Story Highlights• Owner of Kentucky steakhouse asks O.J. Simpson to leave
• Simpson was in town for Kentucky Derby
• During 1990s, he was acquitted of murder, but found liable in civil court
• "I didn't want to serve him," owner Jeff Ruby says
Adjust font size:
LOUISVILLE, Kentucky (AP) -- The owner of an upscale steakhouse said he asked O.J. Simpson to leave his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby because he is sickened by the attention Simpson still attracts.

"I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families," Jeff Ruby said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

"The way he continues to torture the lives of those families ... with his behavior, attitude and conduct," he added. (Watch Ruby describe Simpson's dumbstruck look )

Simpson, an NFL Hall of Famer and Heisman Trophy winner, was found innocent in 1995 of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman but was found liable in a civil trial that followed.

Ruby -- who owns restaurants in Cincinnati, Ohio. Louisville, Kentucky, and Belterra, Indiana, -- said Simpson, who was in town for the Derby on Saturday, came in with a group of about 12 Friday night and was seated at a table in the back. A customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing Simpson, Ruby said.

"I didn't want that experience in my restaurant," Ruby said, later adding that seeing Simpson get so much attention "makes me sick to my stomach."

He said he went to Simpson's table and said, "I'm not serving you." Ruby said when Simpson didn't respond, he repeated himself and left the room.

Ruby said Simpson soon came up to him and said he understood and would gather the rest of his party to leave.

Simpson's attorney, Yale Galanter, said the incident was about race, and he intended to pursue the matter and possibly go after the restaurant's liquor license.

"He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did," Galanter said by telephone Tuesday night.

Ruby said the incident had to do with Simpson's past.

"It was the first time since 1994 he has ever shown any class," Ruby said. "He showed it that night in the restaurant" by leaving quietly.

Ruby said after Simpson left, people in the restaurant started applauding him. He said he has received about 100 positive e-mails since the incident.

The walls of Ruby's restaurants are decorated with celebrity photos. A photo of Simpson and Ruby used to be on display, but Ruby said he took it down after the killings.

good for him. F oj

Good on Jeff Ruby.
I wonder if h was related to Jack.

Right or Wrong, I admire his integrity

I'd like to know the names of his restaurants so that if I am ever near one I can stop in for a meal. Too bad more people weren't like him where O.J. is concerned.

nigger

"who Said Nigger!!! Whys It Always Got A Be About Race?!?!"

Good on Jeff Ruby.
I wonder if h was related to Jack.

:thumbs:


It's nice to see a business person have the balls to do something they believe in instead of bowing to the all mighty dollar!

Seriously though, this is what should happen to murderers. Ostricisation is a powerful tool. And lawyers are assholes.

I'd like to know the names of his restaurants so that if I am ever near one I can stop in for a meal. Too bad more people weren't like him where O.J. is concerned.

His restaurants are mainly in Cincinnati. Good stuff, but very spendy.http://www.jeffruby.com/

His restaurants are mainly in Cincinnati. Good stuff, but very spendy.http://www.jeffruby.com/
Who in the hell would want to have dinner with OJ anyway? :confused:

I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families," Jeff Ruby said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

"The way he continues to torture the lives of those families ... with his behavior, attitude and conduct," he added.
OJ is not doing a damn thing to those families. It's not OJ's fault that people get upset with him. Only the strong survives.

OJ is not doing a damn thing to those families. It's not OJ's fault that people get upset with him. Only the strong survives.
It's not OJ's fault that he murdered 2 people and made both familes of those 2 people change for the rest of their lives?

OJ is not doing a damn thing to those families. It's not OJ's fault that people get upset with him. Only the strong survives.

The problem lies not with OJ's strength but with his diabolical nature. I think he has convinced himself he didn't do it.

It's not OJ's fault that he murdered 2 people and made both familes of those 2 people change for the rest of their lives?

And then tried to write a book about 'how he would have done it.'

OJ gets picked on quite a bit, there is a anti-OJ website/documentary, don't remember where. But they basically have video after video of people harrassing him in public. Good stuff.

Anyway, who were these other 11 or 12 people with OJ? Yikes.

It's not OJ's fault that he murdered 2 people and made both familes of those 2 people change for the rest of their lives?

Did you see him murder two people? Did the jury find him guilty of murdering two people? I think not.

Did you see him murder two people? Did the jury find him guilty of murdering two people? I think not.
No, a civil court found him guilty though.
So, you think OJ is innocent? Just because a court found him innocent?


Sheep?

No, a civil court found him guilty though.
So, you think OJ is innocent? Just because a court found him innocent?


Sheep?

It seems a better way to determine guilt or innocence than watching CourtTV.

No, a civil court found him guilty though.
So, you think OJ is innocent? Just because a court found him innocent?


Sheep?


There is nothing "civil" about civil court. Its a court of emotion, not law, not fact. You might as well let Judge Judy decide.

The world's shortest book----


OJ's My Hunt for the Real Killer

Who in the hell would want to have dinner with OJ anyway? :confused:

There were approximately a dozen in OJ's party.
Or entourage,whatever one calls 12 who haven't the grit to
convict a guy,who probably brought his own steak knive and
a few bloody stories to congeal over appetizers,before the main
course,er slaughter.
Cuz the Guys Sooooooooooo dagburn Congealing.

Did you see him murder two people? Did the jury find him guilty of murdering two people? I think not.

Yer not ignurnt enough to doubt that 2 people were murdered.?
Someone had to murder them.It wasn't an accident.
How did they die.?
The trial provided a mountain of evidence,pointing directly at OJ.
Lead Simpson attorney...Johnny Cockran,said he didn't
want the Trial to be about race.
Then he went and made it exclusively about race.
Even wore a tie the same color bands as a famous African Country.
Cockran lied about The Race Card issue.
Judge Ito,was thje main reason OJ got off.
He was way too complimentary about every little challenge and
new evidence being admitted.
Plus those Jurors were crooked.They spent a litle more than 4 hours
deliberating,for a 9 month long trial.
OJ also knew he was gonna be found Not Guilty,the weekend before
that verdict.The sequestered jury,leaked out from an employee
their overall feel about OJ's Innocence.

There is nothing "civil" about civil court. Its a court of emotion, not law, not fact. You might as well let Judge Judy decide.
Well, even that hack would have found him guilty!
Geez!

Well, even that hack would have found him guilty!
Geez!

Golightly...Miss Holly !

The 12 in the party were probably the jury.

The only reason OJ was not found guilty in the first trial is because all the black were planning on huge riots if he was found guilty because the victim happend to be white and they accused our system of being racist. This is why he was found guilty in civil court to give the familys some justice but they could not allow the entire United states to become ingulfed in nation wide riots so they let him off the hook.
OJ is guilty of Murder in the first degree.

Golightly...Miss Holly !
:bombout: :woohoo:


I always do..............

well if his ex wife wasn't such a pain in the ass, none of this would have happened.

well if his ex wife wasn't such a pain in the ass, none of this would have happened.

:slap:

well if his ex wife wasn't such a pain in the ass, none of this would have happened.

If we were allowed to kill someone just for being a pain in the ass, the world would be a very empty place.

I am sure it was a joke.

Well, regardless to what anyone say about race, Johnny Cockran, or the fact that 2 people were murdered and that someone had to kill them, I still don't believe OJ killed them. You believe what you want and I believe what I want, and it still doesn't matter. What matters is that OJ is a free man, and the jury found him not guilty. Everything that came after him being found not guilty, was/is anger and greed.

Anger and greed will take you to an early grave, while OJ is still enjoying his life. Get over it, already.

And Leopold and Loeb didn't really kill Bobby Franks, M&M.:lolhit:

And Leopold and Loeb didn't really kill Bobby Franks, M&M.:lolhit:
What about the baby Lindberg's kidnapper!

OJ doesn't owe the Goldmans' his money just because it was awarded to them based on emotions. He'd look like a fool to give them his money. Maybe even ignorant!!!

OJ doesn't owe the Goldmans' his money just because it was awarded to them based on emotions. He'd look like a fool to give them his money. Maybe even ignorant!!!

OJ being found GUILTY in the Civil Suit,has a duty and legal
obligation to pay restitution.
That's why he moved to Florida and also secretly disposed of his
valuables and Football Trophies/memorabilia.
A California judgement isn't enforceable in Florida,on account
of Non-reciprosity and pensions that are untouchable.
The fact that you have obvious rancor towards Fred Goldman,
who did absolutely nothing to OJ,except spend a valuable part of his life,listening to
his lies and then watch swagger off into the sunset,no weaker for wear.
It takes a real Creep and nerd to have even an inkling of sympathy
or concern over OJ's New life as Shunned Man on The Run.
No Football needed.

It takes a real Creep and nerd to have even an inkling of sympathy
or concern over OJ's New life as Shunned Man on The Run.

It's not sympathy that I have for OJ. I just don't believe he's guilty, that's all. I also have no dislike for the Goldmans. It's just that I don't believe OJ owes them any money.

Neither one of us have any proof of OJ's guilt nor innocence, so all we both can do is believe. We believe differently.

Oh, call me what you please because you can't make nor break me. In other words, I don't give a **** what you call me.

OJ doesn't owe the Goldmans' his money just because it was awarded to them based on emotions. He'd look like a fool to give them his money. Maybe even ignorant!!!
ah, rule of law when the law suits your emotions...very democratic of you:rolleyes:

What about the baby Lindberg's kidnapper!
that was Corey.

who in their right mind would want to be around O.J. when he's got a knife in his hand?

Simpson's attorney, Yale Galanter, said the incident was about race,...

That is such bullshit.

No wonder people get so tired of blacks playing the race card...........this was obviously a case of what OJ had done, or what the owner perceived him as having done, and had ZERO to do with race.

That is such bullshit.

No wonder people get so tired of blacks playing the race card...........this was obviously a case of what OJ had done, or what the owner perceived him as having done, and had ZERO to do with race.
I agree.

What I wonder about stories like these is if the owner did it for the publicity.

And Leopold and Loeb didn't really kill Bobby Franks, M&M.:lolhit:

Leopold and Loeb confessed, Frogger. Bad example. I'll never understand how an intelligent man like yourself can feel comfortable judging the guilt or innocence of another based on media coverage.

Vile,

An intelligent person such as me, or you, or even M&M who watched the trial would almost certainly come to the conclusion that OJ was guilty. He was found not guilty because of jury nullification, not because he didn't commit the crime.

Please do not assume that I base my opinion on simply what I read in the media or had spoon fed to me as predigested pap. I watched the entire trial.

Vile,

An intelligent person such as me, or you, or even M&M who watched the trial would almost certainly come to the conclusion that OJ was guilty.

You're entitled to your opinion Frogger, but IMO, an intelligent person wouldn't watch the trial on television as anything more than entertainment.


Please do not assume that I base my opinion on simply what I read in the media or had spoon fed to me as predigested pap.

I made no such assumption.


I watched the entire trial.

So you were in attendance in the courtroom?

Vincent Bugliosi's Outrage is probably the best book i've read on this case. Dominick Dunne's Another City, Not My Own is also well-done, if a bit gossipy.

Mr Bugliosi's book details the many glaring errors made by the prosecution....one of them, the calling of the defendant as "OJ"--as if he were a friend to all. He is, of course, the man who prosecuted the Manson trial.

You're entitled to your opinion Frogger, but IMO, an intelligent person wouldn't watch the trial on television as anything more than entertainment.

That is about as silly a statement as you have ever made. If I were to adhere to your suggestion I would never watch the news, or a documentary, or anything else informative. I would form opinions only from first hand knowledge. I guess I can throw out all my history books or read them simply as entertainment since I wasn't there in person.







So you were in attendance in the courtroom?

No, but the cameras were. The cameras gave a live feed from the courtroom. I didn't watch some edited version of events but what was actually happening at the time. I wasn't at Lakehurst the day the Hindenburg caught fire either. Are you suggesting I shouldn't believe it actually happened?

That is about as silly a statement as you have ever made.

I see. Is it possible for you to disagree with someone without impugning their intelligence or are you naturally nasty?


If I were to adhere to your suggestion I would never watch the news, or a documentary, or anything else informative.

Incorrect. We were discussing a criminal trial, not history, or news, or documentaries.


I would form opinions only from first hand knowledge. I guess I can throw out all my history books or read them simply as entertainment since I wasn't there in person.

Sure, whatever. If you wish to discuss that point I'd have to disagree with you, so please don't suggest that I made the argument.


No, but the cameras were. The cameras gave a live feed from the courtroom. I didn't watch some edited version of events but what was actually happening at the time.

In other words, you saw what the TV producers allowed you to see.


I wasn't at Lakehurst the day the Hindenburg caught fire either. Are you suggesting I shouldn't believe it actually happened?

If you don't wish to discuss the point Frogger just ignore my posts. If you want to talk about the Hindeburg tragedy, I suggest making a thread in the history forum because it certainly has no relevance to this topic.

Vilepagan,

I didn't impugn your intelligence, just your ability to see this issue fairly. You, in fact impugned mine in your initial post. You did it in a backhanded way by first saying I was intelligent and then accusing me of doing something unintelligent.

You seem to be of the opinion that since I wasn't actually at the trial I have no right to form an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of OJ Simpson. That is a silly statement and I will call it a silly statement. Using your criteria neither I nor anyone else would be able to form opinions of any criminal proceeding were we not present in the courtroom.

You go on to clarify your statement by saying I was allowed to see only that portion of the trial that the t.v. producers allowed me to see. The trial was broadcast in its entirety. I didn't watch excerpts from the trial, excerpts first screened by the producers. I watched the actual trial, live, as it was happening.

I am not impugning your overall, general intelligence but I am calling it into question in this particular instance.