Falsity is also required in Britain, but in Britain I understand that the statement is presumed false unless and until the defendant proves it true. In America the plaintiff has the burden of proof.
Invasion of privacy, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily require truth or falsity; intusion on one’s seclusion or public disclosure of private information that a reaonable person would find objectionable will do.
As to the bankruptcy thing, if you recieve any “unexpected monies” within 180 days of your filing of petition of bankruptcy, such as lottery winnings or inheritance, your creditors may be entitled to some or all of it.
DESK, O.J. could bring an indemnification suit against the ‘real’ killer. Indemnification suits arise where you pay a debt that, in justice, should have been paid by another.
I did some research. Apparently falsity is not required for defamation under Canadian common law:
However, that the statement was true can be used as part of the defence.
This law professor’s lecture notes claim that for British common law prior to 1900, falsity was not a precondition of defamation. Truth could be used as a defence in civil cases but not in criminal cases. The same notes say that under French civil law, defamation may occur even if the statement was truthful.
Defamation also does not require falsity under Moroccan law:
You’d think so, toadspittle, but probably not. He doesn’t have grounds to sue them. They haven’t converted his funds, they gained them lawfully, and he can’t relitigate the wrongful death issue. Once there has been a final judgment on that in an unappealed case, that issue is res judicata; a thing adjudicated. There has been a judicial determination that O.J. Simpson is responsible for the wrongful deaths of Ron Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson. He can’t relitigate that now. In the eyes of the law, it’s been decided. O.J. may have, as Sua points out, a right of indemnification against the real killer (if I owe them, then you owe me), but the law has spoken as to O.J.'s liability to the Goldmans and the Browns.
pravnik and SuaSponte, thanks for the answers. I was hoping some of the SDMB members from the legal profession would chime in. From your responses, I take it that he is pretty much SoL. I’m not sure I understand though. Besides suing the “real” murderer, is there no way he could get compensated. There is no way to get his own money back from the Goldmans, short of pravnik’s suggestion that the state’s supreme court create a judicial exception?
As this thread somehow got off into libel, how successful do you think he would be in suing all commentators, talk show host, etc. who have, over the years, said things like “Everybody knows he did it. He got away with murder.”
As I said in the OP - I am not looking for actual legal advice, nor will I take any post as legal advice and neither should anybody else.