Sterling surrenders control of Clippers to Shelly (pg 35)

[TJ Detweiler]

[video=youtube;8ZsHDqon2ZM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZsHDqon2ZM[/video]

 

[Rich]

It's back on!

 

[PepsiRacer4]

Dude is insane. Real talk.

 

[Obawan12]

Yeah, if anything this is just gonna give the NBA more ammo to push the "mentally incapacitated" angle :chuckles:

 

[cavsfan21]

The real battle is between he and his wife. Wife wants sale now and her 700 mill now. Sterling has said that the only person he wouldn't fight is his wife. God knows what kind of dirt she has on him preventing him from doing that.

He had his privacy rights abused and was not afforded due process. That's a winning billion dollar lawsuit.

I wonder if he ever really expected someone to cough up 2 billion for the CLIPPERS.

Very curious how the mistress is racist against black people as well.

I wonder if anyone will continue to invade his privacy and leak any transgressions between he and his wife. Man it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in one of their conversations. Wait...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Surge]

So if Sterling is still the owner come next season, are all these tough-talking players going to really do anything?

 

[caf]

He had his privacy rights abused and was not afforded due process. That's a winning billion dollar lawsuit.

Privacy rights? Due process? I think you are confusing the NBA constitution with the US Constitution.

The former contains no language of privacy rights or due process. The latter has no bearing here...

 

[CommD]

Silver would have been wise to quietly waive the lifetime ban and significantly reduce the fine once the team was successfully sold. The objective had been achieved, now it becomes much more difficult since Silver will have to public accede to a demand.

Who really cares if Sterling continues to bring his hoes to the game anyway? Probably loves NBA basketball has nothing else to do; been coming to the game nightly for 30+ years.

 

[cavsfan21]

Privacy rights? Due process? I think you are confusing the NBA constitution with the US Constitution.

The former contains no language of privacy rights or due process. The latter has no bearing here...

Can you legally agree to something that's illegal?

 

[KB]

Can you legally agree to something that's illegal?

The only person who broke the law was the chick that recorded him, barring the interpretation of being in a public place at the time the call was made/recorded. The NBA didn't break any laws as they weren't the ones that recorded the convo

And yes you can agree to have the conversations recorded, CA is an all-party state in terms of recordings so if consent is given then the legal rights are waived.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

 

[CleveRocks]

The NBA is not immune to civil rights law. Sterling has enough of an argument, and money to take the case to court and bring appeals for a long time. It wont be viewed as frivolous, because there are real damages, and real questions of privacy involved. Even if he loses, the NBA would do better to resolve quickly and quietly.

 

[HerbFoster]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed already, but I thought Sterling's girlfriend said that he had asked her to make recordings of their conversations. IF that's the case, it would be reasonable to assume that the conversation might be recorded. Would the law still apply to her, since the real privacy issue would be her disclosing it to a third party?

 

[KB]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed already, but I thought Sterling's girlfriend said that he had asked her to make recordings of their conversations. IF that's the case, it would be reasonable to assume that the conversation might be recorded. Would the law still apply to her, since the real privacy issue would be her disclosing it to a third party?

You are correct

If he did ask her to make recordings of their conversations that and she can prove it, that counts as consent from both parties in Cali.

This would negate any wire tapping or invasion of privacy laws with in most states as the consent means he waived those rights. Also it would damage any case he had from a civil standpoint if he didn't make her sign NDA's in regard to the recorded conversations he had given consent for.

 

[cavsfan21]

it would damage any case he had from a civil standpoint if he didn't make her sign NDA's in regard to the recorded conversations he had given consent for.

Excellent point. Surely the billionaire lawyer bringing the tramp into his home to record his conversations took this step? If not, he deserves to lose the suit.

Outside that question though, is something that's stolen really that different from something that's illegally obtained?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Simon]

So the new tapes from Sterling that are released is well....interesting.