Riccio sues Dr. Phil (and the show) for defamation, fraud, etc.

[rainbo]

Simpson trial witness sues Dr. Phil for defamation

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The memorabilia dealer who led O.J. Simpson to a hotel room where an infamous robbery occurred filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the "Dr. Phil" show claiming his remarks in an interview were spliced to change their meaning.

Click for the rest of the story.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5guIBXhZup6TwEB55A-UYPpumEMxAD93V8NEG0

[JBL]

Simpson trial witness sues Dr. Phil for defamation

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The memorabilia dealer who led O.J. Simpson to a hotel room where an infamous robbery occurred filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the "Dr. Phil" show claiming his remarks in an interview were spliced to change their meaning.

Click for the rest of the story.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5guIBXhZup6TwEB55A-UYPpumEMxAD93V8NEG0

I hope Riccio wins!

Orignally I thought Riccio was the set up con from articles. It wasn't until after he testified both at the prelim and the trial that my opinion changed.

Riccio is a business man and he'll sell snake oil if he has it. I also believe he was legit in this Simpson robbery. He was after it for money of course but first and foremost the book signing. 2nd I think he did have an inkling OJ's sheet was actually Goldmans sheet. That's why the recording.

After what went down - that was a gold mine thrown into Riccio's lap. Like waving a steak in front of a tiger.

IMO, Riccio has been to prison several times and has no intention on getting involved in something that would send him back such as an armed robbery.

From Anna Nicole diaries, video's to OJ capers. If there's a market he'll be more then happy to make the transaction. If not him, someone else will.

Personally I think Riccio was set up by OJ. Riccio had no idea about those guys OJ was bringing and was just as stunned.

On the tape from Little Buddha the "boys" were even laughing about how Riccio was floored.

Those conversations OJ had with Riccio, OJ wasn't given him the time of day as far as listening to him. I found it odd that OJ not only didn't listen to him but was buttering Riccio up the so-called affable courtesy talk.

IMO, OJ knew Riccio wasn't going to lie about anything and he'd already talked to Beardsley which he thought was his ticket back to Miami. OJ wasn't going to offend Riccio, but he sure wasn't going to make an enemy out of him either.

OJ crazy like a fox. Wheels always turning how to turn a situation around that he ends up the victim.

[rainbo]

You know what though? Anyone stupid enough to mess around with OJ deserves whatever happens to them as a result. OJ is bad news. Guilt by association. Period.

[JBL]

You know what though? Anyone stupid enough to mess around with OJ deserves whatever happens to them as a result. OJ is bad news. Guilt by association. Period.

I believe Riccio has so much as stated that. I think he called him "poison" .

He'd throw everyone on the planet under the bus to save himself so why they put themselves in that situation is beyond me.

[Details]

No such thing as guilt by association. You either did something wrong, or you didn't. If he was OJ's friend, but did nothing wrong, then he's not guilty and if Dr. Phil messed with the tapes (this wouldn't be the first time that's been said), Dr. Phil is the one who is guilty.

Being part of an armed robbery - that's wrong, and you're a part of whatever happens. But just hanging around OJ - that's not such a crime that you deserve anything anyone cares to do to you.

[AnnInOhio]

I believe Riccio has so much as stated that. I think he called him "poison" .

He'd throw everyone on the planet under the bus to save himself so why they put themselves in that situation is beyond me.

I certainly don't think Riccio asked OJ's goon squad to bring guns. I believe that Riccio's original plan was to get the sting on tape to sell as he envisioned it coming down: Get the dealers there, have OJ ID the stuff with cops or hotel security ready to come in. The mysterious missing memorabilia can of worms would be publicly opened and Riccio would have his tape (and signed books) to sell. Riccio simply underestimated OJ's thug factor. I agree with JBL: Riccio didn't need or want to risk arrest or having a gun pointed at him. He just wanted to make a buck and knew it was a vulnerable time for OJ due to Goldman's recent victory and the book coming out.

[johnny o]

Simpson trial witness sues Dr. Phil for defamation

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The memorabilia dealer who led O.J. Simpson to a hotel room where an infamous robbery occurred filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the "Dr. Phil" show claiming his remarks in an interview were spliced to change their meaning.

Click for the rest of the story.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5guIBXhZup6TwEB55A-UYPpumEMxAD93V8NEG0


This is getting funnier by the day. Riccio is going to need the money he wins from Dr. Phil to pay the lawyer he's going to need to defend himself from the judgement Al Beardsley might get against him.

Lol .... http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0226_beardsly_wm.pdf

Hillarious thing is, Al might have a decent case. Nevada happens to be a two party consent state. This may extend to eavesdropping or interception of oral communications. I.E., tape recorder on top of armoire. :D:

This is like watching a marathon of the Three Stooges.

[AnnInOhio]

This is getting funnier by the day. Riccio is going to need the money he wins from Dr. Phil to pay the lawyer he's going to need to defend himself from the judgement Al Beardsley might get against him.

Lol .... http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0226_beardsly_wm.pdf

Hillarious thing is, Al might have a decent case. Nevada happens to be a two party consent state. This may extend to eavesdropping or interception of oral communications. I.E., tape recorder on top of armoire. :D:

This is like watching a marathon of the Three Stooges.

Riccio's immunity deal may have covered him in criminal court, but I don't think it'll mean anything in civil court. I'm not sure Al has much of a reputation to be damaged, but he can probably claim to have lost sales commission income (Beardsley didn't own the memorabilia did he?) due to Riccio's false representation. Beardsley expressly asked Riccio if Simpson was involved and Riccio lied and told him no.

[johnny o]

Riccio's immunity deal may have covered him in criminal court, but I don't think it'll mean anything in civil court. I'm not sure Al has much of a reputation to be damaged, but he can probably claim to have lost sales commission income (Beardsley didn't own the memorabilia did he?) due to Riccio's false representation. Beardsley expressly asked Riccio if Simpson was involved and Riccio lied and told him no.

You got it young lady. Riccio induced Beardsley into serious jeopardy of an armed robbery, intentional or not. In a case televised with national and international attention enriching Riccio with Beardsley's voice, image, and likeness, that has repercussions for old Tom. hammer

[JBL]

You got it young lady. Riccio induced Beardsley into serious jeopardy of an armed robbery, intentional or not. In a case televised with national and international attention enriching Riccio with Beardsley's voice, image, and likeness, that has repercussions for old Tom. hammer

Beardsly opened a can of worms. I give his suit a 10/90 at best.

The only laws I found pertaining to recording devices were telephone conversations nothing involving business transactions. Riccio is also listed as a victim so serious jeopardy of an armed robbery intentional or unintentional act I dont' think will float.

Likening Beardsley to OJ - this is going to open more things against him.

1. He was on probation violation at the time. He should never had been there. Like a car accident. You get into an accident it's not your fault but you have no license. YOU ARE AT FAULT you shouldn't have been on the road at all. Beardsley shouldn't have been in LV at all

2. What was he doing peddling the "Goldman's" or OJ's stolen items ?

This is by no means a slam dunk. I wouldn't be surprised to see Beardsly up on perjury charges before this is all said and done.

[rainbo]

No such thing as guilt by association. You either did something wrong, or you didn't. If he was OJ's friend, but did nothing wrong, then he's not guilty and if Dr. Phil messed with the tapes (this wouldn't be the first time that's been said), Dr. Phil is the one who is guilty.

Being part of an armed robbery - that's wrong, and you're a part of whatever happens. But just hanging around OJ - that's not such a crime that you deserve anything anyone cares to do to you.

Details, I'm not speaking 'guilt by association' in a legal sense, only morally, and I still believe anyone stupid enough to deal with OJ on ANY level deserves whatever they get. The man (?) is toxic.

[JBL]

Beardsley might as well ask that his probation violation be thrown out because he was recorded being there by 911 as well as Riccio.

Then he can sue the state of CA for false imprisonment for the time he sat in the pokey as he was caught due to these same recording devices.

[AnnInOhio]

Beardsley might as well ask that is probation violation be thrown out because he was recorded being there by 911 as well as Riccio.

Then he can sue the state of CA for false inprisonment for the time he sat in the pokey as he was caught do to these same recording devices.

I dunno. The issue of admissibility of all of those tapes still troubles me. A reasonable person has no expectation that a 911 call is private. However, I don't think its reasonable to assume that private conversations in a hotel room will be taped. The cops processing the room sure didn't think that! In my mind, telephone conversations when made on a cordless or cell phone I have no problem with because the voice is carried on the airwaves. Being taped at an open public pool area I think is fair game. In a hotel room?? I think behind closed doors there is an expectation of privacy. Yale doesn't seem to agree with me, but Stewart's attorney does.

[JBL]

I dunno. The issue of admissibility of all of those tapes still troubles me. A reasonable person has no expectation that a 911 call is private. However, I don't think its reasonable to assume that private conversations in a hotel room will be taped. The cops processing the room sure didn't think that! In my mind, telephone conversations when made on a cordless or cell phone I have no problem with because the voice is carried on the airwaves. Being taped at an open public pool area I think is fair game. In a hotel room?? I think behind closed doors there is an expectation of privacy. Yale doesn't seem to agree with me, but Stewart's attorney does.


I'll concede your point but then how do you account for the fact that if Beardsley didn't violate his probation he would never have been there.

You can't break the law and then sue because at the time you were breaking the law something happened to you especially when you were engaging in something illegal. (granted that's yet to be seen but one thing for sure, the owners of said stolen property were not allow to testify).



This sounds like something out of OJ crime 101 - stupid crimes.

Had Beardsley not been violating parole and selling property which the owners claim to be their's "Goldman & OJ's" (listing both for arguments sake) so "stolen property" and taped doing it, what laws takes precedence?

Like I said, the OJ can of worms stupid syndrome.

[warhorse46]

This is getting funnier by the day. Riccio is going to need the money he wins from Dr. Phil to pay the lawyer he's going to need to defend himself from the judgement Al Beardsley might get against him.

Lol .... http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0226_beardsly_wm.pdf

Hillarious thing is, Al might have a decent case. Nevada happens to be a two party consent state. This may extend to eavesdropping or interception of oral communications. I.E., tape recorder on top of armoire. :D:

This is like watching a marathon of the Three Stooges.


I think Nevada is a one party consent state. This is their statute on the issue.

<<NRS 200.620 Interception and attempted interception of wire communication prohibited; exceptions.

1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, 209.419 and 704.195, it is unlawful for any person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire communication unless:

(a) The interception or attempted interception is made with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication; and
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html >>

[JBL]

I want to see if OJ returns the favor to Beardsley and is transported to his hearing (in scrubs) to testify on his behalf. LOL!

Maybe the whole Posse should sue Riccio, N,yeah that's right!

Hey wait a minute. Why isn't Beardsley suing OJ and the posse to? Civil suit!!!

They should all be suing each other. What a melee'! HA!

Lay down with dogs......wake up with fleas .

They all could use a good dip!

[JBL]

I agree, And Riccio has stayed out of trouble for the last decade or so - I think he was trying to protect himself - as well as make some money in all this.
So I do think that Riccio (or $iccio, as Kennedy called him) has a good case against Dr. Phil.
Despite the privacy laws I don't think Beardsly could prevail against Riccio. I think you have to have "clean hands" yourself to bring a suit against someone else. There is no doubt that Beardsly should not here been where he was or doing what he was doing. He set it up himself.
And once again, I have to ask: has Beardsley filed the insurance claim he testified about in court? LOL - The circus rolls on! :biggrin:

Beardsley is a little in dispose and as soon as he "free's " up he'll get the serial numbers of the items. Once there free from the evidence room, that's GOLDMAN'S ATTORNEY'S EVIDENCE ROOM ha!

What next.

McClinton going to sue OJ since he's the one that wanted him to bring the gun and look menacing.

Oh why not!

:lol:

[AnnInOhio]

**snip, snip ***
Hey wait a minute. Why isn't Beardsley suing OJ and the posse to? Civil suit!!! **snip, snipp!***

HELLOOOO...Riccio got some big money and OJ is tapped out right now.

Civil suit = Go For The $$$.

[AnnInOhio]

The real issue is going to be who owns marketing rights to the posse's faces & clothing as halloween costumes? (McClinton & Alexander masks come with guns as accessories.)

[johnny o]

I think Nevada is a one party consent state. This is their statute on the issue.

Hmmm, you must be right warhorse. You got it right from the Nevada statutes. If this is current.

I got my information from different sources. http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations .... http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm.

Maybe they revised their laws. :shrug: What's with this Nevada?

Ann and JBL, I think the reasonable expectation of privacy standard is much more stringent as applicable to video taping than audio taping. The one or two party consent rule governs precedence in audio.

But on the other hand, it's abstract and fact specific to each case. Like describing a cloud.

Then again maybe my neurons are misfiring and I should just shut up. lol.

[JBL]

The real issue is going to be who owns marketing rights to the posse's faces & clothing as halloween costumes? (McClinton & Alexander masks come with guns as accessories.)


:lol:

.....................runs away to patent office HA!

You think you can steal my candy..... back against the door... grab that bowl and dump it in here HAHAHA

[AnnInOhio]

:lol:

.....................runs away to patent office HA!

You think you can steal my candy..... back against the door... grab that bowl and dump it in here HAHAHA

I think you've been watching a little too much OJ!

[NYGalPal]

Thanks for all the info everyone. Riccio has sour grapes over being called slimey I think.

Has Dr. Phil officially responded to his lawsuit?

:seeya:

[NYGalPal]

:lol:

.....................runs away to patent office HA!

You think you can steal my candy..... back against the door... grab that bowl and dump it in here HAHAHA

Step away from the candy.

My husband and I are going to a Halloween party dressed as gangsta thugs. We're trying to enlist someone to play OJ. Great idea don't you think?

:lol:

[JBL]

You will be driving a white SUV I assume!

:lol:

OMG! Coke spewed screen now!

That would make them the 'mystery persons'.

I think they need someone to drive them in a black navigator! ROFL!

[JBL]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=155&sid=4590842

Simpson trial witness sues Dr. Phil for defamation
October 22nd, 2008 @ 5:39am
By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent

What no insider information???