03-26-2007, 06:41 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Capistrano Beach. Calif
Posts: 461
|
|
|
Cheryl, there is a small claims ten year limit in Cali. The judgement was never listed. To collect a small claims judgement, you have to make a real effort to collect. The court won't do it for small claims. I suspect, like I mentioned, they didn't want attention brought to their scam. Just easier to go get the next victim who will pay. Collecting on a judgement sometimes is not as easy as it seems. Speaking of OJ and collecting, ask the Goldmans that will never collect even as O.J. golfs and gets his $25,000 a month NFL pension.
|
03-26-2007, 07:56 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dexter, Michigan USA
Posts: 2,499
|
|
|
Deal or No Deal
 Quote:
Originally Posted by jimcra
Cheryl, there is a small claims ten year limit in Cali. The judgement was never listed. To collect a small claims judgement, you have to make a real effort to collect. The court won't do it for small claims. I suspect, like I mentioned, they didn't want attention brought to their scam. Just easier to go get the next victim who will pay. Collecting on a judgement sometimes is not as easy as it seems. Speaking of OJ and collecting, ask the Goldmans that will never collect even as O.J. golfs and gets his $25,000 a month NFL pension.
|
While there is a 10 year limit in California on enforcing the "initial" judgement, as long as the judgement recipient renews the judgement before the 10 years expire, it is extended an additional 10 years, and so on and so forth. So it is, in fact, a lifetime judgement as long as the recipient is judicious about continuing to renew its collectibility.
You're probably correct about why the judgement was not pursued....
The court may not pursue it on its own, but anyone with a half decent knowledge of the law can go to court with the judgement, file a writ of execution, ordering the court to proceed on the collection, which in a sense is telling the marshal to go seize property or garnish wages. Granted you will have to do the research and fill in what the marshal is to seize at what address or what address to deliver the garnishment to. I did this for a living for a while --- the easiest ones to collect are judgements that are written into court documents where you simply apply for the writ, it's executed, you call the marshall, and tell him where to serve it. The problem is, if that person quits as a result of the service, then you're on the chase again, getting a new writ, having it executed, and served.
I agree that the Goldman's will probably never see a cent of the judgement that they were awarded because O.J. had enough friends to cover his legal expenses and place all of his assets in untouchable trusts, in others names, and as I recall, pensions are not subject to garnishment either, but I'm not positive. This is what I was pointing out about the inequities in our judicial system --- those with money can better protect themselves. As I said previously, O.J. would be in jail and have no assets if he had had Mr. Smith, public defender instead of the expensive team of Johnny Cochran, Barry Scheck, Robert Shapiro, F. Lee Bailey, Henry Lee, Robert Kardashian, Alan Deershowitz and whomever else I've forgotten over time. I couldn't afford that kind of defense team, but then again, I don't go around doing the things that he did and continues to do. Also the Goldman's judgement hardly falls under "small claims."
Yes, I had a special interest in the trial...I knew one of the witnesses, the one that ended up getting convicted of a felony, perjury, and having to find a new livelihood and a new state to live in as a result.
__________________
Cheryl
(Not an authority nor SME
on anything, just PATSYF)
Last edited by Pat Braden; 03-26-2007 at 08:06 PM.
|
03-27-2007, 08:37 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Capistrano Beach. Calif
Posts: 461
|
|
|
Hi Cheryl, I agree with everything you said, except one. OJ could have had Billy Bob fresh out of law school and OJ would have walked. There is no way "that" jury would have found OJ guilty of jaywalking. Do you remember the postal worker juror that was dismissed? In an inteview after being dismissed, on TV, he was asked what he thought about the DNA evidence. I'll never forget his reply, "That just shows we all have the same blood"!!!!!!! The jury had a combined IQ of room temparature. I too had an interest, I won a $500 bet he would walk. Easy bet if you followed the court circus. Lance Ito also was in charge of the Lincoln Saving trial. He was overturned by a Federal Judge as he had no clue in that case either.
|
03-27-2007, 09:05 AM
|
 |
pffffffffffffffffffffff!!
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Broomfield, Colorado U.S.A
Posts: 3,794
|
|
I wonder if you could sell the debt to a collection agency? They could go after the guy and mess with his credit. 
__________________
__Oh Boy ____yeah ______wow ____cool ______yippie ____wahoo __yeah baby _pfffffffffffft
|
03-27-2007, 09:43 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dexter, Michigan USA
Posts: 2,499
|
|
|
Deal or No Deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimcra
Hi Cheryl, I agree with everything you said, except one. OJ could have had Billy Bob fresh out of law school and OJ would have walked. There is no way "that" jury would have found OJ guilty of jaywalking. Do you remember the postal worker juror that was dismissed? In an inteview after being dismissed, on TV, he was asked what he thought about the DNA evidence. I'll never forget his reply, "That just shows we all have the same blood"!!!!!!! The jury had a combined IQ of room temparature. I too had an interest, I won a $500 bet he would walk. Easy bet if you followed the court circus. Lance Ito also was in charge of the Lincoln Saving trial. He was overturned by a Federal Judge as he had no clue in that case either.
|
I also concur that Lance Ito let things slide that other judges would not have.
__________________
Cheryl
(Not an authority nor SME
on anything, just PATSYF)
|
03-27-2007, 10:58 AM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: OC CA USA
Posts: 1,652
|
|
|
There have been interesting sentiments expressed on this thread and we know jimcra is a good guy, although is it the Twinkie defense, being on or off your medication, your honor? Am I the only one who finds repugnant post #16 (and others) with it’s disgusting imagery (for elucidation see the uncut version of Serpico) along with its inflammatory innuendo, maybe bashing another immigrant religious group would be acceptable, just remember, even the parents of Jesus were forced to return to the city of their birth. And to t/his issue at hand, the inexhaustibility of judgments not-withstanding; the anger and selective memory of events of seventeen years ago is striking. I have to have lost and won in court and even appealed to superior court. But I don’t think we’re getting the whole story, Was a post-dated check accepted for the deposit? post-dated checks have a different legal standing than a check dated at time of issuance.. Holding on to the check while making another deal, I imagine, was a mistake. And telling judicial authorities to “&*-off” is so juvenile, kinda like the kid who is sore loser and stops playing and takes home his ball, but maybe the authorities determined the invectives harmless. To paraphrase Churchill democracy is the worst form of government until you consider the alternatives. It is our judicial system. Make it work, be involved. I don’t understand, if the other guys were “scamming” why after all that effort on their part, having won a judgment, why did they have it executed, something doesn’t ring true. But what happened seventeen years ago isn’t as important as how we conduct ourselves today and the language and sentiments we wish to convey on this board. And I’ll take the risk to stand up and say what needs to be said. I’m not saying anger is inappropriate, but to me, bashing, using race/religious innuendo is beyond the pale and mixing it with disgusting imagery is uncalled for. Petulant behavior speaks for itself.
__________________
'67 BMW 1600ti/Alpina
And Looking For Another
www.machocheese.com
"just say no to reductionism"
Last edited by rogerspeed; 03-27-2007 at 12:46 PM.
|
03-27-2007, 11:05 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Capistrano Beach. Calif
Posts: 461
|
|
|
Actually most of his assets were depleted and he still owes a few of his attys. The pension is untouchable except for the IRS, so he had his income in Florida which is a haven for BK as they can't touch your home. Ask Al Dunlap of Sunbeam fame. At that time, everyone knew the trial would be moved out of Santa Monica to LA. The mayor of LA today is a past head of the ACLU that failed the bar 4Xs. That didn't take brains to figure that one. You didn't need a jury consultant (they should be illegal IMHO) to pick a jury of brain deads and losers out of downtown LA that love OJ. He is still loved as a hero at USC, down the street from the litter strewn homeless shelter known as a court house.
|
03-27-2007, 11:16 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Capistrano Beach. Calif
Posts: 461
|
|
|
Sorry, Rogerspeed, no selective memory. I can go on and defend myself, statements and use of REAL names, but I'll stop here and let you assume whatever you choose. FYI, I have a couple of very good friends named Mohammed.
Last edited by jimcra; 03-27-2007 at 11:24 AM.
|
03-27-2007, 11:27 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: OC CA USA
Posts: 1,652
|
|
|
lol, some of my best friends are...
__________________
'67 BMW 1600ti/Alpina
And Looking For Another
www.machocheese.com
"just say no to reductionism"
Last edited by rogerspeed; 03-27-2007 at 11:30 AM.
|
03-27-2007, 11:34 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Capistrano Beach. Calif
Posts: 461
|
|
|
rogerspeed, since you are in OC, have you heard anything lately about the Alfa day at Ford Premier? I know it is coming soon along with a picnic?
|
03-27-2007, 09:37 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dexter, Michigan USA
Posts: 2,499
|
|
|
Deal or No Deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerspeed
It is our judicial system. Make it work, be involved.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jimcra
You didn't need a jury consultant (they should be illegal IMHO)
|
In this case I agree with rogerspeed, the judicial system we have in place, while not perfect and certainly has demonstrated inequities between those that "have" and those that "do not" is the one that one must work through to accomplish changes to the law, to repeal law, offer new interpretations which may set a new precedent etc.
I tend to look at the legal system as a game of sorts, (used here only as an analogy, I certainly realize the seriousness of appearing in court,) with set rules and protocols to be followed, but which also allows enough leeway for strategy and interpretation through researched and grounded arguments which may break new ground on occassion, set us back in others, or offer entertainment and circuses in yet others. As part of this strategy by attorneys, I believe jury consultants have their place, you obviously want the best winning strategy and there is nothing in the rules that forbids using the best advice available in jury selection, in addition to citing and Shepardizing cases to win your argument or set a precedent to base your case upon.
Whether you win or lose, it's much better to do it within the system than to carry out vigalante justice, where no one wins including you. If you choose not to use the system for whatever reason, to me it's kind of like not voting for president, even when the choices are lousy, if you didn't vote, you have no grounds on which to complain.....
__________________
Cheryl
(Not an authority nor SME
on anything, just PATSYF)
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
