<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: O.J.&#8217;s ill gotten-gains</title>
	<atom:link href="http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/06/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/06/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/</link>
	<description>Two lawyers on law, legislation and liberty. And other stuff.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:16:13 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Legal Eagle</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/06/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11005</link>
		<dc:creator>Legal Eagle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11005</guid>
		<description>P.S. Judgment still isn't there.

Reminder for self - Florida Court Website is &lt;a href="http://www.flsb.uscourts.gov/" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>P.S. Judgment still isn&#8217;t there.</p>
<p>Reminder for self - Florida Court Website is <a href="http://www.flsb.uscourts.gov/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Legal Eagle</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/06/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-10998</link>
		<dc:creator>Legal Eagle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:02:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-10998</guid>
		<description>Oh poopies. Blame it on trying to do one million things at once. Will amend post yet again. Can't believe I've forgotten my bankruptcy law totally. But then again, I can. Having a child does terrible things to your memory.

I'll have to check if the OJ judgment is there yet.

I have read Barrett J's paper - and if I have my way - BWAH HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAA! - I will reform the Australian legal community's view of &lt;i&gt;Blake&lt;/i&gt;. My evil plans are already in motion.

If I do say so myself, I think I might even convince some of the Sydney Equity Bar. WATCH THIS SPACE. But Gummow and Heydon JJ are lost causes vis a vis &lt;i&gt;Blake&lt;/i&gt;, I think.

(Yes, LE is overtired and overemotional from marking too many exam papers).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh poopies. Blame it on trying to do one million things at once. Will amend post yet again. Can&#8217;t believe I&#8217;ve forgotten my bankruptcy law totally. But then again, I can. Having a child does terrible things to your memory.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll have to check if the OJ judgment is there yet.</p>
<p>I have read Barrett J&#8217;s paper - and if I have my way - BWAH HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAA! - I will reform the Australian legal community&#8217;s view of <i>Blake</i>. My evil plans are already in motion.</p>
<p>If I do say so myself, I think I might even convince some of the Sydney Equity Bar. WATCH THIS SPACE. But Gummow and Heydon JJ are lost causes vis a vis <i>Blake</i>, I think.</p>
<p>(Yes, LE is overtired and overemotional from marking too many exam papers).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marcellous</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/06/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-10997</link>
		<dc:creator>marcellous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:23:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-10997</guid>
		<description>LE, "voidable preferences" are section 122.  They are transactions within a prescribed relation back period which have the effect of preferring a creditor over other creditors.

Mind you, we are both still guessing about the relevant US law.

Incidentally, &lt;em&gt;Attorney General v Blake&lt;/em&gt; has been described by Justice Barrett of the NSW Supreme Court as [one of] &lt;a href="http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_barrett240803" rel="nofollow"&gt;The “Most Wrong” Equity Cases 1990 – 2003&lt;/a&gt;.  It's a very Sydney equity sort of paper.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LE, &#8220;voidable preferences&#8221; are section 122.  They are transactions within a prescribed relation back period which have the effect of preferring a creditor over other creditors.</p>
<p>Mind you, we are both still guessing about the relevant US law.</p>
<p>Incidentally, <em>Attorney General v Blake</em> has been described by Justice Barrett of the NSW Supreme Court as [one of] <a href="http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_barrett240803" rel="nofollow">The “Most Wrong” Equity Cases 1990 – 2003</a>.  It&#8217;s a very Sydney equity sort of paper.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fairlane</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/06/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11003</link>
		<dc:creator>fairlane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:56:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11003</guid>
		<description>People like O.J. are becoming status quo. Look at our "celebrities" here in the States. Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton and the rest of that gaggle of fools.

Vapidity, arrogance, and anti-social behavior all for the masses to consume.

"God Bless the United States of America, pass the hand grenades."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People like O.J. are becoming status quo. Look at our &#8220;celebrities&#8221; here in the States. Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton and the rest of that gaggle of fools.</p>
<p>Vapidity, arrogance, and anti-social behavior all for the masses to consume.</p>
<p>&#8220;God Bless the United States of America, pass the hand grenades.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GavinM</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/06/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11002</link>
		<dc:creator>GavinM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:35:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11002</guid>
		<description>You've got to hand it to O.J. he's a shocking piece of work, but boy, he's got more front than Myers..(to use one of my mother's favourite terms).

As to who is the sicker in the arrangement...Well, I reckon it's a photo-finish...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;ve got to hand it to O.J. he&#8217;s a shocking piece of work, but boy, he&#8217;s got more front than Myers..(to use one of my mother&#8217;s favourite terms).</p>
<p>As to who is the sicker in the arrangement&#8230;Well, I reckon it&#8217;s a photo-finish&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Legal Eagle</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/06/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11001</link>
		<dc:creator>Legal Eagle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11001</guid>
		<description>Marcellous, I've fixed up the Mr Cummins QC link and updated my post to be a bit more "legal".

Your comments were very helpful in reminding me of how bankruptcy preferences work in Australia - I haven't looked at s 121 since I left practice - but on reading your comments I realised that of course the US law would work in a similar way.

I will have to check out the judgment when they publish it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marcellous, I&#8217;ve fixed up the Mr Cummins QC link and updated my post to be a bit more &#8220;legal&#8221;.</p>
<p>Your comments were very helpful in reminding me of how bankruptcy preferences work in Australia - I haven&#8217;t looked at s 121 since I left practice - but on reading your comments I realised that of course the US law would work in a similar way.</p>
<p>I will have to check out the judgment when they publish it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marcellous</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/06/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11000</link>
		<dc:creator>marcellous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11000</guid>
		<description>The relevant provision in Australia is &lt;a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba1966142/s121.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;section 121 of the Bankruptcy Act&lt;/a&gt;.
Until this section was amended in 1996, it referred to a transfer "with intent to defraud creditors."
I imagine the judge in the O.J.Simpson case is dealing with a statute in similar form to the pre-1966 Australian legislation.  "Fraud" here is used in its broader equitable sense (sorry everyone else, that is lawyer talk) rather than the narrower common law sense of "deceit."
Broadly speaking, you can arrange your affairs so that future creditors may be unable to reach your assets, but once you do have creditors or events have occurred which mean there is reason to think you will have them (obviously there will be a question of degree here), then the transfer will be caught by this section.
So, for example, it is fine for barristers, as they often do, to place all their valuable assets in the hands of their wife in case they subsequently get sued by someone, but it wasn't OK for &lt;a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/1503.html?query=ba1966142" rel="nofollow"&gt;Mr Cummins QC&lt;/a&gt; who had not filed a tax return or paid any income tax since 1955, to transfer his assets to his family trust and to wife in 1987 in this way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The relevant provision in Australia is <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba1966142/s121.html" rel="nofollow">section 121 of the Bankruptcy Act</a>.<br />
Until this section was amended in 1996, it referred to a transfer &#8220;with intent to defraud creditors.&#8221;<br />
I imagine the judge in the O.J.Simpson case is dealing with a statute in similar form to the pre-1966 Australian legislation.  &#8220;Fraud&#8221; here is used in its broader equitable sense (sorry everyone else, that is lawyer talk) rather than the narrower common law sense of &#8220;deceit.&#8221;<br />
Broadly speaking, you can arrange your affairs so that future creditors may be unable to reach your assets, but once you do have creditors or events have occurred which mean there is reason to think you will have them (obviously there will be a question of degree here), then the transfer will be caught by this section.<br />
So, for example, it is fine for barristers, as they often do, to place all their valuable assets in the hands of their wife in case they subsequently get sued by someone, but it wasn&#8217;t OK for <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/1503.html?query=ba1966142" rel="nofollow">Mr Cummins QC</a> who had not filed a tax return or paid any income tax since 1955, to transfer his assets to his family trust and to wife in 1987 in this way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Legal Eagle</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/06/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11004</link>
		<dc:creator>Legal Eagle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-11004</guid>
		<description>They're all sick. I despise OJ, as I've told you before.

Unfortunately, I increasingly think: "Stop the world, I want to get off!"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They&#8217;re all sick. I despise OJ, as I&#8217;ve told you before.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I increasingly think: &#8220;Stop the world, I want to get off!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fairlane</title>
		<link>http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2007/06/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-10999</link>
		<dc:creator>fairlane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:15:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/ojs-ill-gotten-gains/#comment-10999</guid>
		<description>He's quite a specimen is he not? "If I did it". I don't know who is the sick one in that arrangement, O.J. or the people who agreed to pay him to write such a book.

As I mentioned previously, I continue to wait for the day when my family figures out I'm trapped on this planet and sends a ship to bring me home.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He&#8217;s quite a specimen is he not? &#8220;If I did it&#8221;. I don&#8217;t know who is the sick one in that arrangement, O.J. or the people who agreed to pay him to write such a book.</p>
<p>As I mentioned previously, I continue to wait for the day when my family figures out I&#8217;m trapped on this planet and sends a ship to bring me home.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
