Full Disclosure...my RIGHT!!!

by MasonGuy Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:37 pm

Cosmo_Kramer wrote:

That is what bugs me about this all, and more of society in general. Nothing is sacred anymore, and secrets are no more. People can record shit at any time. Doesn't make it right but it doesn't help.

I think this goes to show you that the private sector can get stuff done better than the public sector. I haven't heard a thing from the NSA but this little girlfriend manages to record this guy. I say we need additional funding for more and better surveillance. More cameras too. Because if I have to make life decisions, I want to know who I am dealing with. It's only fair.

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:58 am

Fallenangle wrote:

Are you implying an American citizen should be forced to relinquish his private property due to a conversation he had with his mistress?

What does this have to do with him being an American citizen? It's about NBA rules. Rules he agreed to when he became an owner. Get it right.

by **Rocinante** Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:04 am

Cosmo_Kramer wrote:

That is what bugs me about this all, and more of society in general. Nothing is sacred anymore, and secrets are no more. People can record shit at any time. Doesn't make it right but it doesn't help.

How about "don't be a racist douche" as a general rule, then there's nothing to worry about.

by Cosmo_Kramer Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:36 am

Rocinante wrote:

How about "don't be a racist douche" as a general rule, then there's nothing to worry about.

It's not just racism. Ever hear of Watergate?

by **Rocinante** Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:46 am

Cosmo_Kramer wrote:

It's not just racism. Ever hear of Watergate?

No.

Please draw the connection. This should be funny.

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:04 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

What does this have to do with him being an American citizen? It's about NBA rules. Rules he agreed to when he became an owner. Get it right.

What rule did he specifically violate and how?

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:59 pm

Fallenangle wrote:

What rule did he specifically violate and how?

So let me get this straight. You've been bloviating all this time and you haven't researched the justification for the punishment?! lol!

Beaumont ignorantly defending the worst POShits in the world. Same stuff, different board.

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:02 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

So let me get this straight. You've been bloviating all this time and you haven't researched the justification for the punishment?!

Beaumont defending the worst POShits in the world. Same stuff, different board.

I've researched it, and there's nothing he specifically violated. Which is the reason you can't back up your statement. Different board, same fail

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:14 pm

Fallenangle wrote:

I've researched it, and there's nothing he specifically violated. Which is the reason you can't back up your statement. Different board, same fail

Wrong again. You've always sucked at this.

"conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association".

Article 35A(d) The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding $1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association.

cheers

Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 2809484752

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:17 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

Wrong again. You've always sucked at this.

"conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association".

Article 35A(d) The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding $1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association.

Never said he didn't have the right to be fined. Still waiting on the part that you claimed can force him to sell the team

Different board, same fail

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:19 pm

Fallenangle wrote:

Never said he didn't have the right to be fined. Still waiting on the part that you claimed can force him to sell the team

Different board, same fail

Article 13(a) The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

OWNED

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:26 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

Article 13(a) The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

OWNED

So 35a is your answer? That merely states the commissioner has the power to levy fines for conduct detrimental. If he violated that by not adhering to the fine, then they can vote him out. So still wrong, try harder

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:30 pm

Fallenangle wrote:

So 35a is your answer? That merely states the commissioner has the power to levy fines for conduct detrimental. If he violated that by not adhering to the fine, then they can vote him out. So still wrong, try harder

Reading comprehension has never been your thang. Defending racists on the other hand....

Article 13(a) The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:40 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

Reading comprehension has never been your thang. Defending racists on the other hand....

Article 13(a) The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

aaaaand we are back to square one. Yes, 13b states they can vote him out if he violates any of the provisions. So Which one did he violate? 35a, your first attempt, was not violated since there's no evidence he isn't accepting the fine.

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:51 pm

Fallenangle wrote:

aaaaand we are back to square one. Yes, 13b states they can vote him out if he violates any of the provisions. So Which one did he violate? 35a, your first attempt, was not violated since there's no evidence he isn't accepting the fine.

You are misinterpreting 35a probably on purpose since that's your nature. He's not "guilty" of breaking that rule for refusing to pay a fine, he's guilty due to "conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association",

He broke that rule and so the commissioner acted, but it doesn't have to stop there, the owners can step in as well.

You know, you're missing a golden opportunity here. New board. A chance to build a reputation as a solid, honest poster. But you're blowing it in the first week. Poor ol' Beaumont. Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 2130724145

Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 2130724145

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:56 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

You are misinterpreting 35a (conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association), probably on purpose since that's your nature.

He broke that rule and so the commissioner acted, but it doesn't have to stop there, the owners can step in as well.

You know, you're missing a golden opportunity here. New board. A chance to build a reputation as a solid, honest poster. But you're blowing it in the first week. Poor ol' Beaumont.

Ok, then let's make a bet. Loser has to leave this board permanently. If they cite 35a as the provision violated when they take up the vote, I lose. If they don't, you lose. Let's see you back up your lack of a technical mind with something tangible instead of your usual " I'm right, you're wrong" banter.

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:02 pm

Fallenangle wrote:

Ok, then let's make a bet. Loser has to leave this board permanently. If they cite 35a as the provision violated when they take up the vote, I lose. If they don't, you lose. Let's see you back up your lack of a technical mind with something tangible instead of your usual " I'm right, you're wrong" banter.

You actually have the balls to try to set up this kind of bet? YOU JUST LOST this kind of bet on tRCMB and didn't follow through. Only a fool would enter into a wager with a welcher like you. Suck my balls, fat boy. Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 2809484752

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:07 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

You actually have the balls to try to set up this kind of bet? YOU JUST LOST this kind of bet on tRCMB and didn't follow through. Only a fool would enter into a wager with a welcher like you. Suck my balls, fat boy.

I won that bet easily and you know it. Time stamp showed it was within an hour, no evidence or it being past 10 oclock. Not surprised you'd puss out here, but part of me wonders if you really are that stupid to think that is the provision being violated, or if you are just trying to save face for unsuccessfully calling me out....

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:11 pm

Love this stuff...

Experts said the best of Sterling’s legal options would be trying to stop a forced sale of his team. That decision must be approved by three-quarters of the NBA’s owners. Sterling could stop it by persuading enough owners to reject the motion, or — if that doesn’t work — by persuading a judge to throw out the owners’ vote.

But even that wouldn’t be much of a victory. It would only allow Sterling to keep ownership of a team he couldn’t run — a business that might rapidly drown under the weight of his bad reputation.

“He may be a belligerent S.O.B., but he’s not insane,” said Gary R. Roberts, a professor of sports law at Indiana University. “I don’t think that the other league owners are going to be able legally to kick him out. But they’re not going to have to. This guy doesn’t want to own a business that will be bankrupt in short order.”

But Sterling’s case has been handled more forcefully. The recording of his offensive remarks to a female friend — in which Sterling told her “don’t bring black people” to Clippers games — was made public while the Clippers were playing in the first round of the NBA playoffs. It also involved one of the league’s most reviled figures: Sterling, an owner who had been repeatedly accused of offensive comments in the past.

After a short investigation, league officials said Sterling admitted that the voice on the recording was his. On Tuesday, Silver said he would punish Sterling with all the tools at his disposal.

“I will urge [the board of NBA team owners] to exercise its authority to force a sale of the team and will do everything in my power to ensure that that happens,” Silver said in a news conference.

The Clippers franchise released a statement that said: “We wholeheartedly support and embrace the decision. . . . Now the healing process begins.” Sterling did not release a statement.

If Sterling does bring a legal challenge, experts said Tuesday, the first thing to understand is that the First Amendment may not help him much.

“Under the First Amendment, people have the right to be morons,” said Bob Corn-Revere, a lawyer at the Davis Wright Tremaine firm and president of the First Amendment Lawyers Association.

But, Corn-Revere said, those hypothetical morons are protected only from punishment by the government itself. In this real-world case, Sterling’s punishment is coming from a private group — whose rules he agreed to obey.

“The First Amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law,’ ” Corn-Revere said. “Not ‘The NBA shall have no rule.’ ”

That means Sterling would have to convince a judge that the NBA had misapplied its rules to punish him with the fine and the lifetime ban. But that, also, appears difficult. The NBA’s constitution says that a commissioner’s decisions are “final, binding, conclusive, and unappealable.”

“Courts have consistently held that it’s up to commissioners to decide what constitutes the best interest of the league. And how could you argue that this doesn’t,” Roberts said. “He might try to make an argument that it was a private conversation, and he didn’t do anything or say anything in public. . . . I think that’s a losing argument.”

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:13 pm

Fallenangle wrote:

, no evidence or it being past 10 oclock. .

That's an outright lie and you know it. You lost. You were past the time agreed upon and your photo didn't include the pre-agreed upon information. You have a million excuses, but you lost the bet and since you have no balls, you didn't honor your word. That's why no one should ever enter into a wager with you.

You've pulled this crap many times in the past as well. Same old Beaumont, different board. Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 2809484752

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:17 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

That's an outright lie and you know it. You lost. You were past the time agreed upon and your photo didn't include the pre-agreed upon information. You have a million excuses, but you lost the bet and since you have no balls, you didn't honor your word. That's why no one should ever enter into a wager with you.

You've pulled this crap many times in the past as well. Same old Beaumont, different board.

If that's a lie, show us the evidence. It's not rocket science

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:22 pm

Fallenangle wrote:

It's all there in the thread on tRCMB for anyone to see. You lost and you knew it. If you didn't lose, then why did you immediately attempt to negotiate a new bet? lol!

You're such a pussy. BTW, learn how to use the quote function properly, dumb ass.

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:23 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

That's an outright lie and you know it. You lost. You were past the time agreed upon and your photo didn't include the pre-agreed upon information. You have a million excuses, but you lost the bet and since you have no balls, you didn't honor your word. That's why no one should ever enter into a wager with you.

You've pulled this crap many times in the past as well. Same old Beaumont, different board.

You have no integrity because you are a little bitch. The street signs were not intersected, there is only one Mt Auburn Street in Mass, not Michigan. I proved where I lived and that's the reason Johnny cowered. And the time stamp showed it was within an hour, which was the original time frame all along.

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:27 pm

Murph, you failed in your attempt to call me out. Accept it and move on. You will always be my bitch

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:28 pm

Fallenangle wrote:You have no integrity because you are a little bitch. The street signs were not intersected, there is only one Mt Auburn Street in Mass, not Michigan. I proved where I lived and that's the reason Johnny cowered. And the time stamp showed it was within an hour, which was the original time frame all along.

Nope. The last things agreed to were by 10pm (you didn't make it) and a photo which had to contain specific information (you failed at that too).

You have a million excuses about why you failed, BUT YOU AGREED TO THE CONDITIONS!

You lost the bet. You welched. And you're a laughingstock. lol!

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:29 pm

Have a great night, beaumont. Don't beat your dog.

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:32 pm

Wheres your proof I didn't get it in by 10? You have none. The reason we specified an hours timeframe is because the board stamps it by hours/minutes, not the time of day. You lose

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:37 pm

Fallenangle wrote:Wheres your proof I didn't get it in by 10? You have none. The reason we specified an hours timeframe is because the board stamps it by hours/minutes, not the time of day. You lose

time was corroborated by more than one poster. You lose.

Where's your proof that you met the pre-agreed upon conditions for the photo? You have none, because you didn't do it. You have excuses, but excuses don't get you out of a bet at least for those of us with testicles. You lose again.

Welcher. Punk. Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 2809484752

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:46 pm

fallen angel at 2:08 lol!

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:55 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

time was corroborated by more than one poster. You lose.

Where's your proof that you met the pre-agreed upon conditions for the photo? You have none, because you didn't do it. You have excuses, but excuses don't get you out of a bet at least for those of us with testicles. You lose again.

Welcher. Punk.

Wrong, it was never corroborated by more than one poster. So you are lying there. The pre-agreed upon conditions were not feasible because the street signs were not intersected. So the photo of Mt. Auburn street was sufficient since there is no such street in Michigan. Despite overwhelming evidence in which I was able to prove where I lived within the timeframe of an hour, I still gave him the option to come up with something else as it was not possible to post one photo with the 2 street signs. There's a reason he refused to take the fair way out, because he knew from my photo that I live in Massachusetts. As usual, you're backing a loser.

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:59 pm

Fallenangle wrote:

Wrong, it was never corroborated by more than one poster. So you are lying there. The pre-agreed upon conditions were not feasible because the street signs were not intersected.

Yes it was.

and if it wasn't feasible, THEN THAT IS YOUR FAULT FOR AGREEING TO THE CONDITIONS. This is the whole point. You have excuses for WHY you lost the bet, but the fact remains YOU LOST THE BET. Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 1966794946

Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 1966794946

Grow some balls. Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 2809484752

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:03 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

Yes it was.

and if it wasn't feasible, THEN THAT IS YOUR FAULT FOR AGREEING TO THE CONDITIONS. This is the whole point. You have excuses for WHY you lost the bet, but the fact remains YOU LOST THE BET.

Grow some balls.

Link it up and show the quotes then puss.

If you bet a baseball game and it gets rained out that means the result of the bet is not feasible. You know what happends? It becomes null and void. Go back to the RCMB please please please, look at how you've ruined this already

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:10 pm

Fallenangle wrote:

Link it up and show the quotes then puss.

If you bet a baseball game and it gets rained out that means the result of the bet is not feasible. You know what happends? It becomes null and void. Go back to the RCMB please please please, look at how you've ruined this already

Of course, but both parties betting on baseball realize that this is a ground rule. You never set forth any similar qualifications. You agreed to terms you couldn't meet. That gives you a nice excuse for losing the bet, BUT YOU STILL LOST THE BET. Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 1966794946

I guess it's all in how you are raised. Something tells me your father ignored you as a child.

And I was here first. You've started in with your same old tactics from wells. Don't blame me for your own poor behavior. Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 2809484752

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:16 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

Of course, but both parties betting on baseball realize that this is a ground rule. You never set forth any similar qualifications. You agreed to terms you couldn't meet. That gives you a nice excuse for losing the bet, BUT YOU STILL LOST THE BET.

I guess it's all in how you are raised. Something tells me your father ignored you as a child.

And I was here first. You've started in with your same old tactics from wells. Don't blame me for your own poor behavior.

Waiting on your link that said it was corroborated by more than one person. You're a liar, therefore it's not surprising you would think I lost a bet that I won.

If something doesn't exist and isn't known by neither party beforehand, the only fair thing to do is decide it in another manner. You lack integrity, so of course you would think this is an example of somebody losing a bet. You're a one trick pony, bitch

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:30 pm

Fallenangle wrote:

Waiting on your link that said it was corroborated by more than one person. You're a liar, therefore it's not surprising you would think I lost a bet that I won.

If something doesn't exist and isn't known by neither party beforehand, the only fair thing to do is decide it in another manner. You lack integrity, so of course you would think this is an example of somebody losing a bet. You're a one trick pony, bitch

I guess this is as close as you will ever get to admitting that you lost the bet. You're admitting that you didn't meet the conditions agreed to. I'm satisfied. Well done, boner. Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 2809484752

Now try to be a better poster on this forum than you were on wells. Don't need you stinking up the joint like you did for years over there. Clippers owner, known democrat contributor, makes racist comment - Page 3 2809484752

by Fallenangle Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:32 pm

R.P. McMurphy wrote:

I guess this is as close as you will ever get to admitting that you lost the bet. You're admitting that you didn't meet the conditions agreed to. I'm satisfied. Well done, boner.

Now try to be a better poster on this forum than you were on wells. Don't need you stinking up the joint like you did for years over there.

I pity you, I really do. What a sad existence you lead where you have to spend the better part of your afternoon arguing a bet that didn't even involve you lol!

by Pervis Muldoon Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:42 pm

Cosmo_Kramer wrote:

Should he?

I guess not. Given the people on this board and on Wells who bought into his column on Mozilla, he seems to have his readers pegged.

by **GRR Spartan** Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:17 pm

It seems owners polled are expecting a 29-0 vote forcing Sterling to sell.

All in the franchisee agreement.

by MasonGuy Thu May 01, 2014 3:18 pm

GRR Spartan wrote:It seems owners polled are expecting a 29-0 vote forcing Sterling to sell.

All in the franchisee agreement.

You can't participate in a group like this, agree to follow the bylaws and then not adhere to them when they are executed. I am sure he will make a stink about it since he is so comfortable in court and he thinks he has something to fight for, but he is done.

What I cannot believe is hearing people talk about how his 1st amendment rights have been violated. What!?!

by **Cameron** Thu May 01, 2014 4:02 pm

GRR Spartan wrote:It seems owners polled are expecting a 29-0 vote forcing Sterling to sell.

All in the franchisee agreement.

I'd be shocked if it's anything other than unanimous. I'd have to imagine that even owners who may secretly agree with Sterling's worldview would be dissuaded from voting for him, for fear of the backlash that would result if the votes were ever leaked to the public.

by Sponsored content