No Juice Thread yet?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm

We already knew he was a fucking piece of shit. The only person who might disagree is bannied.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:03 pm

Quote of the day from a Bills fan here at work.

"Finally that piece of shit O.J. is in jail."

Aside from that level of concern, nobody gives a rats ass.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:10 pm

Q, West Coast Style · Post by **Q, West Coast Style** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:16 pm

BSmack wrote:
Aside from that level of concern, nobody gives a rats ass.

Whattaya talking about. This is big news.

Sin,

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:42 pm

RumpleForeskin wrote:I am not a troll or a liar; just marginally retarded

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:00 pm

Why would there be a recording in the hotel room? Some of this seems pre-meditated by the alleged victims or memorabilia peeps.

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:27 pm

I think this Tard's head is about to explode at TMZ...

3. This is all unimportant. We have thousands of nukes aimed at us...and thousands of nukes aimed at others. People are dying of AIDS. 12 American Children die of starvation each week...and we are the richiest country in the world??

There is a war going on right now. Hundreds of innocent Iraqis have died. American Troops are killing, and being killed. So-called terrorists are trying to kill us!!! Cuban leader Fidel Castro is claiming that a missile hit The Pentagon on 911, and not a plane...and that we have been duped about 911. Yet more proof that 911 was an inside job!!! Do a web search on Project Northwoods aka Operation Northwoods and witness the amazing similarities. And now, Alan Greenspan says in his new book that we attacked Iraq for oil, nothing else.

The Housing Market is crashing!!! Millions of Americans may lose their houses!!! Thousands of Americans, especially children, come up missing each year...and many are never seen again...and their kidnappers, and or, murderers never found or identified!!! Over one hundred serial killers are roaming the country at any given time according to the FBI. There is genecide in Darfur (The Sudan)!!! Global Warming is threatening a mass extinction level event that can wipe-out humanity!!! And yet...despite all this, O.J. Simpson is more important to the media than all of these stories clear and present dangers, and concerns???!!! The whole human race is suffering from mental illness if people can't see how insane this is!!!

No wonder why the human race is headed right down the damn sewer!!!

This jackass needs to eat a loaded Shotgun...

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:31 pm

mvscal wrote:Alleged victims? You're a fucking idiot.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/09/17/o-j-confr ... t-on-tape/

So in other words, that fuck head sold key evidence to a webloid, which now makes it inadmissible in court?

Can anyone say "Not guilty"?

Again.

OJ, The teflon criminal

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:32 pm

mvscal wrote:Alleged victims? You're a fucking idiot.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/09/17/o-j-confr ... t-on-tape/

I'm trolling on that. I don't believe it either, but the question has been raised.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:38 pm

Q, West Coast Style wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Aside from that level of concern, nobody gives a rats ass.
Whattaya talking about. This is big news.

Sin,

~~We agree.~~It will help us distract America from the important stuff.

Sin,

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:37 pm

But it will become inadmissible, because any jury pool will be tainted by the knowledge, just like the eyewitness who saw OJ speeding away from Nicoles' place towards his own at the time of the murders, but she sold her story to the tabloids as well.

Besides, most of the charges are related to weapons charges, and by all accounts he did not have a weapon.

I say he gets probation, and then he will feel obligated to go out and find the real armed robbers at a golf course nearby.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:39 pm

Is that what they taught you in law school?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:03 pm

You have a lot more faith in the system than I do.

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:43 pm

I still want to know how and why the whole incident was being recorded in a hotel room.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:50 pm

I carry a digital recorder with me everywhere I go. It's the size of a candy bar, and can record 100 hours of audio.

If I was meeting OJ anywhere, I'd sure as hell do the same.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:59 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:I carry a digital recorder with me everywhere I go.

Why?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:15 pm

Business reasons. I can record audio notes on site, and then just email the audio file to my secretary. Very efficient.

Cueball · Post by **Cueball** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:35 am

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:41 am

Mister Bushice wrote:I carry a digital recorder with me everywhere I go. It's the size of a candy bar, and can record 100 hours of audio.

Did R_t_S out his troll?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:12 am

Hell No. My back is fine.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:32 am

Haven't you noticed? All the circle-jerking twirps are far too bothered to laugh.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:24 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:I say he gets probation, and then he will feel obligated to go out and find the real armed robbers at a golf course nearby.

If he gets probation, then by definition, he's been convicted. Probation isn't available against someone who's been acquitted.

Even Orenthal doesn't have the brass cojones to say he'll try to find the real armed robbers after he's been convicted. At least, I don't think so.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:38 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:I say he gets probation, and then he will feel obligated to go out and find the real armed robbers at a golf course nearby.
If he gets probation, then by definition, he's been convicted. Probation isn't available against someone who's been acquitted.

They'll bargain down all of the felonies to some stupid misdemeanor. No additional time served.

Even Orenthal doesn't have the brass cojones to say he'll try to find the real armed robbers after he's been convicted. At least, I don't think so.

He was found guilty in the civil case of the people he murdered, and that didn't stop him from looking. :)

For all we know he thought Ron and Nicoles killers were in that hotel room.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:57 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:He was found guilty in the civil case of the people he murdered, and that didn't stop him from looking. :)

He was found liable for their deaths. That's different from being found guilty, at least from a legal standpoint. And it didn't happen until about 2 1/2 years after he made the statement about looking for the real killers.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:48 pm

Answer me this. If you are involved in an armed robbery but you did not have a gun and that fact is proven, can they charge you with any of the weapons charges they have lined up against OJ?

They've also added a Kidnapping charge just this afternoon. I'm gonna guess that they felt they had to slap something non weapon related on there to try and make something stick.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:56 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Answer me this. If you are involved in an armed robbery but you did not have a gun and that fact is proven, can they charge you with any of the weapons charges they have lined up against OJ?

Yep.

The answer to that might depend on the laws of the jurisdiction in question. Of course, there's always accomplice liability to fall back upon, so mvscal might be correct as a general rule.

One thing that confuses me is the Goldmans' position. As I understand it, they believe that Orenthal stole the sports memorabilia, but that they are entitled to it by virtue of their unsatisfied judgment against him. It seems to me that their claim to the sports memorabilia is only as good as his claim would be.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:14 pm

Oj Still owes them big bank. He gets around 25K a month from the NFL pension, but they can't touch that.

The funny thing is the fucker can't even bail himself out, because as soon as he posts it, the Goldmans can collect it. :)

Someone else will have to bail him out.

And yeah, if any of those items are proven to be owned by OJ, the Goldmans can take them.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:57 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:The funny thing is the fucker can't even bail himself out, because as soon as he posts it, the Goldmans can collect it. :)

I think you got this part wrong. The Goldmans' interest in any bail money is no greater than OJ's would be. The Court would have a greater claim to it. Btw, I could be wrong about this, but didn't OJ post his own bail?

That having been said, when the case is concluded, the Goldmans definitely have a claim to the bail if OJ posted it. But if he's convicted of anything, the Court has a superior claim, at least as to the amount necessary to satisfy poundage, fines and surcharges (if applicable).

And yeah, if any of those items are proven to be owned by OJ, the Goldmans can take them.

True, although an acquittal wouldn't necessarily prove conclusively that OJ owned the items. I think the Goldmans may need to file a separate lawsuit to collect the sports memorabilia.

The ironic thing of all of this is, viewed strictly within the prism of the Goldmans' judgment against OJ, their best-case scenario would be a complete acquittal. Of course, I suspect they'd rather have him behind bars for something, anything, than collect part of the judgment, if given a choice between the two.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:37 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:The funny thing is the fucker can't even bail himself out, because as soon as he posts it, the Goldmans can collect it. :)
I think you got this part wrong. The Goldmans' interest in any bail money is no greater than OJ's would be. The Court would have a greater claim to it. Btw, I could be wrong about this, but didn't OJ post his own bail?

He could easily get around it, and have a lawyer post it. I said "collect" but I meant "Claim" You can bet Fred will petition for that money if he can. The Goldmans haven't let up on OJ, they just don't have many options, given his financial situation.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:48 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:The funny thing is the fucker can't even bail himself out, because as soon as he posts it, the Goldmans can collect it. :)
I think you got this part wrong. The Goldmans' interest in any bail money is no greater than OJ's would be. The Court would have a greater claim to it. Btw, I could be wrong about this, but didn't OJ post his own bail?
He could easily get around it, and have a lawyer post it. I said "collect" but I meant "Claim" You can bet Fred will petition for that money if he can. The Goldmans haven't let up on OJ, they just don't have many options, given his financial situation.

No doubt about that. But if he posted it himself, they'll have to wait for the conclusion of the criminal case before they even have a chance to touch it. They simply can't demand that the Court turn the bail money over to them and lock him up again.

OJ went through bankruptcy a little while ago, IIRC, but the bankruptcy case didn't discharge this debt or the debt to the Brown family.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:55 pm

Anyone who thinks that the court gleefully hands you your bail money back after allis said and done...

don't know much.

That's the way it works around here, anyway... OR SO I'VE HEARD.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:08 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote: I think you got this part wrong. The Goldmans' interest in any bail money is no greater than OJ's would be. The Court would have a greater claim to it. Btw, I could be wrong about this, but didn't OJ post his own bail?
He could easily get around it, and have a lawyer post it. I said "collect" but I meant "Claim" You can bet Fred will petition for that money if he can. The Goldmans haven't let up on OJ, they just don't have many options, given his financial situation.
No doubt about that. But if he posted it himself, they'll have to wait for the conclusion of the criminal case before they even have a chance to touch it. They simply can't demand that the Court turn the bail money over to them and lock him up again.

OJ went through bankruptcy a little while ago, IIRC, but the bankruptcy case didn't discharge this debt or the debt to the Brown family.

He's funneling money through his kids, too.

Poor guy, having to live on only 25k a month

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:11 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Anyone who thinks that the court gleefully hands you your bail money back after allis said and done...

don't know much.

I certainly never said as much, which is why I mentioned poundage, fines, surcharges . . . and also why I mentioned that the Goldmans' best-case scenario, at least from the standpoint of their civil case, is an outright acquittal. If there's an acquittal, the Court has to hand all of the bail money posted back.

That's the way it works around here, anyway... OR SO I'VE HEARD.

Around here, the Court keeps 3% poundage if there is a conviction -- any conviction. The Court also has the opportunity to impose a fine in the event of conviction, in addition to any sentence of incarceration, probation, conditional discharge, etc., which it imposes. Then there's the state surcharge, which is mandatory unless restitution is paid as part of the sentence. That ranges from $55 for a traffic infraction up to $165 for a felony conviction -- I think (the legislature is constantly changing the surcharges, so you need a scorecard to keep track of them).

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:26 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote: I certainly never said as much

No, you didn't. Some other ignorant retard insinuated as much. You've actually been in a courtroom once or twice, and aren't talking out of your ass.

Around here, the Court keeps 3% poundage if there is a conviction

Damn. You guys get off easy. Around here, they keep 15%, last I heard (which has been a long time). Matter of fact, I believe they try and pull a "service/bonding fee" even if a person is acquitted. Then again, my county government is legendary for their bullshit and corruption, so nothing suprises me from them anymore. Back when, they used to brag about getting more revenue-per-capita from civil fines than any other county in the nation... they freaking BRAGGED about it. What an outstanding cash-crop to grow, eh?

-- any conviction. The Court also has the opportunity to impose a fine in the event of conviction, in addition to any sentence of incarceration, probation, conditional discharge, etc., which it imposes. Then there's the state surcharge, which is mandatory unless restitution is paid as part of the sentence. That ranges from $55 for a traffic infraction up to $165 for a felony conviction -- I think (the legislature is constantly changing the surcharges, so you need a scorecard to keep track of them).[/quote]

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:19 pm

mvscal wrote:Poundage fees?!? I'M RICH, BEEYETCH!!

--Sissyroo's dimehole

Mt. Rumplewife might have been an even better sig line on this post.

T1B

No Juice Thread yet?

No Juice Thread yet?

Re: No Juice Thread yet?