Add new comment

Here's the scouting report on Donald Sterling from Wikipedia:  
 
80 years old son of Jewish Immigrants.  Changed his name as an adult from "Tokowitz" to "Sterling".  Married to Shelly Stein since 1955.  Has three kids, one of whom is deceased in 2013 from a drug overdose or diabetes, depending on who you ask.  Work: Didn't go to an elite law school, and worked at his own divorce and personal injury practice (He can't be all bad) until he became somewhat rich, then he bought an apartment complex and became a multi millionaire.  Bought the Clippers in 1980 or thereabouts, for $12.5 million.  
Previously sued twice for Equal Protection clause violations, both times for alleged discrimination against minorities once by the federal government, and once by a former employee.  Settled the federal government suit for $2.7 million plus $4.9 million in attorney's fees.
Famous for various unsportsmanlike behaviors, including booing his own players, hoping to lose to get better draft picks, being prejudiced against black people and fielding a poor team every year.  He once sued one of his concubines to rescind a house that he had given her.
So what are we to make of this guy?
1.  Be thankful that you aren't filthy rich.  The people that are filthy rich rarely come out very well. 2. Sterling is absolutely shameless.  He has the chutzpah to publicly sue to rescind a deal with an alleged whore after she had allegedly serviced him.  That was his allegation.  That he paid a prostitute and wanted the court to give him her fees back.  No word on whether she counter-sued for being defrauded into sleeping with a nasty old codger.  Only chimpanzees show an equal level of oblivion to public displays of such gross behavior.  3.  Sterling is too old to be alive, nevermind have a business and a scandal involving a twenty something mistress.  4.  Sterling entered the public eye 30 years ago, and is more or less the same guy who you hear on the tape.  This new stuff is par for the course of Sterling's life.
Update: Per Forbes, Sterling has been banned for life by the NBA.
 
Off topic: On Doc's question about precedents:
All legal briefs look to precedent.  Precedent is when a lawyer wants a court to reach a decision and cites what has happened before.  There are two types of precedent:  Controlling authority and persuasive authority.  Controlling authority is law that the court has to follow.  It is always passed down from a legislature or a higher court.  Persuasive authority is authority that persuades a court that a prededent should be followed.   I enjoy working in Alaska, which is a young state, where many legal issues have not been decided yet by the Alaska legislature or its high courts.  In those situations, persuasive authority is relied on.  
Usually, persuasive authority comes in the form of the opinions of other courts that have decided a similar issue.  Occasionally, books written by law professors, called treatises, are considered good persuasive authority.  It is generally very labor intensive to make a motion based on persuasive authority, as the laws of many different states have to be browsed and disseminated.
The Supreme Court of the United States has no controlling authority except acts of Congress that it finds to be Constitutional.  From what I understand of Supreme Court practice, a lawyer with a Supreme Court appeal researches the entire history of similar cases that each Justice has decided in the past, and does his or her best to win the vote of five or more Justices by appealing to the personal legal theories of each one.
If you want to sample some fine Supreme Court appeal arguments to see how persuasive authority is done, I recommend listening to the Jehovah Witness church.  Those guys know how to put on a case, and to my knowledge, have never lost any decision in the U.S. Supreme Court.
My fave is Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York vs. Village of Stratton.  Background.  Jehovah Witnesses try to prosletyze an Amish town and have to register with the local Mayor's office to get a solicitation permit.  The issue is whether a town can ban solicitors from knocking door to door. Audio here.  Listen as Mr. Palidoro (Watchtower lawyer) is beat on and interrupted by a full Court press, and pretends to never actually disagree with any of the Justices.  Plaintiff wins 8-1 and the dissent is Chief Justice Rhenquist who accuses the rest of the Court of ignoring precedent. Opinion here.  Head scratcher.   Since when can religious groups' be banned from door to door canvassing?  It probably isn't good form to argue with Justice Rhenquist too much, as he isn't alive to defend himself.