O.J.'s trademarks under a federal statute that bars immoral, deceptive, or scandalous subject matter. Ritchie argued that because of the whole sequence of events from 1994 through 1997, O.J.'s very name had become immoral and scandalous and thus could not be protected as a trademark. Ritchie convinced the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that he had standing to challenge O.J.'s trademarks under the Lanham Act. O.J. has since abandoned his trademarks." (emphasis mine)

weezer
prior to this reported court of appeals action ,this case was heard in what state court?

martin II

[tvdinner]

LOL --- here's the problem martin, you don't get the 'bottom line' --

"I don't think Fred Goldman gives two tinker's damns about collecting his money. I think he's out to make O.J. Simpson miserable." Quote from previous articles link supplied aboveMaking OJ miserable -- yep, that's the whole point! :D

[fbgweezer]

weezer
prior to this reported court of appeals action ,this case was heard in what state court?

martin II

the link cites the case -- feel free to research

[2L8 4A D8]

Ooooohhhhhh......lol I was way off!

That is definately a typo. The stupid link isn't working any more. And, I don't think the link said that. I think I would of noticed but I could be wrong. So sorry, but I don't think I cleared up much...lol I do know that I didn't say that.

:seeya:

Thanks Tazzy. It involves the Civil Trial Verdict, whatever the date was and it certainly wasn't 1990 like what was stated that's for sure! No big deal! It was just like "Huh?" and I felt I sure in the heck must have missed something when I was reading it all! LOL!

[martin II]

Making OJ miserable -- yep, that's the whole point! :D

If Mr Goldman does not want the money, then why is he in florida trying to get the rights to the book? his lawyer said he want to get the rights to the book so he can sell it for profit for himnself. imo
sounds like he wants to money to me.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

the link cites the case -- feel free to research

that post you made sound like the same agrument that Fred used and lost on.

can you prove that oj has stopped using his trademark? a link will do.

martin II

[martin II]

the link cites the case -- feel free to research

you posted the story and now you tell me to do the reseatch to prove your story is true??

martin II

[socaldiva]

If Mr Goldman does not want the money, then why is he in florida trying to get the rights to the book? his lawyer said he want to get the rights to the book so he can sell it for profit for himnself. imo
sounds like he wants to money to me.

imo
martin II

He probably wants to control who does what with the rights to the book. At this point, who cares if he makes a profit? He is owed 33.5 million & he didn't write the book. It already exists, because the killer wrote it.

[martin II]

speaking of orenthal's losses:
http://www.chronicledirect.com/trial/oj.html

"A New Hampshire intellectual property attorney, William B. Ritchie, challenged the validity of O.J.'s trademarks under a federal statute that bars immoral, deceptive, or scandalous subject matter. Ritchie argued that because of the whole sequence of events from 1994 through 1997, O.J.'s very name had become immoral and scandalous and thus could not be protected as a trademark. Ritchie convinced the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that he had standing to challenge O.J.'s trademarks under the Lanham Act. O.J. has since abandoned his trademarks." (emphasis mine)

weezer

would you be able to post the appeals court decision on this reported court action that you have posted?

martin II

[martin II]

speaking of orenthal's losses:
http://www.chronicledirect.com/trial/oj.html

"A New Hampshire intellectual property attorney, William B. Ritchie, challenged the validity of O.J.'s trademarks under a federal statute that bars immoral, deceptive, or scandalous subject matter. Ritchie argued that because of the whole sequence of events from 1994 through 1997, O.J.'s very name had become immoral and scandalous and thus could not be protected as a trademark. Ritchie convinced the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that he had standing to challenge O.J.'s trademarks under the Lanham Act. O.J. has since abandoned his trademarks." (emphasis mine)

weezer

This is the results of the case imo
In summary, applicant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing is granted. [FN2] The aforenamed oppositions are dismissed with prejudice.





http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/TTAB_Decisions/TTAB_Appeal_99845.asp

[fbgweezer]

that post you made sound like the same agrument that Fred used and lost on.

can you prove that oj has stopped using his trademark? a link will do.

martin II

I posted a link. Can you prove that orenthal has NOT stopped using his trademark? a link will do.

[fbgweezer]

weezer

would you be able to post the appeals court decision on this reported court action that you have posted?

martin II

I posted the link - feel free to read up on it.

[fbgweezer]

weezer

This is the results of the case imo
In summary, applicant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing is granted. [FN2] The aforenamed oppositions are dismissed with prejudice.

http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/TTAB_Decisions/TTAB_Appeal_99845.asp

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit
97-1371
(Opposition Nos. 99,845, 100,431
101,186 and 101,216)
WILLIAM B. RITCHIE,
Appellant,
v.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,
Appellee.
William B. Ritchie, pro se, of Concord, New Hampshire.
Appealed from: Patent and Trademark Office
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
"Because the law as properly understood grants standing in an opposition proceeding to a person in Mr. Ritchie's position, we reverse the decision of the Board and remand the case for further proceedings."

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1371.pdf

[fbgweezer]

I especially liked this part of the ruling:

"In his notice of opposition, at paragraph eight, Mr. Ritchie alleges that he has obtained petitions signed by people from all over the United States who agree with him that the marks at issue are scandalous, denigrate their values, encourage spousal abuse and minimize the problem of domestic violence. Again, for purposes of the motion to dismiss on the pleadings for lack of standing, we accept as true all well-pled allegations. Those allegations are more than sufficient to establish that he has objective proof that he is not alone in believing that he would be damaged if the marks were registered. Therefore, Mr. Ritchie's belief of damage, for purposes of the motion, has a reasonable basis in fact."

[fbgweezer]

and this part too:

"Therefore, we must accept as true Mr. Ritchie's belief in a loving and nurturing relationship between husband and wife and the allegation that the marks are synonymous with wife-beater and wife-murderer. Given those assumptions, the potential injury sustained by Mr. Ritchie if the mark is registered is the disparagement of his alleged belief in a loving and nurturing relationship between husband and wife. Thus, Mr. Ritchie, himself, would suffer an injury - disparagement."

[martin II]

and this part too:

"Therefore, we must accept as true Mr. Ritchie's belief in a loving and nurturing relationship between husband and wife and the allegation that the marks are synonymous with wife-beater and wife-murderer. Given those assumptions, the potential injury sustained by Mr. Ritchie if the mark is registered is the disparagement of his alleged belief in a loving and nurturing relationship between husband and wife. Thus, Mr. Ritchie, himself, would suffer an injury - disparagement."

weezer

what does the comments at the bottom of page 13 mean to you.

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1371.pdf


martin II

[tvdinner]

If Mr Goldman does not want the money, then why is he in florida trying to get the rights to the book? his lawyer said he want to get the rights to the book so he can sell it for profit for himnself. imo
sounds like he wants to money to me.

imo
martin II

Do you have any doubt what the answer would be if Mr. Goldman had a choice between collecting from Simpson or getting his son back? I don't understand the need to demonize Mr. Goldman. His trying to get justice for his son from the man who brutally killed him.

[martin II]

and this part too:

"Therefore, we must accept as true Mr. Ritchie's belief in a loving and nurturing relationship between husband and wife and the allegation that the marks are synonymous with wife-beater and wife-murderer. Given those assumptions, the potential injury sustained by Mr. Ritchie if the mark is registered is the disparagement of his alleged belief in a loving and nurturing relationship between husband and wife. Thus, Mr. Ritchie, himself, would suffer an injury - disparagement."

what do you think the comments on page 13 and 14 mean to this case.

martin II

[martin II]

Do you have any doubt what the answer would be if Mr. Goldman had a choice between collecting from Simpson or getting his son back? I don't understand the need to demonize Mr. Goldman. His trying to get justice for his son from the man who brutally killed him.

tv

it is not demonizing Mr Goldman to comment on his current actions in public.
martin II

[martin II]

all

here are the results of superior court justice Linda lefkowits decision of MrGoldmans attempts to get mr simpsons image for his use.

nov 07

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20061102-1801-ca-simpsonsuit.html

[martin II]

I posted a link. Can you prove that orenthal has NOT stopped using his trademark? a link will do.

weezre
you posted a story statin that mr simpson has stopped using his trademark. I Ayou for a link to prove this statement and you suggest that i prove that he has not stopped using it.

i thought you were required to post links to prove your claim.

martin II

[martin II]

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit
97-1371
(Opposition Nos. 99,845, 100,431
101,186 and 101,216)
WILLIAM B. RITCHIE,
Appellant,
v.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,
Appellee.
William B. Ritchie, pro se, of Concord, New Hampshire.
Appealed from: Patent and Trademark Office
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
"Because the law as properly understood grants standing in an opposition proceeding to a person in Mr. Ritchie's position, we reverse the decision of the Board and remand the case for further proceedings."

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1371.pdf

weezer

So this court overuled the lower court 2 to 1 and ruled that the guy had standing. Case was remanded back. I agree with judge NEWMAN

this case4 was only about standing.

so what did Mr Richie do after he was granted standing??

martin II

[socaldiva]

tv

it is not demonizing Mr Goldman to comment on his current actions in public.
martin II

Everyone here has seen what you post about Goldman, so please don't try to spin in into something neutral or harmless.

[tvdinner]

tv

it is not demonizing Mr Goldman to comment on his current actions in public.
martin II
martin, what is your opinion on the reason that Mr. Goldman believes in Simpson's guilt and continues to pursue compensation from him for the loss of Ron Goldman's life? I apologize if you've stated this elsewhere but I'm new to this board and wouldn't know if you have.

Do you think Mr. Goldman is delusional? That he just wanted a rich celebrity convicted of the crime so he could collect money? That he just decided he would devote his life to ruining Simpson's life for no reason?

[martin II]

martin, what is your opinion on the reason that Mr. Goldman believes in Simpson's guilt and continues to pursue compensation from him for the loss of Ron Goldman's life? I apologize if you've stated this elsewhere but I'm new to this board and wouldn't know if you have.

Do you think Mr. Goldman is delusional? That he just wanted a rich celebrity convicted of the crime so he could collect money? That he just decided he would devote his life to ruining Simpson's life for no reason?

tv i believe mr goldman does not agree with the criminal trial verdict. i believe that he believes oj killed his son. at least that is what he says publically.

I also believe that he has decided to spend as much energy available to him to make money from his sons death.
I based this on his recent public efforts to get the title of that book from oj's children so he can sell it for profit for himself . Also on his lawyers comments that Mr Goldman wants to even PAY money to get the rights so he can then sell the book.
imo

martin II

[tvdinner]

tv i believe mr goldman does not agree with the criminal trial verdict. i believe that he believes oj killed his son. at least that is what he says publically.

I also believe that he has decided to spend as much energy available to him to make money from his sons death.
I based this on his recent public efforts to get the title of that book from oj's children so he can sell it for profit for himself . Also on his lawyers comments that Mr Goldman wants to even PAY money to get the rights so he can then sell the book.
imo

martin IImartin, I'm not familiar with Mr. Goldman's efforts to get the title of the book from Simpson's children so I won't argue that point with you.

If, as you and I agree, Fred Goldman is convinced that Simpson killed his son then why is it so hard for you to believe that everything Mr. Goldman does is an effort to make Simpson suffer for killing his son? It's not about personal gain. If he's so interested in money why would he PAY for the title of the book?

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I based this on his recent public efforts to get the title of that book from oj's children so he can sell it for profit for himself .

You posted about him being after money long before the book was ever written or conceived. :no:

[martin II]

martin, I'm not familiar with Mr. Goldman's efforts to get the title of the book from Simpson's children so I won't argue that point with you.

If, as you and I agree, Fred Goldman is convinced that Simpson killed his son then why is it so hard for you to believe that everything Mr. Goldman does is an effort to make Simpson suffer for killing his son? It's not about personal gain. If he's so interested in money why would he PAY for the title of the book?

tv

Mr Goldman has been trying in verious ways to get control of this book from the time it was announced. 2-3 months ago he went to court and won a decision that the book be auctioned off and the money given to him.free.

he was please as his lawyers then advertized to publishers and movie maker that he would have the rights to sell after the auction.

lba stopped the auction by filing banrkuptcy in Florida. at this point mr Goldman decided that he would try to get the bankruptcy judge to let him bid on the title so he could package it and sell it for profit for himself.

now that seems like someone thats in this for the personal profit. to me. imo

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

you posted the story and now you tell me to do the reseatch to prove your story is true??

martin II

Yeah, sorta like Posters asking YOU for links, etc. and YOU flat don't give them to Posters! Sorta, like that! You know, right? So Yeah, "research to prove your story is true" like the rest of us have to do when we FLAT ***** ask you to hand out links, etc. that we request from you! Uh huh! Oh yeah! Uh huh!

Originally Posted by 2L8 4A D8
Posted Today, 02:48 PM

Hi! How much longer does it take for Posters to receive links, etc. from other Posters that they request this info for? It seems like the links, etc. are always requested, but the links, etc. are then never received by the Poster requesting it!

It's infuriating. I can only hope that when the links, etc. are not received that it is reported to Freshwater against the Poster who NEVER supplys the links, etc.

Just wondering because maybe Posters just don't care anymore or think that it is necessary to prove their links, etc. All of us need to be held accountable for Freshwater's policies and procedures of now supplying links, etc. when requested by ALL Posters!

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

tv
another issue is that according to the H C contract oj was to received about $850,000 which we believe he has received and he says he spent.

The balance of the commissions from the sale of the HC book was scheduled to go to ojs children which the two kids by nicole are a part.50%

as it is now Mr Goldan does not agree that nicoles two children should get any money if this book is ever sold as he is trying to get the rights for himself
from LBA. so under what conditions would nicoles two children NOT be entitled to this money and Mr GOLDMAN is entitled to all of it.
If he is not in this for the money then set up a foundation in his sons name or give whatever money he does get, if he get any to the NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON FOUNDATION. all my opinion.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
If he is not in this for the money then set up a foundation in his sons name or give whatever money he does get, if he get any to the NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON FOUNDATION. all my opinion.

I don't hear any reports of Simpson donating money to the Nicole Brown Simpson Foundation. ;)

[tvdinner]

tv
another issue is that according to the H C contract oj was to received about $850,000 which we believe he has received and he says he spent.

The balance of the commissions from the sale of the HC book was scheduled to go to ojs children which the two kids by nicole are a part.50%

as it is now Mr Goldan does not agree that nicoles two children should get any money if this book is ever sold as he is trying to get the rights for himself
from LBA. so under what conditions would nicoles two children NOT be entitled to this money and Mr GOLDMAN is entitled to all of it.
If he is not in this for the money then set up a foundation in his sons name or give whatever money he does get, if he get any to the NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON FOUNDATION. all my opinion.martin, this is opinion only, I don't think Mr. Goldman has a problem with the children getting money but he doesn't want it to end up in Simpson's hands.

I don't hear any reports of Simpson donating money to the Nicole Brown Simpson Foundation:rolleyes:

[socaldiva]

martin, this is opinion only, I don't think Mr. Goldman has a problem with the children getting money but he doesn't want it to end up in Simpson's hands.

:rolleyes:

What's with the eye roll relative to my post? I thought it was a valid point that Martin thinks Fred Goldman should donate proceeds from the book to the NBS Foundation, yet he didn't/doesn't expect the same from Simpson :shrug:

[tvdinner]

What's with the eye roll relative to my post? I thought it was a valid point that Martin thinks Fred Goldman should donate proceeds from the book to the NBS Foundation, yet he didn't/doesn't expect the same from Simpson :shrug:socaldiva, I was rolling eyes at the idea of Simpson contributing to the Nicole Brown Simpson Foundation. I agree with you completely. I apologize if I wasn't clear. :o

[martin II]

tv

i don't thinbk thewre will ever be a solution to this.

maby if Mr Goldman is able to out bid others and get the rights and then sell the book about his sons death for profit for himself then maby the money will satisfy him.

it is reported that only one chapter in the book talks about the murder in some unreal comic way. the rest is oj talking about his 17 year relationship with nicole. i am wondering who will buy the book.imo
martin II

[martin II]

tv
i did not notice the typos until it was too late to edit
sorry.
martin II

[martin II]

I posted a link. Can you prove that orenthal has NOT stopped using his trademark? a link will do.

weezer
i did a little research and came up with the folowing.

The lawyers appeals court action was in 1996 for the oj simpson trade mark.

The trade mark link below says oj simpson mark was cancelled 6 years before the lawyer action. 1990.

i have no answer for this do you?

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pee2q0.8.45

oj simpson filed 1980
registered 1983

cancelled 1990

Lawyer action in appeals court 1996.
oh had cancelled the mark 6 years before lawyer went to court.

[socaldiva]

*snip*

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pee2q0.8.45



Once again, your link doesn't work.

[socaldiva]

socaldiva, I was rolling eyes at the idea of Simpson contributing to the Nicole Brown Simpson Foundation. I agree with you completely. I apologize if I wasn't clear. :o

Oh no, I didn't mean for you to feel bad. I just didn't understand. Thanks for clearing it up for me. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Here's why I think Fred is a creditor of LBA;

Fred Goldman was awarded a judgment against OJ Simpson, who has failed to pay which means that Fred can pursue additional collection avenues. Now, if a person who has a judgment against them (OJ Simpson) tranfers assets to another person or company in an attempt not to pay, then the judgment creditor (Fred Goldman) can legally sue the third party who now retains possession of the assets (in this case it would be LBA).

Kate

I wonder if he was working for or on behalf or LBA. I think that, if the property rights originally belonged to LBA, then they could not be creditors of Goldman. I think that, if the aforementioned was the case, then the only thing Goldman could pursue would be the wages paid Simpson by LBA. I understand that your scenario considers a fraudulent transfer. I only wonder whether or not there was a transfer. I would seem that Simpson's legal financial advisers would have planned for the contingency of which you speak.

[martin II]

I wonder if he was working for or on behalf or LBA. I think that, if the property rights originally belonged to LBA, then they could not be creditors of Goldman. I think that, if the aforementioned was the case, then the only thing Goldman could pursue would be the wages paid Simpson by LBA. I understand that your scenario considers a fraudulent transfer. I only wonder whether or not there was a transfer. I would seem that Simpson's legal financial advisers would have planned for the contingency of which you speak.

william
you are correct.

the HC contract details have benn discussed here and i assume most must have read them.

The rights to the title of the book did not GO through Mr Simpson to LBA.

The rights to the book went to LBA automatically from HC as per the contract
between HC and LBA when the book was not leagally published and distrubuted.

so there could not be any transfer by oj.

Since Mr Goldman never did business with LBA it is my opinion that he is not a creditor of LBA.

martin II
oj simpson is not a principal or strockholder of LBA.

[tvdinner]

tv

i don't thinbk thewre will ever be a solution to this.

maby if Mr Goldman is able to out bid others and get the rights and then sell the book about his sons death for profit for himself then maby the money will satisfy him.

it is reported that only one chapter in the book talks about the murder in some unreal comic way. the rest is oj talking about his 17 year relationship with nicole. i am wondering who will buy the book.imo
martin II
martin, I think you might be right that there will never be a solution. Both sides are equally determined to prevail, just like you and I are equally determined in our opinions of the case.

As for who will buy it, I'm not sure. I don't know how many people are interested in reading about Nicole and OJ's relationship instead of the murders.

Hey, don't worry about the typos. I'm the typo queen. :D

[martin II]

the HC book contract was signed by

VP LBA
J Rgean-ragan books
CEO of HC

It does appear that oj was working on behalf of LBA as a employee/broker to make sure LBA honored their part of the contract.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

martin, I think you might be right that there will never be a solution. Both sides are equally determined to prevail, just like you and I are equally determined in our opinions of the case.

As for who will buy it, I'm not sure. I don't know how many people are interested in reading about Nicole and OJ's relationship instead of the murders.

Hey, don't worry about the typos. I'm the typo queen. :D

tv
thanks

What i have always thought about this book that the publisher knew this would be a nothing book. kind of like some books that are heraled by big time marketing and the book turns out to be empty inside.

many people may not know that there is only one small chapter written by a ghost writer about the murders and based on what has been described even that is a trick chapter with no real information.

i think that people that buy the book will be disssapointed to know they have baught several chapters of oj giving his version of life with nicole.

imo

martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
What i have always thought about this book that the publisher knew this would be a nothing book.

What publisher would bother with a "nothing book", especially when they dish out a $850,000.00 (reported) advance fee? They are in the business of making money, not losing it.

[jotun]

tazzy hi
i got the link and believe the story. It is just that another poster suggested that oj's lawyer told a lie about the settlement being offered.



ALL:IMO

Martin,
Slates didn't tell a lie.The reporter got it WRONG. At a debtors hearing in 97 after the money verdict.Slates said on live tv,since Petroselli's law firm had spent 6-7 million on the money trial.Would think they would like to settle.IFF Goldmans would get it down to a reasonable sum.$300,000 + MAYBE O.J.would pay, even tho innocent.Since he lost,just to get the debt from hanging over his head.And to get on with his life.
That's what the reporter got wrong. The 7 million was what the plant-iffs payed out not the offer. If there was one.

limakey
O.J.'s home owners insurance paid for his defence.The agreement was for them to pay for his defence, then they would NOT have to pay the judgement.
Great for O.J., he had neither the ability or the intention to pay the judgement.And didn't want it payed for him.

IMO

jotun

[jotun]

if it was illegal for oj to hide his money and not pay the judgement he would be in jail by now.But i don't think one can be jailed for debt in the u.s. imo
what do you think?
martin II

martin
Me neither.
Is my understanding that O.J.is under NO OBLIGATION to send or inform goldman of ANY money he receives, to ask him how to spend it or where to hide it. Is up to goldman to find & attach it before O.J. gets it.

IMO

jotun

[jotun]

i think the important issue at this time is whether the trustee will allow Mr Goldman to bid on the rights to the book and if so will he be able to out bid any other publishing company or movie house or friend of oj simpson that MAY bid.imo

martin II

martin
Couldn't the kids buy themselfs out of bankruptcy?? Unless the media, who NOW seem disgusted with goldman, out-bid a publisher or a billionaire buddy, for him.Wish those kids would SUE goldman for causing the bankruptcy!!! That would put a new wrinkle in huh?

jotun

[martin II]

martin
Couldn't the kids buy themselfs out of bankruptcy?? Unless the media, who NOW seem disgusted with goldman, out-bid a publisher or a billionaire buddy, for him.Wish those kids would SUE goldman for causing the bankruptcy!!! That would put a new wrinkle in huh?

jotun

jotun

This is my opinion.
Currently the important issue is the creditors must be paid. imo
if the childrens trust has enough money it may be that the trust could pay off the creditors.

What i was thinking is that a 'GODFATHER' of lba could make a long term business loan to lba which would allow LBA to pay off their creditors,come out of bankruptcy and retain their assets.(book title) The "godfather" and LBA
could then sell the rights to a publisher or movie house and both could enjoy the profits. This way the trustee would not have to hold a bid sale.

oj would not be involved.
we will see how it works out.imo jmoo

martin II

[martin II]

martin
Me neither.
Is my understanding that O.J.is under NO OBLIGATION to send or inform goldman of ANY money he receives, to ask him how to spend it or where to hide it. Is up to goldman to find & attach it before O.J. gets it.

IMO

jotun

jotun

Freds Judgement is the same as a judgement any other creditor gets against a person for non payment of debt. I don't think most debitors call a judgement creditor and announce 'i hit the lottery yesterday'

there is no legal requirement that Mr Goldman be notified by Mr Simpson.
That is only my opinion.

martin II
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Unless the media, who NOW seem disgusted with goldman

Link to the media being disgusted with goldman.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
O.J.'s home owners insurance paid for his defence.The agreement was for them to pay for his defence, then they would NOT have to pay the judgement.


Please back up your claim.

[martin II]

ALL:IMO

Martin,
Slates didn't tell a lie.The reporter got it WRONG. At a debtors hearing in 97 after the money verdict.Slates said on live tv,since Petroselli's law firm had spent 6-7 million on the money trial.Would think they would like to settle.IFF Goldmans would get it down to a reasonable sum.$300,000 + MAYBE O.J.would pay, even tho innocent.Since he lost,just to get the debt from hanging over his head.And to get on with his life.
That's what the reporter got wrong. The 7 million was what the plant-iffs payed out not the offer. If there was one.

limakey
O.J.'s home owners insurance paid for his defence.The agreement was for them to pay for his defence, then they would NOT have to pay the judgement.
Great for O.J., he had neither the ability or the intention to pay the judgement.And didn't want it payed for him.

IMO

jotun

jotun
i think i do remember reading something to the effect that oj's insurance company paid his legal fees. cain't remember where as it was long ago.

I think a good homeowners insurance policy would have that provision. imo
martin II

martinII

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I think a good homeowners insurance policy would have that provision. imo
martin II


I think you are wrong. Since when does a homeowner's policy cover you for slashing two people to death on your property, let alone across town??? Please support your claim or retract it.

[martin II]

I wonder if he was working for or on behalf or LBA. I think that, if the property rights originally belonged to LBA, then they could not be creditors of Goldman. I think that, if the aforementioned was the case, then the only thing Goldman could pursue would be the wages paid Simpson by LBA. I understand that your scenario considers a fraudulent transfer. I only wonder whether or not there was a transfer. I would seem that Simpson's legal financial advisers would have planned for the contingency of which you speak.

william
I may be going out on a limb a lit but

It has been reported by Mr Goldmans lawyer that they plan to ask the Bankruptcy judge to allow them to bid on the LBA assets. The book title.
If true, then this indicates to me that they beleive this would be their best bet to get the title rather than trying to qualify as a creditor of LBA.jmoo imo
martin II

[martin II]

Jotun
previously there was some dissagreement on this subject.
I ran across this information today.I think this was the $29.00 royalty to oj for some old movie.imo
martin II


http://donoevil.netscape.com/story/2007/02/21/oj-loses-royalty-checks-to-goldmans

oj future royalty checks.

O.J. Loses Royalty checks to Goldmans
Do No Evil – A judge on Tuesday ordered that O.J. Simpson's income from past work in movies, television and commercials go directly to the family of murder victim Ron Goldman, but he rejected the family's bid to collect Simpson's earnings on future projects.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
previously there was some dissagreement on this subject.
I ran across this information today.I think this was the $29.00 royalty to oj for some old movie.imo


I think the disagreement you speak of was you posting that all the Goldman's received from Orenthal thus far is $29.00. It looks like you are doing it again, even though you were reminded previously that this is false information.

[fbgweezer]

weezer

what does the comments at the bottom of page 13 mean to you.

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1371.pdf


martin II

Hmm, hadn't time to ponder the dissenting opinion BUT I did understand this from page 1:

"Because the law as properly understood grants standing in an opposition proceeding to a person in Mr. Ritchie's position, we reverse the decision of the Board and remand the case for further proceedings."

What does this mean to you?

[martin II]

Hmm, hadn't time to ponder the dissenting opinion BUT I did understand this from page 1:

"Because the law as properly understood grants standing in an opposition proceeding to a person in Mr. Ritchie's position, we reverse the decision of the Board and remand the case for further proceedings."

What does this mean to you?

weezer
on second reading i saw that. appeals court gave him standing on the oj simpson and juice marks .a little odd but they did.

i looked at the trade mark site and found that oj had cancelled the oj simpson mark 4/7/90. so i am cunfused as to why the lawyer would be in court in 1996 against a mark that seems to have been cancelled 6 years earlier.

I also realized that oj had several trademarks for different types of product business from calling cards to statues.


imo
martin II

[martin II]

Hmm, hadn't time to ponder the dissenting opinion BUT I did understand this from page 1:

"Because the law as properly understood grants standing in an opposition proceeding to a person in Mr. Ritchie's position, we reverse the decision of the Board and remand the case for further proceedings."

What does this mean to you?

actually you may agree with the dissenting opinion. the court decided to 'STREATCH' the requirements for the first time that allowed the lawyer to get standing.

this ruling means that you could dissagree with a companies request for a trade mark because you didn't like the company or their product , get a bunch of signatures that agree with you and get standing to oppose the mark.

do you know what the lawyer did with this standing position? did he eventually get the marks in his opposition cancelled at the trade mark board or did he just hold on to his position of standing.?
imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

tv

i don't thinbk thewre will ever be a solution to this.

maby if Mr Goldman is able to out bid others and get the rights and then sell the book about his sons death for profit for himself then maby the money will satisfy him.

it is reported that only one chapter in the book talks about the murder in some unreal comic way. the rest is oj talking about his 17 year relationship with nicole. i am wondering who will buy the book.imo
martin II

I'm hoping he'll publish that one chapter under the title "I Did It" --

[martin II]

I'm hoping he'll publish that one chapter under the title "I Did It" --


do you have a respionse to my below post?

do you know what the lawyer did with this standing position? did he eventually get the marks in his opposition cancelled at the trade mark board or did he just hold on to his position of standing.?
imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

do you have a respionse to my below post?

do you know what the lawyer did with this standing position? did he eventually get the marks in his opposition cancelled at the trade mark board or did he just hold on to his position of standing.?
imo
martin II

If you know the answer, why not share it with the Board? Or were you just wanting someone else to do your research AGAIN. IMO

[martin II]

If you know the answer, why not share it with the Board? Or were you just wanting someone else to do your research AGAIN. IMO

weezer

i do not know the answer that is why i asked you.i did not find the answer in my search.

you made the claim in you original post and actually highlighted the fact that oj was not using his mark. you also made the claim that oj lost something.
since oj had cancelled the oj simpson mark six years before the lawyer made his opposition and received standing ,according to the trade mark site, which i have given.
i am wondering what oj lost as a result of this action as you claim.
what was the purpose of the lawyer asking for standing for a mark that had already been canceled.

martinii

[martin II]

If you know the answer, why not share it with the Board? Or were you just wanting someone else to do your research AGAIN. IMO

weezer

I don't have a clue as to what your purpose was in addressing such a post to me.

i hope you can have a pleasant evening.

martin II

[socaldiva]

weezer

I don't have a clue as to what your purpose was in addressing such a post to me.

i hope you can have a pleasant evening.

martin II

Then why did you already answer her approximately 20 minutes ago :confused:

[martin II]

sassy, where are you??
martin II

[socaldiva]

sassy, where are you??
martin II

Why don't you send things like this in a PM???

[fbgweezer]

weezer
on second reading i saw that. appeals court gave him standing on the oj simpson and juice marks .a little odd but they did.

i looked at the trade mark site and found that oj had cancelled the oj simpson mark 4/7/90. so i am cunfused as to why the lawyer would be in court in 1996 against a mark that seems to have been cancelled 6 years earlier.

I also realized that oj had several trademarks for different types of product business from calling cards to statues.


imo
martin II

Oh my -- here is what the trademark suit was about -- I don't know what you're looking at from 1990:

O.J. WINS ONE IN THE U.S. TRADEMARK OFFICE
Ritchie v. Simpson (TTAB- Decided- January 28, 1997)

During the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, O.J. Simpson filed applications in the U.S. Trademark Office seeking registration of the marks O.J. SIMPSON, and O.J. for goods ranging from figurines and trading cards to sportswear and toys. William Ritchie, an individual, filed an opposition to the registration of each of the marks on the grounds that they are "scandalous."

In dismissing the Opposition, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held that Opposer lacked standing to oppose the applications for two reasons: (1) whether a mark is scandalous must be determined from the standpoint of a substantial composite of the general public, not merely from the standpoint of opposer and others who believe that O.J. Simpson committed acts that they find offensive; and (2) Opposer failed to plead that there is anything inherent in the name O.J. SIMPSON or O.J. that is immoral or scandalous.

The TTAB noted that if it were to find that the present opposer had standing based on the allegations in his pleadings, "that would seem to open the way for an individual to challenge the registration of an individual's or corporation's trademark or service mark, where that individual opposer pleads, for example that he or she is offended by the individual or corporate trademark applicant's products or its hiring policies, political affiliations, environmental record, advertising campaigns, etc." http://www.ipcounselors.com/19970331.htm

and then we know the outcome:

"Individual Citizen Can Challenge Registration of O.J. Simpson's Trademarks