No Juice Thread yet?
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:54 pm
WTF.
Whattaya talking about. This is big news.BSmack wrote:
Aside from that level of concern, nobody gives a rats ass.
RumpleForeskin wrote:I am not a troll or a liar; just marginally retarded
This jackass needs to eat a loaded Shotgun...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!!!
So in other words, that fuck head sold key evidence to a webloid, which now makes it inadmissible in court?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.mvscal wrote:Alleged victims? You're a fucking idiot.
http://www.tmz.com/2007/09/17/o-j-confr ... t-on-tape/
Q, West Coast Style wrote:Whattaya talking about. This is big news.BSmack wrote:
Aside from that level of concern, nobody gives a rats ass.
Sin,
Why?Mister Bushice wrote:I carry a digital recorder with me everywhere I go.
Did R_t_S out his troll?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.
If he gets probation, then by definition, he's been convicted. Probation isn't available against someone who's been acquitted.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.
They'll bargain down all of the felonies to some stupid misdemeanor. No additional time served.Terry in Crapchester wrote:If he gets probation, then by definition, he's been convicted. Probation isn't available against someone who's been acquitted.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.
He was found guilty in the civil case of the people he murdered, and that didn't stop him from looking. :)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 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 wrote:He was found guilty in the civil case of the people he murdered, and that didn't stop him from looking. :)
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.mvscal wrote:Yep.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?
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?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. :)
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.And yeah, if any of those items are proven to be owned by OJ, the Goldmans can take them.
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 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?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. :)
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.Mister Bushice wrote: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 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?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. :)
He's funneling money through his kids, too.Terry in Crapchester wrote: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.Mister Bushice wrote: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 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?
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.
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.Dinsdale wrote:Anyone who thinks that the court gleefully hands you your bail money back after allis said and done...
don't know much.
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).That's the way it works around here, anyway... OR SO I'VE HEARD.
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.Terry in Crapchester wrote: I certainly never said as much
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?Around here, the Court keeps 3% poundage if there is a conviction
Mt. Rumplewife might have been an even better sig line on this post.mvscal wrote:Poundage fees?!? I'M RICH, BEEYETCH!!
--Sissyroo's dimehole