Microballing: Steve Ballmer's LA Clippers
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
Rachel Nichols @Rachel__Nichols 2m
Donald Sterling's lawyer to @CNN on Shelly promise to protect NBA against his lawsuit: "What makes you think that indemnity is enforceable?"
Rachel Nichols @Rachel__Nichols 1m
Donald Sterling's lawyer piles it on more, says he doesn't think "that indemnity is worth the paper its written on."
Paging Rovin Romine
Donald Sterling's lawyer to @CNN on Shelly promise to protect NBA against his lawsuit: "What makes you think that indemnity is enforceable?"
Rachel Nichols @Rachel__Nichols 1m
Donald Sterling's lawyer piles it on more, says he doesn't think "that indemnity is worth the paper its written on."
Paging Rovin Romine
soxhop411 said:
Indemnification in this context basically means Shelly Sterling (i.e., the Sterling Trust) promised to pay for any damages/costs/fees the NBA will incur if Donald Sterling (i.e., the Sterling Trust) decides to sue the NBA. The problem should be self evident.
Also, I won't be commenting in this thread anymore. 'Cause Donald Sterling is fighting for ME!
Ramona Shelburne @ramonashelburne 23h
One of the tests doctors asked Donald Sterling to perform, was to spell "world" backwards. He could not.
One of the tests doctors asked Donald Sterling to perform, was to spell "world" backwards. He could not.
So this got interesting
http://abc7.com/sports/donald-sterling-hires-investigators-to-dig-up-dirt-on-nba/110957/
https://twitter.com/ramonashelburne/status/476882831595958273"]23hsoxhop411 said:
link to tweet[/url]
One of the tests doctors asked Donald Sterling to perform, was to spell "world" backwards. He could not.
Did they ask the doctors how to spell HIPAA?
This is actually kind of a funny next chapter. Sterling is a scumbag, but I'm sure there are at least a couple owners slightly nervous about what could be found. Any dirt on Stern is a nice bonus. He's approaching wrestling villain status at this point.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
jsinger121 said:
I'm telling you, I'm not sure they had a leg to stand on under the NBA constitution. If they went ahead and voted for it anyway, they'd just be giving him more ammunition to sue for cause, and probably pissing off a judge as well.
Also, the PIs digging up quotes by other owners is spectacular. How many off-color things has Mark Cuban said over the last 15 years? I mean, i LIKE Mark Cuban, but one thing the man is not is politically correct.
Just thinking about some of the shady characters the NBA lets lurk around, as well as the number of complete dirtbags that have owned an NBA team at some point in the past three decades, there has to be something juicy to come from this. Best case scenario, it comes out that Stern was whispering secret communications to the refs during the Lakers/Kings series in '02, and he gets beaten to death by an enraged Vlade Divac live on the stage during the draft. (He still attends,r ight?)
Donald is hring 4 PI firms!
I'm rooting for him to select Jim Rockford, Simon and Simon, Magnum PI and Charlie's Ange's. With Moonlighting, Vega$ and Murder, She Wrote on retainer, just in case.
I'm rooting for him to select Jim Rockford, Simon and Simon, Magnum PI and Charlie's Ange's. With Moonlighting, Vega$ and Murder, She Wrote on retainer, just in case.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Trial just started today and in shocking news DTS did not show up for the first day.
Best follows for this are Arash Markazi @ArashMarkazi
and https://twitter.com/ramonashelburne
(wayy to many tweets from today to post so if you are interested in what went on today, its on both of their timelines)
though the judge is pissed at DTS lawyers, not a good way to start off the trial
Arash Markazi @ArashMarkazi · 32m
Donald Sterling's attorney is objecting to every question posed at the doctor. Judge wants to to proceed without him objecting to questions.
Arash Markazi @ArashMarkazi 34m
Judge looks visibly irked by Donald Sterling's attorneys at this point.
Best follows for this are Arash Markazi @ArashMarkazi
and https://twitter.com/ramonashelburne
(wayy to many tweets from today to post so if you are interested in what went on today, its on both of their timelines)
though the judge is pissed at DTS lawyers, not a good way to start off the trial
Arash Markazi @ArashMarkazi · 32m
Donald Sterling's attorney is objecting to every question posed at the doctor. Judge wants to to proceed without him objecting to questions.
Arash Markazi @ArashMarkazi 34m
Judge looks visibly irked by Donald Sterling's attorneys at this point.
Those quotes are outstanding. Question for the resident lawyers...how difficult is it to have another lawyer on the stand?
I've called an attorney as a witness, I've also had four that I recall crossing. All instances were totally fine - nothing bizarre, and two were even victims in cases. I think attorneys are often very careful not to say anything that gets them in trouble on the stand, since the effect of impeaching them or pointing out that they're being evasive/slimy/untrustworthy is pretty high - higher than a normal witness. You get a whole extra layer of questions that relate to their oaths and professional ethics and their should-know-better experience. Plus there can be sever ethical violations for the testifying attorney, should they lie. No one really wants to risk opening that box.
That said, one of the most entertaining crosses I've seen was when a defense attorney (friend of mine) ended her representation in a case, mid-trial, to be a witness in that same case. The issue wasn't the central charge, but an additional manufactured one of the defendant threatening the testifying officer in the hallway during a break in the trial. The officer basically lied on the stand. The defense attorney was the only witness to the alleged threat (besides the client who can't be forced to testify) so the judge allowed the withdrawal. (The judge really should have declared a mistrial.) Anyway, the second chair took over the trial, and the primary defense attorney (who had voir-dired the jury, and cross examined the officer in question) took the stand. What make it more odd and dramatic was that the prosecutor and this attorney really loathed each other. My friend more or less accused him of enabling a fraud on the court by not reigning the officer in during questioning, and/or not letting the defense and court know about the changed testimony, and/or not agreeing to a mistrial, and/or not taking her word over the officers that there was no threat. There was an hour of hot procedural issues before the trial resumed. So the actual questioning got pretty lively (snarky), with each party looking to get in digs on the other and open the scope of the questioning in ways that would be favorable to themselves. Also - this was done on the fly, so each party had to carefully pick their way though questioning (and answering) cold. No time to prepare or consult or even look up the law on what areas were or were not covered by A/C privilege in this situation. The defendant was ultimately acquitted. I'm pretty sure there were about a dozen hard wired appellate issues in that transcript though.
Later in my career, I listed a prosecutor as a defense rebuttal witness. This was a safe move since mid-trial the prosecutor had gone on the record to relay information the officer had presented to her which didn't match the officer's deposition. (And kudos to the prosecutor for doing so! I was actually proud of her, which tells you how closely some prosectors examine their cases and/or look the other way). That prosecutor's boss and the cop wanted to press forward, so I listed the prosecutor as a witness. After much wrangling between the State Attorney's office and the judge, the case was dismissed. I'm sure in no small part due to the embarrassment all the parties looked to suffer from if the prosecutor who picked the jury would testify that her lead witness was lying. I honestly don't know why they didn't instantly drop the case.
I also listed a sitting judge as a friendly defense witness. Again, case promptly dismissed. What junior prosecutor wants to cross a sitting judge who is going to say that the defendant did no wrong? There's no path of entry for questioning that does not become very very sticky.
That said, one of the most entertaining crosses I've seen was when a defense attorney (friend of mine) ended her representation in a case, mid-trial, to be a witness in that same case. The issue wasn't the central charge, but an additional manufactured one of the defendant threatening the testifying officer in the hallway during a break in the trial. The officer basically lied on the stand. The defense attorney was the only witness to the alleged threat (besides the client who can't be forced to testify) so the judge allowed the withdrawal. (The judge really should have declared a mistrial.) Anyway, the second chair took over the trial, and the primary defense attorney (who had voir-dired the jury, and cross examined the officer in question) took the stand. What make it more odd and dramatic was that the prosecutor and this attorney really loathed each other. My friend more or less accused him of enabling a fraud on the court by not reigning the officer in during questioning, and/or not letting the defense and court know about the changed testimony, and/or not agreeing to a mistrial, and/or not taking her word over the officers that there was no threat. There was an hour of hot procedural issues before the trial resumed. So the actual questioning got pretty lively (snarky), with each party looking to get in digs on the other and open the scope of the questioning in ways that would be favorable to themselves. Also - this was done on the fly, so each party had to carefully pick their way though questioning (and answering) cold. No time to prepare or consult or even look up the law on what areas were or were not covered by A/C privilege in this situation. The defendant was ultimately acquitted. I'm pretty sure there were about a dozen hard wired appellate issues in that transcript though.
Later in my career, I listed a prosecutor as a defense rebuttal witness. This was a safe move since mid-trial the prosecutor had gone on the record to relay information the officer had presented to her which didn't match the officer's deposition. (And kudos to the prosecutor for doing so! I was actually proud of her, which tells you how closely some prosectors examine their cases and/or look the other way). That prosecutor's boss and the cop wanted to press forward, so I listed the prosecutor as a witness. After much wrangling between the State Attorney's office and the judge, the case was dismissed. I'm sure in no small part due to the embarrassment all the parties looked to suffer from if the prosecutor who picked the jury would testify that her lead witness was lying. I honestly don't know why they didn't instantly drop the case.
I also listed a sitting judge as a friendly defense witness. Again, case promptly dismissed. What junior prosecutor wants to cross a sitting judge who is going to say that the defendant did no wrong? There's no path of entry for questioning that does not become very very sticky.
Interesting, didn't think of the angle of an attorney needing to protect certain ethics of their profession, just the other side of the witness being schooled on the process and tactics. Sterling seems cut from another cloth though. Can you object for badgering the prosecutor?
uncannymanny said:
Yes, the objection would be the prosecutor (or questioner) objecting to the judge that the witness is non-responsive to the question pending.
As a witness you're supposed to answer the questions, not go off on non-sequitors or make personal attacks. This is because in most proceedings you get your chance to have your say on direct, then you have to answer the other side's concerns on cross. Cross isn't a place to restate your case, to vacillate, to refuse to answer questions, or to grandstand.
The judge will usually give non-complying witnesses a little bit of leeway (so long as they don't stray into any forbidden areas.) Testimony does not have to be robotic. There's room for some personality, color, and humor. The extent of that room will depend on a lot of factors.
If an attorney does want to rein in a witness, a sustained objection really only wins an instruction from the judge for the witness "to answer the question you were asked."
If the witness behavior is chronic or truly outrageous, the judge may sanction the witness, though that usually takes some doing on the witnesses part. I've never seen it go that far myself. A stern talking to usually brings them into line.
Also, there's real benefit to having a witness fight you, depending on what you're trying to do. In nearly all cases I'd rather have a hostile witness behaving badly and fighting me on cross than a witness who was respectful, prompt, quick, and thoughtful in their responses. Belligerent assholes tend to sink themselves in front of a jury or fact-finder.
uncannymanny said:
Most likely. You'd really have to watch the trial to get a feel for it though. Sometimes a witness can pop out something smart-alecky, but if it's in response to something obnoxious the questioning attorney is doing, it might be exactly the same thing a juror was thinking at that point. Also, if the trial issues are basically technical/arcane, sometimes an emotive witness can convince the jury they're on the correct side of a confusing/opaque/technical issue (should the jury believe that the witness strongly believes in something and isn't lying.)
Odds are DS is imploding, but that's based on what we know of him overall, not the quotes in isolation.
Anyone have any video of the proceedings?
Ramona Shelburne @ramonashelburne 5m
Donald Sterling filed a lawsuit in Superior court Tuesday vs Shelly & NBA alleging corporate fraud
Ramona Shelburne @ramonashelburne 1m
Donald alleges he is the sole shareholder of LAC, the corp that runs the Clippers. Once he revoked the trust, the shares reverted to him
Ramona Shelburne @ramonashelburne 24s
This new lawsuit is in addition to the federal lawsuit Donald Sterling already filed vs the NBA. His attorneys filed it Tuesday after court
https://twitter.com/ramonashelburne
Go away DTS..
Donald Sterling filed a lawsuit in Superior court Tuesday vs Shelly & NBA alleging corporate fraud
Ramona Shelburne @ramonashelburne 1m
Donald alleges he is the sole shareholder of LAC, the corp that runs the Clippers. Once he revoked the trust, the shares reverted to him
Ramona Shelburne @ramonashelburne 24s
This new lawsuit is in addition to the federal lawsuit Donald Sterling already filed vs the NBA. His attorneys filed it Tuesday after court
https://twitter.com/ramonashelburne
Go away DTS..
What's funny is that dissolving the trust might actually force the sale of the team beyond Sterling's control. Shelly's lawyers are arguing that with the dissolution of the trust, the loans to the debtors need to be paid back, and the trust can only do that with the funds raised by the sale of the team.
If that happens - and I assume it will shortly - this will become an epic shitstorm.
I will admit that this prospect excites me.
I will admit that this prospect excites me.
Tony C said:
Yes, but then the question becomes why didn't they boot him when they had the chance to avoid all this nonsense back in late May/early June? That would have cleared the way for the Ballmer acquisition, but if he walks away, the Clippers will not be sold for $2 billion any time soon.
The NBA took the path of least resistance and it's biting them all in the ass.
Shelly Sterling has a $2b offer to buy her team. If it falls through, she's suing either the NBA, DTS, or both of them for the difference between that offer and whatever she ultimately realizes. Letting this probate suit play out seems like the NBA's best bet to avoid getting caught in that; either the Ballmer deal will happen, or it will fall apart in a way that can't reasonably be blamed on them.
With Ballmer's people setting an August 15 drop-dead date, there's plenty of time for the Board of Governors to strip the Sterlings of ownership like they intended to do in early June if the Ballmer deal falls through.
With Ballmer's people setting an August 15 drop-dead date, there's plenty of time for the Board of Governors to strip the Sterlings of ownership like they intended to do in early June if the Ballmer deal falls through.
Shouldn't the point be to preserve the Ballmer deal? The valuation of the Clippers benefits all of them tremendously.
Had they followed through in June, my guess is they keep the Ballmer purchase alive.
Had they followed through in June, my guess is they keep the Ballmer purchase alive.
They better sell soon, before the team is worthless.
Doc Rivers quitting if Sterling doesn't sell
This situation looks like it might end up with the same ending as the Market Basket case where clueless/vain CEOs fiddle while their company burns.
Doc Rivers quitting if Sterling doesn't sell
This situation looks like it might end up with the same ending as the Market Basket case where clueless/vain CEOs fiddle while their company burns.
I know it's far from the most important issue at hand, but I can't help continuing to hope for chaos and a better than expected draft pick from the Clips. Short of boycotts and trade demands, though, I'm not sure how much on court impact this will ultimately have. A CP3 injury is still the best bet.
as a celtics fan, it is actually the most important issue at hand.
Turmoil in the head coaches seat, media spotlight and distraction could easily cost the team 5-10 wins and improve our draft position by 4-8 spots. If there's a major injury or players start boycotting (the media will support them & the NBA will have a lot of pressure NOT to discipline them) then all bets are off.
Turmoil in the head coaches seat, media spotlight and distraction could easily cost the team 5-10 wins and improve our draft position by 4-8 spots. If there's a major injury or players start boycotting (the media will support them & the NBA will have a lot of pressure NOT to discipline them) then all bets are off.