Posted on 04/30/2014 8:35:03 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
How?
Are the two reconcilable?
Secondly, should (not can) an owner of a team be forced to sell his team, and/or be banned from attending any NBA game as a non-owner - attending a NBA game like any other person?
Example: Is the situation of an owner saying that blacks cannot eat in his restaurant different from someone saying that now the restaurant is under new management, and the racists will no longer be allowed to eat in that same restaurant?
When hunting monsters should society be careful that it doesn't become a monster when doing so? I think so.
Deal with the bad (racism, etc), but don't stoop to their level...
You've got it all wrong. Larry Johnson is the reason why Dolan's shelling out $12 M a year to Phil Jackson. Without LJ demonstrating his manangerial incompetence on a daily basis, there would be no PJ coming in as the savior.
just wait,
Barkley, spike (racist) lee, al (just bros.) Sharpton will demand a law prohibiting “whitey” from owning anything.
Best Monty Python voice. “And Jews. Don’t forget the Jews.”
Section 631 makes recording telephone conversations illegal without consent. Section 632 makes recording private conversations illegal without consent. Both go on to state: "Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding."
Whether these sections apply to recorded private conversations that are not communicated by telephone or cell phones is not clear.
Like it or hate it:
Let the blacks have the NBA, from top to bottom,
AND
let them , ALONE, fill the seats.
I’ll watch that Titanic sail, waving gladly.
If the players are going to consider a player walkout every time somebody feels offended, eventually the white fans (and the money) is going to disappear.
Everything seems to be all blacks all the time. Music, movies, sports, etc. They have been on quite a run, but if they overreach, things could change.
Lawyer: "Ms Bimbo did you record the plaintiff saying this?"
Ms Bimbo: Invokes the 5th amendment.
I said on another post anyone who supports the NBA, even to the point of giving a damn about who wins or loses, that person is part of the problem.
Ms. Bimbo is going to be a lonely woman. No guy wants someone recording their conversations.
Adam Silver is a slimy little weasel. So is Barkley.
Adam Silver is a slimy little weasel. So is Barkley.
There are a lot of important principles at play here. This is an Orwellian thought crime, not a conduct crime. We know what he really thinks. But if we knew what anyone really thinks about everything, they would probably lose their livelihoods. I do not agree with Sterling's views. But if my views on gay marriage were public, I could not be CEO of Mozilla or a lot of companies.
We are living the tyranny of the minority rather than that of the majority in this country. The U.S. is in upside down land.
They don’t need the tapes, they have the press clippings. Nobody really cares what he said, what they care about is that it blew up into a giant kerfuffle that damaged the reputation of the league. A big part of the problem is that everybody has known Sterling is a jerk for a long time, there’s guy that cover the NBA pointing to articles they wrote about him 5, 10, 20 years ago. That’s really why this has blown up, it’s not the first time he stepped over the PC line, it’s not even the first time he’s generated press with it, but it’s now hit enough times that people are asking why nothing has ever been done about him before. Stern got really lucky he retired before all this since he was the commish for most of Sterling’s other incident, he’d have a lot of explaining to do; with him out Silver is free to ignore the past and deal with the now.
You are right about Sterling, but Silver stated specifically that his decision was based entirely on the recording, not on prior incidents. If the decision is challenged, he would not be able to bring in matters that he did not take into account in reaching his decision. I could see an argument that the decision was a breach of the NBA bylaws and the NBA would have no way to defend its decision. Its evidence is inadmissible. If they want to talk about prior conduct, they have to bring a new investigation, and reopen those prior acts. They may not want to do that, since they let those incidents go years and decades ago, and some of them were never proven.
Of course he said that, saying prior incidents played into it would be throwing Stern (the guy who hand picked him as successor) under the bus. But let’s face it, prior incidents are playing heavily into this issue, one of the big questions that’s been asked is why nothing has been done about him in the past. The decision won’t be in breach of NBA bylaws, guarantee everything in the punishment is allowable, Silver is a lawyer and he’s been with the league for 22 years, he knows the bylaws and he knows what his limitations are. Also he surely ran it all by the other owners so he’s got plenty of backing. Next owner’s meeting there will be a vote to eject Sterling from the league and the worst it’ll get 25 votes, well more than the 3/4 it needs to pass.
I don't think any lawyer in his right mind would let the girl testify.
See my post 24. The tape will be inadmissible in any court proceeding.
If Sterling challenges the decision, it will be on the basis that the bylaws do not allow Sterling to be sanctioned for something that never happened. And legally, the words uttered by Sterling on those tapes never happened. The tapes can't be used, the transmissions of what's on those tapes can't be used, and the person who created and anyone who disseminated those tapes can be prosecuted. (Not that they would be in LA, but that doesn't make it not a crime.)
So, posit a scenario where the bylaws allow the league to act if an owner does X, Y and Z. The league will not be able to demonstrate that this owner did X, Y and Z.
You keep bringing prior acts into it. Silver explicitly stated (and I'm sure his written decision makes clear) that the evidence on which the league acted, the X, Y and Z of this decision, is the tape and what Sterling said on the tape. If the tape cannot be evidence in any legal proceeding, the league can't say a valid reason why it sanctioned Sterling.
The league can always bring a new proceeding, and try to prove that Sterling is a racist. There may be issues under the bylaws with a new proceeding, or with the X, Y and Z of that investigation, but it is entirely possible they could find a way to get rid of him after an investigation that found what the bylaws require. But that's not the state of things right now.
As for being kicked out by the owners, there will be tremendous pressure on the owners to vote to kick him out. Nearly irresistible pressure. The same race mongers who are after Sterling will come after any and all owners who even think of voting to let him stay in the league, no matter the reasoning. And that issue will come down to what the bylaws say as to the grounds on which an owner can be forced to lose his team. I am not privy to the NBA bylaws. I can venture to say that, whatever the bylaws say, the owners will not be able to use the tape or anything said on it as part of their "official" reason. If they do, they will run afoul of California law on evidentiary use of illegally obtained recordings, just as Silver has.
As for Silver being a lawyer with 22 years in the league, that may be his problem. He knows the bylaws through and through, no doubt. He appears not to be aware of the evidence code, and I doubt he's ever been a trial lawyer. Guys who do deals and who work in house for decades often lose sight of some of the key issues that a litigator spots instantly. This may be one.
I appreciate your layperson's perspective. Keep an eye on events, and see if what I am talking about do not become the issues in this dispute.
It doesn’t matter if the tapes are admissible (note the law you site is PENAL code, not civil, so they probably actually WILL be admissible). He’s not being punished for the tapes, he’s being punished for the REACTION to the tapes in the press, and one way or the other the press clipping will be admissible.
Something did happen, with or without the tapes it can be proven that Sterling drew a ton of bad press.
The league will be able to demonstrate this owner did X, Y, and Z. He brought bad press, easily shown.
Prior acts matter. They’re a significant part of the bad press he brought. And remember Silver’s statement was at a press conference, it hold no legal binding. He’s free to get up in a court of law under oath and say “hell yes his previous acts factored into the punishment, I said they didn’t in the press conference because I didn’t want to throw my good friend and predecessor David Stern under the bus, but I won’t perjure myself for him, they factored in”.
The league doesn’t need to prove Sterling is an anything other than embarrassment. He embarrassed the league, the league has a duty to its other owners and shareholders to protect its image, so they punished him.
The bylaws say a 3/4 vote is needed, if 3/4 of the owners agree that owner X is a pain in the #$% and needs to go he’s gone.
Evidence code does not matter. A - it’s penal, B - there’s TONS of evidence that isn’t the tapes of every reason the NBA has for punishing him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.