Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Can O.J. Simpson Keep The Money?  
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3079 times:

I know that the civil case against O.J. can't touch his house in Florida or his football pension (although I don't know why... nor do I agree)

However, why can he keep the money he made on this book and interview deal? In fact, law suit not withstanding, I thought it was illegal to make money from publicity after committing a violent crime (perhaps since he only lost the civil case that rule doesn't apply?)

It just seems so frustrating that, even though he lost the civil case, he doesn't seem to have to pay up, but can even make money from the case after the fact.

By the way - the bad taste and insensitivity with regard to this book... it boggles the mind.


I come in peace
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3085 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3074 times:

YOu do realise that the book and tv special have been cancelled

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3072 times:

He already spent the money. I suppose he could be sued, but what good would that do? He won't pay the money if he loses the suit, just like he hasn't paid the money from previous judgements against him.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26595 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
I know that the civil case against O.J. can't touch his house in Florida or his football pension (although I don't know why... nor do I agree)

They can't touch his house in Florida because they have a Homestead Exemption written into their law. Pensions are protected otherwise by law as they are meant to be retirement income.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
I thought it was illegal to make money from publicity after committing a violent crime (perhaps since he only lost the civil case that rule doesn't apply?)

According to the law, he didn't commit the crime. While the civil jury found him "responsible" for the deaths, he was not convicted of killing anyone.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
However, why can he keep the money he made on this book and interview deal?

Well, since they didn't go forward, it is moot. It is likely, however, that he would have to pay some of the money to the Goldman and Brown families.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
It just seems so frustrating that, even though he lost the civil case, he doesn't seem to have to pay up, but can even make money from the case after the fact.

What I find frustrating is that he was essentially tried a second time for the same offense, just in a different forum.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 1):
YOu do realise that the book and tv special have been cancelled

That's irrelevant. They paid him for the rights to put his name on the book. They can't take the money back. It wasn't OJ's fault that the book wasn't published; that is somebody else's problem, unfortunately, not OJ's. The book was written by a ghostwriter, and he gets to keep his money also.


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

Quoting Greasespot (Reply 1):
YOu do realise that the book and tv special have been cancelled



Quoting N1120A (Reply 3):
Well, since they didn't go forward, it is moot. It is likely, however, that he would have to pay some of the money to the Goldman and Brown families.

No, I saw an interview where he stated he was still paid his "up front" money, which he said he is using for his children's inheritance and to pay bills. He said payments from his pension are less because he has had to make withdrawals from the principal. The news article did not state that The Goldman's or Brown's would get any of the money. OJ spent it all.

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 2):
He already spent the money. I suppose he could be sued, but what good would that do? He won't pay the money if he loses the suit, just like he hasn't paid the money from previous judgements against him.

But then could he not be jailed because the civil case against him, I would assume, says, for all intents and purposes, that that income is not his to spend. I guess I am just frustrated at the impotence of a civil ruling against him. It seems to be inconsequential.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3):
What I find frustrating is that he was essentially tried a second time for the same offense, just in a different forum.

It doesn't give me much confidence in the legal system, since those rulings are opposite, and therefore one is clearly wrong. And because one ruling seems completely unenforceable



I come in peace
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13138 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3049 times:

One issue is that his children with Brown (now 18 & 21 I believe) may be entitled to some of his monies over them going to amounts still due to Goldman and Brown from the Civil case judgment. Don't forget that part of that money was from their mother's assets or division of assets in a will or post-death distribution with those monies probably in trust until they turn 21 or end college.
As to the Florida property, they may be effectively be judgement proof due to state set exemptions to real property if a person was to forced into or they voluntarly go into bankruptcy or get a lawsuit judgement. Florida has a total exemption, unlike most states that may set a $20,000 exemption of equity on primary residence real property, originally to protect farmers back in the Depression era.
Pension payments and segeraged retirement account savings/investments are exempt are to protect retired people from any abuse of their sole income source.


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
But then could he not be jailed because the civil case against him

No. We don't have debtor's prisons. He could be charged with contempt of court, but his defense would be that he couldn't afford to make the payment because he was in debt, and debtors don't go to jail. Anyway, the money probably went directly to OJ's creditors, I doubt that he saw a penny.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26595 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
It doesn't give me much confidence in the legal system, since those rulings are opposite, and therefore one is clearly wrong. And because one ruling seems completely unenforceable

Well, there were two completely different burdens in the cases. In a criminal case, the State has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which they most definately didn't do. In a civil case, the plaintiff needs only prove their case by a preponderance of evidence, which is like putting all the evidence on a scale and seeing which side tilts in the right direction. Further, the civil judgment has most definately been enforced, it just happens that Simpson wasn't able to pay all $33.5 million up front.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

With all this crap going on with OJ, it makes me wonder how he is even getting by with a HUGE debt hanging over his head. I'll bet he has friends in very high places that is harboring him....


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3005 times:

OJ is not hurting for money.. he is a member at a nice golf club and plays golf all the time.. Sure he has to pay a lot in the settlement against him but i read somwhere that his pension is around $20,000 a month or so.. that could be a little off but he is still making a helluva lot of money and does nothing but play golf and smoke cigars.. dont feel sorry for that murderer.

Slovacek747


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2991 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
In fact, law suit not withstanding, I thought it was illegal to make money from publicity after committing a violent crime (perhaps since he only lost the civil case that rule doesn't apply?)

There have been some good replies, but none that adress this particular part of the question. The answer is that the rule in question only applies to criminal convictions. Now that being said; If the deal had gone through, The Goldmans could have gotten an injunction and stopped him from profiting from the book/interview based on the fact that they do have a pending civil judgment against him. Now how effective it would be is another story. As I understand it the Goldman's civil verdict is in California (I could very well be wrong). All Oj has to do to dodge that is have FOX pay him outside of California to subvert that. If it's a federal judgent that's a whole nother ball game..


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 16 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
Further, the civil judgment has most definately been enforced, it just happens that Simpson wasn't able to pay all $33.5 million up front.

I was under the impression that he has paid NONE of that. AM I incorrect. I still don't understand why. Because the court only has jurisdiction in California? Because some of his money exists as a trust fund for the children?

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 7):
No. We don't have debtor's prisons. He could be charged with contempt of court, but his defense would be that he couldn't afford to make the payment because he was in debt, and debtors don't go to jail. Anyway, the money probably went directly to OJ's creditors, I doubt that he saw a penny.

No, I'm not suggesting he be imprisoned for being in debt. I'm suggesting that the proceeds from the book deal were not his to pay to his debtors; that those monies should have been intercepted by the court to pay part of the verdict against him. Or, as someone said, at least he is in contemp of court for spending this money (on his debt). I clearly don't understand how he is allowed not pay any of the judgement.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
Well, there were two completely different burdens in the cases. In a criminal case, the State has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which they most definately didn't do.

I don't see the legal system working, I must say. I feel that the victims in a trial also should have a right to justice, but I believe the burden is unbalanced. The prosecution must prove to 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt, using the evidence at hand, whereas the defense need only confuse ONE juror with bravado, innuendo, half-baked theory, professional paid witnesses, etc.

I am in favor of professional juries that would not be under duress (not sequestered), and who would understand the import of such things as genetic evidence, etc. They would not be swayed by charismatic lawyers or bravado. They would be educated and know the law.

Also, I am in favor of 10-2 jury decisions, because it always seems that a minority of people cannot be objective (we need only look to some of the A vs B emotional diatribes on this site to realize that...)

The power in the legal system has to be taken back from the lawyers.



I come in peace
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26595 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2883 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 12):
I feel that the victims in a trial also should have a right to justice, but I believe the burden is unbalanced. The prosecution must prove to 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt, using the evidence at hand, whereas the defense need only confuse ONE juror with bravado, innuendo, half-baked theory, professional paid witnesses, etc.

"Confusing" one juror means you get a new trial, not an aquittal. All 12 in the Simpson case agreed

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 12):
I am in favor of professional juries that would not be under duress (not sequestered), and who would understand the import of such things as genetic evidence, etc.

Which would mean you essentially have judge trials, just with 12 people. That goes completely against the Constitutional guarantees for an impartial jury of their peers.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 12):

Also, I am in favor of 10-2 jury decisions, because it always seems that a minority of people cannot be objective (we need only look to some of the A vs B emotional diatribes on this site to realize that...)

Comparing A v. B threads to trials where we are taking someone's liberty is irresponsible at the least. The whole point of majority verdicts in criminal cases is to give people due process.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 12):
The power in the legal system has to be taken back from the lawyers.

The lawyers? The power in the legal system is with juries, judges and legislatures.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Sorry for the late response. I don't frequent this particular forum...

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
Which would mean you essentially have judge trials, just with 12 people. That goes completely against the Constitutional guarantees for an impartial jury of their peers.

I don't think we have juries of our peers NOW. The most capable, intelligent, informed people; decision makers, who cannot leave their important lives behind (doctors, captains of Industry, etc) get out of jury duty, and you get blue collar workers, housewives, etc., people who are not as educated and not used to making important decisions based on the facts at hand. They are more likely swayed, I would suggest, by the politics and drama of the courtroom. I believe that professional juries would be more impartial.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
The lawyers? The power in the legal system is with juries, judges and legislatures.



I wish that were literally true. No, I believe that when lawyers have unlimited resources from rich clients, they can convolute a case enough to confuse or sway an amateur jury when the evidence does not warrant it. Also, I hypothesise that whereas there once was (when the legal system was formed) more of a commitment to service, honesty, integrity, truth, etc., I think now it's all about winning at ANY cost. I don't think the legal system is equipped to deal with this shift in attitude and lack of ethics.

I'm not an expert of the legal system, but I must say I don't trust it, I think something is wrong, and I am suggesting things to consider to fix it. It seems much too competitive and adversarial to work properly. It's more of a cut-throat competition than it is a body seeking of the truth and justice.

If lawyers deserve even half of the criticism aimed at them, then I don't respect a system that has LAWYERS making cases to judges. Two completely polarized "truths," presented by each side, and a third party (judge or jury) has to come up with some semblance of the truth, based on on these two diametrically opposed non-truths. It seems very unlikely that such a system can work.



I come in peace
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26595 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2819 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 12):
I was under the impression that he has paid NONE of that. AM I incorrect

You are completely incorrect. You think O.J. Simpson still owns his Heisman? You think he still owns that big, multi-million dollar house on Rockingham in Brentwood? No. The vast majority of his assets were sold by judgment auction and the money given to the Goldman's and Brown's.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 12):
Because the court only has jurisdiction in California?

The Court's jurisdiction has little to do with it. No matter what state O.J. is in, the G's and B's are still judgment creditors and can seek out the local Sheriff to enforce on the simple approval of a Judge. They can't touch his pension (which isn't THAT much money) because there are federal protections on pensions and they can't take his house in Florida because it is the law in Florida that your homestead is protected from all judgments, including Chapter 7 bankruptcy. You going to blame lawyers for that one too?

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 14):
I don't think we have juries of our peers NOW. The most capable, intelligent, informed people; decision makers, who cannot leave their important lives behind (doctors, captains of Industry, etc) get out of jury duty, and you get blue collar workers, housewives, etc., people who are not as educated and not used to making important decisions based on the facts at hand.

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but if you have, doctors, captains of industry, lawyers, etc. are not the peers of the vast majority of defendants. The vast majority of defendants are too poor to even pay for their own counsel. Further, as a citizen of the United States, you are not considered a lesser person simply because you don't have as much money or education as another citizen, and you are equally capable of serving on a jury. It is an insult to the people who do go down to court and do spend their time on juries, working for peanuts, performing their civic duty when so many of your so called "more qualified" people weasel their way out.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 14):
I believe that professional juries would be more impartial.

Bull. As a professional, you tend to form opinions based on your experience and not look at things the same way. Having professional juries would be the same thing as having judge-only trials

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 14):
I wish that were literally true. No, I believe that when lawyers have unlimited resources from rich clients, they can convolute a case enough to confuse or sway an amateur jury when the evidence does not warrant it.

Unlimited resources? Who do you think most defendants are, because they sure as hell are not O.J. In New Orleans, the vast majority of defendants are represented by an overworked, $40,000 a year (recently up from $29,000) public defender who doesn't even get to work with them till the DA accepts the charges, potentially 60 days after the person was arrested and thrown in jail. You call that unlimited resources?

A professional juror becomes just another bureaucrat in the government that is trying you, not an impartial member of the community in which you live.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 14):
then I don't respect a system that has LAWYERS making cases to judges.

What do you think lawyers are for? Lawyers are expert in the law and are there to represent laymen when faced with an adversary of the same expertise. The Constitution guarantees every American the right to counsel, to competent and full representation.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2795 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
You are completely incorrect. You think O.J. Simpson still owns his Heisman? You think he still owns that big, multi-million dollar house on Rockingham in Brentwood? No. The vast majority of his assets were sold by judgment auction and the money given to the Goldman's and Brown's.

Can you direct me to any links or websites that document this?
I have never heard this before, but I am relieved if it's true. Did he not declare bankruptcy to protect his remaining assets after his large attorney fees. Forgive me, my memory on the issue escapes me.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
Unlimited resources? Who do you think most defendants are, because they sure as hell are not O.J. In New Orleans, the vast majority of defendants are represented by an overworked, $40,000 a year (recently up from $29,000) public defender who doesn't even get to work with them till the DA accepts the charges, potentially 60 days after the person was arrested and thrown in jail. You call that unlimited resources?

No, I believe that the O.J. case was an anomaly, as are most cases where there is prestige and especially money involved. It is when there is suddenly a lot of money to spend on the case, I would suggest, that the legal system starts not to work, because it becomes a power struggle between lawyers with unlimited resources. It becomes about the politics of the courtroom and endless convoluted, distracting motions, and attempts to discredit witnesses, and professional paid witnesses who are there to theorise and discredit, etc., rather than about the evidence. Rather than "Freedom and Justice for all," it feels somewhat like freedom for the rich, and relative justice for the rest of us.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
Further, as a citizen of the United States, you are not considered a lesser person simply because you don't have as much money or education as another citizen, and you are equally capable of serving on a jury.

Someone of less education or less intellect is not a lessor person. But I think it does speak to their ability to judge and problem solve. Of course I am generalising, and their are exception's to who is more likely to be impartial, who is more likely to be intelligent. But in general I suspect juries are chosen based on who the lawyers think they can manipulate. That would be less true of a professional jury.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
It is an insult to the people who do go down to court and do spend their time on juries, working for peanuts, performing their civic duty when so many of your so called "more qualified" people weasel their way out.

As I stated, the fact that they can more easily be excused is one of the reasons I think the present jury system doesn't work.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
Having professional juries would be the same thing as having judge-only trials

I have heard this sentiment before. I don't understand the argument or the problem. You still have 12 people to be convinced, not one. And they are better equipped to understand and evaluate the circumstances. And they won't attempt to rush the deliberations because of being under duress about their jobs, thier finances, their families (especially when sequestored).

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
Bull

Bravado, condescension and intimidation score no points with me, or with any rational person, and would have little impact, I venture to say, on a professional jury.

Interesting - I had a hunch, looked you up, and sure enough; you are a lawyer. Your primary concern is to "win," and my suggestions would threaten to take some of your power away to be able to do that. I suspect you would have less power over a sophisticated, educated, professional jury to always see things your way. Unlike you, I don't care if YOU win, I would like JUSTICE and TRUTH to win more often. I realize I am a lay person in these matters, but it seems I have touched a nerve.

When I saw some of the people who had been excused from the O.J. trial, for example, (replaced by alternates well into the trial) make speeches to the press, I was in some cases shocked at the low level of comprehension, education, intelligence... I'm sure people such as those are much more easily influenced by you, and you like it that way.

You know more about the law, to be sure, but I have no personal stake in the matter. I'm just a thinking person who can claim more impartiality on the subject. You don't have to agree with me, but I hope you at least find the perspective of someone on the outside, looking in, food for thought.



I come in peace
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26595 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2780 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 16):
As I stated, the fact that they can more easily be excused is one of the reasons I think the present jury system doesn't work.

The present jury system is Constitutional. A professional one would not be

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 16):
Can you direct me to any links or websites that document this?

Try Google.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 16):
I have never heard this before, but I am relieved if it's true. Did he not declare bankruptcy to protect his remaining assets after his large attorney fees. Forgive me, my memory on the issue escapes me.

A massive number of his assets were liquidated, the most famous of which being his Heisman, in order to pay the judgment. As it was, Simpson wasn't at all heavily in debt because of his previously high income and pretty much everything went to his judgment creditors.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 16):
That would be less true of a professional jury.

Professional juries manipulate themselves. The begin to shut out argument for the sake of convention. That leaves nothing for impartiality.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 16):
I have heard this sentiment before. I don't understand the argument or the problem. You still have 12 people to be convinced, not one. And they are better equipped to understand and evaluate the circumstances.

The whole point of juries is that they are supposed to be lay people who represent the community at large, while the judge takes care of matters of law. That is why you have a judge there in the first place.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 16):
And they won't attempt to rush the deliberations because of being under duress about their jobs, thier finances, their families (especially when sequestored).

Sequestration is incredibly rare. The only reason it happened in the Simpson case is because of the insane media attention given the case. Under almost every other circumstance, it won't happen.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 16):
Bravado, condescension and intimidation score no points with me, or with any rational person, and would have little impact, I venture to say, on a professional jury.

I said bull because that was the best way to describe a comment about a professional jury being impartial. Take a look at the way semi-pro grand juries rubber stamp indictments now.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 16):
When I saw some of the people who had been excused from the O.J. trial, for example, (replaced by alternates well into the trial) make speeches to the press, I was in some cases shocked at the low level of comprehension, education, intelligence... I'm sure people such as those are much more easily influenced by you, and you like it that way.

How about you try having microphones thrust in your face, reporters constantly calling your phone and at your door and see how coherent you are. Not everyone is the best interview.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

I appreciate your detailed responses, N122A. Thought provoking.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
Try Google.

Thank you. Good idea, of course.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
The present jury system is Constitutional. A professional one would not be

However, there are such things as amendments, as society changes. Do they not have professional juries in France, I understood?



I come in peace
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26595 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 18):
However, there are such things as amendments, as society changes.

If anything, society needs lay juries more than ever.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 18):
Do they not have professional juries in France, I understood?

I don't live in France



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePWM2TXLHopper From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1339 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2766 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
However, why can he keep the money he made on this book and interview deal?

I'm no expert in financial legal matters, but the reason he could have kept the money was because it was channeled through a third party financier. So basically he found a loophole in the law.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Can A Trabant Pass The Ontario Emissions Test? posted Sun Feb 13 2005 00:45:30 by MartinairYYZ
How Can I Move Out The House? posted Fri Feb 11 2005 12:30:09 by Planespotterx
How Fast Can You Spank The Monkey? posted Mon May 8 2006 15:18:57 by Greyhound
How Long Can You Keep It Up? posted Sat Mar 11 2006 03:28:12 by Mr Spaceman
How Can The West Alleviate African Suffering? posted Thu Feb 16 2006 12:41:02 by AerospaceFan
How Can I Add A Music File? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 03:06:30 by Kmh1956
Regardless Of How You Feel About The War... posted Fri Nov 3 2006 07:05:50 by BCAInfoSys
World Basketball Champ-Can Anyone Beat The U.S? posted Tue Aug 8 2006 02:39:49 by Falcon84
How Can I Read This Website In English? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 20:50:51 by Alberchico
How Do You Pronounce The Word 'livery' posted Fri Jul 7 2006 21:22:35 by SFOerik