Heard this morning on the radio that he's putting together a legal team to take the NBA to court. I believe I understood that they'll be bringing in the legality of the recording, since he was recorded illegally, and what he said was in private not in public.

Which is interesting.. I think I understood what the NBA's stance is on their morality clause, because if it pertains to an owner's personal life or what they do when they're not in the public eye, it could open another can of worms for current owners or prospective owners in what they do while not in the public eye.

Plus it'll draw curiosity when the case of illegal wire tapping is brought up.

I did hear a conspiracy theory that Magic Johnson wanted to own a NBA team and wanted the Clippers, so he put the young lady to doing this.

I wouldn't buy into the Magic conspiracy thing; however, I fully expect Sterling to fight this until the end in court.

Unless the NBA had a hand in recording and releasing it he should be SOL.. They are a private group and don't need to follow the rules of evidence to act on information. Now if it came out that the recording was a fake (it's not) then that would be something he could sue over.

Unless the NBA was involved in the recording, the legality of it is not their issue. The girl that recorded him, however, might well find herself in trouble.

(05-06-2014 08:43 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Unless the NBA had a hand in recording and releasing it he should be SOL.. They are a private group and don't need to follow the rules of evidence to act on information. Now if it came out that the recording was a fake (it's not) then that would be something he could sue over.

This is what I'm taking from it, the NBA doesn't want to be embarrassed by any owner by comments made in the press or their actions. The man was in his house talking to this young lady, who claims that there's a 3rd party involved, but won't say who. Now she recorded him saying these things. And the NBA is acting on a recording that was obtained illegally.

That's like your company firing you because your mistress recording you saying the CEO is an idiot. It's not fair, you're allowed to have privacy. This clearly violates privacy.

Do I still think he's an idiot, oh yea. There were tactful ways to do what he did. Do I think he's racist, a smidge, but we all are in one way or another and don't realize it sometimes.

(05-06-2014 08:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Heard this morning on the radio that he's putting together a legal team to take the NBA to court. I believe I understood that they'll be bringing in the legality of the recording, since he was recorded illegally, and what he said was in private not in public.

Which is interesting.. I think I understood what the NBA's stance is on their morality clause, because if it pertains to an owner's personal life or what they do when they're not in the public eye, it could open another can of worms for current owners or prospective owners in what they do while not in the public eye.

Plus it'll draw curiosity when the case of illegal wire tapping is brought up.

I did hear a conspiracy theory that Magic Johnson wanted to own a NBA team and wanted the Clippers, so he put the young lady to doing this.

VERY interesting.

(05-06-2014 08:49 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Heard this morning on the radio that he's putting together a legal team to take the NBA to court. I believe I understood that they'll be bringing in the legality of the recording, since he was recorded illegally, and what he said was in private not in public.

Which is interesting.. I think I understood what the NBA's stance is on their morality clause, because if it pertains to an owner's personal life or what they do when they're not in the public eye, it could open another can of worms for current owners or prospective owners in what they do while not in the public eye.

Plus it'll draw curiosity when the case of illegal wire tapping is brought up.

I did hear a conspiracy theory that Magic Johnson wanted to own a NBA team and wanted the Clippers, so he put the young lady to doing this.

VERY interesting.

I'd imagine Sterling doesn't care much about the NBA ban itself, he's going to fight having to sell the team tooth and nail. It could get ugly if he starts talking about what other owners have said in the past, etc.

(05-06-2014 08:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:43 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Unless the NBA had a hand in recording and releasing it he should be SOL.. They are a private group and don't need to follow the rules of evidence to act on information. Now if it came out that the recording was a fake (it's not) then that would be something he could sue over.

This is what I'm taking from it, the NBA doesn't want to be embarrassed by any owner by comments made in the press or their actions. The man was in his house talking to this young lady, who claims that there's a 3rd party involved, but won't say who. Now she recorded him saying these things. And the NBA is acting on a recording that was obtained illegally.

That's like your company firing you because your mistress recording you saying the CEO is an idiot. It's not fair, you're allowed to have privacy. This clearly violates privacy.

Do I still think he's an idiot, oh yea. There were tactful ways to do what he did. Do I think he's racist, a smidge, but we all are in one way or another and don't realize it sometimes.

Probably less than any other NBA owner or player. In this day and age, you'd think he was just opinionated but unfortunately he falls in the wrong color category for that. Instead he's an evil malicious racist piece of shiit bastard for his personal opinion.

(05-06-2014 08:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:49 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Heard this morning on the radio that he's putting together a legal team to take the NBA to court. I believe I understood that they'll be bringing in the legality of the recording, since he was recorded illegally, and what he said was in private not in public.

Which is interesting.. I think I understood what the NBA's stance is on their morality clause, because if it pertains to an owner's personal life or what they do when they're not in the public eye, it could open another can of worms for current owners or prospective owners in what they do while not in the public eye.

Plus it'll draw curiosity when the case of illegal wire tapping is brought up.

I did hear a conspiracy theory that Magic Johnson wanted to own a NBA team and wanted the Clippers, so he put the young lady to doing this.

VERY interesting.

I'd imagine Sterling doesn't care much about the NBA ban itself, he's going to fight having to sell the team tooth and nail. It could get ugly if he starts talking about what other owners have said in the past, etc.

Exactly. Only way he got caught was, again, an illegal recording.

Now if they're going to bust him on a morality clause, I have a feeling he'll cause a stink if it is Magic that buys his team.. I mean you want to talk about morals, what do you think of a man that contracts HIV by cheating on his wife. I feel that'll be the argument. This could get real dirty real quick.

(05-06-2014 08:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:49 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Heard this morning on the radio that he's putting together a legal team to take the NBA to court. I believe I understood that they'll be bringing in the legality of the recording, since he was recorded illegally, and what he said was in private not in public.

Which is interesting.. I think I understood what the NBA's stance is on their morality clause, because if it pertains to an owner's personal life or what they do when they're not in the public eye, it could open another can of worms for current owners or prospective owners in what they do while not in the public eye.

Plus it'll draw curiosity when the case of illegal wire tapping is brought up.

I did hear a conspiracy theory that Magic Johnson wanted to own a NBA team and wanted the Clippers, so he put the young lady to doing this.

VERY interesting.

I'd imagine Sterling doesn't care much about the NBA ban itself, he's going to fight having to sell the team tooth and nail. It could get ugly if he starts talking about what other owners have said in the past, etc.

I wouldn't care about the ban either, and his fine probably affected him about as much as the fine that I got in 1998 for parking in faculty parking when I was in college, $15.00. However, forcing me to sell my truck because of it would definitely have been a problem.

(05-06-2014 08:58 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:49 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Heard this morning on the radio that he's putting together a legal team to take the NBA to court. I believe I understood that they'll be bringing in the legality of the recording, since he was recorded illegally, and what he said was in private not in public.

Which is interesting.. I think I understood what the NBA's stance is on their morality clause, because if it pertains to an owner's personal life or what they do when they're not in the public eye, it could open another can of worms for current owners or prospective owners in what they do while not in the public eye.

Plus it'll draw curiosity when the case of illegal wire tapping is brought up.

I did hear a conspiracy theory that Magic Johnson wanted to own a NBA team and wanted the Clippers, so he put the young lady to doing this.

VERY interesting.

I'd imagine Sterling doesn't care much about the NBA ban itself, he's going to fight having to sell the team tooth and nail. It could get ugly if he starts talking about what other owners have said in the past, etc.

Exactly. Only way he got caught was, again, an illegal recording.

Now if they're going to bust him on a morality clause, I have a feeling he'll cause a stink if it is Magic that buys his team.. I mean you want to talk about morals, what do you think of a man that contracts HIV by cheating on his wife. I feel that'll be the argument. This could get real dirty real quick.

That makes him a hero in this society.

(05-06-2014 08:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Now she recorded him saying these things. And the NBA is acting on a recording that was obtained illegally.

That's like your company firing you because your mistress recording you saying the CEO is an idiot. It's not fair, you're allowed to have privacy. This clearly violates privacy.

The NBA did not record him, they did not solicit the recording, they did not buy the recording. You have the right to your private life but when you're personal drama spills over into the public world you can't expect a club to which you belong will ignore it.

I'm pretty sure these things can even be used as evidence in civil courts so long as the plaintiffs or their lawyer did not do the recording.

(05-06-2014 09:33 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Now she recorded him saying these things. And the NBA is acting on a recording that was obtained illegally.

That's like your company firing you because your mistress recording you saying the CEO is an idiot. It's not fair, you're allowed to have privacy. This clearly violates privacy.

The NBA did not record him, they did not solicit the recording, they did not buy the recording. You have the right to your private life but when you're personal drama spills over into the public world you can't expect a club to which you belong will ignore it.

I'm pretty sure these things can even be used as evidence in civil courts so long as the plaintiffs or their lawyer did not do the recording.

Had she not recorded him or the recording "leaked", we wouldn't be discussing this. We'd be talking about something else. He didn't pull a Michael Richards and do this on stage, he did it at home. He didn't make the recording. He had no knowledge of the recording. The recording made it's way to TMZ of all places.

You're right, the NBA can say it doesn't matter, but I think it'll all come down to all the contracts the NBA made him sign as an owner and all the legalese involved.

I don't care if they strip the team from him, throw him a wheat penny, and say tough schit. Only if it's done legally. That means from start to finish.

(05-06-2014 09:33 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Now she recorded him saying these things. And the NBA is acting on a recording that was obtained illegally.

That's like your company firing you because your mistress recording you saying the CEO is an idiot. It's not fair, you're allowed to have privacy. This clearly violates privacy.

The NBA did not record him, they did not solicit the recording, they did not buy the recording. You have the right to your private life but when you're personal drama spills over into the public world you can't expect a club to which you belong will ignore it.

I'm pretty sure these things can even be used as evidence in civil courts so long as the plaintiffs or their lawyer did not do the recording.

Correct.

People need to separate their personal views on this issue from what the NBA (as a private organization) clearly has the right to do. Whether the tape was obtained legally or illegally is irrelevant with respect to the NBA relying upon it because, as you've stated, the rules of evidence don't apply here. The only thing that matters is that Donald Sterling actually stated them (and note that he admitted that it was his voice on the tape, so that isn't in dispute). The fact that it was taped (whether legally or illegally) doesn't change that, just as the NBA could kick him out if he stated the exact same things in private to Adam Silver directly without any tape.

To gdunn's argument, a private employer can ABSOLUTELY 110% fire you for stating that the CEO is an idiot in private. There is no "right to privacy" when it comes to your employer or a private organization (such as the NBA). If you're bad for business or your CEO simply doesn't like your personality, then you can be fired and/or removed. Now, you may still be entitled to just compensation (i.e. Donald Sterling will still get paid fair market value for the Clippers - the NBA can't just take away his franchise without paying him for it) and contracts that were signed by the parties need to be honored, but make no mistake about it: THE "RIGHT TO PRIVACY" DOES NOT EXIST IN YOUR WORKPLACE. Trust me: I'm a corporate lawyer that deals with plenty of HR issues.

Put aside all of the political posturing about this issue and, at the end of the day, capitalism is what rules over everything else. On that front, Donald Sterling was determined to be bad for the business for the NBA going forward. EVERY business entity has the right to makes its own decisions with respect to its business as long as it's adhering to its pre-existing contracts and by-laws (which is what the NBA has done here).

(05-06-2014 09:33 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:49 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Now she recorded him saying these things. And the NBA is acting on a recording that was obtained illegally.

That's like your company firing you because your mistress recording you saying the CEO is an idiot. It's not fair, you're allowed to have privacy. This clearly violates privacy.

The NBA did not record him, they did not solicit the recording, they did not buy the recording. You have the right to your private life but when you're personal drama spills over into the public world you can't expect a club to which you belong will ignore it.

I'm pretty sure these things can even be used as evidence in civil courts so long as the plaintiffs or their lawyer did not do the recording.

Maybe but probably not.

California's privacy law includes an exclusionary provision. Plus, a quick search shows there are a lot of civil cases where information like this was excluded.

Sterling may be in the wrong morally but in terms of a court battle he's in fantastic shape. It would be impossible for the NBA to make their argument with no tape.

The unintended consequences for other owners of professional sports teams can be significant because of the NBA's actions.

Just imagine if someone can get Jerry Jones om tape saying something racist. Or how about Daniel Snyder talking about that the "....fvcken indians..." who are trying to make him change the team name. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that Robert Kraft has muttered something about Aaron Hernandez that included an allusion to his ethnicity.

Can of worms.

(05-06-2014 08:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Heard this morning on the radio that he's putting together a legal team to take the NBA to court. I believe I understood that they'll be bringing in the legality of the recording, since he was recorded illegally, and what he said was in private not in public.

Which is interesting.. I think I understood what the NBA's stance is on their morality clause, because if it pertains to an owner's personal life or what they do when they're not in the public eye, it could open another can of worms for current owners or prospective owners in what they do while not in the public eye.

Plus it'll draw curiosity when the case of illegal wire tapping is brought up.

I did hear a conspiracy theory that Magic Johnson wanted to own a NBA team and wanted the Clippers, so he put the young lady to doing this.

So Magic planned this to oust the white guy huh? Blame it on the black man I guess.

Brilliant.

(05-06-2014 10:11 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Maybe but probably not.

California's privacy law includes an exclusionary provision. Plus, a quick search shows there are a lot of civil cases where information like this was excluded.

Sterling may be in the wrong morally but in terms of a court battle he's in fantastic shape. It would be impossible for the NBA to make their argument with no tape.

We're mixing concepts here again. The NBA isn't removing Donald Sterling via the court system. Instead, it's relying upon its by-laws and, if there's a further challenge (which seems inevitable), a mandatory arbitration proceeding, neither of which apply the rules of evidence (which is the only place where the legality of the tape recording would matter). This is NOT a civil case. Sterling might attempt to make it into a civil case, but courts typically want absolutely, positively, NOTHING to do with overriding arbitration provisions. (You have to understand that judges instinctively find virtually every single lawsuit to be a nuisance, so if there's a way to ensure that a case will be heard in another venue like an arbitration proceeding, he/she will find a way to get it off of his/her docket.) Sterling will surely attempt to find any possible way to fight this, but the fact is that he's not on solid legal ground at all. Procedurally, the NBA and any resulting arbitration case ultimately do NOT have to consider whether the tape was created legally or illegally. All that matters is whether Sterling was the one that was actually stating what was on the tape (which is something that he has already admitted).

Ultimately, Sterling's only real legal grounds will come from if the NBA attempts to pay him something less than fair market value for the Clippers. *That* is where Sterling may have a case in the future. I'll repeat again, though: the legality of this tape is IRRELEVANT when it comes to kicking Sterling out of the NBA, no matter how much some people here want to point out how the tape was illegally recorded. It DOES NOT matter when it comes to the NBA's by-laws and arbitration clause.

(05-06-2014 10:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 10:11 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Maybe but probably not.

California's privacy law includes an exclusionary provision. Plus, a quick search shows there are a lot of civil cases where information like this was excluded.

Sterling may be in the wrong morally but in terms of a court battle he's in fantastic shape. It would be impossible for the NBA to make their argument with no tape.

We're mixing concepts here again. The NBA isn't removing Donald Sterling via the court system. Instead, it's relying upon its by-laws and, if there's a further challenge (which seems inevitable), a mandatory arbitration proceeding, neither of which apply the rules of evidence (which is the only place where the legality of the tape recording would matter). This is NOT a civil case. Sterling might attempt to make it into a civil case, but courts typically want absolutely, positively, NOTHING to do with overriding arbitration provisions. (You have to understand that judges instinctively find virtually every single lawsuit to be a nuisance, so if there's a way to ensure that a case will be heard in another venue like an arbitration proceeding, he/she will find a way to get it off of his/her docket.) Sterling will surely attempt to find any possible way to fight this, but the fact is that he's not on solid legal ground at all. Procedurally, the NBA and any resulting arbitration case ultimately do NOT have to consider whether the tape was created legally or illegally. All that matters is whether Sterling was the one that was actually stating what was on the tape (which is something that he has already admitted).

Ultimately, Sterling's only real legal grounds will come from if the NBA attempts to pay him something less than fair market value for the Clippers. *That* is where Sterling may have a case in the future. I'll repeat again, though: the legality of this tape is IRRELEVANT when it comes to kicking Sterling out of the NBA, no matter how much some people here want to point out how the tape was illegally recorded. It DOES NOT matter when it comes to the NBA's by-laws and arbitration clause.

Excellent post. Thanks for sharing your knowledge on the matter.

(05-06-2014 10:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Heard this morning on the radio that he's putting together a legal team to take the NBA to court. I believe I understood that they'll be bringing in the legality of the recording, since he was recorded illegally, and what he said was in private not in public.

Which is interesting.. I think I understood what the NBA's stance is on their morality clause, because if it pertains to an owner's personal life or what they do when they're not in the public eye, it could open another can of worms for current owners or prospective owners in what they do while not in the public eye.

Plus it'll draw curiosity when the case of illegal wire tapping is brought up.

I did hear a conspiracy theory that Magic Johnson wanted to own a NBA team and wanted the Clippers, so he put the young lady to doing this.

So Magic planned this to oust the white guy huh? Blame it on the black man I guess.

Brilliant.

What we really need is to find a way to Blame George Bush....