Ronald Goldman's Father Sues Pirate Bay Over OJ Simpson Book. Will He Sue Google Too?

from the your-bizarre-story-for-friday dept

Fri, Nov 30th 2007 12:08pm — Mike Masnick

It's really not all that surprising that when people first discover The Pirate Bay they think that it's responsible for the unauthorized content that people can find through it. However, at some point you would think they would take the time to understand what's really going on and how it's more of a search engine than anything else. Unfortunately, too many people seem to jump right to the "sue them!" stage. That's apparently what's happened with Fred Goldman, the father of Ronald Goldman, the guy who was killed along with O.J. Simpson's ex-wife years ago. Goldman won a civil lawsuit against Simpson, for which Simpson owes him millions of dollars. Since Simpson isn't paying, the court has been turning over various assets to Goldman, including the royalties from the bizarre "If I Did It," book that Simpson wrote. It's that book that's the problem. Apparently (and not surprisingly, for a best seller), someone scanned in the book and put up a torrent of it which can be found via The Pirate Bay. Goldman, of course, is blaming the site rather than whoever actually made it available and suing the Pirate Bay, claiming he's "lost" at least $150,000. That, of course, incorrectly assumes that the people who downloaded the book would have bought it in the first place (most of them wouldn't have) and that none of the people who downloaded it later bought the book to read it in the more convenient book form. No matter. It's more fun to just sue. Goldman tries to bolster his argument by pointing out that The Pirate Bay has big name advertisers on the site, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not the one who offered up the infringing content. Besides, if that's Goldman's criteria, why doesn't Goldman sue Google as well? After all, a simple search on Google shows that you can find the book there as well -- and there are advertisements right next to it as well.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: book, oj simpson, ronald goldman
Companies: pirate bay

47 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2007 @ 12:26pm

he is just sueing pirate bay to warm himself up for the really big fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2007 @ 12:27pm

Who's telling the truth?
Associated Press is reporting that Goldman is asserting that The Pirate Bay is actually offering the book itself for download. That's very different from just offering links. So either TPB has changed their business model or someone is not being truthful. I'm betting it's AP (known internet hater) trying to twist the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:24pm
  
  Re: Who's telling the truth?
  they might not have it at all. I just searched the Pirate Bay for OJ Simpson and the only thing are rips of the murder trial from VCR recordings, and a few news pieces about it.
  
  No book.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Willton, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:28pm
    
    Re: Re: Who's telling the truth?
    Which may mean that the book is already gone from Pirate Bay.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2007 @ 9:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Who's telling the truth?
      Which may mean that the book is already gone from Pirate Bay.
      
      Well gee, I guess anything is possible, heh? Do you have anything to back up your conjecture or are you just a troll?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Willie Wonka, 30 Nov 2007 @ 12:32pm

Dear Fred Goldman,

You get Nothing! You Lose!

Good Day Sir
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shmengie, 30 Nov 2007 @ 12:45pm

some things are so painful, you want to put them in the past and move on with your life. apparently, this is not the case for fred goldman, who wants to keep his devastating loss alive forever. you won the civil case, dude. let it go. or get a gun and kill o.j. and prove your dedication to bringing him down. at the very least, lose the circus mustache.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Willton, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:09pm
  
  Re:
  some things are so painful, you want to put them in the past and move on with your life. apparently, this is not the case for fred goldman, who wants to keep his devastating loss alive forever. you won the civil case, dude. let it go.
  
  It's hardly a win if you don't receive anything for the win. A public shaming of OJ does not repair the damage that OJ caused to Fred Goldman. Goldman deserves the $33M damage award that he won from the civil case, and if this is what it takes to get it, so be it. Believe me, if OJ still had a substantial interest in the proceeds from the book, he'd be bringing a suit similar to this one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pixelm, 30 Nov 2007 @ 12:46pm

have you ever read anything written by pirate bay? Starting with their name, they thumb their nose at copyright, encourage unauthorized sharing by end users, hide their servers and stay away from legitimate jurisdictions where these issues might be subject to the law. Last year they had a site called oscar torrents where people could download free copies of every movie. Do you really believe that has NO effect on whether people will rent a DVD or go to a movie? If they think what they do is so appropriate, move their servers to the united states and have a court decide the issue instead of hiding out and insisting that telling people how to break the law and giving them the tools to do so is actually good behavior that copyright owners just aren't smart enough to understand. By the way, Pirate Bay aren't volunteers. They sell ads on their websites and it wouldn't take much work to pull down obvious infringements. It's a great business model - have other people put their heart and soul into making great songs, and books, and movies and then "give them away" so you can advertise to the folks streaming in for the free stuff. If intellectual property weren't harder to understand than physical property people wouldn't even say silly stuff like your post (say I put up billboards in front of your house so I can give away keys to your house and advertise to them when they steal your furniture)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 30 Nov 2007 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re:
  If intellectual property weren't harder to understand than physical property people wouldn't even say silly stuff like your post (say I put up billboards in front of your house so I can give away keys to your house and advertise to them when they steal your furniture)
  
  Hmm. It would appear that it's you who is having trouble understanding intellectual property here. There's a huge difference between *copying* content, where the original remains and *stealing* tangible goods where the original doesn't remain. We've pointed that out repeatedly and it seems rather silly to then go back and make a bizarre statement like the one you have here that clearly suggest that you don't understand the difference.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2007 @ 4:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike,
    Stealing is not just limited to the removal of a tangible good. The lost of monetary income due to the misappropriation of an item can constitute stealing. I don't understand how you can say, these people would not have bought it anyway so it doesn't count. The value is in the content as you have pointed out so very often. If that is indeed true, getting the content when you have no right to it, is indeed stealing because you have the content, which has the value.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike (profile), 2 Dec 2007 @ 7:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The lost of monetary income due to the misappropriation of an item can constitute stealing.
      
      Again, that is simply not true. It may infringe, but it is not stealing. Once again, to the Supreme Court we go:
      
      "Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
      
      I don't understand how you can say, these people would not have bought it anyway so it doesn't count.
      
      I'm not saying it doesn't count, but it is not theft. And, if you are going to try to add up those "losses" then you should also be required to add in the promotional value of such content as well.
      
      The value is in the content as you have pointed out so very often. If that is indeed true, getting the content when you have no right to it, is indeed stealing because you have the content, which has the value.
      
      What do I point out so very often? I think you may be confusing me for someone else. I point out that the content, by itself, will be priced at zero in a competitive market. I do point out that the content can be priced above zero when combined with something that is not scarce, but you seem to be confusing value and price -- which are two entirely different things.
      
      Even if we take your assumption that content has value by itself, that still doesn't make it stealing, because the original creator still has the content as well. Nothing is lost. The only thing that has happened is a copy has been made. That's not stealing. If I "copy" the car that you have, have I stolen it from you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2007 @ 6:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That's not stealing. If I "copy" the car that you have, have I stolen it from you?"
        
        Of course not, the car does not hold the value, the ability to transport me is the value.
        
        "Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft,"
        
        The key is easily equate, that does not mean that it does not, it means there is a different standard that needs to be applied.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2007 @ 1:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright infringement destroys business models based on copyright protection. It can even cause a corporation based on copyrights to cease to exist. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are legal "persons", so killing one off is actually murder. Therefore copyright infringement is a form of murder and infringers should be dealt with like any other murderer!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michaelk, 30 Nov 2007 @ 12:57pm
  
  Re: pixelm
  They operate where they live, and their jurisdiction doesn't have laws paid for by the corporate lobbyists. Just because their country doesn't have the laws you'd prefer does not necessarily make it "illegitimate."
  
  And you apparently don't understand the difference between intellectual and physical property to use your furniture analogy. Since when could we make infinite, perfect copies of furniture for free? Your example is nonsense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2007 @ 3:01am
  
  Re:
  have you ever read anything written by pirate bay?
  Yeah, they really irritate the likes of you, don't they?
  
  Starting with their name, they thumb their nose at copyright, encourage unauthorized sharing by end users, hide their servers and stay away from legitimate jurisdictions where these issues might be subject to the law
  So Sweden is an "illegitimate" country, huh? You're sounding a little loony there.
  
  Last year they had a site called oscar torrents where people could download free copies of every movie.
  And now you're lying. TPB does not and has not offered movies for download. Just what kind of shill are you anyway?
  
  If they think what they do is so appropriate, move their servers to the united states and have a court decide the issue
  A court already has decided the issue. Oh wait, you think Sweden is an "illegitimate" country though don't you? What is inappropriate is lawmakers that accept bribes and roll over for special interests like the RIAA and MPAA. Of course you guys think that is the way government is supposed to work and anything else is "illegitimate".
  
  have other people put their heart and soul into making great songs, and books, and movies and then "give them away"
  There you go lying again. Did you really think no one would call you on it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jh, 30 Nov 2007 @ 12:47pm

He really loves to profit from the death of his child doesn't he!?!? At some point you have to say enough is enough and go on with ur life. What an a$$hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Willton, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:03pm
  
  It's not "profit"
  It's reparations. The notion that Goldman is profiting from the death of his child assumes that the money he received is worth more than Ron Goldman's life. That's idiotic.
  
  The idea behind damages is that the harm that one causes to another must be repaired. If you were to ever lose your child (or if you're a youngster, your parents), you'd likely lose a valuable part of your life. That lost life is extremely difficult to measure in money, but that's the only way the judicial system can repair the damage from the harm that another causes.
  
  In this case, the idea is that OJ killed Ron Goldman, so he must repay the damage that he caused to Fred Goldman in order to make Fred Goldman whole again. Fred Goldman is not trying to turn the death of his child into a business, as you seem to coarsely characterize the situation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2007 @ 10:13pm
  
  Re:
  You are very stupid
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don Wood, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:05pm

Fred Goldman
Now, Now, Now, people. The c**ksucker here is O. J. Simpson, not Fred Goldman. Why don't you guys go kiss O. J. square on the mouth? If he had killed your son, you'd be doing the same thing. Right on, Fred! The world knows O. J. has the money hidden. You gotta use every tool in your box to make things right. The court said O. J. owes, Fred's trying to collect. No more, no less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2007 @ 3:04am
  
  Re: Fred Goldman
  Why don't you guys go kiss O. J. square on the mouth?
  
  I want to see you crawl back out of Fred's ass first.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shanoboy (profile), 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:12pm

Question
I have a question. If Goldman is to sue The Pirate Bay, will he have to do so in the location of the Pirate Bay's business (or servers) or can he do so from the US?

If he did so from the US, what would keep The Pirate Bay from simply not responding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Willton, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:27pm
  
  Re: Question
  I have a question. If Goldman is to sue The Pirate Bay, will he have to do so in the location of the Pirate Bay's business (or servers) or can he do so from the US?
  
  Goldman can sue Pirate Bay in the US if he can establish that Pirate bay has conducted business in the U.S. and that business is relevant to the harm that Pirate Bay has caused Goldman. This probably can be shown merely by Pirate Bay availing its website to the U.S. public in every state through the internet. Thus, Goldman can likely sue Pirate Bay in any state in the country.
  
  If he did so from the US, what would keep The Pirate Bay from simply not responding.
  
  The likelihood of a default judgment, requiring either money damages or an injunction. It would probably be difficult procuring money from Pirate Bay, but Goldman probably could enjoin Pirate Bay from allowing Pirate Bay from reaching U.S. internet lines. I think the latter would be far more damaging, considering Pirate Bay probably receives a substantial sum from its advertisers based on U.S. traffic to its site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kjell, 30 Nov 2007 @ 3:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Question
    Wilton, your post betrays a fundamental lack of both legal and technical understanding.
    
    The Pirate bay does not conduct business in the US. All their servers are hosted off US-Soil and they have no company pretense or Employees in the US. They are subject to Swedish jurisdiction and it appears that what they're doing is not against Swedish law.
    
    Having a website be reachable from a specific country does not mean you fall under that country's jurisdiction, otherwise pretty much every single website would be subject to the laws of every single country which would create an impossible situation.
    
    Disabling access to a website for a whole country to a website is problematic at best. Basically the Federal Government would require ISPs to block access to the site and it would be a very simple matter to find proxies and work-arounds. It would also create an undue burden on a lot of parties that are in no way responsible for or party to a civil copyright infringement matter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2007 @ 3:13am
    
    Re: Re: Question
    Goldman probably could enjoin Pirate Bay from allowing Pirate Bay from reaching U.S. internet lines.
    Once again, you need to go read the DMCA. ISP's aren't responsible for filtering the traffic that passes through their systems.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:13pm

I lost my daughter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Willton, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:14pm

Pirate Bay should be enjoined
Pirate Bay's blatant disregard for U.S. law should be dealt with through an injunction. If all Pirate Bay does is provide infringing content on its site, then the U.S. or an interested party should have the courts place an injunction on whoever is making that site available to the U.S. public until Pirate Bay decides to rectify the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Elohssa, 30 Nov 2007 @ 2:24pm
  
  U.S. law doesn't mean jack to Sweden.
  If the U.S. tried to block the Pirate Bay from U.S. Internet users, it would amount to a hassle, at best. The workaround would be out in 30 minutes.
  
  We (the U.S) can't stop TPB and we can't stop online gambling because we don't control the Internet, in any sense of the word. Even our freshest carrots and sharpest sticks can't make the impossible happen.
  
  Take a look at how well China is doing on their Internet censorship efforts. You think they don't have some sharp fellas working on that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2007 @ 3:08am
  
  Re: Pirate Bay should be enjoined
  If all Pirate Bay does is provide infringing content on its site,
  It doesn't provide any infringing content,
  
  then the U.S. or an interested party should have the courts place an injunction on whoever is making that site available to the U.S. public until Pirate Bay decides to rectify the situation.
  I doubt a court would do that since it would be illegal. Go read the US DMCA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hater, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:14pm

Now Im glad his child is dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:24pm

I lost my daughter
I lost my daughter to a drunk driver she was only 16
the drunk did not serve time. yes I was angry and sued in
civil court I won a judgment ..less than 33m
anyway the defendant does not have any money and i will never
see a dime ,I knew I wouldn't but I was glad that he was found guilty, this was 15 yrs ago.
I have gone on with my life .. it seems to me the this
Mr. Goldman is trying to cash in on his son's death..

no amount of money is going to bring my Daughter back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2007 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re: I lost my daughter
  "Mr. Goldman is trying to cash in on his son's death.."
  I think you mean his daughter's death, but otherwise yes Goldman Sr. is as much a money grubbing whore as the man who murdered her and attempted to cash in on a book deal, paid interviews, autograph signings, etc. Class acts all around.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brian, 3 Dec 2007 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: I lost my daughter
  This is really sad and I am sorry but I think everyone is missing the point about Goldman. HE's not trying to profit, he's trying to DEPRIVE OJ from profitting off a death a civil court found him culpable for. The court also awarded OJ's Rolex and other personal items to the Goldmans in an effort to keep OJ honest. IF he can't afford to pay his civil judgement, why should he have luxury watches and clothes?
  
  That being said, Goldman is an asshat for suing Pirate Bay.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2007 @ 4:02pm
    
    Re: Re: I lost my daughter
    This is really sad and I am sorry but I think everyone is missing the point about Goldman. HE's not trying to profit, he's trying to DEPRIVE OJ from profitting off a death a civil court found him culpable for.
    Wrong. If that were the case he wouldn't be suing The Pirate Bay.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron *Brother Head* Moss, 30 Nov 2007 @ 2:00pm

re: Re: I lost my daughter
"Mr. Goldman is trying to cash in on his son's death.."

I think you mean his daughter's death,

No, his son was Ron Goldman, who was killed by O.J.

The female that was killed was Nicole Brown-Simpson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 30 Nov 2007 @ 2:53pm

On unenforcible law.
ANY law that is deemed unenforcible is actually not a valid law at all. If you want to equate so called "intellectual property" laws to ACTUAL property crimes you are either a tad slow or just plain full of it. There is NO losses in copying material EXCEPT to the distributors. The artists don't make money from selling records, the record companies DO. If we manage to make the record industries obsolete by sharing music and movies freely, we will have succeeded in destroying only a flawed business model set up to rape the artists and profit the corporations. BTW I believe TPB servers are in North Korea? last time they raided the Swedish servers they only managed to keep them closed for a few hours, and in the process shut down a couple of hundred legitimate business servers, which is a little unusual as copyright law is a CIVIL thing, you don't go to jail for copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shun, 30 Nov 2007 @ 5:27pm

I have a theory...
That it's a demon...no, that's not right. The reason that the U.S. government does not block U.S. access to Pirate Bay is somewhat convoluted. That's why it's a theory.

Here goes: if the U.S. government blocked Pirate Bay, millions of people would cry out in horror, and their voices would suddenly be silenced. Regardless of intent, the government would be seen as censoring people, just like the government of China censors its citizens...hmmm.

Also, it would encourage people to use encryption to thwart these techniques (Tor comes to mind, but is a bit leaky). Hey, maybe if more people started using Tor, then the writers would get their act together and block the leaks. No matter, the net effect would be that a vast number of people would move from the relatively un-encrypted web-protocols to encrypted pipes. This would make the job of wide-spread government surveillance much harder.

Well, that's my theory. As for the whole Goldman saga: Simpson owes Goldman millions of dollars, so naturally, the way forward is to sue Pirate Bay for $150,000? No, something isn't right there. Just what is Goldman's problem, anyway? Simpson has houses, he has money, he has a Heismann Trophy, FFS. If he can't get a million dollar's for OJ's Heismann, he isn't trying very hard, is he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lucifer, 1 Dec 2007 @ 7:29pm

same dirt
if he is so freaking righteous in trying to "show the truth", then he should distribute the book for free.

to me, he is no difference than oj, trying to make money from murder of kins.

the difference? oj actually trying to reap what he sow, while this freaking monster is a parasite ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Fart, 1 Dec 2007 @ 7:42pm

Suprise Suprise Suprise!!!!
Like it is a REAL big suprise some guy with the last name of Goldman has initiated a law suit to get more money.

Any sympathy for Goldman losing a son went out the window a view years back when we all realized the guy lost a screw along the way (and no that is NOT an incestuous remark).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cybermachiavellin, 2 Dec 2007 @ 5:38pm
  
  Re: Suprise Suprise Suprise!!!!
  The lack of surprise I am feeling is that Godwin's rule is about to be invoked. And it is no wonder with an attitude like that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sharingislegal, 2 Dec 2007 @ 12:00pm

devil incarnate
I thought someone would've offed OJ Simpson by now, he after all is the devil incarnate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick, 2 Dec 2007 @ 6:33pm

Who gave him this advice?
I'd like to know which lawyer told him he could win when it comes to Pirate Bay when all the movie and music corps couldn't. Apple and Microsoft can't get them, but his lawyer said let's do it.
The only way to go after them is with something like the RICO act and get their US based advertisers on conspiracy, because that is a criminal organization they are contributing to (under US law anyway it is). They could try to bleed them dry by scaring off advertisers.
I heard they make between $40,000 and $60,000 a MONTH by trafficking in other peoples stolen material. I don't think Goldman has a chance, but they PB guys are saying screw you to all the people who make that content while laughing all the way to the bank. Sooner or later something will get them, or someone here will get the laws there revised to allow it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2007 @ 4:14pm
  
  Re: Who gave him this advice?
  I'd like to know which lawyer told him he could win when it comes to Pirate Bay when all the movie and music corps couldn't.
  Maybe none. Some clients want to sue even if their lawyer tells them they'll probably loose. Sometimes it's for emotional reasons but some people look on the legal system as a get rich lottery system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2008 @ 12:19pm

This is My sons life you all have been playing with! She (Nicole) was killed By drugdealers!!!! and I am here to prove It!!! This is not O.J.'s earth Dad but his Father of Heaven YAHWEH,, YHWH and madder than Hell!!! will deal with accusers!! will be corresponding again, wait for me!! DAD, OF ALL BREATHING!!! FATHER OF HEAVEN, YAHWEH GOD DIVINE, COMING FOR ALL OF YOU, PLUS AM ALREADY HERE!!! PEACE, TYPIST; SISTER NECHAWMAW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YAHWEH, 4 Mar 2008 @ 1:43pm

I am not a coward!! and neither is O.J. a murderer
This is GOD ALMIGHTY again YAHWEH I buck up to no one!! Like I told you all before My son O.J. is innocent and all of you who are so easy to accuse him will apologize. Yes it has taken a while for the to unfold into the truth but it is over now, persay, because I am here. Was watching before because freewill was still in affect and now that I know who will do wrong and who won't I am here to make My yudgement! this Man O.J. has been innocent all alone and has taken the riff for no reason! those drug dealers will pay for taking the life of the two; Nicole, and Ron, and had already began to feel My wrath! they go on from day to day as if they are innocent knowing good and well that they are responsible for the twos death, while My son takes the heat!! Yeah blow him up in your prejudice Media because He is a black man and was too wealty for Americas blood the same thing that they will do to Obama, is; shred him in the eyes of the world while planting some circumstancial evidence against him, pinning much damage on him that he will be innocent of! yeah americas got it, a thing against black leaders and they need to confess it to be true, you all are not free yet look at Malcom, Martin Yahweh Ben Yahweh, O.J. Simpson, even his attorney do you think that he yust died all of a sudden? This systems got it in , bad for black wealthy people especially the good ones. Our Evil blacks can take a dive and nothings said but soon as a good man succeeds he's bro yall blught down!!! well not anymore!!! because I'm here and back to tell it all and theres nothing that no one can do about it, against Me!!! for I fear no man!! none of My sons can Match Me, and shouldn't try!! Yall blacks had better get together, unite!! and believe that they are after you to the point of putting you alllllllllll!!!!!!! in concentratiion camps quick! you may be next!! they start from the wealthy of you to the least. Now that they got yalls wealthy out of the way, (so that their money won't save you all) they are coming for your poor behind!! will you need Me then!!!??? think so!! call Me now or I may not answer you then!!! DAD YAHWEH, YHWH AND SISTER NECHAWMAW SARAH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charles, 30 Sep 2008 @ 12:38pm

To Ron Goldmen Sr
It has been so long since your beautifull son was taken from you. I can't imagine loosing my son especially in that way. Eventually the criminal will have to answer for his crime.
I hope some day you and your family can find peace.
I pray for you. Shalom Charles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Susan H., 6 Dec 2008 @ 9:43am

Mr. Fred Goldman
Mr.Fred Goldman and Family:

I am right with you. Don't let anything or anybody get to you. You lost your innocent son, to a very ill man, and you deserve to get any closure you deserve. I'm cheering you on. These other people don't understand obviously. I'm sure if they lost a loved one, they would feel differently. It's easy to judge but it's not you that deserves the judging. GOD will do that. GOD BLESS YOU. Susie H.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]