Author Topic: Sterling loses preliminary ruling  (Read 6203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2014, 11:15:53 PM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
  • Tommy Points: 664
That sounds like an activist judge ruled against him and I'd be shocked if Sterling doesn't win an appeal.
He's a gross man who doesn't deserve an NBA team, but I think his legal argument is strong. 
I hope this ruins the Clippers' play on the basketball court, but I doubt it will matter at all.
How did you come to the conclusion that he was "an activist judge"?

The judge talked about the value of the team and how it was sold for more than it was worth.  I don't see how that is relevant.

It is much easier for a superior court judge to error on the side of society and let it move on to appeals.  Especially on such a high profile case,  It seems to me the law favors Sterling, even though I am morally against it.

That's possibly because you don't understand the legal action that the NBA is taking, insofar as the purchase of the team, or the legal action that Shelly Sterling is taking, insofar as ensuring the sale of the team.

Or maybe you don't understand the the legal action that the NBA is taking, insofar as the purchase of the team, or the legal action that Shelly Sterling is taking, insofar as ensuring the sale of the team.

I'm not a lawyer, are you?  Seriously, are you a lawyer, D.o.s.?

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2014, 11:20:58 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Not a lawyer, but I understand the intricacies of the case about as well as anyone else who's reporting on it, save Ramona Shelburne.  ;)

Why do you think the law is on Sterling's side, and why do you think that will in any way impede the sale of the team, beyond the paperwork?
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2014, 11:32:01 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
That sounds like an activist judge ruled against him and I'd be shocked if Sterling doesn't win an appeal.
He's a gross man who doesn't deserve an NBA team, but I think his legal argument is strong. 
I hope this ruins the Clippers' play on the basketball court, but I doubt it will matter at all.
How did you come to the conclusion that he was "an activist judge"?

The judge talked about the value of the team and how it was sold for more than it was worth.  I don't see how that is relevant.

It is much easier for a superior court judge to error on the side of society and let it move on to appeals.  Especially on such a high profile case,  It seems to me the law favors Sterling, even though I am morally against it.

Nonsense.  You're making no sense.  This was probate court.  Its jurisdiction includes trusts, such as the Sterling's.  The fact that the Clippers sold for as much as they did was extremely relevant, as it showed that Shelly Sterling had not mismanaged the trust.  Furthermore, the loss of the sale would hurt the trust, which is why the provision allowing the sale to proceed during appeal was included.

This has nothing to do with "Superior Court."  Probate court is generally very boring.  This is one of the more exciting cases a probate court has seen, certainly since Leona Helmsley's dog.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2014, 11:43:32 PM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
  • Tommy Points: 664
Not a lawyer, but I understand the intricacies of the case about as well as anyone else who's reporting on it.  ;)

Why do you think the law is on Sterling's side, and why do you think that will in any way impede the sale of the team, beyond the paperwork?

I believe that an arguably illegal recording of a private conversation in a man's living room will be difficult to use against him in court.  I also know that whether a person is suffering dementia is an inexact science that is difficult to prove in court and thus would favor Sterling.

This superior court judge seemed to use opinion when talking about what is best for the team and ownership when talking about value and the dollar amount it was sold for.  I don't see how that is relevant.

I also understand that LA superior court would gladly pass a case like this on based on smarter/more knowledgeable minds than my own... which has effectively happened assuming Sterling appeals which he has said he will do.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2014, 11:47:36 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
That sounds like an activist judge ruled against him and I'd be shocked if Sterling doesn't win an appeal.
He's a gross man who doesn't deserve an NBA team, but I think his legal argument is strong. 
I hope this ruins the Clippers' play on the basketball court, but I doubt it will matter at all.
How did you come to the conclusion that he was "an activist judge"?

The judge talked about the value of the team and how it was sold for more than it was worth.  I don't see how that is relevant.

It is much easier for a superior court judge to error on the side of society and let it move on to appeals.  Especially on such a high profile case,  It seems to me the law favors Sterling, even though I am morally against it.

That's possibly because you don't understand the legal action that the NBA is taking, insofar as the purchase of the team, or the legal action that Shelly Sterling is taking, insofar as ensuring the sale of the team.

Or maybe you don't understand the the legal action that the NBA is taking, insofar as the purchase of the team, or the legal action that Shelly Sterling is taking, insofar as ensuring the sale of the team.

I'm not a lawyer, are you?  Seriously, are you a lawyer, D.o.s.?

If the court ruled against Sterling, would you be more likely to concede your non-lawyerly opinion is wrong and his case probably wasn't that strong or would you be more likely to believe that an activist judge did something wrong?
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2014, 11:53:50 PM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
  • Tommy Points: 664
That sounds like an activist judge ruled against him and I'd be shocked if Sterling doesn't win an appeal.
He's a gross man who doesn't deserve an NBA team, but I think his legal argument is strong. 
I hope this ruins the Clippers' play on the basketball court, but I doubt it will matter at all.
How did you come to the conclusion that he was "an activist judge"?

The judge talked about the value of the team and how it was sold for more than it was worth.  I don't see how that is relevant.

It is much easier for a superior court judge to error on the side of society and let it move on to appeals.  Especially on such a high profile case,  It seems to me the law favors Sterling, even though I am morally against it.

That's possibly because you don't understand the legal action that the NBA is taking, insofar as the purchase of the team, or the legal action that Shelly Sterling is taking, insofar as ensuring the sale of the team.

Or maybe you don't understand the the legal action that the NBA is taking, insofar as the purchase of the team, or the legal action that Shelly Sterling is taking, insofar as ensuring the sale of the team.

I'm not a lawyer, are you?  Seriously, are you a lawyer, D.o.s.?

If the court ruled against Sterling, would you be more likely to concede your non-lawyerly opinion is wrong and his case probably wasn't that strong or would you be more likely to believe that an activist judge did something wrong?

 
Well, we will see as it is likely moving on to appeals.
Hey, I want Sterling to lose the team.  I just think the battle still has a long way to go.
I hope Sterling buckles before the suit is over.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2014, 01:03:42 AM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Tommy Points: 501
That sounds like an activist judge ruled against him and I'd be shocked if Sterling doesn't win an appeal.
He's a gross man who doesn't deserve an NBA team, but I think his legal argument is strong. 
I hope this ruins the Clippers' play on the basketball court, but I doubt it will matter at all.
How did you come to the conclusion that he was "an activist judge"?

The judge talked about the value of the team and how it was sold for more than it was worth.  I don't see how that is relevant.

It is much easier for a superior court judge to error on the side of society and let it move on to appeals.  Especially on such a high profile case,  It seems to me the law favors Sterling, even though I am morally against it.
The judge's remark was relevant to the motion he was asked to rule on to allow the sale to effectively proceed. Shelly and her lawyers argued that the trust would stand to lose a substantial amount of money if the judge ruled otherwise. He had to rule one way or the other.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2014, 01:28:03 AM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
  • Tommy Points: 664
That sounds like an activist judge ruled against him and I'd be shocked if Sterling doesn't win an appeal.
He's a gross man who doesn't deserve an NBA team, but I think his legal argument is strong. 
I hope this ruins the Clippers' play on the basketball court, but I doubt it will matter at all.
How did you come to the conclusion that he was "an activist judge"?

The judge talked about the value of the team and how it was sold for more than it was worth.  I don't see how that is relevant.

It is much easier for a superior court judge to error on the side of society and let it move on to appeals.  Especially on such a high profile case,  It seems to me the law favors Sterling, even though I am morally against it.

Nonsense.  You're making no sense.  This was probate court.  Its jurisdiction includes trusts, such as the Sterling's.  The fact that the Clippers sold for as much as they did was extremely relevant, as it showed that Shelly Sterling had not mismanaged the trust.  Furthermore, the loss of the sale would hurt the trust, which is why the provision allowing the sale to proceed during appeal was included.

This has nothing to do with "Superior Court."  Probate court is generally very boring.  This is one of the more exciting cases a probate court has seen, certainly since Leona Helmsley's dog.

That's weird because the case was decided in a Los Angeles county "Superior Court".  Hey, I'm no legal expert, but apparently, neither are you.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2014, 01:34:29 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Not a lawyer, but I understand the intricacies of the case about as well as anyone else who's reporting on it.  ;)

Why do you think the law is on Sterling's side, and why do you think that will in any way impede the sale of the team, beyond the paperwork?

I believe that an arguably illegal recording of a private conversation in a man's living room will be difficult to use against him in court.  I also know that whether a person is suffering dementia is an inexact science that is difficult to prove in court and thus would favor Sterling
.

This superior court judge seemed to use opinion when talking about what is best for the team and ownership when talking about value and the dollar amount it was sold for.  I don't see how that is relevant.

I also understand that LA superior court would gladly pass a case like this on based on smarter/more knowledgeable minds than my own... which has effectively happened assuming Sterling appeals which he has said he will do.

Right, so the two bolded sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Which is fine, its complicated, and there's a lot of noise going on around the issue but essentially: the NBA is kicking Sterling out/forcing him to sell the team because he violated the NBA's bylaws, which is something that happens in corporate America all the time. Sterling's lost his right to an NBA franchise by virtue of being so damaging to the league's brand that the greater NBA had to force him out, whether that damage originated in private conversation or not is largely/entirely irrelevant. The league is well within its rights to remove owners from participation in the NBA, all that's left is the kicking and screaming.

Sterling v. Sterling is about whether or not Shelly Sterling had the right to sell the team to Steve Ballmer at the time of the sale, and whether or not Donald Sterling was of sound mind when he gave her the authority to make the sale. Which is something that he did, by the way -- and by all accounts he did it because he thought that somehow the lifetime ban would be rescinded pending the sale of the team. Not exactly the best thing to have out in the open when trying to exploit every loophole to stop the sale which he had previously agreed to.

This is all source-able information. You can check the NBA Constitution (which the league released as a PDF) for their laws about removing an owner, and a relevant article about Sterling's abandonment of the original sale can be found here:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/clippers/la-sp-clippers-sterling-sale-20140607-story.html

And now I need to sleep.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2014, 01:49:06 AM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
  • Tommy Points: 664
Not a lawyer, but I understand the intricacies of the case about as well as anyone else who's reporting on it.  ;)

Why do you think the law is on Sterling's side, and why do you think that will in any way impede the sale of the team, beyond the paperwork?

I believe that an arguably illegal recording of a private conversation in a man's living room will be difficult to use against him in court.  I also know that whether a person is suffering dementia is an inexact science that is difficult to prove in court and thus would favor Sterling
.

This superior court judge seemed to use opinion when talking about what is best for the team and ownership when talking about value and the dollar amount it was sold for.  I don't see how that is relevant.

I also understand that LA superior court would gladly pass a case like this on based on smarter/more knowledgeable minds than my own... which has effectively happened assuming Sterling appeals which he has said he will do.

Right, so the two bolded sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Which is fine, its complicated, and there's a lot of noise going on around the issue but essentially: the NBA is kicking Sterling out/forcing him to sell the team because he violated the NBA's bylaws, which is something that happens in corporate America all the time. Sterling's lost his right to an NBA franchise by virtue of being so damaging to the league's brand that the greater NBA had to force him out, whether that damage originated in private conversation or not is largely/entirely irrelevant. The league is well within its rights to remove owners from participation in the NBA, all that's left is the kicking and screaming.

Sterling v. Sterling is about whether or not Shelly Sterling had the right to sell the team to Steve Ballmer at the time of the sale, and whether or not Donald Sterling was of sound mind when he gave her the authority to make the sale. Which is something that he did, by the way -- and by all accounts he did it because he thought that somehow the lifetime ban would be rescinded pending the sale of the team. Not exactly the best thing to have out in the open when trying to exploit every loophole to stop the sale which he had previously agreed to.

This is all source-able information. You can check the NBA Constitution (which the league released as a PDF) for their laws about removing an owner, and a relevant article about Sterling's abandonment of the original sale can be found here:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/clippers/la-sp-clippers-sterling-sale-20140607-story.html

And now I need to sleep.

I don't see how anything you wrote refutes the two bolded sentences which I understand will be the two points he argues in appeals... as far as I have read in numerous articles.

You are right that it is very complicated and I do hope he loses.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2014, 02:17:24 AM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Tommy Points: 501
Not a lawyer, but I understand the intricacies of the case about as well as anyone else who's reporting on it.  ;)

Why do you think the law is on Sterling's side, and why do you think that will in any way impede the sale of the team, beyond the paperwork?

I believe that an arguably illegal recording of a private conversation in a man's living room will be difficult to use against him in court.  I also know that whether a person is suffering dementia is an inexact science that is difficult to prove in court and thus would favor Sterling
.

This superior court judge seemed to use opinion when talking about what is best for the team and ownership when talking about value and the dollar amount it was sold for.  I don't see how that is relevant.

I also understand that LA superior court would gladly pass a case like this on based on smarter/more knowledgeable minds than my own... which has effectively happened assuming Sterling appeals which he has said he will do.

Right, so the two bolded sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Which is fine, its complicated, and there's a lot of noise going on around the issue but essentially: the NBA is kicking Sterling out/forcing him to sell the team because he violated the NBA's bylaws, which is something that happens in corporate America all the time. Sterling's lost his right to an NBA franchise by virtue of being so damaging to the league's brand that the greater NBA had to force him out, whether that damage originated in private conversation or not is largely/entirely irrelevant. The league is well within its rights to remove owners from participation in the NBA, all that's left is the kicking and screaming.

Sterling v. Sterling is about whether or not Shelly Sterling had the right to sell the team to Steve Ballmer at the time of the sale, and whether or not Donald Sterling was of sound mind when he gave her the authority to make the sale. Which is something that he did, by the way -- and by all accounts he did it because he thought that somehow the lifetime ban would be rescinded pending the sale of the team. Not exactly the best thing to have out in the open when trying to exploit every loophole to stop the sale which he had previously agreed to.

This is all source-able information. You can check the NBA Constitution (which the league released as a PDF) for their laws about removing an owner, and a relevant article about Sterling's abandonment of the original sale can be found here:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/clippers/la-sp-clippers-sterling-sale-20140607-story.html

And now I need to sleep.

I don't see how anything you wrote refutes the two bolded sentences which I understand will be the two points he argues in appeals... as far as I have read in numerous articles.

You are right that it is very complicated and I do hope he loses.

Your statement regarding the tapes has nothing to do with the case decided today. If you've read something indicating otherwise, please reference.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2014, 05:08:15 AM »

Offline Future Celtics Owner

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3097
  • Tommy Points: 191
  • Celtic's only raise championship Banners
The sale has to go through by August 15th because the NBA Board of Governors is going to meet on that day -- and they'd be able to approve Ballmer as a new owner. Its all part of the process to get Sterling out ASAP, and Shelly Sterling's legal argument in the new proceedings is that Donald is trying to delay the case in order to screw with that deadline.


Also your second post is terrifyingly bizarre (and possibly contradictory).

Steve Balmer set AUG 15 as a deadline to complete the deal. He did this back when he submitted the offer.

How did I contradict myself and what is wrong with my post .

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2014, 07:21:49 AM »

Offline RyNye

  • NGT
  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 716
  • Tommy Points: 97
That's weird because the case was decided in a Los Angeles county "Superior Court".  Hey, I'm no legal expert, but apparently, neither are you.

That's just because California has weird naming conventions. The "Superior Court" system in California is actually the lowest series of courts, and include probate jurisprudence.

So, yeah, you are still wrong about this.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2014, 08:43:14 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58470
  • Tommy Points: -25640
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I'm as critical as activist judges as anybody is (meaning I dislike them until they rule the way I want on something), but I don't see how this judge was activist.

Broadly speaking, he needed to determine whether Shelley Sterling acted properly in managing the Sterling family trust.  He had to determine whether Mrs. Sterling had the authority to act, which involved the dementia diagnoses.  Once he found that she had the authority, he had to determine whether she acted properly, which is where the valuation testimony was relevant. 

From my review of the trial, it seems like it was a slam dunk case that Shelley Sterling had the authority to sell the team, and that the sale was in the best interests of the trust.  The only legal question I'm unsure about is the "1310(b)" finding, which makes the probate action non-appealable because an appeal could be harmful to the team or the trust.  The statute appears to clearly allow the judge's action, but I don't know anything about the way case law has evolved on that issue.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2014, 09:01:40 AM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
  • Tommy Points: 664
That's weird because the case was decided in a Los Angeles county "Superior Court".  Hey, I'm no legal expert, but apparently, neither are you.

That's just because California has weird naming conventions. The "Superior Court" system in California is actually the lowest series of courts, and include probate jurisprudence.

So, yeah, you are still wrong about this.

Ok, I admit I went too far in calling him an activist judge.  But how can you say I was wrong in using the term Superior Court just because you don't like California's naming convention?