What was the intent of the law that protects retirement funds off limits to legal penalties? I can understand not wanting to have indigent cons and ex-cons. But it seems like you could accomplish that by saying the first 2 or 3 million dollars is off limits to legal action. But $33 million??!! OJ rakes in $25k a month!
2006-11-16 03:04:18 · 4 answers · asked by HomeSweetSiliconValley 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The whole system is slimy,The poor are held accountable to the letter.If you have money you can get away with murder..right OJ.We also have judicial immunity.They can violate the shiit out of you and are not held accountable.Wow,seems fair to me...Not.Now I just seen the congress and senate can't be sued either..yes, you guessed it more judicial immunity.See the closer you look the at the laws in this fictitious Free country,the more sick to your stomach you become.OJ has a new book out now,why can't Nicole's family and Goldman's family sue for every penny of assets derived from the book sales.
2006-11-16 04:49:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the California law protecting retirement funds has a dollar amount cap. Might be time to change the law.
2006-11-16 03:18:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously the law was created by wealthy politicians who were looking to protect themselves. What a sad system.
2006-11-16 03:07:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Money looks after money - and OJ (otherwise known as murdering scum) has been bending the rules ever since he got away with murder. He also has great (expensive) lawyers.
2006-11-16 03:09:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋