Comments on: Dr. Phil Sued by O.J. Simpson Memorabilia Dealer

By: louis kayser

louis kayser — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:57:22 +0000

Dr. Pill is just another quAck except is gets to be on television. I can,t imagine what kind of connections he may have with big pharma.

By: john

john — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:06:16 +0000

I agree with mr. G . Oj was not smart enough to see it coming what a well orchestrated event regardless of where it originated.

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:16:08 +0000

louis kayser:

Well I do think they can spell “therapists” though.

By: louis kayser

louis kayser — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:47:06 +0000

all treripists are quacks, why even pay any attention to them.

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:20:34 +0000

Prof. Turley,
Thanks for the refresher on NY Times v. Sullivan and what it takes to become a “public figure”.

By: Mr. Gee

Mr. Gee — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:55:23 +0000

This guy is trying to sue everyone; I think they call people like him “Sue Crazy”. Why doesn’t he just get a real job and earn his money in stead of suing and taking bribes from authority figures that main motive is to take down O.J. Simpson.

I think someone needs to review the background of those who were involved in the O.J. case. I would also investigate whether he received a fair case and fair representation. The law is the law, you cannot retrial a man who already been acquitted. Bending the law to jail a person have always been one of the main problems of this country and things must change.

I don’t like O.J. anymore than the next man, but we must be ethical and fair about this case as well as any other case similar to this one. Let’s keep the law fair!

By: Patty C

Patty C — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:10:09 +0000

You would know!

I see what you mean.

Now I have to do some reading on ‘particularized determinations’ and immunity deals. It’s bothering me.

By: jonathanturley

jonathanturley — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:37:29 +0000

Patty C:

I believe that he is a public figure after the trial. Any national interviews are generally sufficient to convert someone into either a public figure or limited public figure.

By: Patty C

Patty C — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:19:05 +0000

“Even though Riccio is now a public figure, such changes (if proven) would probably violate even the New York Times v. Sullivan standard as showing actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.”
—

I believe he means ‘not’ public figure.

p.s. How’s your short-term memory these days…?

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:59:39 +0000

Dr. Phil must be working hard to get ratings if he is altering interviews to suit his purpose. If they did alter the interview for this purpose, the dealer might have a cause of action. Prof. Turley, do you think this dealer would be considered a “public figure” by NYtimes v. Sullivan purposes?