One question.
Sterling owned the Clippers. They're being sold. Does he get the 2 billion?
That's all I really care about knowing. The rest of it's just about as stupid as the Dr. Laura radio talk show N-bomb incident.
Printable View
One question.
Sterling owned the Clippers. They're being sold. Does he get the 2 billion?
That's all I really care about knowing. The rest of it's just about as stupid as the Dr. Laura radio talk show N-bomb incident.
Oh, you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The problem with your argument is that they did prove them. The question you should always ask when anyone uses the word "proof" is "to what standard?", and in this case it was to the satisfaction of the judge.Quote:
No one has to show damages or prove possible future damages? Just a bunch of "Well he said..."
Man. I hope the entire country quickly follows California's lead. Going to make lawsuits much more interesting.
The whole reason Mrs. Sterling was able to remove Mr. Sterling from the decision making process was because he didn't technically own the Clippers, but a family trust did, and more specifically a family trust that included rules for removing a trustee that she dutifully followed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackWhisper
He is no longer a trustee, but as a 50% beneficiary of the trust he still gets $1b, or whatever 50% works out to less fees and whatnot.
Uh-huh. With a bunch of "he said he was going to do something bad if Sterling wasn't removed..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
That's about the poorest excuse of "proof" I've ever seen. The probate courts in California must be a huge joke.
"Well we have received numerous threats that people are going to start setting houses on fire unless you decide in my favor, your honor, therefore you have to decide in my favor to prevent injuries and damage to people and property."
Isn't it more likely that bit of California probate law was pertaining to damage to people/property that would arise based on the decisions of the person the probate court is addressing? Like if Donald Sterling had repeatedly said he was going to fire everyone and change the team name to an offensive slur if he remained in control?
Exactly, hence why I said this decision had little to nothing to do with justice. Thanks for backing me up, Latrin :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Yeah.. because Dems NEVER do anything to help big corporations or protect people's Money...
Solyndra and GM just off the top of my head.
You're intentionally misunderstanding the issue, but for the record the "prevent loss to property" is relevant to dismissing appeal's delay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Judges dispense justice all the time. Heck, we even call them justices!Quote:
Exactly, hence why I said this decision had little to nothing to do with justice. Thanks for backing me up, Latrin :D
Who said anything about Democrats?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
No...pretty sure I'm not...Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
What do we call them when they don't rule in the name of justice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I say screw the NBA. Guy gets a billion dollars. Dude. WTF EPIC.
Yeah, it is kind of ironic that everyone thinks they are punishing him by forcing him to sell the team when in reality he stands to make something like 1.9 billion dollars in profit by being forced to sell the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackWhisper
Then after the sale people will scream about how it's unfair that he's richer now and that the NBA (or the government) must do something about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
"We wanted him to be forced to sell his team BUT WE DIDN'T REALIZE HE'D BE GETTING THE MONEY FOR IT TOO WTF OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG THIS PROVES THAT RACISM IS REWARDED IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111"
Obama! Obama! Obama!Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais