It doesn't matter if they "voted" LOL
The entire article by Professor McCann is talking about the litigation regarding the forced sale. "Donald Sterling will not go down without a fight and that he is taking active steps toward litigation."
You are no trying to deny Sterling is going to sue after any vote because you abjectly refuse to admit you are wrong.
You can't do it.
I don't think he will sue after the vote. Your own buddy McCann says...
Other lawyers who agree with me... that he doesn't have anything to sue the NBA for if the Owners vote him out.
Like I said, this whole ordeal over whether Silver has the authority to levy the fine on Sterling I have no clue about. But the Constitution is pretty clear on what the NBA owners have the power to do. It's over. I bet you he will not sue, and most likely they'll agree to something, maybe helping him out with capital gains taxes, or some other agreement.
Like I said the whole time once the Constitution was rolled out. It makes it pretty much impossible for Sterling to sue. It even says that the owners decision is final, binding, and Sterling waives his right to sue over the decision. He signed this and the other 29 owners signed it.
He'd have to figure out some way to invalidate the Constitution as a whole, he can't fight in courts whether his actions violated the Constitution or not as the Constitution determines the owners are the judges of that.
That's why this argument about whether Silver can fine Sterling $2.5 million on his own is much different than what the owners can do.
Sterling has no chance. It's a done deal.
He'd have to figure out some way to invalidate the Constitution as a whole, he can't fight in courts whether his actions violated the Constitution or not as the Constitution determines the owners are the judges of that.
That's why this argument about whether Silver can fine Sterling $2.5 million on his own is much different than what the owners can do.
Sterling has no chance. It's a done deal.
He has a right to appeal to the Board of Governors and waives his right to arbitration.
and Sterling waives his right to sue over the decision.
He would have to convince the court that the document he agreed to was in violation of the law. Which will be impossible. The Constitution lays out how the process works. He can't go to a judge and say he didn't violate the Constitution and circumvent the other 29 owners. The Constitution even specifies that the owners do not need proof of evidence to make their decision. He signed it, case closed.
If a court rules that any part of the NBA constitution violates any state or federal law then that part is nullified regardless of who signed what. This is nowhere near over and I predict that the NBA will settle (with big sanctions on Sterling ) rather than risk a legal precedent which destroys it's power. 5teamer, bump this thread in five years.
Theoretically yes. I'm sure that would cause major red flags and they would change the Constitution to include an arbitrator and it would look horrible for the NBA. But this is an Association. They make their own rules. No one is forced to buy an NBA team. This is not protected by regular business laws, except for cases of antitrust.
Exactly, he would have to prove that the Constitution violates a law, not that his actions didn't violate a state or federal law. Huge difference. And since he signed the friggin document, it will be hard for him to convince any court that the Constitution is in violation of federal or state law.
This isn't a normal business. And there is an appeals process. He will have 5 days to create an argument defending himself to the Board of Governors. And their decision is final, binding, and he waives the right to sue over the decision. That's a contract he signed. There is no appeal process to that. I mean anyone can create any lawsuit they want. So he might sue over something ridiculous. But he doesn't have a case. And that's not my opinion. I have yet to hear any legit lawyer say that he has a chance in court because of how direct the Constitution is that he signed.
Please tell us your theories, lol. Since it's clear you are an attorney, an econ expert, and science expert, a polling expert, a socioeconomic expert, etc, etc. We'd all love to know what the master of knowledge thinks... lmao!! Racist Willie making a fool of himself again.
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."
