Role Reversal in Battle Over O.J. Simpson Book

ByABC News
January 8, 2009, 12:19 AM

April 3, 2007 — -- You may need to read the next sentence twice.

Lawyers for O.J. Simpson and his children are going to court to fight to keep Fred Goldman from auctioning off the publishing rights to "If I Did It'' -- Simpson's controversial account of how he might have killed his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1994.

"We are taking steps to prevent this from happening,'' longtime Simpson attorney Yale Galanter told ABC News.

The reversal of positions has caused more than a few jaws to drop -- in the blogosphere and elsewhere.

"So, it's OK to exploit their son's memory as long as they are the ones doing it?" read one post from Raven_One on blog.

"This is sick, sick, sick,'' wrote another.

Galanter, a veteran nemesis of the Goldman family, was typically blunt. "The fact that [Fred] Goldman has shown his true colors and shown the world what a greedy pig he is seems to shock everyone but me,'' Galanter told ABC News. "Am I the only sane person in this mess? This is a complete turnaround."

Galanter has said that he had nothing to do with the creation of the book and was against the project from the start.

In February, Goldman's attorneys convinced a judge to turn the rights to "If I Did It'' over to them to settle part of a decade-old $33.5 million civil judgment. Last month it was announced that an auction would take place April 17 at the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ordered that it be held in Sacramento because it is the California headquarters of HarperCollins, which holds the rights to the book.

Goldman's attorneys said they contacted Hollywood studios, publishing houses and talent agencies.

The turnaround "shocked'' Nicole Brown's sister Denise, a source close to her told ABC News. A long-standing if uneasy alliance between the two murder victims' families was broken for good.

"The Goldmans' sudden reversal of positions to justify the auction of these rights is transparent to their true motive, which is to collect money,'' read a statement issued by Denise Brown. "This overzealous pursuit to collect on the judgment does not morally justify a means to the end."