"Now facing their greatest challenge — the NBA's attempt to force them to sell the Clippers — it is no surprise that the Sterlings are girding for a legal fight. Shelly Sterling has hired a lawyer who vowed to "go to war" to preserve her stake in the team while her estranged husband, a former trial attorney, has indicated that he will take the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
The record of suits filed by the Sterlings and their various business entities, as well as interviews with those involved, suggest that the NBA should expect a protracted and contentious dispute. Opponents and a former lawyer for Donald Sterling said the real estate mogul regards lawsuits as a stalling tactic and has initiated them even when the facts and the law were against him." LA Times
--------------------
This guy was always going to sue. It is in his blood to sue. IMO he is just waiting for the NBA and the other owners to feed him enough rope to hang them with.
The suits will be multi-part, complex and driven home by an army of the best lawyers that money can buy.
There will be at least one concerning his first amendment rights and I would not be surprised to see his sweety (not the wife) testify tearfully on his behalf about the "lovers' tiff" that led her to reveal his private converstaion.
I understand that there are real tax advantages involved in having the equity in the franchise still be in the family trust when he dies. pl
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sterlings-litigation-20140520-story.html#page=1
jonst and Fred:
I'm not a lawyer but I simply commented on the ability of an entity who grants franchises to then take said franchise away (or force a sale to someone else) if the franchisee fails to live up to contractual agreements. I don't see where this has anything to do with the first amendment at all nor does it have anything to do with an employee/employer relationship.
Posted by: GulfCoastPirate | 23 May 2014 at 05:01 PM
TTG,
The NBA wants him to do exactly that, and seems unlikely to warn him about the door.
From his perspective the team is a plausible contender but can't be expected to remain so for long under his ownership. He has rather seriously screwed himself for the annual free-agent competitions. It's reasonable to say that, for him, it's at peak value.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 23 May 2014 at 05:33 PM
Sir,
This isn't the first time he's done this. Let us not forget the comments about "looked like my son" IRT Trayvon.
Posted by: Tyler | 23 May 2014 at 06:29 PM
These are hardly hypothetical concerns. Everything is potentially being recorded these days, by someone. There is a good chance that someone is recording your thoughts if they happen to have been uttered somewhere (even if in private) and are liable to be exposed to the public as proof that you are a horrible person that offends "public sensibilities," and if you are such a horrible person, you are liable to lose your job, lose your property, etc.
Not that long ago, one of the liabilities of homosexuals, for example, in holding positions of responsibilities was that they were liable to blackmail. Those who knew what they were doing could threaten to expose them and compromise them. Now, one might say that the removal of stigma associated with them has made that less likely. BUT the prevailing mood of political correctness, coupled with technological changes, has apparently made everyone liable to be blackmailed as such. Who is not guilty of uttering something that can be taken as a potentially offensive to someone ever? If they can be exposed, and everyone is presumed to have the inviolate right not to be offended, everyone who might be guilty of being exposed as a "horrible person" who offends is potentially subject to blackmail. So much for "equal" rights. Now, everyone is supposed to live in fear of being "exposed," I guess.
Posted by: kao_hsien_chih | 23 May 2014 at 07:06 PM
Shirley Sherrod comes to mind too.
Posted by: nick b | 23 May 2014 at 09:12 PM
apologies for the double post.
Posted by: nick b | 23 May 2014 at 09:13 PM
TTG, I'd say it's his way of throwing in the towel. He's now trying to get a better deal for the sell, which is fair enough. Shelly can't become a controlling owner without league approval, and the league will not approve.
Sterling made a big mistake talking to Anderson Cooper, which only gave the league more ammunition in any potential legal battle. Sterling can fight but in the end he would likely lose. Of course, the threat of tying up the league in a legal battle has its own force.
I have some sympathy for Sterling but these are the rules the club he joined plays by and it's a little late for him to complain.
The moral of the story is, don't let wifey file a clawback suit against the girlfriend.
Posted by: Stephanie | 23 May 2014 at 10:07 PM
Stephanie,
It's not just the league. Once they succeed in forcing him to divest his team ownership there is nothing to stop him from suing every player who defamed his reputation based on comments from an illegally recored and doctored tape of a private conversation. I'm sure they'll all be happy to testify under oath at a deposition where skilled lawyers will prove they each and every one of them were virtuous without a hint of bigotry in their bones - or a recording anywhere of them making racist comments about anyone. He'll have about $300 million to hire lawyers with. It's not like he's going to leave that to his mistress.
Posted by: Fred | 24 May 2014 at 10:32 AM
Fred,
I think that this transcends political lines.
The major thing you're ignoring here is that this isn't your average private property seizure case. NBA teams cannot function outside of the collective league. Now whether their bylaws allow the NBA to strip Sterling of ownership would have to be determined by a court. I'm kind of disappointed that Sterling seems to have thrown in the towel.
I don't think there's a chance in hell Sterling files a lawsuit against any NBA player for defamation but that would be very entertaining.
Posted by: Will Reks | 24 May 2014 at 03:41 PM
Fred, I believe the first thing the league did was verify that the recording was not doctored. Sterling said what he said. (The illegality is a point that can be argued. I think it's sort of beside the point at this point.) The private nature of the conversation would bother me less if Sterling had been speaking to an executive of the team or even to his wife about team policy. However, he was speaking to a lover in private. I too am bothered by that.
But we live in the world we live in, and what Sterling said was so explosively awful that there was no stopping the scandal; it actually became worse the more details were revealed.
As for your proposed lawsuit against the players who spoke out - I'd pay to see that, but I rather doubt that Sterling will. He's a creep but he's not dumb. Also, he has family, and I assume he doesn't want to blow a big chunk of his dough on futile legal battles.
And yes, the league is being hypocritical. But I don't have it in me to feel terribly sorry for Sterling. When this is over, he'll likely be richer. He just won't have a basketball team to run badly. Such is life.
Posted by: Stephanie | 24 May 2014 at 04:15 PM
Stephanie
"... he doesn't want to blow a big chunk of his dough on futile legal battles." This would be a trivial amount of money for him. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 24 May 2014 at 04:35 PM
Stephanie,
"Such is life."
Yes, we must now conform to speech - in private - that does not offend the politically powerful. Somebody might record us speaking - in private - without our permission. Any corporate entity may then force us to sell off our property. That's the true foundation of our civil society - conform or else.
Posted by: Fred | 24 May 2014 at 07:29 PM
Will,
yes, its not your average private property seizure case. I don't expect any lawsuits against players, or anyone else, for defamation but it sure would be entertaining.
Posted by: Fred | 24 May 2014 at 07:32 PM
Col., I was replying specifically to Fred's suggestion of a suit against the players. Certainly the threat of long-term litigation to hold on to the team is a card he can use against the league, but only up to a certain point since his legal position is not so good. Sterling not only has privately racist remarks the league can use, he has a public record as well. I expect there's more out there for the league's lawyers to dig for. Robert Bennett, defending Marge Schott, was able to threaten the baseball owners with the prospect of oppo research on them, but there's a new breed of rich owner now and that wouldn't be so easy for Sterling.
Posted by: Stephanie | 24 May 2014 at 08:08 PM
Well, Fred, that will teach Sterling not to mess around with women who are no better than they should be. As he said, "I should have paid her off." He's certainly old enough to know better. No fool like an et cetera.
Posted by: Stephanie | 24 May 2014 at 08:11 PM
Stephanie
"He's certainly old enough to know better. No fool like an et cetera." A bit sexist and ageist, you sound like Mika B. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 24 May 2014 at 08:15 PM
Stephanie
Perhaps you are a lawyer. I am not, but I have had the misfortune to spend a lot of time in court and in chambers as a witness. IMO lawyers can make several cases out of the material at hand here. This guy has special task counsel as well as house lawyers. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 24 May 2014 at 08:18 PM
Well Stephanie, I don't give a damn about Sterling. I do care about the other 310,000,000 Americans who will get the same treatment. Apparently you don't, because its only happening to a rich racist.
Posted by: Fred | 25 May 2014 at 12:40 AM
The talk about bylaws and such obfuscates the true purpose which is: setting a precedent for taking your property away from you based off of private conversations illegally recorded.
That's some Soviet Union shit right there, and no amount of hemming and hawing from the bobbing heads on the TV can change that. The comments about "inappropriateness" coming from Commissioner Skeletor are hilarious in light of the crimes, negligence, and other idiocies perpetrated by the majority of the players.
Let's review what Stirling's thought crimes were: Basically asking his mistress to stop publicly cuckolding him at the ball games while she played dumb about what she was doing. A semi reasonable request, I think. Its not like he came out in a white suit, sipping a mint julep while he called his players "Boy" and checked their teeth in between quarters.
The speed at which "ism" of any sort and having opinions has become a mortal sin that should cost you everything you've ever had ever is somewhat breathtaking.
I'm sure that the new demand that anyone who holds a "bad" opinion (as defined by the LA/DC/NYC cultural axis) be stripped of their livelihood is going to work out with zero repercussions at all.
Posted by: Tyler | 25 May 2014 at 01:06 PM
Tyler,
"he true purpose which is: setting a precedent for taking your property away from you based off of private conversations illegally recorded."
Absolutely. Followed by the proclamation of attainder from both the President and the Attorney General of the United States, to whit "Sterling is guilty" because they say so. As you know a bill of attainder is unconstitutional. Of course these two great lawyers (Obama and Holder) are in the Executive Branch, so just declaring people guilty is a-okay.
Posted by: Fred | 25 May 2014 at 10:30 PM
The Executive serves as the action arm for the internet lynch mob composed of junior auxiliary volunteer thought police.
What a country.
Posted by: Tyler | 26 May 2014 at 12:51 PM
Col., I didn't invent the saying. I'd say even Sterling might admit its applicability here.
I had to look up "Mika B" - not as au courant with all of MSNBC's hosts as I should be, I suppose - so I'll have to take your word for it. I do, of course, know who her dad is.
Posted by: Stephanie | 27 May 2014 at 09:39 AM
Stephanie
No. You are picking on him because he is a sick, sentimental old man who doesn't have enough sense to keep quiet. You don't know who Mika B is? Remarkable. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 May 2014 at 09:52 AM
pl,
I do not watch as much television as I ought to do, perhaps. I had heard of Scarborough, but I've never actually seen more than a snippet of his show and didn't know he had a co-host. Fortunately,there's the Internet to fill me in.
Posted by: Stephanie | 27 May 2014 at 05:33 PM
Stephanie
Palo Alto? Stanford? Well, ordinary Americans learn things in ways that are worth understanding. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 May 2014 at 06:05 PM