Are We Missing the Point About the Sterling Affair?

[wavingrl]

Time to get this straightened out.

The consensus online seems to be that consent for the recording of the conversations was given. One theory--Sterling required his calls to be recorded---attorney. Another--M. Stiviano was his archivist and I suppose there are more.

It might make a difference in a legal action--but the horse is out of the barn--so to speak.

'She got him'---how she benefitted from this---I suppose time will tell. What a prize she is.


I judge her more harshly. He seems to be 'impaired' in some way---just a jerk of the highest order perhaps. Has been that way for a lifetime I would think.

 

[Chuckt]

Time to get this straightened out.

The consensus online seems to be that consent for the recording of the conversations was given. One theory--Sterling required his calls to be recorded---attorney. Another--M. Stiviano was his archivist and I suppose there are more.

It might make a difference in a legal action--but the horse is out of the barn--so to speak.

'She got him'---how she benefitted from this---I suppose time will tell. What a prize she is.


I judge her more harshly. He seems to be 'impaired' in some way---just a jerk of the highest order perhaps. Has been that way for a lifetime I would think.

That would make it theft which is still breaking the law.

 

[wavingrl]

Time to get this straightened out.

The consensus online seems to be that consent for the recording of the conversations was given. One theory--Sterling required his calls to be recorded---attorney. Another--M. Stiviano was his archivist and I suppose there are more.

It might make a difference in a legal action--but the horse is out of the barn--so to speak.

'She got him'---how she benefitted from this---I suppose time will tell. What a prize she is.


I judge her more harshly. He seems to be 'impaired' in some way---just a jerk of the highest order perhaps. Has been that way for a lifetime I would think.

That would make it theft which is still breaking the law.

If she is his archivist--it would be theft?

The only thing comparable I can think of is the Mel Gibson scandal---which was a domestic issue--mother of child wanted leverage for more support or whatever. I guess this 'lady' wanted some sort of financial compensation, too. Relative silence on whatever may be transpiring legally. 'The airing of dirty laundry in public'--just never a good thing.

 

[Chuckt]

Time to get this straightened out.

The consensus online seems to be that consent for the recording of the conversations was given. One theory--Sterling required his calls to be recorded---attorney. Another--M. Stiviano was his archivist and I suppose there are more.

It might make a difference in a legal action--but the horse is out of the barn--so to speak.

'She got him'---how she benefitted from this---I suppose time will tell. What a prize she is.


I judge her more harshly. He seems to be 'impaired' in some way---just a jerk of the highest order perhaps. Has been that way for a lifetime I would think.

Would TMZ pay $2 million for being on the front page and being able to resell the information to news outlets? If they did, it worked.

 

[Sarah G]

Okay, so he was a jerk! He showed his true hypocrisy. After donating millions to black charities, it appears he was/is a racist.

Should that surprise anyone? Of course not! He's a Democrat for pete's sake!

But, here a real clinker in the whole affair. His girlfriend, who's being sued by Sterling's ex-wife, ILLEGALLY recorded a private conversation between she and her lover.

Have we come to the point that private conversations can be taped and released in the public domain in order to ruin the livelihood –pursuit of happiness — of private citizens? Ms. Stiviano, or whomever, knew exactly what they wanted the end result to be as they released this tape to TMZ.

Read more at Folks, you're missing the point about Donald Sterling | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

And yeah – I can already see the screams from the left because of the author of this post. Another case of attack the messenger in order to obfuscate the message.

No, you're missing the point as usual.

 

[Asclepias]

I see a lot of deflections starting with the OP. The point is that Sterling put the NBA in a bad light by getting busted being a racist. Since in the contract he signed there is a provision not to do that they can force a sale of his team no matter how much you whine. Thats pretty much it.

Good luck doing anything to the bimbo. Under CA law the most they can fine her is 2.5K which some people I know are prepared to pay for her. She may also face jail time but any attorney can get her off with no time or very little. If Sterling tries to sue her it will have to be for any money he loses in the deal to sale his team. Again good luck collecting that from her.

 

[Asclepias]

the illegality of her acts is, unfortunate or not, irrelevant to the fact that the statement was released. if she committed a criminal act under California law, that should be dealt with by the authorities.

I disagree because I don't want police breaking the law in order to get people.
The reason we have rights is because people have to follow the rule of law.
This also goes against the liberal idea that you can do what you want in your own house and if it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't matter.
Who are the hypocrites here?

You are the hypocrite. This is not a legal issue. This is a private company dealing with one of the owners of the franchises. The police cannot illegally record a conversation and use it in court unless your attorney drinks at the bar instead of passing it.

 

[wavingrl]

Time to get this straightened out.

The consensus online seems to be that consent for the recording of the conversations was given. One theory--Sterling required his calls to be recorded---attorney. Another--M. Stiviano was his archivist and I suppose there are more.

It might make a difference in a legal action--but the horse is out of the barn--so to speak.

'She got him'---how she benefitted from this---I suppose time will tell. What a prize she is.


I judge her more harshly. He seems to be 'impaired' in some way---just a jerk of the highest order perhaps. Has been that way for a lifetime I would think.

Would TMZ pay $2 million for being on the front page and being able to resell the information to news outlets? If they did, it worked.

I would think this woman would need more than 2 million. Multi millions--but maybe she has other irons in the fire. Some pictures were shown on CNN today--VS posing seductively on expensive cars--some enticing pose for another publication. She is 28--needs to plan for her future.

I don't know what they call people like this in LA --but 'trash' would be appropriate here in the SE.

Now I am wondering how are things going with Mel Gibson and his SO? Seems like it took months---finally had a meeting with attorneys---she was not allowed to release more tapes or something---details were not made public--some amount of money was agreed upon mutually.

 

[Barb]

The fact that the conversation was illegally recorded is not the "point", at all.

It's a footnote.

And IS it illegal? In NY, only one party to a conversation has to be aware of the recording...what of other states?

 

[Asclepias]

The fact that the conversation was illegally recorded is not the "point", at all.

It's a footnote.

And IS it illegal? In NY, only one party to a conversation has to be aware of the recording...what of other states?

In CA it is illegal.

 

[Barb]

Time to get this straightened out.

The consensus online seems to be that consent for the recording of the conversations was given. One theory--Sterling required his calls to be recorded---attorney. Another--M. Stiviano was his archivist and I suppose there are more.

It might make a difference in a legal action--but the horse is out of the barn--so to speak.

'She got him'---how she benefitted from this---I suppose time will tell. What a prize she is.


I judge her more harshly. He seems to be 'impaired' in some way---just a jerk of the highest order perhaps. Has been that way for a lifetime I would think.

That would make it theft which is still breaking the law.

So, he (with his wife!) is suing to get back 1.8 million he "gave" her. Is it NOT prostitution when it hits #s that big? The whoremonger gets a pass over the whore when the $$s are so large?

What does that tell our kids?

Like ANY criminal activity, they should remember to go "big" or stay home?

 

[Sarah G]

I see a lot of deflections starting with the OP. The point is that Sterling put the NBA in a bad light by getting busted being a racist. Since in the contract he signed there is a provision not to do that they can force a sale of his team no matter how much you whine. Thats pretty much it.

Good luck doing anything to the bimbo. Under CA law the most they can fine her is 2.5K which some people I know are prepared to pay for her. She may also face jail time but any attorney can get her off with no time or very little. If Sterling tries to sue her it will have to be for any money he loses in the deal to sale his team. Again good luck collecting that from her.

He's an embarrassment to his entire community.

 

[Spoonman]

so the guy had issues and they were exposed. we are all greatful to the mistress, the whistle blower.

i guess its time we all give snowden a pat on the back for his whistle blowing and the issues he exposed.

 

[Barb]

so the guy had issues and they were exposed. we are all greatful to the mistress, the whistle blower.

i guess its time we all give snowden a pat on the back for his whistle blowing and the issues he exposed.

I always thought so

 

[Roudy]

the illegality of her acts is, unfortunate or not, irrelevant to the fact that the statement was released. if she committed a criminal act under California law, that should be dealt with by the authorities.

I disagree because I don't want police breaking the law in order to get people.
The reason we have rights is because people have to follow the rule of law.
This also goes against the liberal idea that you can do what you want in your own house and if it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't matter.
Who are the hypocrites here?

Funny part is Sterling is a big time Democrat liberal who has donated tons of $$ to Democrat causes. I guess if you want to be a successful business entrepreneur in LA, there is only one party you can be for.

 

[Barb]

the illegality of her acts is, unfortunate or not, irrelevant to the fact that the statement was released. if she committed a criminal act under California law, that should be dealt with by the authorities.

I disagree because I don't want police breaking the law in order to get people.
The reason we have rights is because people have to follow the rule of law.
This also goes against the liberal idea that you can do what you want in your own house and if it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't matter.
Who are the hypocrites here?

Funny part is Sterling is a big time Democrat liberal who has donated tons of $$ to Democrat causes. I guess if you want to be a successful business entrepreneur in LA, there is only one party you can be for.

 

[Political Junky]

the illegality of her acts is, unfortunate or not, irrelevant to the fact that the statement was released. if she committed a criminal act under California law, that should be dealt with by the authorities.

I disagree because I don't want police breaking the law in order to get people.
The reason we have rights is because people have to follow the rule of law.
This also goes against the liberal idea that you can do what you want in your own house and if it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't matter.
Who are the hypocrites here?

Funny part is Sterling is a big time Democrat liberal who has donated tons of $$ to Democrat causes. I guess if you want to be a successful business entrepreneur in LA, there is only one party you can be for.

Donald Sterling is a Republican, not a Democrat -- but does it matter?

The Donald Sterling controversy had much of the right wing vibrating this weekend with the revelation that the purported arch-racist Sterling was (gasp!) a Democrat. This shed little light on the Sterling affair, other than to underscore the ancient truism that some public scandals are so explosive that for at least a period of time one can write or say anything one wishes about them without fear of contradiction.
Cue, for example, the National Review, whose headline read: "Racist Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Has Only Contributed to Democrats."

http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...rling-20140428,0,6977964.column#ixzz30odbluic
Donald Sterling is a Republican, not a Democrat -- but does it matter? - latimes.com

 

[Politico]

Okay, so he was a jerk! He showed his true hypocrisy. After donating millions to black charities, it appears he was/is a racist.

Should that surprise anyone? Of course not! He's a Democrat for pete's sake!

But, here a real clinker in the whole affair. His girlfriend, who's being sued by Sterling's ex-wife, ILLEGALLY recorded a private conversation between she and her lover.



Read more at Folks, you're missing the point about Donald Sterling | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

And yeah – I can already see the screams from the left because of the author of this post. Another case of attack the messenger in order to obfuscate the message.

the illegality of her acts is, unfortunate or not, irrelevant to the fact that the statement was released. if she committed a criminal act under California law, that should be dealt with by the authorities.

I think that Donald Sterling deserves more than he got. After all what is his punishment? Forcing him to sell a team worth 600 million that he bought for 12 back in the 80's? Not going to NBA games any longer? Some punishment.

The asshole is probably laughing his butt off now. We all know when you're as wealthy as he is, people will flock to you like fleas, they don't care. It's the way of the world.

Regardless, we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. There will be other people that say stupid racist things in the privacy of their home to people they trust. Do we punish them too? Their home their four walls.

What I'm saying is, do we want an atmosphere where you have to constantly look over your shoulder in case somebody you trust is recording you? I don't.

I hope he does laugh his ass to the bank. He didn't break any laws.

 

[Esmeralda]

Okay, so he was a jerk! He showed his true hypocrisy. After donating millions to black charities, it appears he was/is a racist.

Should that surprise anyone? Of course not! He's a Democrat for pete's sake!

But, here a real clinker in the whole affair. His girlfriend, who's being sued by Sterling's ex-wife, ILLEGALLY recorded a private conversation between she and her lover.



Read more at Folks, you're missing the point about Donald Sterling | Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

And yeah – I can already see the screams from the left because of the author of this post. Another case of attack the messenger in order to obfuscate the message.

the illegality of her acts is, unfortunate or not, irrelevant to the fact that the statement was released. if she committed a criminal act under California law, that should be dealt with by the authorities.

She broke the law, that is on the books.

Show me the law he broke by speaking foolishly.

For the first time in his entire life Obama was right and said that in America ignorant morons are allowed to be ignorant morons.

The shamelessly quick and sickeningly politically correct knee jerk reaction of the NBA commissioner makes one wonder about the correlation and proportionality between crime and punishment.

Better not jay walk, better return your library books on time.

And better not think that you are free to express an opinion and better not think that you have the freedom to like or not like anyone you want.

And better not criticize a black person voicing disgusting opinions about whites, examples of which are far more frequent than the Sterling episode.

Better not think of your employees as 2nd class human beings, your property, like a slave master and his slaves. Donating to charities is one thing; thinking of and treating your employees as something beneath you because their skin is a different color is another.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Better not think of your employees as 2nd class human beings, your property, like a slave master and his slaves. Donating to charities is one thing; thinking of and treating your employees as something beneath you because their skin is a different color is another.

I wouldn't mind be treated as someone who is beneath my employer if he pays me several million dollars annually to play basketball.
I'm sure many of these players were aware that this guy was an old school white racist but weren't about to say anything because of the gravy train. Their disgust is more than a little hypocritical.