no it isn't. they can temporarily force him out of his operational role with the team with a suspension, but they can't take away his team from him. that is his property. that is a huge court battle that goes beyond just an ownership vote, and a battle in which the league would have to defend that he doesn't have a right to voice his personal beliefs in private. think about that. that is not a winnable case. he wouldn't lose his property. it isn't like they can foreclose on his team so he has to sell before it happens to get his money out.
There is no battle. The lead attorney of the NBA just discussed it. He has no ground to stand on. He just went over all the details and the possibilities that could happen. The owners can get together as a board and vote him out. It is in the Constitution of the NBA and will most likely occur. Idc what your credentials are or what you are saying. I just listened to a twenty minute long interview with the attorney who detailed everything out. He even brought up the privacy issue and recording without his consent. He has no ground to stand on. Sorry
Here you go buddy. Read up: Q: Is it possible for Silver and the NBA to terminate Sterling's franchise ownership? A: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 13 of the constitution, the owners can terminate another owner's franchise with a vote of three-fourths of the NBA Board of Governors, which is composed of all 30 owners. The power to terminate is limited to things like gambling and fraud in the application for ownership, but it also includes a provision for termination when an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely." Silver and the owners could assert that Sterling's statements violated the constitution's requirements to conduct business on a "reasonable" and "ethical" level. Any owner or Silver can initiate the termination procedure with a written charge describing the violation. Sterling would have five days to respond to the charge with a written answer. The commissioner would then schedule a special meeting of the NBA Board of Governors within 10 days. Both sides would have a chance to present their evidence, and then the board would vote. If three-fourths of the board members vote to terminate, then Sterling would face termination of his ownership. It would require a vote of two-thirds of the board to reduce the termination to a fine. Terminating a franchise would obviously be a drastic remedy, but the potential of the termination procedure gives Silver and the other owners vast leverage in any discussion with Sterling about an involuntary sale of his team. Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him? A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment.
there is absolutely a battle. by your interpretation, the owners can vote each other out for any reason or no reason at all, and the voted out owner would have no legal recourse to maintain his ownership. don't like another owner because he tried to fuck your wife, and can get the other owners to vote him out? you think that owner will actually lose his team simply because the other owners voted to do so? everything goes to court. that is hugely different than what you stated prior. you made a broad statement that the owners can simply vote him out, but this post disputes that. it has been widely discussed in the media that there are specific provisions in which an owner can be stripped, and widely discussed that this situation does not fall under those provisions. it isn't a gambling issue, and as I stated, the league would have to go to court and validate that private statements equate to failing to fulfill and contractually obligated duty. they can attempt to assert that but would have to prove it -- JUST AS I STATED. the lawyer's statements validate everything that I said, not dispute it.
I agree, if he wants to fight it he could probably stay on as owner, however he has lost, or will lose all of his sponsors and a ton of money over this already. The team is probably worth half of what it was a week ago and not likely to regain much value with him as the owner.
That's not true. He is likely to NOT win and NOT stay on as owner as hard as he fights. Read the statement posted above. He has no fight.
your above post shows he has a fight. the league would have to prove that his statements "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely. that has to be proven, it isn't taken at face value legally simply because they claim it does so. you don't understand what making the claim entails legally.
Yes it has to be proven, but can EASILY be proven in court. That's the whole point of this conversation and exactly what the attorney was saying. It is going to be proven without a doubt. There is nothing that could disprove it. The league is not sitting here fighting against other evidence. They are trying to prove something that violates a clause, which in this case, as stated by the NBA lawyers, can easily be proven. It all depends on how hard Silver wants to go on him, not whether it can be proven or not. If they get him to admit to his fault it is almost impossible for it to not be proven under that clause: Q: Can Silver force Sterling to say whether the voice on the tapes is his? A: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 24(m)(ii) of the "constitution" that governs the 30 owners of NBA teams and establishes the authority of the owners' commissioner, Silver can require Sterling to respond under oath to questions. The commissioner has "the right to require testimony and the production of documents and other evidence from any Member." As an owner, Sterling is a "member" of the NBA. Sterling and his lawyers could delay answering questions from Silver, but if Sterling refuses to admit or to deny that it is his voice on the tapes, he is in violation of the constitution and would face termination. He has no protection from the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination, because he is not facing any charge of any crime.
What a lawyer claims he can prove and what lawyers actually are able to prove are two entirely different things. The Casey Anthony prosecutors believed they could prove she killed her daughter; how'd that turn out? Marsha Clark believed she could prove to the jury OJ killed his wife; how'd that turn out? George Zimmerman rotting in prison? His prosecutor certainly claimed the evidence would support he would be convicted. Believing you have a case and actually proving it are two different things. This really had to be spelled out for you?
Read my post above. If the NBA gets him to prove his guilt he is done. This is not a murder case and comparing it to one is ridiculous. This is a case against an NBA owner who violated a clause built into the contract. If he admits guilt, which by the Constitution he has to admit without being able to plead the fifth, he is done. Is it that hard for you to understand? He has no way out. I don't get why you are fighting this lol everyone and their mother is discussing it on TV right now yet you still want to sit here and argue it.
There is no guilt in this issue. He can claim he said those things and still argue those statements don't violate that provision. It has to be proven that the statements do violate the provision, just like a murder case has to prove the accuser committed the specific crime. I'm not comparing this to murder, I'm comparing the FACT that the same legal principles and requirements apply to both -- you have to prove it. You are attempting to claim that it violates the provision simply because it can be argued. Proof is a result of whether you have convinced the judge or jury of the argument, not the argument itself.
The claim does. As I said earlier, his comments violate that clause. The only thing holding it back is that the tape has to be proven to not be tampered with and that he has to admit to saying it. Once that is done, it violates the clause.
No, his comments can be argued to violate the provision. A judge or jury would have to decide such. They would have to prove it harms the other teams and the league, not just the Clippers.
He may in fact sell the team, it has lost a lot of revenue and value, but that doesn't mean he could be forced to sell. A NBA lawyer saying it's so, doesn't mean it's so.
I think fan turnout in the next couple of games could be pretty convincing on that front. If attendance is down, they have proof of damage.
If the owners vote and have a unanimous vote, the franchise will be destroyed. He will get no money and will lose everything. To avoid that, he would sell and make his $1 billion. He'd be an absolute dumbass to just let the owners kill the franchise and him make no money off it, which is very possible. In essence, forced to sell
look what the world is becoming. recordings of everyone's latest bowel movement(celebrities in general), cameras everywhere, up to the millisecond "crack cocaine media", it's like a bunch of nerd robots have been released to track the whole of humanity. it's a sad fuckin' world sometimes, and at the very same time it's also pretty amazing how fast it moves forward with technology too. mixed emotions for me about this planet.
Apparently he was very aware he was being taped. I hear people say freedom of speech yada yada. Look as a nurse if I walked into a patient's room and said done racial slur, you think I'd still have a job? Or if I sent into a courtroom and started yelling profanity, you think id walk out freely? Fact is we really dont have the freedom of speech, and people are held accountable for words. Im black and I don't like to play the race card but hey he needs to be held accountable. Especially since he owns a team of black players. I think even he realizes that he is going down for this. The funny part is, his "girlfriend" is Mexican and black. That's one hell of a combo for a bigot to date. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
no, a claim is not proof. that is the most ignorant legal statement made in the history of legal claims. you have to prove your claim; the claim is not proof. you can claim anything. by your logic there is no need even for criminal or civil trials because if someone makes a claim and an argument then it must be true without a judge or jury hearing any counter arguments and deciding which has more legal merit. that is beyond ludicrous to even attempt to continue to argue on your part. the NBA's argument is that the comments violate the clause. they have to prove that in court that it violates the clause, that making private comments fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely. you know how you can dispute that claim if you are a billionaire with a top caliber legal team. the most simple course would be to take an exhaustive survey of NBA fans and the public in general asking whether the fans and public believe Donald Sterling's comments reflect negatively on the NBA as a whole, the other NBA teams, the Clippers or just Donald Sterling himself. if the responses reveal that his comments do not lead to negative public feelings towards the NBA as a whole or other teams, and would not affect consumer purchases or decisions for those other teams or the league as a whole, how does the league and the other teams defend the position that Donald Sterling must be stripped of ownership on the basis of affecting the NBA or its members? see, the claim has to have some tangible claim of damages that can be proven. that is why it goes to court, to see if one side can make a better and more persuasive argument. the NBA may win that case, but that would not be simply because they claim they are damaged but by proving they are damaged and Sterling unable to prove otherwise. they have proof of damage to the Clippers if LA fans do not show up. the NBA would have to claim they have a vested interest in the Clippers attendance that reflects damages to the league if attendance is down. but did Warriors fans stay home the last game? no they didn't and why would they stay home the next game? they won't. so what is the Warriors damage? beyond that, if the claim is that low attendance harms the league and visiting teams, that would open the door for owners who have franchises with poor attendance to be stripped of their teams because their poor personnel or marketing decisions have not stimulated attendance, and that poor decision making fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely. by assembling a bad team and having poor marketing they are hurting the NBA and the visiting teams. the attendance issue isn't so cut and dry either. and if an idiot like me can raise those questions and inconsistencies in a claim, what is a million dollar lawyer going to do?
