Donald Sterling's rationale for now saying he’ll fight to keep the Clippers

Embattled Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has delivered a scathing, 32-page response to the NBA’s attempts to take away his team, calling the league’s procedure a ‘sham.’

Danny Moloshok/AP/File
Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling watches the Clippers play in 2011. Sterling responded to the NBA's attempt to oust him on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, arguing that there is no basis for stripping him of his team because his racist statements were illegally recorded 'during an inflamed lovers' quarrel in which he was clearly distraught.'

Last week, after agreeing to allow his wife to broker a sale of their NBA franchise, Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling appeared to be bringing an end to the sordid saga of racist rants and the forced divestiture of a billion-dollar-plus property.

But on Tuesday, the NBA’s longest-tenured owner reversed course, delivering a scathing, 32-page response to the NBA’s attempts to take away his team. He called the league’s procedure a “sham” that relies solely upon information borne from the “fruit of the poisonous tree” – the common legal doctrine that excludes any evidence obtained in violation of any law.

Indeed, the response outlined the legal nitty-gritty of a case that now promises to drag on for months if not longer. Mr. Sterling's attorney, Maxwell Blecher, a noted antitrust litigator, told ESPN on Tuesday that his client “is going to fight to the bloody end” to keep his team.

Last week, the league issued formal charges against Sterling, setting a June 3 hearing to determine whether he violated the NBA’s constitution and bylaws with a racist rant that was secretly recorded by his alleged mistress, V. Stiviano, and became public in April. The league’s 29 other owners are set to strip Sterling of his 33-year ownership of the Clippers, if a three-fourths majority votes for his ouster.

According to reports, his wife, Shelly Sterling, had been secretly meeting with NBA commissioner Adam Silver last week to “resolve the dispute amicably,” according to TMZ, which broke the story in April and the news last week. On Wednesday, the celebrity gossip website said it had obtained a copy of a letter, signed by Mr. Sterling, that authorized “Rochelle Sterling to negotiate with the National Basketball Association regarding all issues in connection with a sale of the Los Angeles Clippers team.”

“I don’t know what agreement she has with him, but I’m saying to you today, he disavows anything she’s doing to sell the team,” Mr. Blecher said on Tuesday. “He says, ‘It’s my team, and I’ll sell it when and if I get around to it.’ ”

At the beginning of his written response, Sterling told the NBA that he has already received “offers in excess of $2.5 billion for the purchase of the team.”

The defiance aside, Sterling’s detailed response to the NBA’s charges is a “very strong legal defense,” some analysts say, rooted in NBA precedent and plausible legal reasoning.

Sterling said that the NBA’s charges “did not have the courage, decency, or honesty” to put his racist rant in the context of a heated “lover’s quarrel.” "This was an argument by a jealous man and the woman he loved that never should have left the privacy of the living room," states the letter, which was signed by Sterling himself and not his attorney.

While his words were offensive and wrong, the letter suggests, Ms. Stiviano’s recording was an illegal violation of his privacy. In any case, they hardly merit “the equivalent of a death penalty” as punishment, the letter states.

“We do not believe a court in the United States of America will enforce the draconian penalties imposed on Mr. Sterling in these circumstances,” Sterling wrote, “and indeed, we believe that preservation of Mr. Sterling’s constitutional rights requires that these sham proceedings be terminated in Mr. Sterling’s favor.”

Sterling also listed similar offensive statements and past actions by other members of the NBA – none of which drew anything close to the “draconian” punishments levied on the Clippers owner.

The letter alluded to Kobe Bryant’s homophobic slur directed against a referee in 2011, for which the NBA fined the Los Angeles Lakers superstar $100,000. Sterling also called out Orlando Magic owner Richard DeVos, who has donated $500,000 to organizations against gay marriage and who has said those with HIV are responsible for their actions, prompting cries for a boycott by LGBT groups. The letter lists a number of other incidents.

“While Mr. Sterling’s opinions may be unpopular and false, they remain opinions,” the letter states, asking, too, if the NBA is "willing to set a standard that an individual can be punished for voicing a negative opinion.” It continues, “If so, such a standard will make short shrift of many players and coaches. It will also needlessly suppress free speech.”

Legal experts point out that while California law makes it illegal to record a conversation without the consent of both parties, the NBA is based in New York, which allows such recordings. And according to the NBA constitution, its hearings do not abide by the same rules of evidence required in courtrooms.

Sterling’s wife also filed a response to the league on Tuesday, reasserting her 50 percent stake in the team and saying she is being unfairly punished for her husband's actions.

“This evening, the NBA received responses from Donald and Shelly Sterling to the charge to terminate the current ownership interests in the Los Angeles Clippers,” Michael Bass, an NBA executive vice president, said in a news release Tuesday night. “The NBA Board of Governors will meet on June 3 at 1 p.m. in New York City to hear and vote upon this matter. Should the Board vote to sustain the charge, the Sterlings’ interests in the Clippers will be terminated and the team will be sold.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.