O J Simpson

---

It was a paraphrase! Didn't we recently go through the idea of "paraphrase" with your arch-nemesis? That is in effect what it sounded like you meant. You're still won't explain what you actually did mean, if you did mean something else.I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that everyone who looked at this thread understood it that way.You can explain what you did mean, or you can have people not understand what you meant. It's up to you, but ad hominem attacks don't add anything of value to understanding the thread's topic.

I coppied Steve's reiteration.your comment "It could be done legally.I'm innocent and it's being done to me by a company that either suspects I'm guilty or just doesn't want to pay"so, the question is... have you been aquitted of a felony and are now being re-tried in violation of the double jeopardy rule?(Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.)

No, Mr U, I sued an insurance company for refusal to pay and they continue to hold it up in court.And this relates to the O.J. Simpson case in what way?

ok, thanks for clarifying that. It doesn't really relate to re-trying OJ though, don't you agree?

but OJ's trails are both over... won one, lost one.Your situation is maybe most similar to his civil trial. When someone is awarded money by the court, there is generally still an onus on the plaintif to collect that money. THat's why many small-claims and sivil suites end up with a collection angency involved after the court case is over and done with

this definition of Double Jeopardy seems to cover the bases

It's not the same. O.J.'s civil trial ended. It went pretty quicly. On the other hand, I was a juror on a medical malpractice case that dragged along for almost ten years before going to court. I think the judge kept thinking that it would be settled before a verdict, as is often the case. Instead, it went on for a month, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. A mention of the award actually made it into the local NPR radio newscast the next morning.

I met the bailiff a few months later while shopping, and she said that the defendant appealed the case. I don't know what happened after that.

Radekl is rightly upset that he's being dragged through the legal process for a long time, but I don't see what any of that has to do with the O.J. cases (criminal or civil). Is he saying that the Brown family's lawyers were stupid for not punishing Simpson by dragging the case out forever? The idea is to win the case, not to pay lawyers forever to drag it out. They won the case. The problem is that there seems to be no way to collect on the award. What more can the Brown family lawyers do?

That was pretty technical, with a lot of legal references, and discussed in some detail the "same elements" and the "same conduct" tests, but I think it pretty much agreed with what I said.

the point being that dragging a case out as long as possible is NOT of benifit to the plaintiff.

It's only of benefit to the lawyers, who keep getting paid, if they're not working on contingency. Otherwise it's not of benefit to anyone.

In reply to:Merely to keep him in court on some charge; any charge.They could do it; they won't do it.Who do you mean by they? "Charge" implies a criminal proceeding, and there's no other criminal charge that would apply. If you're talking about a private party bringing a lawsuit, who's going to pay for the lawyers? Dragging someone into court is not without financial cost, and dragging in someone with no accessible assets is just silly.In reply to:And again, I never hinted his case was similar to mine, since mine isn't a criminal case.I only pointed out that if it can be done to me, it can be done to him ... legally and without deactivation the constitution.BTW My case is not merely a case for collection.It is like many other cases: If you don't like the verdict, appeal.Whatever you do, just keep it tied up in court in order to punish you, or at least that's the way it seems.Are you saying that you got a judgment against them and they appealed? I don't see how it relates at all. The plaintiffs won in the O.J. civil case. There's nothing to appeal. Simpson could appeal, if there's a legal reason his lawyers could come up with, but why would he bother? It would cost him money that he would otherwise get to keep.In reply to:And you are so right: If a person isn't found guilty, that should settle the matter, ie they are innocent.I think the OJ case is different.That's inconsistent. Also, "Not guilty" is not the same thing as "innocent". It just means that a jury can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant didn't commit the crime he was charged with. That is the case with the Simpson criminal trial. Why is it different?We keep interweaving criminal law (and Simpson's criminal case) with civil law (and Simpson's civil case), and they're two completely different things. Simpson's criminal and civil cases are settled, and no one is going to bring another civil case against him, since there's nothing to be recovered.The only hope is to get Florida to overturn its homestead law that protects a homeowner's equity from lawsuits, no matter how much equity there is, even if the person in question has no other assets. I don't see that law changing any time soon. (Rogues come from everywhere to buy multi-million-dollar properties in Florida, although I don't think that Simpson's house is that valuable.) Simpson's pension is also protected, and I think that's by federal law.When Simpson dies, the Browns can go after his estate, including his house.

I can see that you are feeling punnished by the proccess and therefore think that OJ could be likewise punnished by the proccess.
Unfortunately, you are forgetting that you are the plaintiff in your case and OJ would be the defendant in his. The company you are sueing is avoiding paying their penalty by dragging it out. It would be the same for OJ. If he spent the rest of his life in a court case, it would mean that he would never have to pay whatever penaly is being saught.
As unpleasant as it can be... the trial is not the punishment.

In reply to:I'd love to see him back in court.Win or lose, I'd keep him in court with expensive attorneys for the rest of his life simply because we know he did it and he got away with it!You made it awfully complicated. My understanding was that you meant another criminal proceeding. You meant another civil proceeding. Saying that would have saved a lot of further discussion. You and I know that the fifth amendment applies only to criminal proceedings.Beyond that, your experience in no way applies to Simpson. As a plaintiff in a civil proceeding, he could choose not to respond to a suit, and he would lose nothing. If a summary judgement were made against him, it wouldn't matter, because nothing would be collected. Meanwhile, the people bringing the suit would be spending a ton of money paying lawyers -- for nothing. The lawyers wouldn't work on contingency, because there would be no chance of collecting anything from the defendent. That's assuming someone could even find something to sue him over that wouldn't be frivolous.It may be unfair, since it really looks like Simpson is guilty, and it's even uglier because he keeps rubbing people's noses in it, but in a nation of laws, there are times when there's nothing left to do. In the old days vigilantes could deal with him, but that's not how we do business any more.Do you think you know something that the people who could do something about it don't know, and are too dumb to figure it out, or that there's some kind of conspiracy going on? If so, could you say specifically what they should do?

What matters is that there's nothing anyone can legally do to him, regardless of your personal experience.Criminal versus civil matters, because double jeopardy apllies only to one of them. There's nothing anyone could conjure up to go after him criminally, and there's nothing I'm aware of that anyone could go after him with civilly, and even if they could, it would cost them a lot of money, and would not affect him at all. He could just disregard any civil proceeding and lose nothing.Really, it's not that "they" aren't clever enough to figure out how to go after him. It's that nothing can be done. The only eyewitnesses are dead, and even if that weren't the case, I don't see how their testimony would affect anything other than the trials that already happened.It's sad and unfair, but the system isn't perfect, and it can't be made perfect, at least with current knowledge and technology.

That is some pretty nutty conspiracy stuff. I don't know who this "they" is that you keep talking about, but he lives in suburban Miami, and no cop is going to follow him around to see if he spits on the sidewalk. We have enough real crime to worry about to waste resources like that.He still has the same rights as any other citizen, and the government can't illegally harass him. That's life in a constutional democracy. If you don't like it and you think that the government should be free to go after whomever they want, or whomever is unpoplular, then you should look into reapealing the relevant parts of the Bill of Rights. Maybe then the government could "accidentally" blow up his house.I understand that you're unhappy with your treatment in the civil proeceeding you're enduring, and but it has nothing to do with Simpson. It's a flaw in the system that guilty people can get away with crimes, but the alternative would be far worse, and the prisons would be really full of innocent people.Maybe the FBI can charge him with terrorism. Can bad taste be construed as terrorism?

Man, you are really reaching. It's easier to go after someone who has no resources. He is also not obscure enough; forget about human rights groups. The local government just couldn't get away with it. Would they charge him with a random murder? He's under surveillance by the news media. Also people like me would stand in the way. As guilty as I may think he is, he's far less important than not having a totalitarian government.Are you arguing what could be done in the abstract, or what could be done to Simpson? Anyway, civil and criminal law are getting conflated again.This all leads us back to the fact that nothing can be done with regard to O.J. Simpson. You can fantisize about what the government(s) can do, but in reality they can't do anything.________________(By the way 1: If the address that was on his Wikipedia Web page, but was later deleted, can be believed, he lived half a mile from my high school (Miami Killian SHS).)(By the way 2: The ACLU does get involved in some fairly obscure cases. You only hear about the high-profie ones.)(By the way 3: His pension (from te NFL) is protected under California law.)

I love how you back out of every discussion when you know you're wrong yet you're too proud or ignorant to admit it.

At this point it doesn't much matter. This issue has been quite well beaten to death. I lost count of how many times I repeated myself. I have too much spare time. A new Family Guy is on now.

Yes, I've noticed that, too.

ha-ha

OJ's book deal and TV special got dropped. For the time being, the book isn't coming out