Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Donald Sterling banned from the NBA

Donald Sterling banned from the NBA (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This ridiculous offer wouldn't have come down the pipe if Sterling didn't have some serious leverage on his side.
The ridiculous offer came down because it's the second largest market in the NBA.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
But no. We'd feel better if the pariah walked away with two billion dollars.
Oh FFS that's a no-win situation you've set-up. If I was in favor of kicking him out with no compensation that'd be trampling on his property rights. And, I'll say it for the 100th time, its about owning the team, not the value of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
What does that have to do with the owners' ability to force a sale because of conduct detrimental to the NBA? Are you saying that evidence rules of court in the state have to be followed by the NBA in order to take the actions contemplated by its charter?
Because legally he did no such thing, the information about the incident that sparked all this, re. the conversation with the "Silly Rabbit", was illegally recorded.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 02:06 PM
 
The situation isn't binary. $2 billion or zero.

In the same vein, it isn't about the money for Sterling. He's pretty clearly willing to forego that for the opportunity to stick it to the NBA.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Because legally he did no such thing, the information about the incident that sparked all this, re. the conversation with the "Silly Rabbit", was illegally recorded.
Let me re-state my question:
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
What does that have to do with the owners' ability to force a sale because of conduct detrimental to the NBA?
Now let me re-phrase it: "is there a requirement for the NBA to follow a court's rules of evidence in order to force the sale of a team?"

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
Are you saying that evidence rules of court in the state have to be followed by the NBA in order to take the actions contemplated by its charter?
So, you are answering my question in the affirmative: yes, the court rules of evidence must apply.


But

You are again ignoring the point I have already made earlier in this thread, that the NBA operates under the terms of its own constitution - just like a corporation operates in accordance with its constating documents (e.g. by-laws) or shareholder's agreement, if applicable. That is the document under which Sterling's actions should be assessed.

And in fact, I see that the NBA constitution specifically says that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to a hearing for termination of membership:
ARTICLE 14
PROCEDURE FOR TERMINATION

The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner shall be terminated on the occurrence of any of the events described in Article 13 by the following procedure:

(a) Any Member of the Association or the Commissioner may charge that a Member or Owner has violated one (1) or more of the provisions of Article 13. Said charge shall be made in Writing and shall be filed with the Commissioner, who shall, no later than three (3) business days after the charges are filed, cause a copy thereof to be served by a Writing upon the Member or Owner against whom such charges have been made.

(b) The Member or Owner so charged shall, within five (5) days after receipt of the charges, file with the Commissioner its written answer thereto. The Commissioner shall thereupon transmit said charges and answer to each of the Governors of the Association and shall call a special meeting of the Governors to hear the charges, to be held on a date not more than ten (10) days after the filing of a Member’s or Owner’s answer, due notice to be given.

(c) Willful failure by a Member or Owner so charged to answer the charges during such five (5) day period or to appear at the hearing shall be deemed an admission by said Member or Owner of the total validity of the charges as presented.

(d) At such hearing, the Chairman of the Board of Governors shall be the presiding officer, except that if the Chairman of the Board of Governors represents either the complaining Member or the Member charged, then the Commissioner shall designate an alternate Chairman for purposes of the hearing.

(e) At the hearing, the Member or Owner so charged shall have the right to be represented by counsel. Strict rules of evidence shall not apply, and all relevant and material evidence submitted prior to and at the hearing may be received and considered.

(f) After duly considering all the evidence, the Board of Governors shall vote upon the proposition that the charges have been sustained in whole or in part. The affirmative vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all the Governors shall be required to sustain the charges.

(g) If, by a three-fourths (3/4) vote, the Board of Governors votes to sustain the charges, the Membership of the guilty Member or the Member in which the guilty Owner has an interest shall automatically be terminated, unless, following a motion duly made and seconded, two-thirds (2/3) of all the Governors vote instead to terminate the ownership interest of the guilty Owner or to invoke the provisions of Article 15.
For the record, Article 13 excerpted is:
ARTICLE 13
TERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OR MEMBERSHIP

The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

(b) Transfer or attempt to transfer a Membership or an interest in a Member without complying with the provisions of Article 5.

(c) Fail to pay any dues or other indebtedness owing to the Association within thirty (30) days after Written Notice from the Commissioner of default in such payment.

(d) Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.
...
To be clear, I have no idea if Sterling could be said to have done any of the things contemplated by Article 13.

But it does seem clear that the NBA termination of membership process is meant to consider all reasonable means of evidence, which might include evidence that would otherwise not be admissible in court.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In the same vein, it isn't about the money for Sterling. He's pretty clearly willing to forego that for the opportunity to stick it to the NBA.
Of course he is. He`s been like that his entire life, with everyone. But I`m not sure what that has to do with him being right or not.

I really don`t think this has much to do with freedom of speech or property rights. Since that is what his letter focused on, it came across to me as pretty desperate. So you`re right that it might be a personal vendetta, but I`m not sure that should be used as indication it will be a successful one.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 03:10 PM
 
If it went to a court of law or even binding arbitration, which is where Sterling is pushing it, and the NBA wants to avoid at all costs, that conversation wouldn't be a "reasonable means of evidence". In Alabama or South Carolina a corporation can probably sidestep the whole issue, as individuals have fewer rights and contract agreements supercede many civil liberties (it's also legal to record a conversation you have with another person, even without their consent), but I doubt California is the same.

There has to be a very good reason why they haven't gone ahead and voted on Sterling's ouster, either because; the recording was illegal, or because Mrs. Sterling owns half the team as well. If it were as easy as simply voting and kicking the guy out, they would have done it by now.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 03:12 PM
 
@Shortcut

He's poised to spend (literally) a billion dollars to take this to the mat. The NBA has about one-tenth the financial resolve on this front.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
There has to be a very good reason why they haven't gone ahead and voted on Sterling's ouster, either because; the recording was illegal, or because Mrs. Sterling owns half the team as well. If it were as easy as simply voting and kicking the guy out, they would have done it by now.
NBA accepts Clippers sale, cancels Sterling meeting

Because of the binding agreement to sell the team, the NBA termination hearing that had been scheduled for June 3 in New York City has now been cancelled. Mrs. Sterling and the Trust also agreed not to sue the NBA and to indemnify the NBA against lawsuits from others, including from Donald Sterling.

That last line means the NBA probably doesn't have to worry about the lawsuit of more than $1 billion Sterling filed against it. Indemnity means any settlements from lawsuits over this issue would be taken from the Sterling Family Trust.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Shortcut

He's poised to spend (literally) a billion dollars to take this to the mat. The NBA has about one-tenth the financial resolve on this front.
I`m not sure what you mean. He's not spending a billion dollars on litigation. He may be foregoing making that much money, but that is neither here nor there with respect to litigation costs incurred by the NBA.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 06:47 PM
 
That's an estimation of about what he's willing to spend, out of pocket.

He won't need to though. The NBA will cave long before that.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 08:49 AM
 
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's an estimation of about what he's willing to spend, out of pocket.

He won't need to though. The NBA will cave long before that.
Okay. An estimation from whom, and why? Who has ever spent a billion dollars on litigation? I doubt the Apple-Samsung patent cases have reached a billion dollars. And furthermore to get that amount, you'd probably need to be appealing all the way to SCOTUS...is he prepared to keep throwing money down that hole if he loses? Hell, he won't be alive by that time.


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
If it went to a court of law or even binding arbitration, which is where Sterling is pushing it, and the NBA wants to avoid at all costs, that conversation wouldn't be a "reasonable means of evidence". In Alabama or South Carolina a corporation can probably sidestep the whole issue, as individuals have fewer rights and contract agreements supercede many civil liberties (it's also legal to record a conversation you have with another person, even without their consent), but I doubt California is the same.

There has to be a very good reason why they haven't gone ahead and voted on Sterling's ouster, either because; the recording was illegal, or because Mrs. Sterling owns half the team as well. If it were as easy as simply voting and kicking the guy out, they would have done it by now.
You keep making blanket statements as though they are right, but it is clear you don't seem to know a lot about the legal side of this issue - which is fair, you're not a lawyer, and hell, most lawyers probably don't know anything about this specific issue (I sure don't).

But I'm still unsure why both you (and subego in this instance) seem to be making blanket statements (some legal) on the outcome without providing any evidence that your statements are true or that you are familiar with the issue - again, you don't seem to be reading the NBA constitution. Again, emphasizing that could well be right - but I'm not going to take your words as gospel in this instance, no offence.

Having said all that:
1. didn't the reports state that Crazy Stiv was requested by Sterling to take recordings of him, because he was forgetting things? If that is true, wouldn't that change your argument re: recording private conversation?

2. even if not true, the private remarks still became public and demonstrably damaged the NBA. I suspect it's the impact of the comments that is the real issue here. The source of the recording is, really irrelevant to the impact on the NBA.

3. I notice the NBA constitution seems to call for NY law to be applied. This ends up as a complicated choice of law question, but does NY law have the same privacy concerns?

4. furthermore, the NBA itself didn't do any illegal recording - it was simply an innocent third party that was clearly and demonstrably harmed by the effects of the recording. Do you know whether Cali law contemplates innocent third parties?

5. finally...if it came to trial, wouldn't the NBA be able to corroborate the accuracy of the recordings with testimony from Crazy Stiv?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 01:14 PM
 
Telling someone isn't good enough, you have to notify them in writing, in Ca. if the conversation occurs in a private locale. Or, you must explicitly tell them that the recording is going to take place, and capture it in the recording itself.

CA Codes (pen:630-638)

The recording would not only be inadmissible in court or arbitration, but he could sue her and the NBA for making it public, or using it against him in any business or personal transaction. So, yeah, he'd tear them a new ass in court.

I'm sure their legal eagles are telling them to STFU and take whatever deal they can because they massively screwed the pooch, here.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 02:32 PM
 
@Shortcut

I trust lawyers would gladly work out the mechanics of charging an infinite fee if given the opportunity.

They're a clever bunch, don'tcha know.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 02:55 PM
 
Seems irrelevant. I completely disagree and feel Sterling's lawsuit is a total long shot. Furthermore, you ignored almost all of the points I made in my response.

1. The team sale was to be done pursuant to the private process mandated by the NBA constitution. Wouldn't that amount to a waiver of constitutional right? If that process is followed, I'm pretty sure you don't get to sue and then go through the same process with a different level of evidence.

2. Clause 14(e) that I quoted even agrees that the NBA`s decision is binding and conclusive and owner waives recourse to courts of law - courts would generally give deference to such a decision, unless there was a serious/obvious error.

2. Sterling agreed to be bound by NY law pursuant to the NBA constitution/by-laws etc.

3. There wasn't technically a forced sale. As referenced by Dakar, Shelly Sterling had Donald declared incompetent and kicked him out as trustee of the Family Trust. As sole trustee she then sold the team, and then indemnified the NBA. So much of Sterling's argument is actually against Shelly, not the NBA.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 03:23 PM
 
Here. I'll back-off and fully admit I know very little about what I'm talking about.

My overall point is I can detect when someone is willing to go down in flames over something, and those detectors are pinned with this guy.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 03:26 PM
 
Oh I do totally and completely agree on that point. Also on lawyers billing to infinity.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My overall point is I can detect when someone is willing to go down in flames over something, and those detectors are pinned with this guy.
The will is obvious; The means, let alone the route, not so much.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 03:50 PM
 
People get creative when offered ridiculous sums of money. There's a whole branch of law where the point isn't to win, but to gum up the works so much the other party cries uncle.

I'm coming up with the billion dollar figure from my own "half to screw" policy. If there's a principle at stake, and there's a dollar figure attached, I'll spend half that amount to make my point.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
People get creative when offered ridiculous sums of money. There's a whole branch of law where the point isn't to win, but to gum up the works so much the other party cries uncle.
That goes both ways. Up until a few months ago, the NBA was ruled by a lawyer. I'm sure he had a well stocked legal department that will be able to stall things forever... and time is not on Sterling's side.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 04:14 PM
 
All true, but Sterling has something to live for, has plenty of anger fuel, and seems batshit.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
seems batshit.
That works against him.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 05:00 PM
 
Sure, it appears that they can remove anyone as an owner that they want, as long as they have the votes within the league. HOWEVER, he can in turn sue them for more than the team is worth over the recording itself. IMO, what will happen is, Mrs Sterling will sell the team, that's a pretty done deal with Steve Ballmer (congrats bolt-neck!), but Mr Sterling will still sue the NBA over using the illicit recording to make their determination (you can't do that in Ca.). UNLESS, they agree to drop the league ban and any other penalties, plus likely make some type of public apology. The irony would be if he uses a chunk of the sale money to fund his civil suit against the NBA and Stivi and financially flushes them down the crapper.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That works against him.
Yes and no.

Lack of self-preservation has been known to beat self-preservation.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2014, 08:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The irony would be if he uses a chunk of the sale money to fund his civil suit against the NBA and Stivi and financially flushes them down the crapper.
The irony is the Shelly Sterling has indemnified the NBA from the lawsuit. If he wins he;ll be paid with the sale money.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes and no.

Lack of self-preservation has been known to beat self-preservation.
A guy who supposedly has been declared incompetent stands not to benefit from acting crazier.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2014, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Sure, it appears that they can remove anyone as an owner that they want, as long as they have the votes within the league. HOWEVER, he can in turn sue them for more than the team is worth over the recording itself. IMO, what will happen is, Mrs Sterling will sell the team, that's a pretty done deal with Steve Ballmer (congrats bolt-neck!), but Mr Sterling will still sue the NBA over using the illicit recording to make their determination (you can't do that in Ca.). UNLESS, they agree to drop the league ban and any other penalties, plus likely make some type of public apology. The irony would be if he uses a chunk of the sale money to fund his civil suit against the NBA and Stivi and financially flushes them down the crapper.
You can't opt out of that private recording provision? I mean, the NBA constitution clearly states that the strict rules of evidence shall not apply to a determination made pursuant to Article 14. That seems to be as clear an opt-out as you can get, if in fact you can opt out.

Furthermore, the NBA had nothing to do with the recording. The recording became public knowledge; and as far as I can tell Sterling essentially admitted it was true, and in the event of a lawsuit I assume they will have Stiv's sworn testimony (also assuming that Sterling does not buy her off...which I would not bet on at all ).

As Dakar mentioned, since Shelly is apparently indemnifying the NBA, what is their incentive to drop the fine and/or lifetime ban? I mean, the fine seems an obvious and easy thing to drop; the ban probably not so much as it would be a PR disaster if he showed up at a game. But if he's going to keep fighting them unless they drop it, but Shelly is fully indemnifying them for costs; why not hold their ground?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2014, 09:35 AM
 
I'm not sure she can clear the NBA of actions done to her husband. As I quoted earlier, spreading or even simply using the illegally recorded conversation makes them liable for civil damages under CA law. That's the whole reason that every company warns you if there's even a possibility you could be recorded during a phone conversation. Even simple possession of the conversation could potentially put you at risk.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2014, 10:04 AM
 
1. You keep saying "illegal recorded" - any confirmation on the issue that reports claimed that Sterling had asked Stiv to record him?

2. Civil damages = not more than $10,000.00 as far as I can see in the Act you provided. I'm going to guess that NBA players would pony up to pay that for the league if it came to that.

3. I do not see where the NBA "spread" the recorded conversation - it was all over the news.

4. Can you show me in the Act you provided where it prohibits the taking of an action by a third party, based on the contents of an illegally recorded communication by someone who is not that third party? I couldn't see anything to that effect in my scan, although it's in a format that makes it easy to miss things.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 08:47 AM
 
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 10:07 AM
 
He should rename the team the Redskins.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Probably does, actually. Did you listen to the recordings? He doesn't sound crazy, just really angry, like any of us would be if you were found mentally incompetent without even receiving a proper exam (if what he says is even remotely true).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2014, 02:26 PM
 
Best line... "I'm incompetent? **** you! You're incompetent!"
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2014, 06:34 AM
 
As an aside, I of course have no idea whether he actually is competent, but incompetent people often sound and act quite competent most of the time.

I also have that line stored and filed for when They finally declare me incompetent.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2014, 08:36 AM
 
Donald Sterling expected to testify Tuesday at trial
Shelly's husband Donald and his lawyers lost in their bid to remove the case from probate court to be heard in federal court, and they lost again when testimony began. Over their objections, Judge Michael Levanas ruled that testimony about Donald's mental evaluations would be heard.

There was one more low moment for Donald – when O'Donnell called him as his first witness. Donald wasn't present.

"He was subpoenaed to be here," O'Donnell said, looking around the courtroom for dramatic effect. "He was to be my lead-off witness. He is not here."
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2014, 10:20 AM
 
Donald Sterling defends his mental state in Los Angeles Clippers trial - ESPN Los Angeles
"Do you think Microsoft is foolish? Do you think they don't think and wonder where they're going to get the money back?" Sterling asked during a contentious hourlong testimony in a Los Angeles probate court. "There's no ego involved here. There's tremendous opportunity."
So he doesn't know who's buying the team.

When the team was sold to Ballmer, Sterling issued a news release through his attorney, Bobby Samini, announcing the apparent transaction...Sterling disputed he'd said what was in the news releases, refused to acknowledge that Samini was his lawyer and suggested that the way the statements were represented by the media was distorted.

The Strangest Moments From Donald Sterling's Testimony Today
Sterling to lawyer: "You're wrong just as everything you've asked today."
Judge: "How can he be wrong, he's asking questions?"
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2014, 12:02 PM
 
Seems perfectly sane to me
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2014, 08:42 AM
 
Day 3!
Donald Sterling's Not Getting Along Nicely With His Wife In Court

Sterling just took the stand again..judges says he doesn't need to restate name, and he immediately barks, ''Donald Sterling!''
"Make no mistake today i will never, ever, ever sell this team! Until I die I will be suing the NBA and trying to make them pay!''
---

"Why do you think NBA wants my wife to sell the team? Is there something unique about my wife other than she's beautiful and wonderful?"
He was followed to the stand by wife, Shelly, who tried to approach him in the front row of the courtroom after she was done for the day.

"Get away from me, you pig!" Sterling shouted.

Donald Sterling lashes out at wife and says he won't sell Los Angeles Clippers - ESPN Los Angeles
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2014, 09:06 AM
 
On the NBA, Donald said, "This is the worst corporation in America, and everyone will find out how terrible and dishonest they are. ... I will never ever ever sell this team. Until I die I will be suing the NBA."
Welp he has long been talked about by journalists and so on....but it's all coming out on display now.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2014, 10:09 AM
 
Dementia is a sad thing.

I kinda fell sorry for the guy, except he's a billionaire Grade-A @ssh*le. So, I feel more sorry for the people around him that are affected by all this. I'm awful glad the league gave him the heave-ho as quickly as they did.

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2014, 09:06 AM
 
Judge recesses Donald Sterling-Shelly Sterling case for two weeks - ESPN Los Angeles

The fate of the Los Angeles Clippers ownership was delayed in court Thursday and likely won't be decided until the end of the month.

...

The delay, with Superior Court Judge Michael Levanas putting off the next hearing until July 21 with closing arguments set for July 28, resulted because two of Donald Sterling's lawyers had plans for a vacation and a wedding anniversary.
What the ****? In what world does the court bow to your vacation plans?

Before the trial even started, Shelly Sterling's attorneys accused Donald Sterling's attorneys of stall tactics on several occasions.
Yeah, no shit.


With Donald Sterling absent from the courtroom one day after calling his wife a "pig" following her testimony Wednesday, a calm Shelly Sterling said in testimony Thursday that her husband asked her to sell the Clippers when it became apparent the NBA was going to take control of the team and put it up for auction after a June 3 meeting at which other league owners were scheduled to vote on its future.

...

During the bidding process, Shelly Sterling said, her husband was "really nice. He was on the same page I was." She knew the fast-tracked process had to be done before the other owners convened to vote Donald Sterling out, seize the team and put it up for auction.

"My understanding was I was to have a bidding, to negotiate, the interview and to make a sale before [June 3] so [the NBA] would cancel the meeting," Shelly Sterling said.

Donald Sterling was involved in the bidding process, Shelly Sterling testified. He would ask who she interviewed and what they offered. She said she interviewed about three to five bidders at the Sterlings' Malibu home, and she spent about 12 hours interviewing the bidders.

...

Donald Sterling was "happy and proud," Shelly Sterling said, that his $12.5 million investment in 1981 when he bought the Clippers sold for $2 billion, the most ever for a sports franchise not including real estate and almost four times the amount of the largest previous NBA team sale.

That changed the next day when it was time for Donald Sterling to sign the papers to finalize the deal.

"He started screaming and cursing at me," Shelly Sterling said. "He was uncontrollable. ... He said he's not going to sell the team. He's going to sue the league."
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2014, 09:24 AM
 
CFO Of Sterling Trust Says Clippers Sale Necessary To Pay Off Loans

When Donald Sterling dissolved the Sterling Family Trust, the entity that ran the Clippers, he was trying to prevent the sale of the team to Steve Ballmer. It's pretty simple: if the trust did not exist, it couldn't sell anything to anyone. Only, it might not be that simple. According to testimony from Darren Schield, the chief financial officer of the Family Trust, the dissolution could cause several banks to find the trust in default on up to $500 million in loans, which Sterling could not repay without selling the team. Oops.
It's hardly a surprise, then, that Sterling and Steve Ballmer had a meeting Monday to discuss the pending sale that was described as a "friendly conversation." The two men did not figure out any settlement just yet, but they met for 90 minutes in Sterling's house and it wasn't a total disaster, so that's something.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2014, 09:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
[What the ****? In what world does the court bow to your vacation plans?
That's relatively normal when it comes to setting hearing dates...lawyers have to take vacations too, so court and counsel will work around that unless they absolutely cannot.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2014, 08:07 AM
 
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd he just filed another lawsuit against everyone involved.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 08:50 AM
 
It's ovah

Judge Rules Against Donald Sterling, Who Will Lose The Clippers

Court feels Shelly was legitmately concerned with Donald Sterling's well being up until May 29 — finds her motivations were OK.

— Dan Woike (@DanWoikeSports) July 28, 2014
Court rules Shelly acted without undo influence, unclean hands, etc.

— Dan Woike (@DanWoikeSports) July 28, 2014
Court rules, also, Donald's change of heart re: sale, wasn't because of finances

— Dan Woike (@DanWoikeSports) July 28, 2014
Court finds Shelly acted properly and was acting as sole trustee when she entered into deal with Ballmer.

— Dan Woike (@DanWoikeSports) July 28, 2014
Judge says Shelly "clearly had to authority" to engage in contract with Ballmer.

— Dan Woike (@DanWoikeSports) July 28, 2014
Judge rules the trust owns the Clippers, not owned by shares that reverted to Donald upon revocation

— Dan Woike (@DanWoikeSports) July 28, 2014
Shelly walks out of the court with tears of joy in her eyes. "I'm just happy it's over."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 09:09 AM
 
No appeal?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 09:19 AM
 
I would assume so given who's involved, but no word yet.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 09:22 AM
 
So... not ovah?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 09:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So... not ovah?
Unless you think a judge will actually reverse the decision, it's over.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 09:41 AM
 
Likewise, it's over except for the part where we keep talking about it because he's appealed.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 09:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Likewise, it's over except for the part where we keep talking about it because he's appealed.
It's a little early in the morning for you to be shitting n my wheaties.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:06 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2