Another lawyer who believes the Constitution of the NBA is straight forward and Sterling will most likely be out in 20 days once it's started as he has waved his right to take the decision to court. Sterling is done, his only hope is that he can convince the owners that forcing him out is a bad idea. Good luck with that!
The way I take it is the owners are the judges here and regardless of the case brought upon Sterling, he has 5 days to get his argument together and present to the owners. Their vote is final and binding. And worse for Sterling the owners do not need proof of evidence. They can use his entire history, hearsay, etc.
This fool is donezo, the wording is specific in nature in having to get an owner out as fast as possible. Like I said from the beginning, he is not going to be owner by next season and this will be a very easy process for the NBA. In fact it's so easy that they even say in the Constitution that their decision is final and binding and he has no ability to sue over the decision.
The only legal action he can take is a antitrust claim but he has no antitrust claim. MJ style slam dunk here.
This fool is donezo, the wording is specific in nature in having to get an owner out as fast as possible. Like I said from the beginning, he is not going to be owner by next season and this will be a very easy process for the NBA. In fact it's so easy that they even say in the Constitution that their decision is final and binding and he has no ability to sue over the decision.
The only legal action he can take is a antitrust claim but he has no antitrust claim. MJ style slam dunk here.
Listen to the 2nd video I posted. This is not a legal case like you are thinking. He has to prove to the Board of Governors (aka the owners) that he didn't violate their Constitution. Not to a court, not to our legal system, but to the owners. So if the owners do believe he violated their Constitution, and they vote on it, that decision is final, binding, and he waives any right to sue over their decision. And the owners do not need proof of evidence to make that decision.
So that means there is no judge that will say "oh this audio was illegally obtained" therefore we are throwing it out. The owners don't need to care about whether it was private, public, legal or illegal. And Sterling's only chance is to prove to them that this might happen to them and they shouldn't vote him out. And he has 5 days to do that once the charges are presented.
If you think these owners just vote and Sterling has no legal recourse, I just don't know what else to tell you.
Everything in America can go to court. This situation especially.
Ya know AK, despite you calling us nut jobs and retards and resorting to name calling throughout this entire thread, it's really just occurred to me you just don't have much experience with the law. That's really it in a nutshell. It's not a bad thing, just hard to discuss with someone without the knowledge.
Lmao, both those lawyers in the video I presented disagree with you. Like I said from the beginning, this isn't the same battle that private sector businesses have with the government or other lawsuits. This is the NBA, and the NBA has the ability to kick someone out that is hurting their league. I have provided numerous sources that have proved you wrong including case law where judges respect the agreements between owners.
I'm beginning to think you are just dumb. Trust me on this, you should listen to me instead of make comments. I'm usually right on real world issues.
