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...
The fact that this is a penal code statute is of no relevance to the admissibility of these tapes in a civil proceeding. The statute says so by its own terms. I have a case right now against a plaintiff representing himself, and it can be frustrating. Please, just trust me. I know what I am talking about. If this was a case in which you found yourself embroiled, what would you do? If you are smart (and I believe you are) you would contact a lawyer to analyze it for you. That's what you should do here instead of trying to figure it out for yourself. As Rumsfeld said, you don't know about the unknown unknowns.
Likewise for the claim that he is being punished for the reaction. That is not what Silver said. He based it on the tapes, not the reaction to the tapes. I doubt very much that the NBA bylaws provide that if the public doesn't like you, the NBA can fine you. The bylaws would have to provide for some kind of proscribed conduct by its owners, players and coaches. Otherwise, Danny Ainge would have been out of the league decades ago. :).
I see you are repeating yourself on several things, and I am not going to repeat why they are incorrect. Go in peace, my good man, but just remember this post and check back with me in a few weeks or whenever Sterling's lawyers lay out their arguments.
Don’t expect it...there’s too many white idiots who’ve “gotta have their basketball”..
You really should learn to listen to other people. As I’ve pointed out multiple times they don’t NEED the tape to be admissible if it goes to court, they have the press clipping. The tape doesn’t matter, the tape NEVER mattered, he’s being punished for the PR hit, the PR hit is easily proven. And what Silver said in the press conference also doesn’t matter.
It’s just a presser, not under oath, not useful as any form of evidence, he can contradict every single word he said in the presser while under oath with no repercussions.
the bylaws provide for conduct detrimental to the league: http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf which means PR hits. Sterling doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Only reason I’m repeating myself is because you keep saying the same wrong thing over and over. Since you can’t come up with something new there’s no need for me to. Sterling probably won’t sue, or if he does it’ll be with the goal of dragging this out until after he dies. If it actually lands in court he will lose.
They could conceivably call the harlot as a witness and have her state what he said. That would not be hearsay, nor would it be derived from the tape, unless used to refresh her memory. Lots of permutations here.
Re: the bylaws, the NBA can't prove conduct detrimental unless they can prove conduct. PR damage is not "conduct". Conduct is a regular word, not a legal concept, look it up. But, as I said, don't try this at home, please. You'll only drive yourself crazy for no reason.
Thanks for the link, I'll see what it says.
No the press clippings are the meat. Whether or not what they’re reporting is true is besides the point. The point is his actions allowed this firestorm of bad press, that’s the part that matters.
Here’s the clause Silver is using:
The clause that mentions $2,500,000 is 24 (l) on p. 38:
The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for
which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the
authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner’s judgment shall
be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises
which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the
Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision,
including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the
best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed
under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a
fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices.
No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed
$2,500,000.
They don’t really need to prove the conduct, the unbecoming is a slam dunk and the coverage has his name all over it. It’ll work similar to the NFL’s personal conduct policy, the vast majority of player’s suspended under that have never even faced charges, forget convictions, so there’s absolutely no proof they did anything wrong except generate a bunch of bad press, which “reflects negatively on the league” so they get suspended.
The only path Sterling has is to prove he was 100% not at fault, that all the coverage was lies and he said nothing untoward. To do that HE would need to bring the tape and establish it wasn’t him. He’s got nothing to stand on. His punishment is within the structure of the bylaws.
"Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association."
Then, there's this, at p. 46 or thereabouts:
"(c) Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the Association or of a Member or its Team, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 to be imposed by the Commissioner. The Member whose Owner, Officer, Manager, Coach or other employee has been so fined shall pay the amount of the fine should such person fail to do so within ten (10) days of its imposition.
(d) The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding $1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association."
All the league has to do is prove that he made a statement or committed conduct prejudicial, and the commissioner has sole discretion to impose sanctions. The problem remains, if Sterling contests the decision, how does the league prove the statement or the conduct? It can't, under California law. Remember, Sterling expressly stated that he relied solely on the tape recordings.
If you are willing to write a brief for me, with citations to statutes, case law and the NBA rules, I will be happy to review it and see if you have changed my mind. I don't think you can do that, though, so we are arguing past one another. Have a good day.
You don’t get it and I can’t help you get it. Good luck to you.
I understood Barkley’s meaning, and it did not offend me that he said it. If 8 of 10 residents in a subdivision are black, you’d call it a black neighborhood. If the owner and most employees of a company are black, you’d call it a black business. No harm, no foul.
No, it's just the ol' "don't get mad, get even" thingy.
q:^)
Well put.
Guilty. But I play rec ball a couple of times a week and watch not so much as a fan, but to marvel at (and try to emulate) the physical ability and skill level demonstrated. I prefer NCAA ball, but, hey, it ain't March no mo'!
I get it just fine. If he sues he’ll loose. You’ll see.
I don't know, but the nest worthwhile thing Stephen A. Smith has to say about anything will be his first.
Actually, Stephen A. has become quite conservative in the recent past.
We’ll probably need to agree to disagree on this. I find Smith to be an opinionated showboater. Just not impressed with 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.