Should Donald Sterling be stripped of team ownership in the NBA?

[ballinouttacntrol]

He paid out because he is racist and a settlement would make it go away. Or rather make the person he didn't want living in his apartment go away. No one is saying he is not racist, jeez. Like I keep saying, everyone knew...I'm arguing from a purely legal standpoint. I think the NBA is going to have a much more difficult time making him forfeit his ownership than many people think. That's all I am trying to say...man! lol

Is there anyone who says he broke any law in this thread though? Your standpoint seems to be on he didnt do anything illegal so they cant do anything...while others are saying he'll be striped by "by laws" that he agreed to. They arent federal or state laws. Theyre nba RULES for the owners through their private fraternity aka association


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[petspoiler]

just pause & think about how long litigation ties up any "cut and dried" legal issue, as long as someone pays attorneys.
Right or wrong & all technical points aside, the most common thing is for parties to settle on something that is most acceptable to all, while not totally gutting the primary point being battled for.
I have no predictions. just wondering if both Mr & Mrs Sterling would be considered eliminated "enough to satisfy the NBA directive" if legal ownership were transferred to the heirs, as I know of no allegations against them.
Sterling has been declared "guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the NBA" (that phrase is from the NBA constitution & bylaws)
Now the NBA is obligated to decide what is in the "best interests of the Association" (also from there).
It depends on how the NBA will weigh the effects of long-term litigation., in addition to what control they have a right to exercise.
I think they want this man to be gone, with his words, influence & image.
Not sure, but that may be more important to franchise, members & fans than what the new ownership Title address says in ink.
as long as he loses all power in it.

 

[ballinouttacntrol]

just pause & think about how long litigation ties up any "cut and dried" legal issue, as long as someone pays attorneys.
Right or wrong & all technical points aside, the most common thing is for parties to settle on something that is most acceptable to all, while not totally gutting the primary point being battled for.
I have no predictions. just wondering if both Mr & Mrs Sterling would be considered eliminated "enough to satisfy the NBA directive" if legal ownership were transferred to the heirs, as I know of no allegations against them.
Sterling has been declared "guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the NBA" (that phrase is from the NBA constitution & bylaws)
Now the NBA is obligated to decide what is in the "best interests of the Association" (also from there).
It depends on how the NBA will weigh the effects of long-term litigation., in addition to what control they have a right to exercise.
I think they want this man to be gone, with his words, influence & image.
Not sure, but that may be more important to franchise, members & fans than what the new ownership Title address says in ink.
as long as he loses all power in it.

I read but have not gone far enough to verify that in the lawsuits the wife was accused of pretending to be an immigration case worker and knocked on doors to verify the race of people staying at the complexes. It implies its not as simple as common share through her husband. Paints a picture of direct involvement


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[rmkblades]

Is there anyone who says he broke any law in this thread though? Your standpoint seems to be on he didnt do anything illegal so they cant do anything...while others are saying he'll be striped by "by laws" that he agreed to. They arent federal or state laws. Theyre nba RULES for the owners through their private fraternity aka association


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

You are absolutely correct. The NBA is governed by its own internal constitution made up of by-laws. However, there are another set of laws - state and federal - which govern property rights. Specifically, California is a community property state for marriages that have been in-force for over 10 yrs. The Sterlings have been married for 50+ years. What this means is that Mrs. Sterling owns 50% of the Clippers. Even if all 29 owners vote to strip Donald Sterling of his ownership, immediately the NBA by-laws are in conflict with state and federal property rights. This is where Mrs. Sterling files suit in a Federal court and states her 50% ownership of the Clippers. Remember, she was in NOT included in commissioner Silver's ban. She is still required to meet all of the NBA's by-laws, but as of yet, she has not broken any. And because she has not broken any of the NBA's by-laws and is 50% owner of the Clippers, the NBA cannot remove her or strip HER 50% ownership of the team. However, if the NBA were to find evidence ie. (a damaging private recording proving she has violated the moral clause of the NBA), then, and only then will they be able to also remove her. But without a smoking gun against her, she has state and federal property rights on her side. And state and federal laws will trump any NBA by-laws when and if they are in conflict.

 

[lp85253]

Is there anyone who says he broke any law in this thread though? Your standpoint seems to be on he didnt do anything illegal so they cant do anything...while others are saying he'll be striped by "by laws" that he agreed to. They arent federal or state laws. Theyre nba RULES for the owners through their private fraternity aka association


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

Bingo,, we have a winner....they are done with this mess....the players had voted to strike .., the witch is now dead and buried...so will all references to him, the family doesnt have to do anything wrong to be stripped or not allowed to be in the club...and t hat us what it is, the nba Cant be forced to allow them membership

 

[petspoiler]

the court papers that Mrs Sterling filed against Viviano's property given by Donald, could illustrate some incompetence for him making those transfers, because he definitely can not legally do that within Calif marital property laws.
him being a lawyer, should know that.
People have separately already said things about him starting to lose memory recently.

 

[lp85253]

You are absolutely correct. The NBA is governed by its own internal constitution made up of by-laws. However, there are another set of laws - state and federal - which govern property rights. Specifically, California is a community property state for marriages that have been in-force for over 10 yrs. The Sterlings have been married for 50+ years. What this means is that Mrs. Sterling owns 50% of the Clippers. Even if all 29 owners vote to strip Donald Sterling of his ownership, immediately the NBA by-laws are in conflict with state and federal property rights. This is where Mrs. Sterling files suit in a Federal court and states her 50% ownership of the Clippers. Remember, she was in NOT included in commissioner Silver's ban. She is still required to meet all of the NBA's by-laws, but as of yet, she has not broken any. And because she has not broken any of the NBA's by-laws and is 50% owner of the Clippers, the NBA cannot remove her or strip HER 50% ownership of the team. However, if the NBA were to find evidence ie. (a damaging private recording proving she has violated the moral clause of the NBA), then, and only then will they be able to also remove her. But without a smoking gun against her, she has state and federal property rights on her side. And state and federal laws will trump any NBA by-laws when and if they are in conflict.

the owners forfeit , the "rights" you state in order to be part of the private club(30 nba owners)...Mrs sterling doesn't have any rights either , as an owner.

 

[petspoiler]

I read but have not gone far enough to verify that in the lawsuits the wife was accused of pretending to be an immigration case worker and knocked on doors to verify the race of people staying at the complexes. It implies its not as simple as common share through her husband. Paints a picture of direct involvement

yeah, that's why I meant to wonder if it might be acceptable to transfer the Team ownership to the heirs, meaning not the wife. out of the legal hands of both, to the heirs of estate now instead of later.
nevertheless, the NBAs' judgement is being made for Donalds' statements to Viviano, separate from prior rental discriminations.

 

[ballinouttacntrol]

yeah, that's why I meant to wonder if it might be acceptable to transfer the Team ownership to the heirs, meaning not the wife. out of the legal hands of both, to the heirs of estate now instead of later.
nevertheless, the NBAs' judgement is being made for Donalds' statements to Viviano, separate from prior rental discriminations.

I think theyll lump them together when listing their reasons for acting. Just a guess. I dont see why you wouldnt present all evidence of wrongdoings to support your "bad for business" case as its primarily built on a moral code being broken

Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[petspoiler]

I think theyll lump them together when listing their reasons for acting. Just a guess. I dont see why you wouldnt present all evidence of wrongdoings to support your "bad for business" case as its primarily built on a moral code being broken

do you mean the rental discrimination should be considered evidence, to back up how he spoke in recordings?
The NBA failed to act on that stuff, back then. they left it to court system. maybe a statute of limitations applies and if they include it now, damn themselves for dropping the ball then.
my guess is, as I said before, his recorded convo stated his desired directions for another person to exercise discrimination about who she associates with, and (adding insult to injury) they are NBA players & members.
that more directly & widely impacts the entire world of NBA/fans/sponsors.