Today's sentencing of the other defendents

I find this unreal, what has our court system's come too. While I am not an OJ Simpson fan I do feel that his sentence was unjust and how is it that the other defendents in this case get probation. Unbelievable, so while it may be a crime to retrieve your personal belongings that have been stolen, is it not a crime to carry the gun and threaten the other parties involved. Where is justice, Judge Jackie Glass should be ashamed. I don't recall OJ having any prior charges.

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by ptalbot

I find this unreal, what has our court system's come too. While I am not an OJ Simpson fan I do feel that his sentence was unjust and how is it that the other defendents in this case get probation. Unbelievable, so while it may be a crime to retrieve your personal belongings that have been stolen, is it not a crime to carry the gun and threaten the other parties involved. Where is justice, Judge Jackie Glass should be ashamed. I don't recall OJ having any prior charges.

OJ got the stiffer sentence because he is the one who told the others to bring the guns. He is the catalyst for the crimes, but for him the crimes would not have been committed. It is a just & fair sentence.

[Attagirl]

Originally Posted by warhorse46

OJ got the stiffer sentence because he is the one who told the others to bring the guns. He is the catalyst for the crimes, but for him the crimes would not have been committed. It is a just & fair sentence.

Excuse me Warhorse but for Furmong these crimes would not have been committed.

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by Attagirl

Excuse me Warhorse but for Furmong these crimes would not have been committed.

Furmong is the victim in this crime, not the one who planned & committed the crime. OJ is the head honcho who planned & carried out the crime. And got caught, tried & convicted.

[legalmania]

Originally Posted by ptalbot

I find this unreal, what has our court system's come too. While I am not an OJ Simpson fan I do feel that his sentence was unjust and how is it that the other defendents in this case get probation. Unbelievable, so while it may be a crime to retrieve your personal belongings that have been stolen, is it not a crime to carry the gun and threaten the other parties involved. Where is justice, Judge Jackie Glass should be ashamed. I don't recall OJ having any prior charges.

I agree with you. OJ didn't have a gun and I didn't hear anywhere in the tapes where OJ said be sure and bring a gun. He was lured into this by Ruccio, he came for a wedding, the only thing OJ really said is "nobody leave this room." He was mad at Furmong for having his stuff, and it was his stuff because he owned it before the first trial. I thought it strange that the court ordered him to give up things he owned before the trial, it's usually anything you make after the judgement. Furmong was quick to put it on Mike. I found it strange that Furmong didn't say o.k. but please get the gun out of my face. I have a feeling that if the Goldman's continue to pursue this case , we will find out more and more about this story. This case is going to change some laws in Nevada, they have to many people with big money coming through who now are going to be worried about being set up.

Originally Posted by legalmania

I agree with you. OJ didn't have a gun and I didn't hear anywhere in the tapes where OJ said be sure and bring a gun. He was lured into this by Ruccio, he came for a wedding, the only thing OJ really said is "nobody leave this room." He was mad at Furmong for having his stuff, and it was his stuff because he owned it before the first trial. I thought it strange that the court ordered him to give up things he owned before the trial, it's usually anything you make after the judgement. Furmong was quick to put it on Mike. I found it strange that Furmong didn't say o.k. but please get the gun out of my face. I have a feeling that if the Goldman's continue to pursue this case , we will find out more and more about this story. This case is going to change some laws in Nevada, they have to many people with big money coming through who now are going to be worried about being set up.

I agree with you, it makes me wonder after hearing the Goldmans speak after OJ was sentenced there remark (not an exact quote) if they pushed him over the edge, I have to wonder if they didn't have something to do with all this mess is some form or fashion. As for the law's being changed I agree there are to many high profile people that come to Vegas and spend alot of money. Had this been someone that was not famous I believe that either 1. no charges would of been brought or 2. probation probably would of been given

[legalmania]

Originally Posted by p talbot

I agree with you, it makes me wonder after hearing the Goldmans speak after OJ was sentenced there remark (not an exact quote) if they pushed him over the edge, I have to wonder if they didn't have something to do with all this mess is some form or fashion. As for the law's being changed I agree there are to many high profile people that come to Vegas and spend a lot of money. Had this been someone that was not famous I believe that either 1. no charges would of been brought or 2. probation probably would of been given

Who deserves most of the money is the Browns, their daughter was the celebrity, she was the one who married OJ and they had children together. Ron Goldman was a waiter who I believe had a crush on Nicole. If he hadn't went out of his way to bring her, her glasses he would still be alive. The Browns have never used Nicole's death to gain celebrity as Fred Goldman has. I never listened to his talk show and I don't think many people did. That's why it was canceled. He won the judgement to get OJ's book and changed the title which the book also did not do well. Non of the memorabilia will sell at cost, or sell at all. Whatever money he does make will go to his attorneys. So he better be happy with OJ in jail because he will most likely stay broke. I think the Browns have handled their daughters death with class and dignity.

Originally Posted by legalmania

Who deserves most of the money is the Browns, their daughter was the celebrity, she was the one who married OJ and they had children together. Ron Goldman was a waiter who I believe had a crush on Nicole. If he hadn't went out of his way to bring her, her glasses he would still be alive. The Browns have never used Nicole's death to gain celebrity as Fred Goldman has. I never listened to his talk show and I don't think many people did. That's why it was canceled. He won the judgement to get OJ's book and changed the title which the book also did not do well. Non of the memorabilia will sell at cost, or sell at all. Whatever money he does make will go to his attorneys. So he better be happy with OJ in jail because he will most likely stay broke. I think the Browns have handled their daughters death with class and dignity.

the browns have handled all of this with alot of respect if nothing more for the children.

[JBL]

Cracks me up when people say that.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...5929-6,00.html

" It was revealed that Louis Brown had earned $262,000 since his daughter's death by selling her diary to the National Enquirer and the home video of her wedding to a television tabloid show. In addition, sister Dominique confessed that she had sold topless photos of Nicole to the National Enquirer. None of this helped the Browns."

[Attagirl]

Originally Posted by ptalbot

the browns have handled all of this with alot of respect if nothing more for the children.

Which is more than you can say for the Goldman's. I swear those two need to move on already. Are either one of them married?

[rulovlaw]

Judge Glass is rediculous.
She preached about the potential for physical harm even death because of the "Gun", She termed the act as A "Violent act of Robbery" went on and on about the "Violence" and Danger.

And then .. she gives the men with the Guns """PROBATION"""
Was it less violent because they testified against OJ ? did that somehow lessen the threat to tourists or those in the room ??
The woman made it very clear that this was ALL about revenge against OJ.. She allowed a man who had a record,several fake names and a real potential for violence go scott free.. all in her quest for fame and revenge.. I can hardly wait for her book *LOL* ~NOT~

She is unbalanced, and it showed in that courtroom.

[joolz]

Originally Posted by ptalbot

I agree with you, it makes me wonder after hearing the Goldmans speak after OJ was sentenced there remark (not an exact quote) if they pushed him over the edge, I have to wonder if they didn't have something to do with all this mess is some form or fashion. As for the law's being changed I agree there are to many high profile people that come to Vegas and spend alot of money. Had this been someone that was not famous I believe that either 1. no charges would of been brought or 2. probation probably would of been given

OMG, if only I had thought of that before! That this is really all the fault of the Goldmans and that OJ is nothing more than their victim! It does put everything in such a different light!

[JBL]

Originally Posted by joolz

OMG, if only I had thought of that before! That this is really all the fault of the Goldmans and that OJ is nothing more than their victim! It does put everything in such a different light!

..........

Originally Posted by joolz

OMG, if only I had thought of that before! That this is really all the fault of the Goldmans and that OJ is nothing more than their victim! It does put everything in such a different light!

no my sentence was incorrect, I do not believe in any form or fashion that OJ is the victim, however while I will never understand what the Goldmans must feel, I feel that enough is enough everyone involved is feeding off of everything that OJ does or does not do. So who wins, this has been a no win..win sitiuation for anyone. The only ones that win in all of this is the lawyers.

[kellabeck]

Originally Posted by joolz

OMG, if only I had thought of that before! That this is really all the fault of the Goldmans and that OJ is nothing more than their victim! It does put everything in such a different light!

Simpson is a victim of the Goldmans????

And I suppose Ron was never butchered, right?

This is absurd.

[FrankieBones1]

Originally Posted by kellabeck

Simpson is a victim of the Goldmans????

And I suppose Ron was never butchered, right?

This is absurd.

Joolz was being sarcastic.

[Carol25]

Originally Posted by ptalbot

I agree with you, it makes me wonder after hearing the Goldmans speak after OJ was sentenced there remark (not an exact quote) if they pushed him over the edge, I have to wonder if they didn't have something to do with all this mess is some form or fashion. As for the law's being changed I agree there are to many high profile people that come to Vegas and spend alot of money. Had this been someone that was not famous I believe that either 1. no charges would of been brought or 2. probation probably would of been given

I cannot believe you just said that maybe the Goldmans pushed OJ over the edge!!!! That just doesn't compute!

Let's say you were found liable for doing some damage to Mr. Jones property. You intentionally set his house on fire. You had to pay restitution. You had a collection of paintings worth $20, 000, and the sheriff was coming to get them. You had a friend come and pick them up and told them to put them in a storage place. Sheriff never got them and Mr. Jones never was paid for the damage done.

The friend who took the paintings to hide them for you never gave them back but tried to sell them to someone else in a hotel. You found out, got some friends to come in with guns, interrupt the sale and scare them and took them back. They got scared and were robbed so they called police.

Do you think the police let you walk away from that? Didn't you commit a robbery? Armed robbery? When you said, "Don't let anybody leave this room", was that kidnapping by the letter of the law? Would the judge just wag his finger and say, Now don't do that again?

And for goodness sake, would you ever think that Mr. Jones pushed you over the edge?! NO! You just wanted the paintings back! Or the money it could bring.

First of all, why didn't you get charged with hiding the paintings in the first place? (Was that charge forgotten on OJ? Time is up on that one, I guess...why didn't they do that much earlier, the trophies, the ring, footballs they all knew he had in his home...????)

Laws are for all people. Celebrities too. If you or I would have chosen that path we surely would be sitting in jail with the same sentence.

Originally Posted by Carol25

I cannot believe you just said that maybe the Goldmans pushed OJ over the edge!!!! That just doesn't compute!

Let's say you were found liable for doing some damage to Mr. Jones property. You intentionally set his house on fire. You had to pay restitution. You had a collection of paintings worth $20, 000, and the sheriff was coming to get them. You had a friend come and pick them up and told them to put them in a storage place. Sheriff never got them and Mr. Jones never was paid for the damage done.

The friend who took the paintings to hide them for you never gave them back but tried to sell them to someone else in a hotel. You found out, got some friends to come in with guns, interrupt the sale and scare them and took them back. They got scared and were robbed so they called police.

Do you think the police let you walk away from that? Didn't you commit a robbery? Armed robbery? When you said, "Don't let anybody leave this room", was that kidnapping by the letter of the law? Would the judge just wag his finger and say, Now don't do that again?

And for goodness sake, would you ever think that Mr. Jones pushed you over the edge?! NO! You just wanted the paintings back! Or the money it could bring.

First of all, why didn't you get charged with hiding the paintings in the first place? (Was that charge forgotten on OJ? Time is up on that one, I guess...why didn't they do that much earlier, the trophies, the ring, footballs they all knew he had in his home...????)

Laws are for all people. Celebrities too. If you or I would have chosen that path we surely would be sitting in jail with the same sentence.

I agree with 100% that is why I am so furious that the remaining 4 defendents only got probation...THEY ALL SHOULD OF BE CHARGED, not just two singled out for a crime while the defendents with gun get to walk the street. For the life of me I would be furious if someone came into my home to retrieve a painting and pointed a gun at me with a threat and they get off with basically a slap on the hand. This is where my thread started it was not so much about OJ going to jail it was why were the others released to go home and commit other crimes (which we know now they have done) where is the justice here

[JBL]

Originally Posted by ptalbot

I agree with 100% that is why I am so furious that the remaining 4 defendents only got probation...THEY ALL SHOULD OF BE CHARGED, not just two singled out for a crime while the defendents with gun get to walk the street. For the life of me I would be furious if someone came into my home to retrieve a painting and pointed a gun at me with a threat and they get off with basically a slap on the hand. This is where my thread started it was not so much about OJ going to jail it was why were the others released to go home and commit other crimes (which we know now they have done) where is the justice here

They all copped to what they did and threw themselves on the mercy of the court. They also cut deals pled to their parts.

OJ and Stewart refused to admit anything was wrong with what they did albeit Stewart expressed his remorse after being found guilty (to late) whereas OJ stood they're feigning confused. He didn't know that was against the law.

All caught on tape.

That tape and what OJ says happen not even in the same ballpark.

Lie Lie Lie

[Details]

Originally Posted by ptalbot

I agree with 100% that is why I am so furious that the remaining 4 defendents only got probation...THEY ALL SHOULD OF BE CHARGED, not just two singled out for a crime while the defendents with gun get to walk the street. For the life of me I would be furious if someone came into my home to retrieve a painting and pointed a gun at me with a threat and they get off with basically a slap on the hand. This is where my thread started it was not so much about OJ going to jail it was why were the others released to go home and commit other crimes (which we know now they have done) where is the justice here

They were all charged. And as part of their plea, plead guilty to reduced charges for reduced time. There's a reason why we make deals like these - on the thugs side, they have two choices - they can plead NG, go through the trial, and hope to get away with it. By pleading, they have to rat out their friends (with the ensuing reputation they'll recieve), testify in public, plead guilty, and take their punishment.

They did get a fairly light punishment - probation, and a bunch of other stuff - but the reason was to get their testimony to ensure that the ringleader of the crime didn't get away. If some drug dealer hires 4 thugs to come with him and rob your place, do you want the thugs, or the ringleader behind bars more? They've got to make that call, they've no way of knowing what bit of evidence, testimony, present or missing, will make a juror go for not guilty on the ringleader.

[Carol25]

Originally Posted by ptalbot

I agree with 100% that is why I am so furious that the remaining 4 defendents only got probation...THEY ALL SHOULD OF BE CHARGED, not just two singled out for a crime while the defendents with gun get to walk the street. For the life of me I would be furious if someone came into my home to retrieve a painting and pointed a gun at me with a threat and they get off with basically a slap on the hand. This is where my thread started it was not so much about OJ going to jail it was why were the others released to go home and commit other crimes (which we know now they have done) where is the justice here

When combing your two thoughts..."OJ was pushed over the edge by the Goldmans" which is not even giving him a slap on the wrist it's more like, "Oh, poor OJ, look at what those mean people did to you..." to "What an obstruction of justice that these "thugs were sent free who at OJ's bidding, went into a room armed, one showed a gun and while OJ shouted foul language and ordered commands that no one was allowed to leave..." testified truthfully in a court and cooperated with LE.

OJ, in his naturally arrogant way with the tapes and all of the proof wouldn't even take a 2-4 year deal, not even apologize for goodness sakes!

Yes I see there is a difference. I can see how OJ doesn't because he is arrogant and stupid. But for the rest of us, I believe it's clear.

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by ptalbot

I agree with 100% that is why I am so furious that the remaining 4 defendents only got probation...THEY ALL SHOULD OF BE CHARGED, not just two singled out for a crime while the defendents with gun get to walk the street. For the life of me I would be furious if someone came into my home to retrieve a painting and pointed a gun at me with a threat and they get off with basically a slap on the hand. This is where my thread started it was not so much about OJ going to jail it was why were the others released to go home and commit other crimes (which we know now they have done) where is the justice here

Uhhh, they all WERE charged, that was the reason for the sentencing hearing today. They admitted their culpability in this crime, agreed to testify for the state for the deal of a lesser sentence. That is what a plea deal is. Let the little fish off with lighter sentences to nail the big fish.

[Carol25]

Originally Posted by legalmania

I agree with you. OJ didn't have a gun and I didn't hear anywhere in the tapes where OJ said be sure and bring a gun. He was lured into this by Ruccio, he came for a wedding, the only thing OJ really said is "nobody leave this room." He was mad at Furmong for having his stuff, and it was his stuff because he owned it before the first trial. I thought it strange that the court ordered him to give up things he owned before the trial, it's usually anything you make after the judgement. Furmong was quick to put it on Mike. I found it strange that Furmong didn't say o.k. but please get the gun out of my face. I have a feeling that if the Goldman's continue to pursue this case , we will find out more and more about this story. This case is going to change some laws in Nevada, they have to many people with big money coming through who now are going to be worried about being set up.

I cannot agree with you. And calling these items "his stuff" is not accurate. At the time all of these things were taken, LE were on their way to pick them up for the judgement in the favor of the Goldman's had already been rendered. He was hiding them from the Goldmans.

None of this would have taken place at all had it not been for OJ. It was his idea to get "his stuff- the Goldman's stuff." back to sell them. And as Glass said, when he calls others to say, "there were no guns," it obviously means there were guns.

If OJ had told the others, we are going in and ask for these things back very nicely, the others wouldn't have thought to bring guns. They would have thought, "OH, we are going to help carry stuff." After all, these guys can't think for themselves, they just aren't bright. They were told what's up. Bring heat....We're gonna scare the @#$#@# out of these guys or rough em up!

I think Riccio is a slug, too. But unless it was a wiretapping law, I guess he didn't break any laws. But what do you expect when they are all thugs? He was OJ's "friend!" When your friends are thugs....

[legalmania]

Originally Posted by Carol25

I cannot agree with you. And calling these items "his stuff" is not accurate. At the time all of these things were taken, LE were on their way to pick them up for the judgement in the favor of the Goldman's had already been rendered. He was hiding them from the Goldmans.

None of this would have taken place at all had it not been for OJ. It was his idea to get "his stuff- the Goldman's stuff." back to sell them. And as Glass said, when he calls others to say, "there were no guns," it obviously means there were guns.

If OJ had told the others, we are going in and ask for these things back very nicely, the others wouldn't have thought to bring guns. They would have thought, "OH, we are going to help carry stuff." After all, these guys can't think for themselves, they just aren't bright. They were told what's up. Bring heat....We're gonna scare the @#$#@# out of these guys or rough em up!

I think Riccio is a slug, too. But unless it was a wiretapping law, I guess he didn't break any laws. But what do you expect when they are all thugs? He was OJ's "friend!" When your friends are thugs....

He had most of these items when he was a football player. Years before 1995. He had no idea this stuff was taken, he was not there. It was Mike Gilbert who helped him move. Mike turned around and sold them to Furmong and who knows who else. I believe Mike Gilbert has come out smelling like a rose. None of this would have taken place if it wasn't for Ruccio. Ruccio approached him in Vegas and told him some guy has your stuff. If he would have told OJ it was Furmong, I'm sure OJ would have handled it himself. Ruccio tape recorded the whole thing because he knew he could use those tapes later. When your famous you get all kinds of hangers on. Look how many celeberties have been dragged down by low lives, who hang on and won't let go.

[vonna]

Originally Posted by legalmania

He had most of these items when he was a football player. Years before 1995. He had no idea this stuff was taken, he was not there. It was Mike Gilbert who helped him move. Mike turned around and sold them to Furmong and who knows who else. I believe Mike Gilbert has come out smelling like a rose. None of this would have taken place if it wasn't for Ruccio. Ruccio approached him in Vegas and told him some guy has your stuff. If he would have told OJ it was Furmong, I'm sure OJ would have handled it himself. Ruccio tape recorded the whole thing because he knew he could use those tapes later. When your famous you get all kinds of hangers on. Look how many celeberties have been dragged down by low lives, who hang on and won't let go.

What proof do you have that OJ had no idea his "stuff" was taken? In all probability it was removed with his approval to be hidden from the Goldman family. Moral of the story? You can't cheat an honest man.

[fbgweezer]

Originally Posted by legalmania

He had most of these items when he was a football player. Years before 1995. He had no idea this stuff was taken, he was not there. It was Mike Gilbert who helped him move. Mike turned around and sold them to Furmong and who knows who else. I believe Mike Gilbert has come out smelling like a rose. None of this would have taken place if it wasn't for Ruccio. Ruccio approached him in Vegas and told him some guy has your stuff. If he would have told OJ it was Furmong, I'm sure OJ would have handled it himself. Ruccio tape recorded the whole thing because he knew he could use those tapes later. When your famous you get all kinds of hangers on. Look how many celeberties have been dragged down by low lives, who hang on and won't let go.

of course he knew the stuff was 'taken' -- he laughs about it on the tapes before the robbery. BTW, orenthal did handle it himself and now he pays the penalty.

[Carol25]

Originally Posted by legalmania

He had most of these items when he was a football player. Years before 1995. He had no idea this stuff was taken, he was not there. It was Mike Gilbert who helped him move. Mike turned around and sold them to Furmong and who knows who else. I believe Mike Gilbert has come out smelling like a rose. None of this would have taken place if it wasn't for Ruccio. Ruccio approached him in Vegas and told him some guy has your stuff. If he would have told OJ it was Furmong, I'm sure OJ would have handled it himself. Ruccio tape recorded the whole thing because he knew he could use those tapes later. When your famous you get all kinds of hangers on. Look how many celeberties have been dragged down by low lives, who hang on and won't let go.

It doesn't make any difference when he obtained these items. They could have been given to him at birth. They were supposed to seize anything of value to honor the award to the Goldmans.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Carol25

I think Riccio is a slug, too. But unless it was a wiretapping law, I guess he didn't break any laws.

This appears to be Nevada's NON telephone tape recording law, it appears the recording was quite legal. Some states codify telephone and oral communications together. NV seperates them.


NRS 200.650 Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

(Added to NRS by 1957, 335; A 1973, 1749; 1989, 660)



You may remember when Linda Tripp taped her telephone conversation with Monica Lewinsky. Maryland is a TWO PARTY state for such. Some states are ONE PARTY. In other words, if your state permits an INTRAstate recording as long as ONE person is aware of it, and that means the taper, you, it is legal, this is not wiretapping.

Federal law is a ONE party law, but state law may conflict, so if the other party is an out of state receiver, it depends on the law of that state to be cautious in doing so!!

[Carol25]

Originally Posted by Jay

This appears to be Nevada's NON telephone tape recording law, it appears the recording was quite legal. Some states codify telephone and oral communications together. NV seperates them.


NRS 200.650 Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

(Added to NRS by 1957, 335; A 1973, 1749; 1989, 660)



You may remember when Linda Tripp taped her telephone conversation with Monica Lewinsky. Maryland is a TWO PARTY state for such. Some states are ONE PARTY. In other words, if your state permits an INTRAstate recording as long as ONE person is aware of it, and that means the taper, you, it is legal, this is not wiretapping.

Federal law is a ONE party law, but state law may conflict, so if the other party is an out of state receiver, it depends on the law of that state to be cautious in doing so!!

Thank you, Jay.

Didn't think this case could get any sweeter then simpson going away for a loooooong time, but it just did; learning that those that cooperated with the State received probation only is icing on the cake for me.

Judge Glass sure was right, simpson is ignorant in addition to being arrogant.

Originally Posted by Pumpkinspice

Judge Glass never has to be ashamed for anything. On the other hand, you and your friends should be for not knowing the laws in your state and this country as a whole. Robbery is a crime in case someone has informed you yet. Better get caught up and start respecting those laws. You wouldn't want to end up in front of Judge Glass yourself. She doesn't go for the "ignorant of the law" bit.

click

I understand your position and I do know the law here, however you have two men with guns that did make a threat so maybe you need to read the laws. Maybe if you were a victim you would feel different as well

[FrankieBones1]

Originally Posted by Pumpkinspice

Judge Glass never has to be ashamed for anything. On the other hand, you and your friends should be for not knowing the laws in your state and this country as a whole. Robbery is a crime in case someone has informed you yet. Better get caught up and start respecting those laws. You wouldn't want to end up in front of Judge Glass yourself. She doesn't go for the "ignorant of the law" bit.

click

I have a lot of respect for Judge Glass. She is a class act for sure.
I get a real kick out of knowing that OJ could have gotten three years if he pleaded guilty. Justice was served and he is where he should be.