Goldmans Sue

[sassylassy]

Goldman family sue---

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - The family of one of OJ Simpson's alleged murder victims are to sue the disgraced sport star, lawyers said, claiming he profited from a now-scrapped book on the 1994 killings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Simpson provoked an outcry last month after publishers announced plans for his book "If I Did It", where he described how he would have carried out the murders of ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman, if he had been the actual killer.

The 59-year-old was acquitted of the gruesome double-murder after a racially charged Los Angeles trial in 1995.

But he was later found liable for the slayings in a subsequent wrongful death lawsuit heard in civil courts.

Simpson, however, has yet to pay any of the 33.5 million dollar damages award made to the families of Simpson and Goldman the the civil case.

Publication of "If I Did It" -- for which Simpson was reportedly to be paid several million dollars -- was cancelled on the orders of News Corp media tycoon owner Rupert Murdoch following a wave of condemnation.

Judith Regan, the controversial publisher who had brokered the book deal for HarperCollins, a News Corp subsidiary, was fired last week.

Lawyers for Goldman's parents say in the lawsuit due to be filed in Los Angeles Tuesday that Simpson tried to hide a one million dollar advance he received for the book.

The legal action is against Simpson and Lorraine Brooke Associates, which lawyer Jonathan Polak said was a shell company set up to conceal the payment. "Lorraine" and "Brooke" are the middle names of Simpson's children, he said.

The lawsuit would also "likely result in additional defendants being named," including News Corp, HarperCollins and Regan.

"I look forward to learning through this process who all worked with the killer to profit from the death of my son," Fred Goldman said.

"We will not stop until we are able to shine the light of truth on those that acted in concert with him."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061219/en_afp/uscrimejusticesimpson_061219202601

[sassylassy]

I meant to post this on the Oj book thread :eek:

[martin II]

Goldman family sue---

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - The family of one of OJ Simpson's alleged murder victims are to sue the disgraced sport star, lawyers said, claiming he profited from a now-scrapped book on the 1994 killings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Simpson provoked an outcry last month after publishers announced plans for his book "If I Did It", where he described how he would have carried out the murders of ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman, if he had been the actual killer.

The 59-year-old was acquitted of the gruesome double-murder after a racially charged Los Angeles trial in 1995.

But he was later found liable for the slayings in a subsequent wrongful death lawsuit heard in civil courts.

Simpson, however, has yet to pay any of the 33.5 million dollar damages award made to the families of Simpson and Goldman the the civil case.

Publication of "If I Did It" -- for which Simpson was reportedly to be paid several million dollars -- was cancelled on the orders of News Corp media tycoon owner Rupert Murdoch following a wave of condemnation.

Judith Regan, the controversial publisher who had brokered the book deal for HarperCollins, a News Corp subsidiary, was fired last week.

Lawyers for Goldman's parents say in the lawsuit due to be filed in Los Angeles Tuesday that Simpson tried to hide a one million dollar advance he received for the book.

The legal action is against Simpson and Lorraine Brooke Associates, which lawyer Jonathan Polak said was a shell company set up to conceal the payment. "Lorraine" and "Brooke" are the middle names of Simpson's children, he said.

The lawsuit would also "likely result in additional defendants being named," including News Corp, HarperCollins and Regan.

"I look forward to learning through this process who all worked with the killer to profit from the death of my son," Fred Goldman said.

"We will not stop until we are able to shine the light of truth on those that acted in concert with him."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061219/en_afp/uscrimejusticesimpson_061219202601


Fred is after the money again.
I guess we will have to wait and see how this plays out.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Goldman family sue---

*snip*
The legal action is against Simpson and Lorraine Brooke Associates, which lawyer Jonathan Polak said was a shell company set up to conceal the payment. "Lorraine" and "Brooke" are the middle names of Simpson's children, he said.

The lawsuit would also "likely result in additional defendants being named," including News Corp, HarperCollins and Regan.

"I look forward to learning through this process who all worked with the killer to profit from the death of my son," Fred Goldman said.

"We will not stop until we are able to shine the light of truth on those that acted in concert with him."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061219/en_afp/uscrimejusticesimpson_061219202601

Good luck to Fred Goldman! I hope he stops any and all attempts of OJ trying to profit off of these murders. OJ can never wash the blood off of his hands.

Good luck Mr Goldman!

:beer:

[martin II]

Good luck to Fred Goldman! I hope he stops any and all attempts of OJ trying to profit off of these murders. OJ can never wash the blood off of his hands.

Good luck Mr Goldman!

:beer:


Regan's lawyer says that neither she nor the Murdoch companies have anything to fear from the Goldmans' suit. "They have no claim whatsoever. It will be thrown out of court," said Bert Fields.

Regan was told "the money was going to Simpson's children" and neither she, nor the companies, had any legal obligation to help the Goldmans collect their judgment, Fields said.

martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Good luck to Fred Goldman! I hope he stops any and all attempts of OJ trying to profit off of these murders. OJ can never wash the blood off of his hands.

Good luck Mr Goldman!

:beer:

I agree.

There seems to be no end to this man's criminal activity. I have heard some individuals grumble about how OJ has been "picked on" by being charged with pirating satellite television and investigated regarding hidden assets.

It never ceases to amaze me that these people seem to forget that pirating satellite is a crime, and that hiding assets to avoid creditors is also a crime.

Two crimes, might I add, that a regular civil would be charged with relentlessly.

Kate

[jotun]

Regan's lawyer says that neither she nor the Murdoch companies have anything to fear from the Goldmans' suit. "They have no claim whatsoever. It will be thrown out of court," said Bert Fields.

Regan was told "the money was going to Simpson's children" and neither she, nor the companies, had any legal obligation to help the Goldmans collect their judgment, Fields said.

martin II

Martin,
That's EXACTLY what the talking-head
lawyers said on Nasty Grace last night.
Including O.J.'s lawyer Yale Galanter.
Also O.J.has no obligation to inform Show Me The Money-Goldman of any money he receives.

jotun

[martin II]

Martin,
That's EXACTLY what the talking-head
lawyers said on Nasty Grace last night.
Including O.J.'s lawyer Yale Galanter.
Also O.J.has no obligation to inform Show Me The Money-Goldman of any money he receives.

jotun

jotun

I don't think that Regan had any obligation to inform fred of any business transaction between herself and the broker company that sold her the rights.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

jotun

it seems that fred believes that Harper Collins should give him the rights to the book and the interview. At least he has requested that they give him the rights.
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Martin,
That's EXACTLY what the talking-head
lawyers said on Nasty Grace last night.
Including O.J.'s lawyer Yale Galanter.
Also O.J.has no obligation to inform Show Me The Money-Goldman of any money he receives.

jotun

Yale Galanter knows nothing. He's a joke as OJ's lawyer. He didn't even know this book existed. Or did he?

[martin II]

Yale Galanter knows nothing. He's a joke as OJ's lawyer. He didn't even know this book existed. Or did he?

tazzy hi

Considering freds latest court action do you still believe he is not after money?

martin II

[sassylassy]

Did anyone catch Nancy Grace the other night, she was discussing the Goldman lawsuit- they were saying the Goldmans most likely will not get any of the book money from OJ - they also said OJ doesnt legally have to inform the Goldmans when he makes any money.

I didnt know that.

Nancy & fred were calling the book a "murder manual" I wonder how they can all say that when
no-one has read the book?

[martin II]

Did anyone catch Nancy Grace the other night, she was discussing the Goldman lawsuit- they were saying the Goldmans most likely will not get any of the book money from OJ - they also said OJ doesnt legally have to inform the Goldmans when he makes any money.

I didnt know that.

Nancy & fred were calling the book a "murder manual" I wonder how they can all say that when
no-one has read the book?

sassy lassy

Nancy Grace does not require facts to make statements on her show.:)

Oj continues to say that he is within the law on the issue of money he makes and fred being paid.

Fred has a judgement against oj. But this does not mean that oj must report to fred that he made money last week. I guess it means that oj can work (Florida is a right to work state) or make money and it is up to him to decide if he wants to pay fred. If he does not volunteer to do so and fred is unable to find oj's money, say in a bank account, then the judgement will remain unpaid.
martin II

[socaldiva]

sassy lassy

Nancy Grace does not require facts to make statements on her show.:)

Oj continues to say that he is within the law on the issue of money he makes and fred being paid.

Fred has a judgement against oj. But this does not mean that oj must report to fred that he made money last week. I guess it means that oj can work (Florida is a right to work state) or make money and it is up to him to decide if he wants to pay fred. If he does not volunteer to do so and fred is unable to find oj's money, say in a bank account, then the judgement will remain unpaid.
martin II

Obviously you didn't see the show, but that doesn't stop you from making silly posts about it. It was never said that OJ must "report to fred that he made money last week", but the Goldman's have the right to trace the earnings they know about & try to attach it before it's spent. You are wrong when you state that "it's up to him to decide if he wants to pay fred". That's just stupid. If he had a regular job, with traceable earnings, it would not be up to him as to whether or not he wanted to pay. That's why he refuses to work, other than these shady efforts at freak shows etc.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Nancy Grace does not require facts to make statements on her show.:)


Nor do you require facts before posting something, based on all of the incorrect, false stuff you post. I'll go with Nancy Grace's facts over yours any day of the week :tongue:

[socaldiva]

Did anyone catch Nancy Grace the other night, she was discussing the Goldman lawsuit- they were saying the Goldmans most likely will not get any of the book money from OJ - they also said OJ doesnt legally have to inform the Goldmans when he makes any money.

I didnt know that.

Nancy & fred were calling the book a "murder manual" I wonder how they can all say that when
no-one has read the book?

It was stated that in civil judgements, it's pretty much up to the party to pursue the earnings of the person ordered to pay. The state/court doesn't do it for you.

As for the book being referred to as a "murder manual", why would no one reading the book change the content? Portions of it have been reported on & the title was "if I did it". :shrug:

[limakey]

Taz,

I have a few problems with Fred's quotes. First, either he wants Simpson to pay the judgement or he doesn't. IMO, I don't think he wants Simpson to pay the judgement because once the judgement is paid, then they have no way into his life. Think about, if the judgement is paid, then Fred has no more right to have Simpson's finances investigated.

IMO, his comments about "shedding light on those who acted in concert with him" might very well backfire on him and his family. The Goldmans' have always said the money was not the issue, yet, IMO, I have a hard time understanding why he wants to go after anyone who acted in concert with him to hide money yet has shown no interest in going after any accomplices who were acting in concert with him regarding the murders. His own lawyer strongly believes that Simpson had help getting rid of evidence, yet Mr. Goldman doesn't want to shed light on that person?

[martin II]

Taz,

I have a few problems with Fred's quotes. First, either he wants Simpson to pay the judgement or he doesn't. IMO, I don't think he wants Simpson to pay the judgement because once the judgement is paid, then they have no way into his life. Think about, if the judgement is paid, then Fred has no more right to have Simpson's finances investigated.

IMO, his comments about "shedding light on those who acted in concert with him" might very well backfire on him and his family. The Goldmans' have always said the money was not the issue, yet, IMO, I have a hard time understanding why he wants to go after anyone who acted in concert with him to hide money yet has shown no interest in going after any accomplices who were acting in concert with him regarding the murders. His own lawyer strongly believes that Simpson had help getting rid of evidence, yet Mr. Goldman doesn't want to shed light on that person?


LIMAKEY
Regradless of what fred says, his actions indicates that he is after money.
Period.

martin II

[sassylassy]

*It was stated that in civil judgements, it's pretty much up to the party to pursue the earnings of the person ordered to pay. The state/court doesn't do it for you.

**As for the book being referred to as a "murder manual", why would no one reading the book change the content? Portions of it have been reported on & the title was "if I did it". :shrug:


*thats what I said. Ojs doesnt have to inform the goldmans of his earnings-


**I find it hard to form an opinion on something you havent read or seen with your own 2 eyes. reminds me of that saying: dont judge a book by its cover. JMO IMO

[2L8 4A D8]

*thats what I said. Ojs doesnt have to inform the goldmans of his earnings-

**I find it hard to form an opinion on something you havent read or seen with your own 2 eyes. reminds me of that saying: dont judge a book by its cover. JMO IMO

No, that's not what you said. Read your post again! Duh!


Originally Posted by sassylassy
Did anyone catch Nancy Grace the other night, she was discussing the Goldman lawsuit- they were saying the Goldmans most likely will not get any of the book money from OJ - they also said OJ doesnt legally have to inform the Goldmans when he makes any money.

I didnt know that.

<snipped>

[jotun]

jotun

it seems that fred believes that Harper Collins should give him the rights to the book and the interview. At least he has requested that they give him the rights.
martin II

Martin,
Even Goldigger's own lawyer Polock said on tv that NewsCorp ONLY had the right to publish & promote.That's OVER, with the cancelation.
Surely Fred wanted to sell it himself.BUT.Andrew Butcher a Newscorp spokesman said 'all copies have been destroyed" but objected to the request to assign the rights to Goldman."You don't own the rights to someone's book in PERPETUITY"

So would assume that O.J.owns the rights to the 6 chapters,he worked on with the ghostwriter.And the one Fenjves wrote alone.

jotun

[socaldiva]

*snip*

Even Goldigger's own lawyer Polock said on tv that NewsCorp ONLY had the right to publish & promote.That's OVER, with the cancelation.
Surely Fred wanted to sell it himself.

What a miserable person you must be that you feel the need to mock a man who had his young son murdered so viciously. Shame on you. I'd say if anyone worships the dollar, it's OJ. That's why Fred attempts to hit him in the pocket. imo

As for your nonsense that Fred wanted to sell it himself,that's pure B.S. made up by you. I suggest you stop making stuff up & stick with the truth. Or doesn't that suit your needs? :punch: :punch:

[martin II]

Martin,
Even Goldigger's own lawyer Polock said on tv that NewsCorp ONLY had the right to publish & promote.That's OVER, with the cancelation.
Surely Fred wanted to sell it himself.BUT.Andrew Butcher a Newscorp spokesman said 'all copies have been destroyed" but objected to the request to assign the rights to Goldman."You don't own the rights to someone's book in PERPETUITY"

So would assume that O.J.owns the rights to the 6 chapters,he worked on with the ghostwriter.And the one Fenjves wrote alone.

jotun

jotun

Either oj or his children's company may own the rights to the material if it is not owned by H Collins.thats interesting.

martin II

[martin II]

jotun
if this is true then maby oj's children's company may own the rights to the material in the book that was never published. imo
martin II

[martin II]

jotun

I don't think fred can touch any money received by oj's childrens company
paid by Regan imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

jotun

I don't think fred can touch any money received by oj's childrens company
paid by Regan imo
martin II

Are you studying law with W.A? I would venture to say that if the company was set up soley for fraudulent purposes, Fred can "touch it".

[socaldiva]

jotun

Either oj or his children's company may own the rights to the material if it is not owned by H Collins.thats interesting.

martin II

Who said it wasn't owned by Harper Collins? You read OJnut's post based on nothing but "assumption" and think it's the gospel?

[limakey]

Martin,

IMO, I think the Goldmans' know if the judgement is paid, then he will no longer have the "control" he thinks he has in this matter. If you think about it, Fred not only wants to control Simpson's money, but he wants to control on how me makes the money. Goldman knows better then anyone that once the judgement is paid, he no longer has any legal right to even ask a question about Simpson's money.

IMO, if the money from book and the interview was given right to Goldman, he still would have either said that Simpson could have made more on the deal or that he would refuse to accept it because it was "blood money". Either way, IMO, Goldman does not that judgement paid off, IMO.

What I really would love to know is how much of the judgement has been paid to both families. What does "not much" mean in terms of the judgement?

Again, IMO, as long as the judgement goes unpaid, Ronald Goldman's name will still be in the media.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
IMO, if the money from book and the interview was given right to Goldman, he still would have either said that Simpson could have made more on the deal or that he would refuse to accept it because it was "blood money". Either way, IMO, Goldman does not that judgement paid off, IMO.


I see that you, like a few other posters here, have a rich fantasy life. You have now decided that Goldman doesn't want the judgement paid off? What a hoot!

[jotun]

You have now decided that Goldman doesn't want the judgement paid off? What a hoot!

Ditto.
What a HOOT!!!!!

jotun

[limakey]

SoDiva and Jotun,

In your opinon, what does Fred Goldman gain by having the judgment the paid off?

Also, IMO, I have stated that I believe that Goldman's doesn't want the judgement paid in full, that does mean that he wouldn't mind getting 31 or 32 million dollars of a 33 million dollar judgement.

Mr. Goldman does not the public to forget about his son, his suits against Simpson keep his son's name in the media. If that suit is paid off, then what does he have? What other suits could he file?

[socaldiva]

Ditto.
What a HOOT!!!!!

jotun

Yes, based on your made up fantasy & Limakey's. What a hoot indeed!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
SoDiva and Jotun,

In your opinon, what does Fred Goldman gain by having the judgment the paid off?



Knowing that Orenthal hates to part with money & it's the only avenue he has for inflicting discomfort on his son's murderer?

[limakey]

2Late,

Finally, you get it! Going after Simpson's money is the only avenue he has to inflict "discomfort" on Simpson. Once that judgement is paid off, he has no other avenue. He no longer can use money as a weapon against Simpson.

[socaldiva]

2Late,

Finally, you get it! Going after Simpson's money is the only avenue he has to inflict "discomfort" on Simpson. Once that judgement is paid off, he has no other avenue. He no longer can use money as a weapon against Simpson.

:confused: I think you are confusing your posters here. No wonder you confuse the facts of the case :D

[limakey]

2Late,

Sorry about that!

However, SD, who I addressed the post to doesn't change my post.

[socaldiva]

2Late,

Sorry about that!

However, SD, who I addressed the post to doesn't change my post.

:confused: You addressed the post to 2Late (in error) not me & I don't know what you are talking about relative to it "not changing" your post. Goodnight :seeya:

[limakey]

SD,

It was you that posted that the only avenue the Goldmans' have to cause discomfort to Simpson is through his wallet. I was just agreeing with you.

[socaldiva]

SD,

It was you that posted that the only avenue the Goldmans' have to cause discomfort to Simpson is through his wallet. I was just agreeing with you.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was lost for a minute there :D

[2L8 4A D8]

Who said it wasn't owned by Harper Collins? You read OJnut's post based on nothing but "assumption" and think it's the gospel?

Yeah, Diva, that's the NG's M.O. alright! They just all throw out this cr@p and then they just sit back and pat each other on their backs for job well done! No logic, no facts, no truth, no common sense, no nothing! Just shoot from the hip bullsh*t and blah blah blah, ad nauseum! :cuss:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

2Late,

Finally, you get it! Going after Simpson's money is the only avenue he has to inflict "discomfort" on Simpson. Once that judgement is paid off, he has no other avenue. He no longer can use money as a weapon against Simpson.

WTH are you talking about? Please quote the post that you are posting about. Contrary to popular belief, I am not a mindreader! :rolleyes:

[martin II]

SoDiva and Jotun,

In your opinon, what does Fred Goldman gain by having the judgment the paid off?

Also, IMO, I have stated that I believe that Goldman's doesn't want the judgement paid in full, that does mean that he wouldn't mind getting 31 or 32 million dollars of a 33 million dollar judgement.

Mr. Goldman does not the public to forget about his son, his suits against Simpson keep his son's name in the media. If that suit is paid off, then what does he have? What other suits could he file?

limakey

initially fred said he wanted oj to be convicted so ron could get justice. He got that when oj was found liable in the civil trial. Since then all of his actions have indicited that he has been going after money.

If the judgement were to be paid i still think he would find some reason to be on Larrk king and N Grace as he seems confortable playing the role of professionsl victim.
I do agree that there would be no more suits by him. imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
initially fred said he wanted oj to be convicted so ron could get justice. He got that when oj was found liable in the civil trial. Since then all of his actions have indicited that he has been going after money.

If the judgement were to be paid i still think he would find some reason to be on Larrk king and N Grace as he seems confortable playing the role of professionsl victim.


Justice would have been Orenthal sitting on death row. You think that simply having Orenthal found liable in the civil trial would have been the same & Fred Goldman should have just walked away & not sought out the money Orenthal was ordered to pay?

It's funny that you are parroting what Orenthal said about Fred being a "professional victim". I guess Orenthal is just a professional idiot.Fred has far more integrity, character than the double murderer will ever have. I guess you don't understand that a parent can be outraged that their child was murdered & you find something wrong with that & think there should be a time limit on the rage.

[sassylassy]

can someone tell me -

the settlement is what 33 million (or more) -does ojs have to pay 33 million to each of the families?

[socaldiva]

can someone tell me -

the settlement is what 33 million (or more) -does ojs have to pay 33 million to each of the families?


No. As I understood it, the amount was a combined amount & was based on projected earnings.

[martin II]

can someone tell me -

the settlement is what 33 million (or more) -does ojs have to pay 33 million to each of the families?

sassl lassy

33 mil was total amount for fred and browns. Since most has not been paid
interest in being added.(i think)
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

I don't know if anyone can answer this, but when OJ dies, does the $33 million dollar judgment become null and void or does it revert to OJ's Estate? If it does, are his heirs then saddled with the responsibility of paying the judgment? Just curious! :confused:

[socaldiva]

I don't know if anyone can answer this, but when OJ dies, does the $33 million dollar judgment become null and void or does it revert to OJ's Estate? If it does, are his heirs then saddled with the responsibility of paying the judgment? Just curious! :confused:

Good question. I should ask my eldest brother. He's a lawyer.

[fbgweezer]

Good question. I should ask my eldest brother. He's a lawyer. Please tell me his estate has to pay. . . .

[martin II]

I don't know if anyone can answer this, but when OJ dies, does the $33 million dollar judgment become null and void or does it revert to OJ's Estate? If it does, are his heirs then saddled with the responsibility of paying the judgment? Just curious! :confused:




the judgement is against oj no one else
martin II

[socaldiva]

the judgement is against oj no one else
martin II


When prey tell, did you get your law degree? Gawd! :tongue:

[socaldiva]

Please tell me his estate has to pay. . . .

I'm still relishing the thought of Orenthal being a goner :D

[sassylassy]

sassl lassy

33 mil was total amount for fred and browns. Since most has not been paid
interest in being added.(i think)
martin II

Thanks Marin & SD!

i heard about the interest too-so I am not sure what the grand total is now :shrug:

[sassylassy]

Please tell me his estate has to pay. . . .

:shrug: isnt his estate Sydney & Justin?

[fbgweezer]

I'm still relishing the thought of Orenthal being a goner :D I know this is the season we're suppose to be charitable and all but I sure hope it's a slow and painful 'goodbye' -- like cochran and kardashian...................

[fbgweezer]

:shrug: isnt his estate Sydney & Justin? and Jason and Arnelle EXCEPT if his estate has to pay, then Sydney and Justin will get their share of the judgement and after all, it was their mother that was murdered.

[sassylassy]

I know this is the season we're suppose to be charitable and all but I sure hope it's a slow and painful 'goodbye' -- like cochran and kardashian...................

Wow- that's some chilling wish!

[sassylassy]

and Jason and Arnelle EXCEPT if his estate has to pay, then Sydney and Justin will get their share of the judgement and after all, it was their mother that was murdered.


no Jason & Arnelle are not Except -I didnt mention them because I dont think they are part of the Civil suit settlement.

[socaldiva]

I know this is the season we're suppose to be charitable and all but I sure hope it's a slow and painful 'goodbye' -- like cochran and kardashian...................

I know & it's awful to wish on someone, but if anyone deserves it it's Orenthal.

[fbgweezer]

no Jason & Arnelle are not Except -I didnt mention them because I dont think they are part of the Civil suit settlement. his 'estate' would be all of his children unless he purposely wrote one or more out.

[sassylassy]

the judgement is against oj no one else
martin II


so does that mean when ojs one day dies & leaves his Estate to say
Justin & Sydney the goldmans cant sue them for their half of the settlement?

maybe W.A can weigh in w/ his legal knowledge :beer:

[fbgweezer]

Wow- that's some chilling wish! I know -- won't to get a little more chilled? It's heartfelt. Slow and painful. That's my wish for orenthal.

[fbgweezer]

so does that mean when ojs one day dies & leaves his Estate to say
Justin & Sydney the goldmans cant sue them for their half of the settlement?

maybe W.A can weigh in w/ his legal knowledge :beer: how about we ask a real lawyer to weigh in on the subject and not our resident wannabe?

[sassylassy]

I know -- won't to get a little more chilled? It's heartfelt. Slow and painful. That's my wish for orenthal.

its somewhat "disturbing" that some take this so "personal" anyways whatever blows your hair back- :beer: just becareful what you wish for --it can come back to you 3 times worse!

[sassylassy]

how about we ask a real lawyer to weigh in on the subject and not our resident wannabe?

hey- you can ask anyone you choose- I dont have time to seek legal advice on ojs LOL
so I am asking W.A :beer:since he is in the house already!

[fbgweezer]

hey- you can ask anyone you choose- I dont have time to seek legal advice on ojs LOL
so I am asking W.A :beer:since he is in the house already! okay -- but surely we can ask someone who is at least in law school..........

[fbgweezer]

its somewhat "disturbing" that some take this so "personal" anyways whatever blows your hair back- :beer: just becareful what you wish for --it can come back to you 3 times worse! Please don't be 'disturbed' -- I don't take it personal. I'm not worried about it coming back at me since I have never -- nor do I plan to - butcher anyone.

[martin II]

his 'estate' would be all of his children unless he purposely wrote one or more out.

it is my opinion that the judgement is not transferable to his estate after his death
martinii

[sassylassy]

okay -- but surely we can ask someone who is at least in law school..........

like I already said :rolleyes: you can ask whoever the heck you want?

[martin II]

Please don't be 'disturbed' -- I don't take it personal. I'm not worried about it coming back at me since I have never -- nor do I plan to - butcher anyone.

you never know
martin II

[sassylassy]

Please don't be 'disturbed' -- I don't take it personal. I'm not worried about it coming back at me since I have never -- nor do I plan to - butcher anyone.


anyhow-I guess where I come from those types of wishes
arent "normal or healthy" but hey-good luck to ya! :seeya:

[martin II]

okay -- but surely we can ask someone who is at least in law school..........

fbg
who do you know on this thread that is in law school.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

anyhow-I guess where I come from those types of wishes
arent "normal or healthy" but hey-good luck to ya! :seeya: Where I'm from, we believe that good overcomes evil. Slow and painful -- my wish for orenthal. But thanks for the good wishes.

[fbgweezer]

fbg
who do you know on this thread that is in law school.
martin II Helllllooooo? Exactly. Certainly not wa. All I said was if we're going to ask someone to help with the answer, let's at least ask if there is someone reading who is an attorney or at least in law school and not our resident wannabe.

[martin II]

Helllllooooo? Exactly. Certainly not wa. All I said was if we're going to ask someone to help with the answer, let's at least ask if there is someone reading who is an attorney or at least in law school and not our resident wannabe.

fbg
maby we should ask YOU.

MARTIN ii

[martin II]

how about we ask a real lawyer to weigh in on the subject and not our resident wannabe?

FBG

YOU seem to have some kind abnormal anger/hate against william because he is striving to be a lawyer. I say this because of your many negative comments directed at him and his current educational efforts to become a lawyer.
WHAT UP WITH THAT?

MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Helllllooooo? Exactly. Certainly not wa. All I said was if we're going to ask someone to help with the answer, let's at least ask if there is someone reading who is an attorney or at least in law school and not our resident wannabe.

fbg

it is my opinion that the legal comments/opinions that william has offered has been on point unless you can give some specific comments/opinion he has made that were not true.imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

FBG

YOU seem to have some kind abnormal anger/hate against william because he is striving to be a lawyer. I say this because of your many negative comments directed at him and his current educational efforts to become a lawyer.
WHAT UP WITH THAT?

MARTIN ii Oh you read me all wrong. I say more power to anyone who goes after what they want. I just have lived long enough to understand that a little knowledge (the stage wa is in right now) can be worse than no knowledge.

[fbgweezer]

fbg

it is my opinion that the legal comments/opinions that william has offered has been on point unless you can give some specific comments/opinion he has made that were not true.imo
martin II wa has voiced his comments/opinions -- LOL -- how could I possibly say HIS comments/opinions are not true? That doesn't even make sense.

[martin II]

Where I'm from, we believe that good overcomes evil. Slow and painful -- my wish for orenthal. But thanks for the good wishes.

fbg
where i come from wishing a slow and painful death on another human being
or death period is considered mean, hateful and unhealthy.

I don't think that everyone where you are would agree with you.imo
martin II

[martin II]

wa has voiced his comments/opinions -- LOL -- how could I possibly say HIS comments/opinions are not true? That doesn't even make sense.

fbg
well if you have no more reasonable legal comments to make, i will take his.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

fbg
where i come from wishing a slow and painful death on another human being
or death period is considered mean, hateful and unhealthy.

I don't think that everyone where you are would agree with you.imo
martin II don't be silly -- we're talking about orenthal -- of course, everyone agrees with me.

[martin II]

Oh you read me all wrong. I say more power to anyone who goes after what they want. I just have lived long enough to understand that a little knowledge (the stage wa is in right now) can be worse than no knowledge.

fbg

you have no way of knowing how much knowledge william has now do you.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

fbg

you have no way of knowing how much knowledge william has now do you.
martin II No, I don't know how much knowledge wa has except for what he posts on this board and that leads me to believe that it is not much.

[martin II]

don't be silly -- we're talking about orenthal -- of course, everyone agrees with me.

fbg

I think not everyone where you are agrees with you
but if they do, then i am pleased not to be where you are.
martin ii

[martin II]

No, I don't know how much knowledge wa has except for what he posts on this board and that leads me to believe that it is not much.

fbg
what legal opinion has he given that you believe is not accurate?
martin II

[martin II]

Oh you read me all wrong. I say more power to anyone who goes after what they want. I just have lived long enough to understand that a little knowledge (the stage wa is in right now) can be worse than no knowledge.

fbg
And just how do you know the level of knowledge that william has. surely you
know his his legal opinion expressed here have been helpful to some.
martin II

[martin II]

his 'estate' would be all of his children unless he purposely wrote one or more out.

It is my opinion that the browns part of the judgement goes to nicoles estate that is for her two children legally. so any money the browns collect goes to these two kids.

OJ estate will most lilely include all four of his kids and i cannot see a situation where they would be held responsible for paying a judgement against oj.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

It is my opinion that the browns part of the judgement goes to nicoles estate that is for her two children legally. so any money the browns collect goes to these two kids.

OJ estate will most lilely include all four of his kids and i cannot see a situation where they would be held responsible for paying a judgement against oj.
martin II I don't think just because you die, you get out of paying your debts. I've been trying to research this today and so far as I can tell, orenthal's estate will owe the judgment.

[deputydi]

I don't think just because you die, you get out of paying your debts. I've been trying to research this today and so far as I can tell, orenthal's estate will owe the judgment.
I don't know this for sure, but I think you're wrong. The judgment was against OJ -- not his heirs. It's an interesting question and I'd like to know the real answer.

[fbgweezer]

I don't know this for sure, but I think you're wrong. The judgment was against OJ -- not his heirs. It's an interesting question and I'd like to know the real answer. I agree that the judgment is orenthal's but I believe I've read of cases where estates had to pay debts before money was disbursed to heirs. Of course, judgments could be treated differently but I would think that his assets would be up for grabs. I'm hoping someone can give us the answer too.

[martin II]

I don't know this for sure, but I think you're wrong. The judgment was against OJ -- not his heirs. It's an interesting question and I'd like to know the real answer.

deputy
i believe that if he leaves his house to his kids they will enjoy the same homestead exemption as oj does. His estate MAY also enjoy the same protection under Florida law that oj currently enjoys. Maby
martin II

[martin II]

I don't think just because you die, you get out of paying your debts. I've been trying to research this today and so far as I can tell, orenthal's estate will owe the judgment.

judgements have a named defendant and i am not sure they are automatically transferalbe to say the estate of the deceased. imo
martin II

[deputydi]

I agree that the judgment is orenthal's but I believe I've read of cases where estates had to pay debts before money was disbursed to heirs. Of course, judgments could be treated differently but I would think that his assets would be up for grabs. I'm hoping someone can give us the answer too.
Debts, yes -- judgments, I'm not so sure. The question may be moot since I don't think Fred Goldman would be so diligent in pursuing payment of the judgment if OJ dies. The object of his disgust and anger would be dead and there really wouldn't be any point in taking money from the kids. That wouldn't give him much satisfaction.

[martin II]

Debts, yes -- judgments, I'm not so sure. The question may be moot since I don't think Fred Goldman would be so diligent in pursuing payment of the judgment if OJ dies. The object of his disgust and anger would be dead and there really wouldn't be any point in taking money from the kids. That wouldn't give him much satisfaction.

deputy

I thought about that this morning. Would fred go after the kids assets?

martin II

[deputydi]

deputy

I thought about that this morning. Would fred go after the kids assets?

martin II
I know some people here think Fred is just after the money, but I disagree. Fred wants revenge in the only legal way available to him. I seriously doubt he would go after the kids assets once OJ is dead. This judgment represents more than money to him.

[martin II]

I know some people here think Fred is just after the money, but I disagree. Fred wants revenge in the only legal way available to him. I seriously doubt he would go after the kids assets once OJ is dead. This judgment represents more than money to him.

deputy

Well, hopefully oj will be with us for a while yet.
martin II

[martin II]

suppose fred dies, what happens to the judgement then?
does his estate own the judgement and does oj then owe freds estate?
martin II

[deputydi]

deputy

Well, hopefully oj will be with us for a while yet.
martin II
;) I guess.

suppose fred dies, what happens to the judgement then?
does his estate own the judgement and does oj then owe freds estate?
martin II
I think that would depend on how the suit was filed. Did Fred file alone or were they all named as plaintiffs?

[martin II]

;) I guess.


I think that would depend on how the suit was filed. Did Fred file alone or were they all named as plaintiffs?

I think the wife was part of the suit also.
MARTIN ii

[socaldiva]

*snip*where i come from wishing a slow and painful death on another human being
or death period is considered mean, hateful and unhealthy.



Apparently where you come from it's ok to idolize a double murderer & talk trash about the murder victims & the their families. I consider THAT position to be far meaner, more unhealthy & hateful.

[martin II]

http://walraven.org/simpson/punitiv.html
martinII

[martin II]

http://walraven.org/simpson/ver_form.html

martin II

[martin II]

http://walraven.org/simpson/ver_form.html

it appears that this part included the wife

martin II

[socaldiva]

Martin, I don't know what your point was in posting the verdict form once, let alone twice. What are you attempting to get at here?

As for your other link, are you just now learning that Ron Goldman's biological mother was part of the suit brought against Orenthal? That's funny.

[socaldiva]

I just got off the phone with my oldest brother. He obtained his law degree about 30 yrs ago (he's 23 yrs older than me)& specialized in real estate & corporate law. He said that if Orenthal died, the judgement would go against his estate & if Fred Goldman died, the judgement that was awarded would become part of his estate. He basically said there is no time limit on a judgement.

[limakey]

Martin,

IMO, Fred would still go after the money, even if OJ died. Have you ever heard any interviewer ask the Goldmans' about OJ's children? Perfect example, he said the money he made went to pay back taxes, keep his home and his children's education. It would be very, very easy to find out if what he said was true. However, no one has gone public with a true investigation about where the money went. All the focus is on rumor and speculation that he put it in an account outside the country, but there is no proof of that.

IMO, I think the Goldmans' work very hard at not thinking about Simpsons' children. Perhaps they feel that if they don't file suit or go public with their outrage, that they will somehow be letting Ron down. As terrible as it was for them to lose Ron, it had to somehow even be worse that even during the trial, Ron's name seemed to be, "Nicole Brown Simpson's friend". In fact, that is why they called their book, "His Name is Ron".

IMO, I think the Goldmans would resent the fact and do everything they could to stop the Simpson children, in their opinon, benefitting from the death of the son. I don't think their college education means all that much to Fred, again, IMO.

[socaldiva]

]IMO, I think the Goldmans would resent the fact and do everything they could to stop the Simpson children, in their opinon, benefitting from the death of the son. I don't think their college education means all that much to Fred, again, IMO.

Pure speculation on your part :rolleyes:

[limakey]

SoDiva,

When was the last time you read or heard about the Goldmans' being asked about Simpson's children? The last time I saw an interviewer ask that question was right after the civil trial---it was their response that they felt they could not think of the Simpson children.

And there was a thread awhile back about Simpson's children and how could they live with him knowing he killed their mother---the simple answer, is they believe their father did not kill their mother. I don't think the Goldmans can comprehend anyone truly believing he is innocent---not even his children. IMO.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
SoDiva,
When was the last time you read or heard about the Goldmans' being asked about Simpson's children?
Sorry, I don't recall ever hearing anything about the Goldman's being asked about the Simpson children.....

[2L8 4A D8]

I know this is the season we're suppose to be charitable and all but I sure hope it's a slow and painful 'goodbye' -- like cochran and kardashian...................

:beer: Right on, Weezer!! :D

[2L8 4A D8]

I know & it's awful to wish on someone, but if anyone deserves it it's Orenthal.

Hey Diva, if the truth hurts....oh well! :D

[limakey]

S-Diva,

Their answer to that question was very well put, even if it was almost 10 years ago. They made it clear what their main goal was, to hurt Simpson's wallet and to ensure that Ron's name would not be forgotten.

Also, IMO, I think the fact the Nicole had children was one of the main reasons why the Goldmans and Browns' were treated very differently in the media and while some of their comments were so opposite each other.

No matter what anyone thinks of the Browns, they knew that despite of their horrific loss, they still had the wonder of Nicole's children. The Goldmans were left only to wonder what Ron's children would have looked like, been like.

IMO, that is why one family turned to their faith while the other family turned away from their faith.

[2L8 4A D8]

Helllllooooo? Exactly. Certainly not wa. All I said was if we're going to ask someone to help with the answer, let's at least ask if there is someone reading who is an attorney or at least in law school and not our resident wannabe.

I agree Weezer! Since I am the one who asked the question, I don't want to hear what WA has to say about it! He's not even an attorney wannabe as far as I am concerned. He can say anything that he wants. Doesn't make it true because he's a known ****!

I will be waiting to hear what Diva's brother has to say on the matter, thank you!

JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

*snip*
IMO, that is why one family turned to their faith while the other family turned away from their faith.

Who are you suggesting "turned away from their faith"? The Goldman's???? What are you basing this on?

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I will be waiting to hear what Diva's brother has to say on the matter, thank you!

JMO and MOO!!

My bro said that the judgement would remain & become part of the estate, regardless of who passed. The liability would become part of the Simpson estate & likewise the judgement awarded would become part of the Goldman estate, should he pass. He said there is no time limit on judgements.(I hope I splained it right. My brother is much smarter than I am ~smile~)

[2L8 4A D8]

FBG

YOU seem to have some kind abnormal anger/hate against william because he is striving to be a lawyer. I say this because of your many negative comments directed at him and his current educational efforts to become a lawyer.
WHAT UP WITH THAT?

MARTIN ii

Again, WA can say anything that he wants. Doesn't make it true. Nor do we have to believe him and I don't! What's so sad is that he's got you and every other NG on this Board snowed and you all are nothing more than his Puppets who hang on his every word as gospel and fact! Pitiful!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

fbg
maby we should ask YOU.

MARTIN ii

I would certainly believe Weezer before I would believe WA! But that's...

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

fbg
where i come from wishing a slow and painful death on another human being
or death period is considered mean, hateful and unhealthy.

I don't think that everyone where you are would agree with you.imo
martin II

It's no worse than your constant trashing/bashing/slashing of the Goldman's, the Brown's, Nicole and Ron! I certainly consider that mean, hateful and unhealthy. And yes, I agree with Weezer! :D

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

William and Martin,

Would it make a difference where Simpson declared his residency? What state he was living in at the time of his death?

[2L8 4A D8]

fbg

I think not everyone where you are agrees with you
but if they do, then i am pleased not to be where you are.
martin ii

We're pleased also. It's just too bad that we still have to deal with you on the OJ Simpson Board and Threads! :rolleyes:

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

I don't know this for sure, but I think you're wrong. The judgment was against OJ -- not his heirs. It's an interesting question and I'd like to know the real answer.

I am sorry, but I disagree. I think that it will revert to OJ's Estate. His Estate will then be responsible for the debt. His Estate has to have heirs, Executor(s) or Executrix(s) to inherit his assets and liabilities, not unless he has no one and then I think that his Estate would revert to the State.

I see the $33 million dollar Judgment as a debt owed by OJ. Just because he dies, doesn't mean that the Judgment goes "poof" and it's gone!

But this is JMO and MOO!!

[socaldiva]

William and Martin,

Would it make a difference where Simpson declared his residency? What state he was living in at the time of his death?

I'm not William or Martin, but I would venture to say it wouldn't make a bit of difference as to what state he lived in at the time of his death. I think all of the states would honor the judgement.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
I see the $33 million dollar Judgment as a debt owed by OJ. Just because he dies, doesn't mean that the Judgment goes "poof" and it's gone!



Acording to my brother, you are right. The judgement would remain. :patriot:

[2L8 4A D8]

I know some people here think Fred is just after the money, but I disagree. Fred wants revenge in the only legal way available to him. I seriously doubt he would go after the kids assets once OJ is dead. This judgment represents more than money to him.

I don't consider the Judgment as an asset in OJ's Estate. I think that it is more of a liability and it would still remain to be paid. If the heirs can't or won't pay the Judgment (just like OJ did) then it will be interesting to see how and where the Judgment finally ends up. I am sure that the Browns will not go after the kids for their share of the Judgment. I am still on the fence about Fred though. To Fred, they're just all "Simpson's" and he wants the Judgment paid!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

;) I guess.

I think that would depend on how the suit was filed. Did Fred file alone or were they all named as plaintiffs?

IIRC, the Judgment was in favor of the Brown's and the Goldman's. I am sure that each family member was listed as a Plaintiff. For example:

The Brown's:
Lou
Juditha
Sister Denise
Sister Tanya (?)
Sister Dominique (?)

The Goldman's:
Fred
His current wife
Sister Kim

I don't know about Ron's Mom or if she was a part of the civil trial suit or not.

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Apparently where you come from it's ok to idolize a double murderer & talk trash about the murder victims & the their families. I consider THAT position to be far meaner, more unhealthy & hateful.

:beer: Right on, Diva!

[2L8 4A D8]

I just got off the phone with my oldest brother. He obtained his law degree about 30 yrs ago (he's 23 yrs older than me)& specialized in real estate & corporate law. He said that if Orenthal died, the judgement would go against his estate & if Fred Goldman died, the judgement that was awarded would become part of his estate. He basically said there is no time limit on a judgement.

YESSSSSSSSSSS!!!

YESSSSSSSSSSS!!!

YESSSSSSSSSSS!!!

Thank you Diva for calling your Brother!

:beer: :beer: :beer:

[socaldiva]

YESSSSSSSSSSS!!!

YESSSSSSSSSSS!!!

YESSSSSSSSSSS!!!

Thank you Diva for calling your Brother!

:beer: :beer:

You're welcome! :D

[martin II]

William and Martin,

Would it make a difference where Simpson declared his residency? What state he was living in at the time of his death?



His residency now is florida. If he died with the same residency then the laws of Florida would prevail.imo

martin II

[martin II]

IIRC, the Judgment was in favor of the Brown's and the Goldman's. I am sure that each family member was listed as a Plaintiff. For example:

The Brown's:
Lou
Juditha
Sister Denise
Sister Tanya (?)
Sister Dominique (?)

The Goldman's:
Fred
His current wife
Sister Kim

I don't know about Ron's Mom or if she was a part of the civil trial suit or not.

JMO and MOO!!


see the jury form links above.
martin II

[martin II]

I would certainly believe Weezer before I would believe WA! But that's...

JMO and MOO!!

maby someone will post a link to the florida law and we can read for ourselves.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

maby someone will post a link to the florida law and we can read for ourselves.

martin II

http://www.flprobatelitigation.com/cat-creditors-claims.html

[William Anthony]

maby someone will post a link to the florida law and we can read for ourselves.

martin II

I have no idea what this post is about and maybe someone can tell me!

Originally Posted by 2L8 4A D8
I would certainly believe Weezer before I would believe WA! But that's...

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

william

the quesiton was

if oj dies, does the judgement obligations he has with fred goldman become a
debt obligaiton to oj's estate. can fred go after oj's estate for payment.

a poster suggested we ask you to commment on the law. 2 L made the above comment IMO
MARTIN ii

[William Anthony]

hey- you can ask anyone you choose- I dont have time to seek legal advice on ojs LOL
so I am asking W.A :beer:since he is in the house already!

Classysassy,

I apologize, because I did not see this post and thank you for your recognition. I am not an expert on the subject, but I do believe that the liabilities would be assumed by the estate. With that said, since the estate was set up and the Law allows for the shielding of some assets, I think that the collection on the judgment is a moot issue. Without knowing, assuming there is a trust, the exact wording of the trust, it is highly speculative to guess how the court would rule, and Simpson could have provided for that contengency (his death ) in the trust. The one thing that I am relatively sure of is that the law will not allow a trust to continue into perpetuity. Imo, the lawyers have provided that, in the event of a suit against the estate/trust, the assests will remain protected against the judgment or their work would have been in vain, imho

[martin II]

http://www.flprobatelitigation.com/cat-creditors-claims.html

It appears that the probate court is the place where this type decision is made. It also appears that each case can be decided differently by the probate court as there are different laws that have to be considered.

are judgements considered the same as regular debt?

martin II

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped*. . . since the estate was set up and the Law allows for the shielding of some assets, I think that the collection on the judgment is a moot issue.

You would do well to read the link -- I'm sure Fred's laywers have.

[martin II]

*Snipped*

You would do well to read the link -- I'm sure Fred's laywers have.

WEEZER

Would you be able to cut and past the specific paragraph, from your link, you are referring to?
martin II

[fbgweezer]

WEEZER

Would you be able to cut and past the specific paragraph, from your link, you are referring to?
martin II

no, sorry. . . I'm limited on number of windows I can open at one time. In what reading I could do, it looked to me that the only thing that MIGHT be protected was the homestead and that seems to be questionable.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

You would do well to read the link -- I'm sure Fred's laywers have.


Having read your post and, assuming there is an expressed trust stating that the property contained therein is to be used for the benefit of his children, then I found this to be the most relevant part of the link, even after the changes in Florida law.

[T]he “trust exception” or “equitable title to specifically identifiable property” exception to the requirements of the nonclaim statute, as those exceptions pertain to recovery of property from an estate, have effectively been limited to those situations where the decedent clearly held the property on behalf of the actual owner either by way of an express trust or some other clearly defined means. In other words, if a decedent asserted beneficial ownership of the property before his death, a claim to the property would be barred unless filed according to section 733.702. The reason being that the dispute as to ownership, creating the cause of action, arose before the decedent's death because the decedent, prior to his death, adversely claimed the property as his own. If, however, the decedent was merely in possession of the property but made no such assertion of ownership prior to his or her death, the assertion of ownership being made by the personal representative or heirs for the first time after the decedent's death would not require the filing of a claim.

Given a quick and limited reading, I would say, imo, the identifiable property is protected after his death.

[martin II]

no, sorry. . . I'm limited on number of windows I can open at one time. In what reading I could do, it looked to me that the only thing that MIGHT be protected was the homestead and that seems to be questionable.

homesteads are quite difficult to break especially in Florida.
I also took note of williams comments about how the trust may have been set up.
One purpose of a trust is to protect against attacks on the assets. imo
martin II

[fbgweezer]

homesteads are quite difficult to break especially in Florida.
I also took note of williams comments about how the trust may have been set up.
One purpose of a trust is to protect against attacks on the assets. imo
martin II

We'll see -- I doubt an outstanding judgment would be considered an 'attack on assets' but then Florida did give us 'chads' and a whole new appreciation for voting -- LOL. I have the question out on the 'Law Board' -- maybe I'll get lucky and someone will answer.

[martin II]

We'll see -- I doubt an outstanding judgment would be considered an 'attack on assets' but then Florida did give us 'chads' and a whole new appreciation for voting -- LOL. I have the question out on the 'Law Board' -- maybe I'll get lucky and someone will answer.

weezer

assets put into a trust are there for protection. anyone sueing the trust/estate would be making a attack against the estate. imo

Florida taught us how it is possible using "chads" and other methods to steal a u.s. election.

martin II

[fbgweezer]

weezer

assets put into a trust are there for protection. anyone sueing the trust/estate would be making a attack against the estate. imo

Florida taught us how it is possible using "chads" and other methods to steal a u.s. election.

martin II

Wonder if that applies to assets held before the trust is made and at the time of the judgment? If the trust was set up while he was in california, wouldn't it then fall under california law? And, if the trust was set up after he moved to florida, wouldn't that mean that assets before then would be subject to the judgment?

Also, does anyone know if Goldman and/or Brown filed a lien against orenthal's florida homestead?

[martin II]

Wonder if that applies to assets held before the trust is made and at the time of the judgment? If the trust was set up while he was in california, wouldn't it then fall under california law? And, if the trust was set up after he moved to florida, wouldn't that mean that assets before then would be subject to the judgment?

Also, does anyone know if Goldman and/or Brown filed a lien against orenthal's florida homestead?

i don't think he set the trust up in california knowing he was moving to florida.
fred has not been able to get the california judgement to apply in florida because of the florida homestead law and maby because florida is a right to work state.

many people that loose civil cases in other states move to florida with their assets to take advantage of floridas protection.

the assets that could be found before he moved from rockingham were auctioned off and the money given to fred and the browns. it is about $400,000 $500,000 imo

martin II

[William Anthony]

Wonder if that applies to assets held before the trust is made and at the time of the judgment? If the trust was set up while he was in california, wouldn't it then fall under california law? And, if the trust was set up after he moved to florida, wouldn't that mean that assets before then would be subject to the judgment?

Also, does anyone know if Goldman and/or Brown filed a lien against orenthal's florida homestead?


Juding from how the events have proceeded, I would think that a lien was filed or attempted to be filed, but the assests remain protected. There are several different scenarios that can come into play, and I think you have asked some relevant questions. I think that the assest remain protected and therefore, everything was done according to Hoyle. He probably had dual residency. There maybe some other way around the law, such as a sham trust.

[martin II]

Wonder if that applies to assets held before the trust is made and at the time of the judgment? If the trust was set up while he was in california, wouldn't it then fall under california law? And, if the trust was set up after he moved to florida, wouldn't that mean that assets before then would be subject to the judgment?

Also, does anyone know if Goldman and/or Brown filed a lien against orenthal's florida homestead?

is that possible. It is my understanding that florida did not recognize the california judgement.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Wonder if that applies to assets held before the trust is made and at the time of the judgment? If the trust was set up while he was in california, wouldn't it then fall under california law? And, if the trust was set up after he moved to florida, wouldn't that mean that assets before then would be subject to the judgment?

Also, does anyone know if Goldman and/or Brown filed a lien against orenthal's florida homestead?

weezer

fred and several lawyers have tried to attack oj's assets in florida starting from when the judgement was issued. so far they have failed. wonder why?
martin II

[fbgweezer]

Juding from how the events have proceeded, I would think that a lien was filed or attempted to be filed, but the assests remain protected. There are several different scenarios that can come into play, and I think you have asked some relevant questions. I think that the assest remain protected and therefore, everything was done according to Hoyle. He probably had dual residency. There maybe some other way around the law, such as a sham trust.

Texas also has homestead protection but that does not mean it is protected in perpetuity.

[fbgweezer]

weezer

fred and several lawyers have tried to attack oj's assets in florida starting from when the judgement was issued. so far they have failed. wonder why?
martin II

The word you're looking for is "attached" -- and the answer is "orenthal ran for cover" (like he did when he beat Nicole and just like he did when Sydney called the police). I've always heard that abusers are really cowards -- he's proving that right.

[William Anthony]

Texas also has homestead protection but that does not mean it is protected in perpetuity.

That is exactly my point in the other post. However, with that said, I do believe that the survival action dies with Ron's parents. I am not sure about the sister. That is to say that the judgment would terminate on the parents' deaths, I think without doing any research.

[martin II]

The word you're looking for is "attached" -- and the answer is "orenthal ran for cover" (like he did when he beat Nicole and just like he did when Sydney called the police). I've always heard that abusers are really cowards -- he's proving that right.




all nonsense.

martin II

[martin II]

The word you're looking for is "attached" -- and the answer is "orenthal ran for cover" (like he did when he beat Nicole and just like he did when Sydney called the police). I've always heard that abusers are really cowards -- he's proving that right.

wrong

when one sues another for money it is a attack on the assets of the person being sued. attatched means to bind two or more things togeather as you must know.
martin II

[fbgweezer]

That is exactly my point in the other post. However, with that said, I do believe that the survival action dies with Ron's parents. I am not sure about the sister. That is to say that the judgment would terminate on the parents' deaths, I think without doing any research.

His sister is named in the judgment

[fbgweezer]

wrong

when one sues another for money it is a attack on the assets of the person being sued. attatched means to bind two or more things togeather as you must know.
martin II

wa -- do you want to explain to martin that assets/liabilities are 'attached'?

[William Anthony]

His sister is named in the judgment

If she was awarded an amount, then she would have a right to pursue that amount.

[William Anthony]

wa -- do you want to explain to martin that assets/liabilities are 'attached'?

Martin,

You are both right. The assets are attacked to satisfy the judgment and are sometimes the subject of a court proceeding. In the case of attachment, the lien or judgment would attach to the assets, and, I do believe, but am not quite sure, that a judgment may need to be perfected.

[martin II]

Martin,

You are both right. The assets are attacked to satisfy the judgment and are sometimes the subject of a court proceeding. In the case of attachment, the lien or judgment would attach to the assets, and, I do believe, but am not quite sure, that a judgment may need to be perfected.

thanks
martin II

[martin II]

If she was awarded an amount, then she would have a right to pursue that amount.

i posted the links to the two types of awards listed in the civil trial jury quesitonair. above.

the only people named on this jury form are fred goldman, lou brown, sharon rufo (the mother)
martijn II

[fbgweezer]

Martin,

You are both right. The assets are attacked to satisfy the judgment and are sometimes the subject of a court proceeding. In the case of attachment, the lien or judgment would attach to the assets, and, I do believe, but am not quite sure, that a judgment may need to be perfected.

attachment: to seize property of a defendant which would satisfy a judgment against that defendant.
See also: attachment

[martin II]

Punitive Damages Verdict Form
We, the jury of the above-entitled action, find the following special verdict on the questions submitted to us.

Answer the following question "yes" or "no."

Question No. 1: Shall punitive damages be assessed against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiff Fredric Goldman?

YES____ NO_____

If your answer is "yes," answer the next question. If your answer is "no," proceed to Question No. 3.

Question No. 2: We assess punitive damages against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiff Fredric Goldman as follows:

AMOUNT $_______________

Question No. 3: Shall punitive damages be assessed against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiff Louis Brown?

YES____ NO_____

If your answer is "yes," answer the next question. If your answer is "no," have your foreperson sign and date this verdict.

Question No. 4: We assess punitive damages against defendant Orenthal James Simpson in favor of plaintiff Louis Brown as follows:

AMOUNT $_______________

DATED: Febuary ___, 1997

juror#_________
FOREPERSON

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

Civil Trial Jury Verdict Form
The jury foreperson signs and dates the form after each question is agreed upon by a 9-3 or better vote.

SPECIAL VERDICT

We, the jury of the above-entitled action, find the following special verdict on the questions submitted to us:

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

Write the answer "yes" or "no" below.

Yes No

Answer: _____ _____

If your answer to Question No. 1 is "no," do not answer Question Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and instead proceed to Question No. 5. If your answer to Question No. 1 is "yes," proceed to Question No. 2.

Question No. 2: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Ronald Goldman?

Write the answer "yes" or "no" below.

Yes No

Answer: _____ _____

If your answer to Question No. 2 is "yes," proceed to Question No. 3.

If your answer to Question No. 2 is "no," do not answer Question Nos. 3 and 4, and instead proceed to Question No. 5.

Question No. 3: Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman.

Write the answer "yes" or "no" below.

Yes No

Answer: _____ _____

If you answered "yes" to Question No. 2, proceed to Question No. 4.

Question No. 4: Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman.

Write the answer "yes" or "no" below.

Yes No

Answer: _____ _____

Proceed to Question No. 5.

Question No. 5: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

Write the answer "yes" or "no" below.

Yes No

Answer: _____ _____

If your answer to Question No. 5 is "yes," proceed to Question No. 6.

If your answers to Question Nos. 1 and 5 are "no," proceed to date, sign, and return the verdict form.

Question No. 6: Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

Write the answer "yes" or "no" below.

Yes No

Answer: _____ _____

If you answered "yes" to Question No. 5, proceed to Question No. 7.

Question No. 7: Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

Write the answer "yes" or "no" below.

Yes No

Answer: _____ _____

If you answered "yes" to Question No. 1, answer Question No. 8.

Question No. 8: We award damages against defendant Simpson and in favor of plaintiffs Goldman and Rufo, in the aggregate, as follows:

Amount

Answer: $_______

Date, sign, and return the verdict form.

DATED: _____, 1997 ________________ FOREPERSON

[martin II]

wa -- do you want to explain to martin that assets/liabilities are 'attached'?

weezer
that is not the question.

i said any suit against the assets of a person is a attack on those assets.

martin II

[martin II]

attachment: to seize property of a defendant which would satisfy a judgment against that defendant.
See also: attachment

you are using this in a different manner than what i posted.
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Punitive Damages Verdict Form
We, the jury of the above-entitled action, find the following special verdict


OMG! Yesterday you posted what, 3 links to this & now you have to post the entire form here? Don't you think if people were interested in it, they would have clicked on the link. Why are you wasting such space???

Just because Goldman's sister isn't listed as a plaintiff, that doesn't mean she wouldn't be entitled to her father's estate if he passed. The judgement should be part of the estate. Duh!

[William Anthony]

OMG! Yesterday you posted what, 3 links to this & now you have to post the entire form here? Don't you think if people were interested in it, they would have clicked on the link. Why are you wasting such space???

Just because Goldman's sister isn't listed as a plaintiff, that doesn't mean she wouldn't be entitled to her father's estate if he passed. The judgement should be part of the estate. Duh!


Diva,

The judgment does not automatically become part of the estate, I do not believe. I think that, if there is a will, and, I am not sure that it can be passed in that manner, the will would have to so state. A lot of it is contingent upon the State's probate laws. The survivor action is really a child of the court and may be limited.

[William Anthony]

attachment: to seize property of a defendant which would satisfy a judgment against that defendant.
See also: attachment

There is what is called an in Rem action, specific to property of a defendant. This would be an attack/suit brought against the assets. Any civil suit/attack is for monetary damages, which is an assest. I still think that you are both correct, and this is another demonstration with the problem of words.

[socaldiva]

*snip*
The judgment does not automatically become part of the estate, I do not believe. I think that, if there is a will, and, I am not sure that it can be passed in that manner, the will would have to so state. A lot of it is contingent upon the State's probate laws. The survivor action is really a child of the court and may be limited.

You can go with what you "believe" & I'll go with what my brother said, even though he was answering in a general sense. I can't imagine that Fred didn't create a will & cover his bases in that regard. Fred isn't stupid, nor were his lawyers.

[William Anthony]

You can go with what you "believe" & I'll go with what my brother said, even though he was answering in a general sense. I can't imagine that Fred didn't create a will & cover his bases in that regard. Fred isn't stupid, nor were his lawyers.

I was not speaking to this case, but answering in general. I have no idea what Goldman or his lawyers may have done, and, still remain unsure if a judgment on a survival action automatically becomes part of a decease's estate. It may well be treated as a future entitlement However, since she may not have had standing, it may well be that she is not entitled. I was not answering unequivocally and still believe that it may be contingent on a State's probate laws. This is the food from which lawyers eat.

[deputydi]

My bro said that the judgement would remain & become part of the estate, regardless of who passed. The liability would become part of the Simpson estate & likewise the judgement awarded would become part of the Goldman estate, should he pass. He said there is no time limit on judgements.(I hope I splained it right. My brother is much smarter than I am ~smile~)
Because of your nic, I am assuming you are from S Cal. Is this basically true in all states or do the rules change depending on where you live?

[deputydi]

I don't consider the Judgment as an asset in OJ's Estate. I think that it is more of a liability and it would still remain to be paid. If the heirs can't or won't pay the Judgment (just like OJ did) then it will be interesting to see how and where the Judgment finally ends up. I am sure that the Browns will not go after the kids for their share of the Judgment. I am still on the fence about Fred though. To Fred, they're just all "Simpson's" and he wants the Judgment paid!

JMO and MOO!!
I think you misunderstood what I said. I am well aware that the Judgment is a liability to the estate. When OJ dies, I am sure the children will be the beneficiaries of his estate which I am also sure doesn't come close to the Judgment amount of 33M. Do you seriously believe that Fred will try to attach whatever assets are left to the children? I just don't think he is that greedy and I don't think his main motivation is the money.

[martin II]

Because of your nic, I am assuming you are from S Cal. Is this basically true in all states or do the rules change depending on where you live?

deputy
Probate rules are not the same in all states. imo
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

homesteads are quite difficult to break especially in Florida.
I also took note of williams comments about how the trust may have been set up.
One purpose of a trust is to protect against attacks on the assets. imo
martin II

What part of "the Judgment is a liability against OJ's Estate" don't you understand?

We're not talking about assets. The original question was regarding the Judgment, which is an obvious liability against OJ's Estate!

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

What part of "the Judgment is a liability against OJ's Estate" don't you understand?

We're not talking about assets. The original question was regarding the Judgment, which is an obvious liability against OJ's Estate!

JMO and MOO!!
I'm not sure what you're arguing against. The Homestead Exemption prohibits the Goldmans from seizing OJs home to satisfy a civil judgment. I thought we were talking about what effect this Judgment will have on the estate when OJ dies. I don't know whether the Homestead Exemption would continue ----- do you?

[2L8 4A D8]

Wonder if that applies to assets held before the trust is made and at the time of the judgment? If the trust was set up while he was in california, wouldn't it then fall under california law? And, if the trust was set up after he moved to florida, wouldn't that mean that assets before then would be subject to the judgment?

Also, does anyone know if Goldman and/or Brown filed a lien against orenthal's florida homestead?

I am not sure about that Weezer. What boggles my mind is that apparently an Abstract of Judgment wasn't filed against any of OJ's assets, the Rockingham home included. However, it is my understanding that Rockingham was heavily indebted and the Brown's and the Goldman's probably wouldn't have gotten much, if anything, from the sale of Rockingham. :mad:

I just don't see how OJ was allowed to leave the State of California scott free and settle in Florida. IMO, someone dropped the (foot)ball big time! I've always wondered where did OJ get the money to buy the house in Florida if he was so broke and not able to pay anything towards the Judgment? :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

[deputydi]

I am not sure about that Weezer. What boggles my mind is that apparently an Abstract of Judgment wasn't filed against any of OJ's assets, the Rockingham home included. However, it is my understanding that Rockingham was heavily indebted and the Brown's and the Goldman's probably wouldn't have gotten much, if anything, from the sale of Rockingham. :mad:

I just don't see how OJ was allowed to leave the State of California scott free and settle in Florida. IMO, someone dropped the (foot)ball big time! I've always wondered where did OJ get the money to buy the house in Florida if he was so broke and not able to pay anything towards the Judgment? :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!
Why do you think he should have been prohibited from leaving CA? As far as his financial status -- don't forget his football pension. That is something else that can't be touched by this Judgment.

[2L8 4A D8]

I was not speaking to this case, but answering in general. I have no idea what Goldman or his lawyers may have done, and, still remain unsure if a judgment on a survival action automatically becomes part of a decease's estate. It may well be treated as a future entitlement However, since she may not have had standing, it may well be that she is not entitled. I was not answering unequivocally and still believe that it may be contingent on a State's probate laws. This is the food from which lawyers eat.

Wouldn't everybody be lucky if that were true, but it's not. As I have previously stated, just because OJ dies doesn't mean that the Judgment will go "poof!" I am sure that if that was correct, it would make many, many heirs VERY happy to know that their Parent(s) Judgments (Liabilities) would no longer be their responsibility to pay upon their death! Dream on!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

I think you misunderstood what I said. I am well aware that the Judgment is a liability to the estate. When OJ dies, I am sure the children will be the beneficiaries of his estate which I am also sure doesn't come close to the Judgment amount of 33M. Do you seriously believe that Fred will try to attach whatever assets are left to the children? I just don't think he is that greedy and I don't think his main motivation is the money.

As I stated, I am still on the fence about Fred. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. Who knows?

Again, JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

I'm not sure what you're arguing against. The Homestead Exemption prohibits the Goldmans from seizing OJs home to satisfy a civil judgment. I thought we were talking about what effect this Judgment will have on the estate when OJ dies. I don't know whether the Homestead Exemption would continue ----- do you?

You are correct. The Florida Homestead Exemption prohibits the Goldman's from seizing it to satisfy the Judgment. I am only familiar with California Probate procedures, so I can't comment on your question re: if the Florida Homestead Exemption would continue after OJ's death.

JMO and MOO!!

[jotun]

Do you seriously believe that Fred will try to attach whatever assets are left to the children? I just don't think he is that greedy and I don't think his main motivation is the money.

Fred will try.
He went after the contents of O.J.'s home after the Brown's had it raided.
O.J.'s Mom's piano and the Brown's house. That's GREED.
Main motivation is MONEY!!! Along with fame and public sympathy.

jotun

[2L8 4A D8]

Why do you think he should have been prohibited from leaving CA? As far as his financial status -- don't forget his football pension. That is something else that can't be touched by this Judgment.

I know that California could not hold OJ as a prisoner. I am talking about the Abstract of Judgment and why one wasn't filed against his assets before him leaving California. Apparently an AOJ wasn't filed (someone dropped the (foot)ball big time) and that's what I meant about OJ being able to leave the State of California "scott free."

Yes, I understand that OJ's football pension is untouchable!

JMO and MOO!!

[fbgweezer]

As I stated, I am still on the fence about Fred. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. Who knows?

Again, JMO and MOO!!


He might be satisfied just reading the obit. IMO

[martin II]

What part of "the Judgment is a liability against OJ's Estate" don't you understand?

We're not talking about assets. The original question was regarding the Judgment, which is an obvious liability against OJ's Estate!

JMO and MOO!!

In case you don't remember we are talking about the trust that oj may have set up. If someone makes a attempt to take assets/money from the trust, that is a attack on the assets of the trust.
martin II

[martin II]

Fred will try.
He went after the contents of O.J.'s home after the Brown's had it raided.
O.J.'s Mom's piano and the Brown's house. That's GREED.
Main motivation is MONEY!!! Along with fame and public sympathy.

jotun

JOTUN

I do remember that the Heisman trophy was auctioned for $250,000 and some art work was sold and a few other items from the house. i assume this money was divded between fred and the browns .Also i do remember that fred tried to get the piano from oj.s mothers house i think because oj had given it to her.

I also think that oj had loaned lou brown about $300,000 so he could pay his back mortage on lous house and fred went to court to force lou brown to pay him the debt that lou owed to oj for this loan.

martin II

[martin II]

Why do you think he should have been prohibited from leaving CA? As far as his financial status -- don't forget his football pension. That is something else that can't be touched by this Judgment.

deputydi

i believe that at least some of the planning to move his assets to florida was done by oj before the civil suite judgement was ever awarded. i say this because even before nicole was murdered there was talk about him and nicole moving to florida. he had to know that he would loose in the civil trial.
martin II

[martin II]

I am not sure about that Weezer. What boggles my mind is that apparently an Abstract of Judgment wasn't filed against any of OJ's assets, the Rockingham home included. However, it is my understanding that Rockingham was heavily indebted and the Brown's and the Goldman's probably wouldn't have gotten much, if anything, from the sale of Rockingham. :mad:

I just don't see how OJ was allowed to leave the State of California scott free and settle in Florida. IMO, someone dropped the (foot)ball big time! I've always wondered where did OJ get the money to buy the house in Florida if he was so broke and not able to pay anything towards the Judgment? :shrug:

JMO and MOO!!

in case you don't remember oj said he did not pay the judgement because he did not do the crime. it had nothing to do with how much money he may or may not have had.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

I know that California could not hold OJ as a prisoner. I am talking about the Abstract of Judgment and why one wasn't filed against his assets before him leaving California. Apparently an AOJ wasn't filed (someone dropped the (foot)ball big time) and that's what I meant about OJ being able to leave the State of California "scott free."

Yes, I understand that OJ's football pension is untouchable!

JMO and MOO!!

2l

exactly how would a "abstract of judgement" have changed anything?
martin II

[socaldiva]

in case you don't remember oj said he did not pay the judgement because he did not do the crime. it had nothing to do with how much money he may or may not have had.
imo
martin II

The court doesn't give a rat's azz what OJ has to say. His lies don't absolve him of the judgement :rolleyes:

[fbgweezer]

in case you don't remember oj said he did not pay the judgement because he did not do the crime. it had nothing to do with how much money he may or may not have had.
imo
martin II

LOL -- like he didn't pay his cable bill -- LOL -- some people are just sleazy and orenthal happens to be one of them.

[2L8 4A D8]

In case you don't remember we are talking about the trust that oj may have set up. If someone makes a attempt to take assets/money from the trust, that is a attack on the assets of the trust.
martin II

The "key" word here is "may." You don't know for a fact that OJ has set up a trust. You are just speculating. OJ can try to do anything to protect his assets, but the Judgment is a liability and will remain as such until it is paid off! Since we know that OJ is NOT going to pay off the Judgment, then it will just keep on reverting down the road, FOREVER, to whoever inherits it. IIRC, you can't even get rid of a Judgment through Bankruptcy. It is an anvil around your neck until it is paid off ~ by you, your heirs, their heirs, their heirs and their heirs to infinity!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

in case you don't remember oj said he did not pay the judgement because he did not do the crime. it had nothing to do with how much money he may or may not have had.
imo
martin II

I don't give a cr@p what OJ said or says. And just what does your post to me have to do with my post to Weezer? Nothing! Nada! None! Zilch! IMO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

2l

exactly how would a "abstract of judgement" have changed anything?
martin II

:read: up on Abstract of Judgments and you'll find out for yourself!

[martin II]

The "key" word here is "may." You don't know for a fact that OJ has set up a trust. You are just speculating. OJ can try to do anything to protect his assets, but the Judgment is a liability and will remain as such until it is paid off! Since we know that OJ is NOT going to pay off the Judgment, then it will just keep on reverting down the road, FOREVER, to whoever inherits it. IIRC, you can't even get rid of a Judgment through Bankruptcy. It is an anvil around your neck until it is paid off ~ by you, your heirs, their heirs, their heirs and their heirs to infinity!

JMO and MOO!!

And it