OT - "Why I Am Fighting the NBA?"

[SlyPokerDog]

THE NBA WANTS TO TAKE AWAY OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

I was brought up in America and educated to believe that every citizen has a right to privacy and right to freedom of speech. As a lawyer and citizen, I am shocked (but not surprised) that the NBA wants to take away those fundamental rights.

I feel that every American has to protect those rights and that the NBA should not be allowed to take away those rights. I have apologized for my mistakes. My apology is sincere. I want every American to know that I will not give up fighting for those rights.

I also feel that the leadership of the NBA is incompetent, inexperienced and angry. It is clear that they took this opportunity to settle the personal grievances they have harbored against me for years.

The NBA has a history of discriminatory practices which is supported by the numerous lawsuits filed by NBA employees claiming gender based discrimination. Adam Silver has worked for the NBA since 1992. He must know about the discriminatory practices of the NBA which are all matters of public record. The reason Adam Silver is focused on the sale, instead the larger social issue, is because doing so would require him to examine the NBA's own discriminatory practices, including those that occurred under his many years in leadership. If the NBA is sincere about their approach, Adam Silver needs to publicly examine the NBA's own conduct and the conduct of each and every Owner.

For now, it seems Adam Silver is content with focusing his energy on violating my rights, attempting to take my property, and signing autographs for TMZ. Maybe once the dust settles, he will have some time to focus on the NBA's own transgressions.

The NBA continues to thrive and exact its reign of terror in large part from the money it receives from the Fans. The NBA is a band of hypocrites and bullies. They will not stop until someone stands up. They have taken the liberty to desecrate my privacy rights and my right to own property. I have no doubt that they will continue to find new ways to violate my rights and the rights of any other person in order to draw attention away from their own discriminatory and repulsive conduct.

We have to fight for the rights of all Americans. We have to fight these despicable monsters.

THIS IS THE REASON I WILL NOT SELL MY TEAM.

Donald T. Sterling


http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/...earing-resolve-los-angeles-clippers-situation

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[Natebishop3]

Translation - I want money.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Translation - I want money.

No, he's fighting for your right to say racist things!

 

[Natebishop3]

No, he's fighting for your right to say racist things!

But I don't own an NBA team

 

[SlyPokerDog]

But I don't own an NBA team

... yet.

 

[Stevenson]

You don't have 'freedom of speech' with or from private entities. The government can't legally infringe on your right to free speech, but your boss sure can.

The letter above is gibberish.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

"There's too many white people in Portland." - Greg Oden

 

[MickZagger]

Cause you're a friggin Richard!!!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Cause you're a friggin Richard!!!

He's not a forum member so you can insult him all you want.

 

[HailBlazers]

Lol

Man what a Megalomanic.

 

[MARIS61]

You don't have 'freedom of speech' with or from private entities. The government can't legally infringe on your right to free speech, but your boss sure can.

The letter above is gibberish.

It appears to be 100% accurate, and 0% gibberish.

Maybe you didn't actually read it?

BTW, it's an oft-repeated falsehood that your Constitutional Rights cease to exist in the workplace.

 

[Natebishop3]

You don't have 'freedom of speech' with or from private entities. The government can't legally infringe on your right to free speech, but your boss sure can.

The letter above is gibberish.

But... but.... freedom of speech!

Seriously, the amount of people who misunderstand the first amendment is just astounding.

 

[MARIS61]

But... but.... freedom of speech!

Seriously, the amount of people who misunderstand the first amendment is just astounding.

Donald Sterling understands it quite clearly. He knows he can't be silenced. He can be boycotted, ostracized, hated, fired, kicked out of a golf club, or possibly even forced to sell off a business he built and has owned and run successfully for 30 years increasing it's worth from $12,000,000 to $2,000,000,000. But he can say what he wants, including presenting for the record in a court of law the racist policies of the NBA.

Adam Silver lives in a great big glass house, and either he's going to have to appease Sterling, or the NBA is going to lose a lot of black fans.

 

[jlprk]

You don't have 'freedom of speech' with or from private entities. The government can't legally infringe on your right to free speech, but your boss sure can.

The letter above is gibberish.

I'm uncomfortable with someone being fired for putting forward a political argument. While not at work. Which part of the Constitution has been interpreted to allow morals clauses? I wonder how solid that is.

 

[Mediocre Man]

"There's too many white people in Portland." - Greg Oden

Exactly. Where was the outcry and the life time ban?

 

[jlprk]

Greg Oden didn't say that. Fez is joking. Oden just laughingly quoted the oft-heard truism that there are few wealthy black social events here (compared to bigger or more-black cities). The context was, he was explaining why he held little home drinking parties with 2 or 3 friends at a time.

 

[Denny Crane]

Tastes like chicken.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Well this should be interesting. Sterling has been an owner for a long time and has seen and experienced a lot behind the scenes that we don't get to see and read about. Is 30 yrs of NBA's dirty laundry about the be exposed to the fans or is he just blowing a lot of smoke? Stay tuned . . .

 

[jlprk]

He socialized with the other billionaires and knows their business and romantic secrets.

The CIA may kill him to silence him. The 1%ers are probably pitching in their nickels to privatize the op.

Yep, it's a done deal.

 

[crandc]

With all due respect, I think Maris is confusing two things. Sterling has the constitutional right to say stupid and bigoted things. No one is sending him to prison for it. No one should.

A business can regulate. The NBA apparently has clauses governing owners' behavior that they all agree to. No one is forcing anyone to be an NBA owner; it is totally voluntary and includes agreeing to abide by certain rules. Sterling did not. His "punishment" is making a mint selling his team.

He may actually have a point that the NBA has skeletons in its closet, but that is legally irrelevant. If you are busted you can't say "Bobby did bad things so I should not be charged". Well, you can (free speech!) but it's not much of a legal defense.

 

[BBert]

This is awesome.

 

[jlprk]

With all due respect, I think Maris is confusing two things. Sterling has the constitutional right to say stupid and bigoted things. No one is sending him to prison for it. No one should.

A business can regulate. The NBA apparently has clauses governing owners' behavior that they all agree to. No one is forcing anyone to be an NBA owner; it is totally voluntary and includes agreeing to abide by certain rules. Sterling did not. His "punishment" is making a mint selling his team.

He may actually have a point that the NBA has skeletons in its closet, but that is legally irrelevant. If you are busted you can't say "Bobby did bad things so I should not be charged". Well, you can (free speech!) but it's not much of a legal defense.

In a conversation about political philosophy, he debated for an unpopular side. He did not do this on the work site. He did not do it publicly (the tape was released against his will).

The rule he broke was a morals clause, i.e. not to embarrass the NBA. He did not embarrass the league on purpose (the tape was released against his will). For years, he had kept his thoughts out of the public spotlight.

Let's say he had debated for a more popular cause, like, the U.S. should close the Guantanamo torture camp. Would everyone then reverse their opinion of him? Would liberals like him, and conservatives want him out?

Because next time, this principal we are establishing may be used against our side.

 

[MARIS61]

With all due respect, I think Maris is confusing two things. Sterling has the constitutional right to say stupid and bigoted things. No one is sending him to prison for it. No one should.

A business can regulate. The NBA apparently has clauses governing owners' behavior that they all agree to. No one is forcing anyone to be an NBA owner; it is totally voluntary and includes agreeing to abide by certain rules. Sterling did not. His "punishment" is making a mint selling his team.

He may actually have a point that the NBA has skeletons in its closet, but that is legally irrelevant. If you are busted you can't say "Bobby did bad things so I should not be charged". Well, you can (free speech!) but it's not much of a legal defense.

You are the confused one. Past actions set precedents by proving intent, or lack of intent.

The NBA not only has to prove Sterling did substantial damage to the NBA by voicing a private opinion in private, but it most importantly has to prove other owners, management and players have not been allowed to commit similar acts in the past without similar consequences. You can't allow one owner to be openly and actively racist in his business practices while penalizing another for merely making private statements. That would be discrimination in the workplace, which is a criminal act. Done in concert it is a criminal conspiracy.

The reality of course is that they can't possibly defend themselves against the truth. The NBA is extremely racist, and sexist, and it has been well-documented in court during Stern's reign. So their main gripe, that he has somehow scared away fans, is absurd.

 

[crandc]

The NBA not only has to prove Sterling did substantial damage to the NBA by voicing a private opinion in private, but it most importantly has to prove other owners, management and players have not been allowed to commit similar acts in the past without similar consequences. You can't allow one owner to be openly and actively racist in his business practices while penalizing another for merely making private statements. That would be discrimination in the workplace, which is a criminal act. Done in concert it is a criminal conspiracy.

Based on what NBA regs?

Do the NBA regulations really say that to show one person has been racist, destructive, et al the NBA has to prove no one else has? That would make it unique among business or legal documents!

 

[Reep]

You don't have 'freedom of speech' with or from private entities. The government can't legally infringe on your right to free speech, but your boss sure can.

The letter above is gibberish.

+1. And all remember that he went to "law school" at an unaccredited California school--and it shows.

 

[PapaG]

+1. And all remember that he went to "law school" at an unaccredited California school--and it shows.

To be fair, many law schools that are now accredited weren't in 1960. Sterling's law school was accredited in 1970, but the list of law schools accredited from 1960-on is lengthy.

2013
Belmont University College of Law*


2012
University of La Verne College of Law*
(previously provisionally approved 2006-2011)

University of Massachusetts School of Law-Dartmouth*

2011
University of California-Irvine School of Law

2008

Charlotte School of Law
Drexel University School of Law
Elon University School of Law
2007

Arizona Summit Law School (formerly Phoenix School of Law)

2006
Charleston School of Law
Faulkner University, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law
Liberty University School of Law



2005
Atlanta's John Marshall Law School
Western State College of Law at Argosy University (previously approved 1998-2004)
2004
Florida A&M University College of Law
Florida International University College of Law
2003
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
2002
Ave Maria School of Law
Barry University, Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law
2001
Appalachian School of Law
2000
University of Nevada-Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
1999
Florida Coastal School of Law
1998
Chapman University School of Law


1996
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
1995
Roger Williams University School of Law
1994
Seattle University School of Law
Texas A&M University School of Law
(formerly Texas Weslyan School of Law)
1992
Quinnipiac University School of Law
1991
University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law
1989
Regent University School of Law

1988
St. Thomas University School of Law (Florida)
Widener University School of Law- Harrisburg
1985
City University of New York School of Law
1984
Georgia State University College of Law
1983
Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
1980
George Mason University School of Law
Mississippi College School of Law
1979
Campbell University, Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law
1978
Northern Illinois University College of Law
Pace University School of Law
Whittier Law School
Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
1975
University of Dayton School of Law
Hamline University School of Law
Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center
Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Vermont Law School
Widener University School of Law-Wilmington (Delaware)
1974
Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School
University of Hawai'i, William S. Richardson School of Law
University of New Hampshire School of Law
Southern Illinois University School of Law
Western New England College School of Law
1972
University of Baltimore School of Law
Pepperdine University School of Law
1971
Hofstra University School of Law
1970
Lewis and Clark College Law School
Southwestern Law School
1969
Arizona State University, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
University of Arkansas at Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law
Inter American University of Puerto Rico, School of Law
McGeorge School of Law, The University of the Pacific
New England Law | Boston
Northeastern University School of Law
Texas Tech University School of Law
1968
University of California-Davis, School of Law
Florida State University College of Law
1967
Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico School of Law
1965
University of Memphis School of Law
1962
California Western School of Law
University of Maine School of Law
1961
The University of Akron School of Law
University of San Diego School of Law
1960
Duquesne University School of Law
Oklahoma City University College of Law

 

[jlprk]

What am I supposed to get from that unsourced list? Does it include reaccreditation or just first-time accreditation? Which of those colleges is his? In 1960, were most law schools unaccredited? Which of those law schools were newly-created, vs. not being good enough for many years before becoming accredited?

Posting that unsourced list was a useless exercise without answering those questions.

 

[jlprk]

Can anyone answer the question I asked Stevenson...Which clause in the Constitution have courts used to justify morals clauses that control employees' political debates with girlfriends while not at work?

After that is answered, next question...How have courts extrapolated this rule to also control the behavior of independent contractors and business owners?

Then the next step...Even if all those evil principles are established law, has it ever been used to oust someone for accidentally, not on purpose, embarrassing someone? (The tape was DISCLOSED against his will. He hasn't said whether it was MADE against his will, i.e. if he consented to the taping, so the tape may be illegal.)

Last question...If we can all lose our jobs/businesses for political debate, not at work, with a girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/bum on the street...shouldn't you be afraid to read this?

 

[Denny Crane]

Can anyone answer the question I asked Stevenson...Which clause in the Constitution have courts used to justify morals clauses that control employees' political debates with girlfriends while not at work?

After that is answered, next question...How have courts extrapolated this rule to also control the behavior of independent contractors and business owners?

Then the next step...Even if all those evil principles are established law, has it ever been used to oust someone for accidentally, not on purpose, embarrassing someone? (The tape was DISCLOSED against his will. He hasn't said whether it was MADE against his will, i.e. if he consented to the taping, so the tape may be illegal.)

Last question...If we can all lose our jobs/businesses for political debate, not at work, with a girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/bum on the street...shouldn't you be afraid to read this?

Obama's reading it. Shouldn't you be afraid to post it?