A massive douche but that's how kids are today. I remember recanting a quote to my Dad when I was in my late 30s early 40s and he was trying to explain to me medically what was happening with my wife. "The older I get the smarter you get". Funny thing is, my kids now get this and a-holes like Soxx are going to be doomed to being a-holes the rest of their lives because they weren't raised properly. Typical for Franklin Lakes entitled brats. That's why we always kicked their asses in lacrosse, football, hockey and baseball but would lose to them in tennis. _
Some of you don't know how a fran Yep. My quick math analysis shows that him dying with the team VS him selling and then dying will cost his heirs $300 million, as the former involves just the estate tax and the later involves capital gains, California tax AND the estate tax... I'd be pissed if I were his kids...$300 million less and no NBA team...
The bidding war will escalate... Magic and his group vs Opray,Elison,Geffen group Billionaires fight. He will quickly sell rather than have the NBA pull his franchise and he gets nothing.
Because that was a black on black issue. Nobody gives a shit if Charles Barkley says someting racist. Nobody cares if a Knick executive suggests the NBA should be an all black league. It's a double standard until we've have 20 black presidents and the 300 years of oppression have been supplanted by 300 years of affirmative action. That's just the way our society is. Hey, I'm just a third generation Italian, my ancestors came over voluntarily into massive poverty and slums--I don't have the temerity to stand on like African Americans in this country. Sterling is toast. He should have bashed the mics or the dagos. _
this has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has to do with whether the NBA owners are applying their constitution incorrectly to punish him. If so, their punishment is not valid. you are either conveniently avoiding that issue or trying to distract from it so you can defend your position. if the owners attempt to force him to sell because they claim his conduct was a violation of the contract clause, and a judge determines there is enough reason to believe it isn't and Sterling has a valid argument to dispute that claim by the owners, they aren't going to be allowed to simply remove him from his team in potential violation of the NBA constitution that exists also to protect Sterling simply because they have a majority vote to do so.
Sure I believe in freedom of speech. Including a person's right to privacy. And deep down that's what this is all about. After unpeeling all of the layers of self interest and hypocrisy. OK the guy is a doucebag. There is no debate on that. So for all these people against the govt or anybody eavesdropping on you this takes it a step further. And btw same rules for everybody.
any privacy issue would be punitive issues for Sterling against Stiviano or possibly TMZ based on his damages suffered as the result of their invasion of his privacy. but once the public and the league know the information, they aren't obligated to dismiss it simply because how they became aware of it. if Sterling can make and prove a case that the ho and the TV Show invaded his privacy then they could possibly be on the hook for damages from his being kicked out of the league or losing his team. that's what I would like to see. but the NBA isn't violating his privacy by considering what has become public information at this point.
It would be a no-brainer if he was quoted saying those things kind of like Al Campanis did on TV years ago. But again just because the public hears it does it mean it can be used as admissible evidence against him if it was obtained illegally. Do you have a right to your private thoughts and conversations.
I am not conveniently avoiding anything nor trying to distract anything. The punishment handed down by the league, if Sterling disagrees with it will be set before an arbitrator. Courts will not decide the merits of the case. If Sterling seeks redress in court, the issue will be whether the arbitration was beyond the scope of the league by-laws. It's going to get dismissed summarily. I have no pony in this race. I just find it funny when non-lawyers give legal analysis and decry things like "he'll take it to the Supreme Court" or "ownership laws" or "the constitution protects his rights as an individual" or "ggggaaaahhhh free speech!" It's childish. Btw, any suit he has against TMZ is a loser and he can sue the skank for all the tea in China, the only money she has is what she's expecting from him. _
This isn't a civil court case. Evidentiary rules of civil procedure do not apply. He has already admitted that those were his words, there is no longer any need to "prove" anything. The concept of "admissible evidence" is irrelevant. _
I'm sure you're right in that TMZ has all their bases covered (legally) as scurrilous an operation as they are. But do issues like this go to the Supreme Court. They sure do. The NBA by-laws can be challenged in the same way Bountygate plaintiffs sued the NFL.
My point is whether it goes to a court or an arbitrator he has legal recourse to contest the ruling. It isn't an absolute, we ruled on it so you are stuck regardless of whether our decision was beyond the scope of our reach or not. Maybe he will win, maybe not. Both parties are going to have to agree on the arbitrator so Sterling isn't going to inherently be stuck with an arbitrator In the NBA's back pocket by the terms of the arbitration clause. He can drag this on for years if he has the fight in him.
It's not going to drag on for years. The courts will bounce the attempt to avoid arbitration summarily. He's going to be forced to sell ASAP or they'll strip the franchise. The NBA and the other 29 owners won't allow it to go on for years. Their business is being harmed and they'll do whatever they can under the league by-laws to force him out. He can fight it out in court for years after the fact, but he'll be on the outside looking in. _
