Donald Sterling

@Thomas,

firefly wrote:

The ethical dilemma is quite clear in some of the Jewish Web sites I've looked at, where they discuss this issue with regard to Sterling. Some express the opinion that Sterling's biased attitudes bring shame on the Jewish people, and help to promote bias, and for that reason his money shouldn't be accepted by Jewish charities.

Thomas responded:
That's a PR strategy, not an ethical dilemma. And what they're afraid of is not a bias, it's the recognition of a fact: Some Jews just are racist bastards --- just as some Christians are.

firefly wrote:
It's quite clear, for instance, why this particular group doesn't want to accept future donations from Sterling. In this case, turning down his money is a strong statement of disapproval with him, and an ethical stance for this particular group.

Thomas responded:
Stirling has been on record as a racist for years, perhaps decades. The Simon Wiesenthal Center never had an ethical problem taking his money. I think it implausible that it has an ethical problem now. At most it has --- see above --- a PR problem masquerading as ethics.

Firefly now responds...

I don't know that the Simon Wiesenthal Center didn't have an ethical problem before about taking Sterling's money--but they may have resolved it by deciding that using his money to fight the sort of bigotry and intolerance he represents was better than refusing it.

And in reading the Jewish Web sites, no one is denying that some Jews can be racists, but it's also clear that rabbis, and directors of Jewish charitable and non-profit organizations, are using the example of Sterling to send an intra-group message to other Jews about the unacceptability of such behavior on the part of a Jew. When a rabbi or the CEO of a Jewish social service agency says things like, "He's not a Jew" or "He's not a member of the Jewish community"--which is what many have been saying about Sterling-- this isn't said to deny there are racist Jews, not if you read the remarks in context. This is how a group defines, imposes, and maintains its values--its religious values--among its members. Every rabbi I read, for instance, is also upset about Sterling's adultery--and flaunted adultery-- because he's still married to his wife. I don't know that these rabbis and organizations weren't saying these condemning things about Sterling before, they very well may have, they just weren't making public statements about it.

The reason I've been doing reading on many Jewish Web sites is because I want to try to understand how they are dealing with the problem of someone like Sterling. For the Jewish organizations, particularly the ones that are specifically devoted to fighting intolerance, these groups have uniformly condemned Sterling's remarks, not because of anything "PC" but rather because their mission is to fight bigotry and intolerance. On the issue of whether to continue to take his money, decisions ranged from refusing future donations (The Simon Wiesenthal Center) to suggesting that if Sterling really wants to make amends for his hurtful remarks and attitudes, he should do so by increasing his donations to such groups. The L.A. Museum of the Holocaust said this:
“Perhaps Mr. Sterling and his family will choose to make amends … by redoubling his donations to organizations that combat the very corrosive disease from which he obviously suffers. That would seem to be the appropriate way forward from this debacle.”

I think these groups are making public statements now, not because of a media-driven campaign or bandwagon, as you suggest, but rather because they now have the opportunity to publicly do two things at one time--support the actions of someone they see as acting like a righteous Jew--Adam Silver of the NBA, who is Jewish--and condemn and shun one they see as behaving disgracefully, particularly for a Jew--Donald Sterling. This is also very much about their supporting Silver, and the example his behavior reflects in shunning Sterling and banning him for life from the NBA, because that's how they feel a Jew should respond to racism.

And that's why the public statements include Adam Silver--as well as the NBA-- in their remarks.

Quote:

Quote:
New York, NY, April 29, 2014 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today welcomed the decision by the National Basketball Association banning Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life and fining him $2.5 million in response to racist remarks attributed to him. It is the most severe punitive action the NBA has ever taken against an owner.

“The NBA’s actions send an important message in a high-profile case that racism and hatred, especially from public figures, is unacceptable,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “The NBA has made clear that there is a high price to be paid for such inappropriate and reprehensible behavior.”

Mr. Foxman added: “We strongly concur with Commissioner Adam Silver’s unequivocal statement that there is no place in the NBA for racism, bigotry and hatred. We also support the commissioner’s step to ask the team owners to consider forcing Donald Sterling to sell the team.”
http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/discrimination-racism-bigotry/adl-welcomes-nba-decision-banning-clippers-owner.html#.U3RE6XbD_3h

Quote:
Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and its Museum of Tolerance, supported NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s actions. The museum received three donations of $10,000 between 2010-2012, according to Guidestar.com.

“There’s no place in America for this kind of racism,” Hier told the Journal. “We believe the action to ban him for life is correct, and we will not accept any donations from Donald Sterling in the future.”

The NBA commissioner’s action “is what should happen whenever someone makes anti-Semitic or racist remarks, as millions of people are touched by this view,” Hier said.

So, from the reading I've been doing, I've acquired a different perspective, or additional perspective, on this matter than the one you have.

From the reading I've been doing, I've also learned a lot of interesting things, including the concept of "tzedakah" in the Jewish religion--and how that pertains to Sterling and his charitable donations and whether they should be accepted. Tzedakah is charity, but charitable acts that are considered to be a religious obligation, as opposed to voluntary philanthropy and generosity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah

On that score, and whether Jewish organizations should accept Sterling's tzedakah, or anyone's tzedakah, one rabbi put it rather succinctly:

Quote:
"Tzedakah is a major way of doing teshuvah," said Rabbi David Teutsch, director of the Center for Jewish Ethics at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, using the Hebrew word for repentance. "If the giver has done something wrong and realized something is wrong and is giving tzedakah as part of the teshuvah process, you would be fine to accept it. If it’s an ongoing evildoer, you don’t want to be cleaning up his reputation or have his reputation associated with yours."

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Please, people make anonymous donations to charity, all the time, and not just with bags of cash. They simply request that the charity keep their name out of it, and identity the source as "anonymous".

That's one way for a charity to get a "no strings attached" donation. It's also a way a charity can get donations that don't damage their own reputation if the tainted source of the money might be unacceptable to other donors.

Clearly, Sterling's donations, particularly the one to UCLA, seem to have strings attached, in terms of his wanting a lab named after him, a gold plaque in the lobby, etc. He wants them to glorify his name, and that might not be acceptable to them. He tries to glorify his own name for being charitable, in newspaper ads and on billboards. So this isn't just about his wanting to help support a worthwhile cause.

If I really want to donate to a charity, because I support their work, I'm more than willing to do it "anonymously" and so are many other people.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Re: firefly (Post 5665055)
firefly wrote:
If Sterling really wants UCLA to have his money,
he might consider making future donations anonymously.
In the face of their insolence,
I have a hunch that he might be able to find more preferable
places to put his millions. I remain willing to accept them.

Bill, u failed to indicate the distinction between
who said what; it looks like Firefly said everything within that quote.
U erroneously made her appear to be plagiarizing me.

David

1 Reply

Apparently, a lot of people wanna be FAMOUS.

I LOVE remaining anonymous.
To me, being able to walk down a street without recognition, un-molested, is worth a lot.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Bill, u failed to indicate the distinction between
who said what; it looks like Firefly said everything within that quote.
U erroneously made her appear to be plagiarizing me.

Sorry that you feel that way but given that your posting that I was quoting was right on top of my posting I do not see any great risk of anyone getting confused who was reading the thread.

If your posting had not been right on top of my posting I would had likely taken more care over separating your and Firefly comments.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Well, as a retired engineer (right?) and competent mathematician,
I know that u wanna be accurate n precise in what u say, right ??

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Well, as a retired engineer (right?) and competent mathematician,
I know that u wanna be accurate n precise in what u say, right ??

None of us are getting paid by Robert as far as I know and we are all posting on the fly beside.

I did see after the posting in question that the posting standing alone could be confusing however once more it was right under your posting so I could not see how anyone could be confused who was reading the thread.

In engineering speak there was plenty of information redundancy between my posting and your posting to keep anyone from getting confused even if I was somewhat more sloppy then is ideal in creating the posting in question.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

Well, as a retired engineer (right?) and competent mathematician,
I know that u wanna be accurate n precise in what u say, right ??

BillRM wrote:

None of us are getting paid by Robert as far as I know

We shud be paying HIM for his service.

BillRM wrote:

and we are all posting on the fly beside.

I did see after the posting in question that the posting standing alone could be confusing however
once more it was right under your posting so I could not see how anyone could be confused who was reading the thread.

Each post shud be integrally UNIFIED and self-contained, unless there is explicit reference
to another designated post.

BillRM wrote:

In engineering speak there was plenty of information redundancy

Yea, in lawyering speak there is a lot of that too.
I always did it that way, for emfasis of the articulated concept.

Which kind of engineering did u practice ?

BillRM wrote:

between my posting and your posting to keep anyone from getting confused even if I was somewhat more sloppy
then is ideal in creating the posting in question.

Am I correct that u don t wanna be sloppy?
U 'd rather be clean n clear than sloppy; yes ??????

David

0 Replies

I recently read a piece by a freedom of speech expert. He pointed out that Sterling was tricked into making the statements by his girlfriend, who was illegally taping him. Also, we should consider that he is an old, somewhat deluded, person. Based on this, the adverse actions are improper.

He added that one has to wonder what the black players say while they are, say, having fun at a night club. What if their statements were recorded and used against them. You can just imagine their quibbling over this.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

He added that one has to wonder what the black players say while they are, say, having fun at a night club. What if their statements were recorded and used against them. You can just imagine their quibbling over this.

The owners no doubt are imagining that the conversation tends towards gloating that they rolled an owner, and debating who to go after next.

0 Replies

Quote:

Sources: Donald Sterling refuses NBA sanctions, threatens to sue
May 15, 2014
Michael McCann

SI.com has learned that Clippers owner Donald Sterling has hired prominent antitrust litigator Maxwell Blecher, who has written a letter to NBA executive vice president and general counsel Rick Buchanan threatening to sue the NBA. The letter, sources tell SI.com, claims that Sterling has done nothing wrong and that "no punishment is warranted" for Sterling. Blecher also tells Buchanan that Sterling will not pay the $2.5 million fine, which is already past due. Blecher ends the letter by saying this controversy "will be adjudicated."

Blecher's letter makes clear what many have anticipated: Donald Sterling will not go down without a fight and that he is taking active steps towards litigation. A letter of this type is considered a precursor to the filing of a lawsuit. Blecher's letter offers no ambiguity about Sterling's intentions.

"We reject your demand for payment," the letter tells Buchanan, who on May 14 informed Sterling by letter that he must pay the $2.5 million fine.

Blecher's letter goes on to identify two basic legal defenses for Sterling.

First, Blecher claims that Sterling has not violated any article of the NBA constitution. The letter curiously references Article 35, which governs players' misconduct, and several other provisions. The NBA is expected to argue that Sterling violated Article 13(d) among other provisions. Article 13 (d) bars owners from violating contractual obligations, including the obligation that owners no engage in unethical conduct or take positions adverse to the NBA. Blecher does not explain how he intends to prove Sterling's racist remarks captured on the secret recording -- followed by Sterling's incendiary remarks to Anderson Cooper about Magic Johnson -- do not give rise to unethical conduct or positions adverse to the NBA.

Second, Blecher argues that Sterling's "due process rights" have been violated by the NBA. A due process claim may sound superficially reasonable. After all, Sterling was banned permanently from the NBA after a mere four-day investigation, without any formal proceedings. If the NBA were a federal agency or a state college, Sterling might have a good argument, as those are public entities that must provide safeguards found under the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. The problem for Sterling is that the NBA is a private association and is not required to provide due process rights. Sterling, moreover, contractually assented to the NBA's system of justice through various contracts, including his franchise agreement to purchase the Clippers and the joint venture agreement, which indicates the NBA has binding authority over the teams.

Any lawsuit by Sterling against the NBA would face a daunting task, as Sterling contractually agreed to follow the NBA's system of justice. Sterling's failure to pay the fine is additional evidence of his insubordination of league policies. His failure triggers other contractual provisions that can be used by the NBA under Article 13(d) to justify his ouster.

The letter's claim that Sterling has done nothing wrong seems at odds with Sterling's own words to Anderson Cooper. Sterling was unequivocal in the interview, "I made a terrible, terrible mistake." His lawyer, however, appears to believe otherwise. Keep in mind, the NBA will be able to use Sterling's apparent admission to Cooper as evidence.

The real weapon Sterling could obtain through a lawsuit is pretrial discovery, which is the process of each side sharing evidence and deposing witnesses before a trial. Filing a lawsuit does not automatically lead to pretrial discovery, as a lawsuit can be quickly dismissed by a judge on a number of grounds. If a lawsuit advances past dismissal, however, a judge normally commands that each side cooperate in answering questions under oath.

As explained in a previous SI.com article, Sterling could attempt to use pretrial discovery to portray NBA owners as hypocritical. He'd argue that if he is being expelled over bigoted comments, he'd want to know why other owners haven't suffered the same fate over similar statements. Along those lines, Sterling would likely demand that former commissioner David Stern testify about his knowledge of owner misconduct.

The NBA is well-poised to argue that Sterling's pending ouster is mainly due to the impact of his conduct -- which nearly triggered a player boycott, caused sponsors to drop the Clippers and led to critical words from President Obama -- rather than the conduct itself. Still, Sterling could try to damage the NBA on the way out.

Blecher is no stranger to expensive and lengthy litigation in sports. He was a lead attorney for the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in successful antitrust litigation against the NFL. The litigation concerned the Raiders relocating between Oakland and Los Angeles. Blecher, who is in his mid 80s, is one of small number of attorneys who can say he beat the NFL. He will have an uphill battle to say the same of the NBA.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140515/donald-sterling-nba-la-clippers-adam-silver/#ixzz31qRVWwaP

1 Reply

@firefly,

in other news the wife is ready to file divorce paperwork in order to get the divorce court in on the action if the NBA does not come up with a decent offer pretty damn quick.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

a major problem here is coming up with the money to pay Sterling off, the entire revenue share this season in $140 million, and the entire revenue is a bit above $4 billion....paying Sterlings 200 million capital gains tax liability is going to be a tough nut to crack. Years in court, with depositions about what other owners have said, and with labor talking about striking ever other minute is not a very appealing option either.

No matter how you slice it this rush to judgment is going to cost the NBA a pretty penny. Promising to throw Sterling out of the club was a step too far, one that was so unsound I have trouble believing that competent lawyers were consulted.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

in other news the wife is ready to file divorce paperwork in order to get the divorce court in on the action if the NBA does not come up with a decent offer pretty damn quick.

I don't know what, in that article, leads you to that conclusion.

I think the threat to sue is a last attempt to try to influence the other owners not to vote to force a sale of the Clippers. And I don't think the threat will work.

And, as McCann points out, by refusing to pay the fine, he's giving them even more grounds to oust him.

Quote:

Sterling's failure to pay the fine is additional evidence of his insubordination of league policies. His failure triggers other contractual provisions that can be used by the NBA under Article 13(d) to justify his ouster.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140515/donald-sterling-nba-la-clippers-adam-silver/#ixzz31qapFTVB

Look, if an 80 year old wants to spend his last years on earth involved in litigation, that's not going to change how people feel about him, and likely won't help him hold on to his team in the long run, let him.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

I don't know what, in that article, leads you to that conclusion.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/clippers/2014/05/14/donald-shelly-sterling-divorce-papers-lawsuit-los-angeles/9109631/

Quote:

Look, if an 80 year old wants to spend his last years on earth involved in litigation, that's not going to change how people feel about him, and likely won't help him hold on to his team in the long run, let him.

Come on, you are an old lady right? If he can drag this out till after he dies he saves the estate around $200 million, you can understand the motivation right? Besides, as we age our give a **** what other people think tends to go, Sterlings has clearly gone.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

paying Sterlings 200 million capital gains tax liability is going to be a tough nut to crack...

Why would the NBA have to pay Sterling's capital gains tax liability? He's the one pocketing the profits of the appreciation in value, it's his tax liability.

Maybe, Sterling should forget about suing the NBA, and, instead, let his lawyers work to find a tax loop-hole regarding capital gains when he's forced to sell the team. He might be able to find one with a forced sale, according to this writer..
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deanzerbe/2014/04/30/how-clippers-sterling-could-maybe-avoid-a-tax-bill-today/

And Shelly Sterling told Barbara Walters she's been flirting with signing those divorce papers for the last 20 years--and that her lawyer has told her it's not to her financial advantage to do that now. But, if she wants to file for divorce now, let her. Who cares?

Shelly will make noise--but I don't think she'll influence the NBA--they won't let her have the team either.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Sticking to the guys who threw him out of the club without being willing to listen to his side of the story, after he approved of bringing every single one of them into the club, is so much more rewarding I should think.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Sticking to the guys who threw him out of the club without being willing to listen to his side of the story...

He told Anderson Cooper his side of the story. Unfortunately, he dug an even deeper hole for himself when he did that.

If he'd rather end his days "Sticking [it] to the guys who threw him out of the club," and likely causing continuing family distress for his children and grandchildren in the process, by keeping all the unpleasantness about himself in the news with a long legal battle, I find that a rather sad way to make one's swansong in life. But, it's his choice, and I really don't care what he does. Watching him now is like watching a train wreck--he may have loads of dough, but he's a pathetic, and unsympathetic, human being in my mind.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
Sticking to the guys who threw him out of the club without being willing to listen to his side of the story...

He told Anderson Cooper his side of the story. Unfortunately, he dug an even deeper hole for himself when he did that.

If he'd rather end his days "Sticking [it] to the guys who threw him out of the club," and likely causing continuing family distress for his children and grandchildren in the process,

Have thay been so LOYAL and supportive of their father or grandfather
as to justify his concern for their well-being????????

Did u quote his daughter denouncing him or repudiating him,
in this thread???? Did thay EARN his loyalty, Firefly????

David

1 Reply

Quote:

Experts: NBA likely to win in Sterling legal fight
May 15, 2014

A cadre of attorneys and a flurry of lawsuits could certainly slow down the NBA's plan to force Donald Sterling to sell the Los Angeles Clippers over his recent racist comments, but legal experts say theleague would likely prevail in the end.

And that goes for Sterling's wife, Shelly, who has said she'd like to keep her stake in the team even if her husband is ousted.

The NBA's constitution, which Donald Sterling signed as controlling owner of the Clippers, gives its board of governors broad latitude in league decisions including who owns the teams. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is pushing for a swift vote against Sterling, which requires a minimum of three-fourths of the other 29 controlling owners to agree.

Silver also has imposed a lifetime ban on Sterling and a $2.5 million fine. The ban does not apply to Shelly Sterling.

SI.com and ESPN.com, citing unidentified sources, reported Thursday that Sterling's lawyer, antitrust litigator Maxwell Blecher, wrote a letter to Rick Buchanan, the NBA's executive vice president and general counsel, threatening to sue the league and saying Sterling will not pay the $2.5 million fine.

"Sterling's own signature will come back to haunt him," said Michael McCann, founding director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire. "You agree to certain basic understandings. That's what makes a sports league different from other businesses."

The key to the NBA's authority, attorneys say, is Article 13(d) of the league's constitution. That section says that, whether Sterling intended to or not, an owner cannot "fail or refuse to fulfill" contractual obligations to the NBA "in such a way to affect the Association or its members adversely."

There's plenty of evidence Sterling's comments, revealed in a recorded conversation with a female companion, affected the league adversely. They provoked threats of a player boycott, led sponsors to withdraw support and created a racially charged image problem in the midst of the NBA playoffs that even President Barack Obama remarked upon.

If Article 13(d) was violated, the legal experts say the board of governors has solid grounds to force Sterling to sell the team along with any other owners, in this case his wife.

As long as the NBA meticulously follows its own constitution and rules regarding the Clippers sale, it will be difficult for Sterling to find a legal theory that would stand up in court, said Daniel Lazaroff, director of the Sports Law Institute at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

"This is not an antitrust issue. This is not a First Amendment issue," Lazaroff said. "It's a question limited to the interpretation of the NBA constitution and bylaws, and whether those terms are met."

Another question involves California family law. It's a community property state, meaning spouses jointly own property they acquired while married. The Sterlings were already married when he bought the Clippers in 1981.

Although a potential divorce could complicate the Clippers' sale, McCann said the couple's joint ownership actually works to the NBA's favor because — legally speaking — they are a single entity. So if the NBA forced Donald Sterling to sell, even under a divorce scenario, Shelly Sterling would have to sell, too. They have been married since 1955.

"The NBA is well positioned to ultimately prevail," McCann said.

For his part, Donald Sterling has repeatedly said he does not want to sell the Clippers.

In his recent interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, he cast doubt on going to court if the NBA governors ultimately do vote to force him out.

"People want me to hire a wall of lawyers and them to have to hire a wall of lawyers and go to war," Sterling said on CNN. "I don't think that's the answer."

Sterling's longtime attorney, Robert Platt, declined to comment when contacted Wednesday.

Shelly Sterling's attorney, Pierce O'Donnell, did not respond to email requests for comment from The Associated Press. But he has previously said she wants to remain a passive owner of the Clippers even if her husband is no longer involved.

For now, the NBA has installed former Time Warner and Citigroup chairman Dick Parsons to oversee the team's business operations. Parsons said this week that a prolonged legal battle "is in no one's interest."

"I would hope we could avoid that," he said.

If he is forced out, Sterling still stands to reap a huge financial windfall in a Clippers sale. He bought the team for $12.5 million in 1981, and Forbes magazine recently placed its 2014 value at $575 million, or No. 13 in the NBA. Of course, there would also be a sizable capital gains tax bill for that.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/05/15/experts-nba-likely-to-win-in-sterling-legal-fight/9131361/

1 Reply

Donald Sterling

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know