at 21:06 on December 19, 2006, EST.
By RICK CALLAHAN

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Fred Goldman sued O.J. Simpson on Tuesday, seeking any money the former NFL star received for a cancelled book deal and TV interview that told a hypothetical tale of how he would have killed his ex-wife and Goldman's son.

The federal lawsuit filed in California by Goldman's Indianapolis-based lawyer accuses Simpson of "fraudulent conveyance" and alleges he created a shell corporation that received at least US$1.1 million as part of the TV interview and book, titled "If I Did It."

Lawyer Jonathan Polak said Lorraine Brooke Associates was created in March using the middle name of Simpson's two children. The lawsuit calls it a "sham entity" formed to defraud Ron Goldman's relatives by preventing them from claiming any of more than $38 million Simpson owes the family from a judgment against him in a wrongful-death lawsuit.

Goldman's lawsuit seeks about $1.1 million plus punitive damages, although Polak said he believes Simpson has already spent the money he received from News Corp., the owner of Fox Broadcasting and publisher HarperCollins.

Polak said the lawsuit's true aim is to determine how the book and TV interview deals were reached.

"The question in this lawsuit is not about what's in their bank account right now," he said.

"The issue is, can we unwind this series of transactions and hold those we believe truly are responsible accountable financially?"

Polak said he believes Judith Regan - who was fired last week as a publisher by HarperCollins - and Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp., need "to come clean" on their knowledge of how Simpson was reimbursed for the deal.

Andrew Butcher, a News Corp. spokesman, said he could not comment on the possibility of Murdoch being deposed.

He said News Corp. has been working with Goldman's family to answer questions about the book deal.

"From the very start, we'd offered every assistance to the family of Ron Goldman. Any information they have asked for regarding the contracts for the Simpson book, we have given them," Butcher said.

Polak said he has asked News Corp. to destroy all copies of the book, as well as copies of the interview with Fox that was to have aired. He also wants News Corp. to assign all rights to those books and interviews to the Goldman family.

Butcher said News Corp. has destroyed all copies of "If I Did It" but objected to the request to assign the rights to the Goldmans.

"You don't own the rights to someone's book in perpetuity," he said.

"It doesn't work that way. It's more complicated."

Simpson said last month he took part in the project solely for personal profit and acknowledged any financial gain was "blood money."

Simpson would not say how much he was paid in advance, only that it was less than the $3.5 million reported. He said the money already has been spent, some of it on tax obligations.

Messages seeking comment were left Tuesday with Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter.

Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges in the 1994 killings.

In 1997, a civil court jury, using a lesser standard of proof than is required at a criminal trial, found Simpson liable for Nicole Brown Simpson's and Goldman's stabbing deaths. The jury ordered him to pay about $19.7 million to Goldman's family - an amount Polak said has grown to more than $38 million with interest.

Fred Goldman said in a statement he is eager to learn who worked with Simpson on the deal.

"We will not stop until we are able to shine the light of truth on those that acted in concert with him," he said.


©The Canadian Press, 2006

I hope he wins. OJ does not deserve to earn anything from that nonsense.

I could of sworn that Fred Goldman wanted no part of the money from that book? Isn;t that what he said on Larry King?

How would he be entitled to that money?

I'm having a serious comprehension problem here.

i watched about 8 minutes of larry king's interview with mr. goldman tonight. i wish oj would file a suit for slander. goldman blatantly referred to oj as "the killer" and last i knew, oj was acquitted of all charges in his criminal trial. i'm sure it would be a case with merely nominal damages but i still wish he would do it.

what's the point in a judicial process if the media can facilitate a conviction in the eyes of the public? the goldmans and the browns made sure oj would never work again in entertainment and when he does get a paying job, they want to take that money?! its pathetic.

sallysassalot said:

That's how I feel on this. Like it or not, OJ was acquitted.

CinisterCee said:

and rightfully so. he supposedly had 5 minutes to kill two people in an incredibly violent manner, get changed, get rid of the weapons and clothes, get back in the vehicle and make it home? in la? hello! has anyone ever driven in la......it takes 30 minutes to get ANYWHERE! add to that the missing blood, the drug connections nicole and goldman had, and the corrupt police force and there's no way OJ should be paying anyone for anything, civil trial or not.

Word.

sallysassalot said:

Co-sign

The concept I still can't wrap my mind around is how can you be not guilty of killing someone, but guilty of causing the same people's death.....

reneGade20 said:

i think there's a serious problem with the ability to bring a civil suit after the criminal case was dismissed. its one thing to bring a civil case againts someone who has been found guilty of the criminal act, but to sue someone who has been found not guilty is ridiculous.

reneGade20 said:

We're dealing with two different things here: 1) the crime of murder; and 2) the tort (civil wrong) of wrongful death.

In a criminal case, for the defendant to be guilty, he must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's a high hurdle.

However, in most civil cases, a mere "preponderance of the evidence" is needed for the defendant to be found liable. That's an easier burden for the plaintiff to meet. Basically, it just has to be more probable than not that the defendant did whatever he's been sued for.

Edit: What if O.J. had been found guilty of murder? The civil suit probably would been a slam dunk. The doctrine of "collateral estoppel" generally prevents someone from re-litigating an issue decided against them in a previous case. (You don't get a "second bite at the apple.") According to my book on civil procedure, California gives full collateral estoppel effect to a criminal conviction.
[Edited 12/20/06 0:24am]

CinisterCee said:

Only in the criminal case. He was found liable in the civil case, and ordered to pay the families a gazillion dollars, which he never did. He owes them money. He shouldn't have been able to keep/spend the money from the book deal.

matt said:

ugh...i'm getting nauseated seeing the word "torts" so soon. my next semester doesn't start until january 8!

i think the problem some of us have with the the ability to sue someone in a civil court for a cause of action they were acquitted for in a criminal court is the fact that he is being punished for something a jury found him not guilty of. we haven't gone into crim law yet (that's next semester) but i'm still aware of the difference between criminal evidentiary requirements vs. civil. it just seems...wrong...that you would have to pay millions of dollars to someone who is accusing you of a crime that you've already been acquitted for. it does seem like a loophole for "two bites of the apple." (god, i hate civ pro.)

sallysassalot said:

I don't know much about this, except that those gloves that didn't fit him, basically made him be aquitted, right? Still numerous people believe in his guilt, so what was the evidence for his guilt?

calldapplwondery83 said:

Ok, I totally thought he was innnocent at the time, but since then, he has basically ADMITTED that he did it! Come on.

calldapplwondery83 said:

well, the gloves helped as much as the missing blood and the virtually impossible timing that would have been necessary for him to have been guilty, not to mention the corrupt and racist police force.

its my understanding that the "preponderance of evidence" relied upon in the civil action was the fact that he beat nicole while they were married and the fact that he had a small amount of (his own) blood on one of his own socks. the bottom line is (thanks to the media's portrayal) the public thought he was guilty, and the civil court wanted to find him guilty of something in order to deliver some form of "justice."

HereToRockYourWorld said:

when? where? how so? and i'm talking dates, places, articles, titles of newspapers/tv shows/magazines...i want it all if i'm to believe that. oj was not treated fairly at all.

sallysassalot said:

The "If I Did It" book. Which the publisher called "his confession", and OJ didn't deny.

I'm so not going to argue about this stupid case. But whatever else is true, no halfway decent human being would allow that book to be published in his name. ASIDE from the actual contents (which of course I haven't read), it makes it easy for me to believe that he's fucked up enough to have killed somebody.

sallysassalot said:

OK, thanks. This doesn't seem to me like there spoke much for his guilt at all then. I still wonder why the public at large think so. Propably the media's influence, I guess.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

In all fairness, O.J. did deny that the book is a "confession" in interviews with the AP:

http://www.showbuzz.cbsne...5498.shtml

Some people have pointed out that O.J. could have confessed in this book and avoided prosecution for murder under the Double Jeopardy Clause. That's true, but I wonder if doing so could lead to perjury charges based upon his testimony in the civil trial. I suspect that the statute of limitations for perjury has run by now, though.

matt said:

Ok, I stand corrected. It's not a confession.

You know, that doesn't change my sense that he is lower than the lowest piece of shit for allowing it to be published.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

well, when the browns and the goldmans have been allowed to take all of his money AND ruin his reputation so that he can't get any real work, what's he supposed to do? he can only make money now talking about those murders and if anyone should feel guilty about that it should be the families that brought it to this point.

sallysassalot said:

Please re-read what you just wrote...that is the most assinine statement I've ever read. If anyone should feel any guilt over the murders, it should be the murderer...IE...OJ.

Revolution said:

um, no. not if he didn't do it. according to a jury of his peers, the state failed in proving such a case.

sallysassalot said:

A different jury found him guilty of a civil infraction. The problem with your statement is that you are blaming the victims. Blame the assailant, not the victims, please.

OJ supporters seriously need OJ himself to smack them upside the head with a two by four while confusing that he did it....and they still wouldn't believe it.

The fact is that he got off on technicalities. His lawyers jumped through every loophole that they found. Mr Goldman's son was murdered, OJ did it. It's alot easier for OJ supporters and OJ himself to live with that fact than it is for Mr. Goldman.

Revolution said:

and you know more than the jury assigned to the criminal case because...? i always find it funny when people who didn't sit in on the case from start to finish (or read the entire transcripts) want to argue the decision was wrong.

additionally, the civil trial was not - and did not have to be - a unanimous jury. only 9 out of 12 were needed. most experts believe this verdict was decided because his reputation had been ruined and the media painted him as a murderer. in other words, receiving a fair and unbiased jury would be hardly possible.

They should bring back "eye for an eye".

sallysassalot said:

um..ok...

As I said, OJ apologists have my sympathy.

Revolution said:

They are un-convinceable. You're exactly right. It's kind of absurd, but. . . it's about race. Things get irrational when race comes up, for some reasons that I understand. What are ya gonna do?