Unknown Info involving Schultz's Lawsuit

[RelativeZdot]

Howard Schultz is probably doing all of this as a PR stunt as we all know. However CEO's of fortune 500 companies dont become involves in high profile lawsuits unless they have an oppurtunity to win. Logically that would only result in more bad press. Thus, I believe in the next few weeks we will be shown a startling revelation that will make many of us Seattlites more optimistic about the return of the Supes. Also federal courts have been notorious in favoring the upholding of original contracts so if Schultz can show any semblance of truth in his claims....????? God i hope so..

[Sonics3408]

Misleading title... 2/10.

[Troy McClure]

WTF did you need to make a thread for? You added nothing new or unknown to the frickin discussion.

[bennith13]

And... just to add to the previous two post... I don't think he is doing this as a Pr stunt like Clay and Stern would live everyone to believe.

[D5150]

not a pr stunt. howard is going to have to spend a lot of time and money on this.

[yearsago]

Its not a PR stunt

[jenn_gp]

Howard Schultz is probably doing all of this as a PR stunt as we all know. However CEO's of fortune 500 companies dont become involves in high

Have you read the actual legal document? This doesn't look or feel like a PR stunt.

What kind of "startling revelation" are you hoping for?

[Ex-hippie]

Also federal courts have been notorious in favoring the upholding of original contracts

I'll take "making stuff up" for 200, Alex.

[Sweezo]

I was inclined to believe it may be a publicity stunt up until the point he hired a high-priced lawyer and filed a lawsuit. Howard wasn't exactly frivolous with his money with the team, and he's pretty tight-fisted with Starbucks, so I don't see him just wasting his money to make himself look good.

I'll take "making stuff up" for 200, Alex.

No ****. I was going to point that out, but I figured doing so would only lead to sadness.

[BenjaminH]

Yes, I thought that it was a PR stunt at the "I plan to sue" stage, but not anymore.

[missin da glove]

By Jim Brunner

Seattle Times staff reporter
NBA officials last year worried that Sonics owners may have violated their "good faith" promise to work toward an arena deal in Seattle, according to new e-mails disclosed as part of the city of Seattle's lawsuit against the team.

In an e-mail last August, Sonics owner Clay Bennett told fellow owner Aubrey McClendon that NBA executive Joel Litvin was "looking into certain documents we signed at closing that may have been breached."

That was right after McClendon's now-famous comment to an Oklahoma newspaper that "we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle, we hoped to come here." McClendon was fined $250,000 by the NBA for that remark, but league officials ultimately ruled that Bennett's group had met its good-faith requirement. Last week, the league approved the relocation of the Sonics to Oklahoma City.

The August e-mail was among several newly disclosed by lawyers for Seattle today in a New York federal court filing seeking to depose NBA Commissioner David Stern and force the league to turn over financial records and other documents.

The city's latest filing argues that lawyers for Seattle should be able to question Stern personally because of his "private conversations" with Bennett about relocation and his support for the Oklahoma City relocation.

League attorneys have sought to block Stern's deposition.

"There can be no doubt that the sole purpose of the deposition is to harass the NBA and its commissioner," NBA attorneys wrote in a motion asking a judge to quash the city's request. NBA spokesman Tim Frank said today the league would have no comment on the latest court filings.

A hearing on the dispute is set for Monday in New York City.

Seattle's latest court filing also reveals several other internal Sonics e-mails in which Bennett pushes Oklahoma City as a new home for the Sonics as early as last April and complains about local politicians and media.

[colombianbrew]

As a debater, one of my favorite things was when the opposing side would cast as an absolute something that was clearly untrue or at beast shaky. I think the line:

"There can be no doubt that the sole purpose of the deposition is to harass the NBA and its commissioner,"

has to rank amongst the best examples of this. No doubt eh?

[pr0wler]

"There can be no doubt that the sole purpose of the deposition is to harass the NBA and its commissioner,"

has to rank amongst the best examples of this. No doubt eh?

What a lame response NBA lawyers made to Howard Shultz actions. Seems like a straw-man fallacy to me. There are many factors for the lawsuit, one of which MIGHT include that they're attacking Stern for being so shady in regards to the emails (in addition to many more important reasons). But the NBA lawyers try to turn that into the ONLY reason why Schultz filed the lawsuit. The intention of 'harassment' towards David Stern is questionable at best, but that being the sole purpose of the lawsuit is ridiculous.

[jenn_gp]

^And yet Stern says this issue has not become "personal" with the city of Seattle and the state legislation.

[Mr. Sun]

^^ I'd like to learn what Stern knew of Bennett's "intentions" from the beginning. Stern had said the owners acted in good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[Ex-hippie]

As a debater, one of my favorite things was when the opposing side would cast as an absolute something that was clearly untrue or at beast shaky. I think the line:

"There can be no doubt that the sole purpose of the deposition is to harass the NBA and its commissioner,"

has to rank amongst the best examples of this. No doubt eh?

There can be no doubt that the line is the very best example of this, ever.

I remember a speech by Chief Justice Roberts in which he lamented the overuse of expressions of absolutism in legal briefs. Everyone feels the need to say "clearly" or "there can be no doubt" or "obviously." Luckily, judges tend to be pretty smart and can see through this kind of thing.

[Sonics3408]

On KJR yesterday, they had on an ESPN legal analyst on. He was reviewing the case over the last couple days and said that he was impressed with what they had come up with.

When asked for a percentage, he said a few days ago he would have said they had a 0% chance to win. He said after reviewing he would said he has a 55-60% chance to win.

[ Excerpt from http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/so ... 44181.html ]

[colombianbrew]

Reading The Tribune article above, it seems the NBA is arguing that Litvin has the same information as Stern and therefore Stern need not be deposed. That is a bit more of a solid argument that just saying they are trying to harass him, but the emails do seem to show that Stern had personal dealings and conversations with Bennett.

[Sweezo]

Luckily, judges tend to be pretty smart and can see through this kind of thing.

Eh, but judges often subscribe to using the same kind of language...at least the judges I deal with anyway.

[Ex-hippie]

Mods... have you given any thought to merging some of these threads and creating a single (sticky) litigation thread? Sad that it's come to that, but it is what it is. A lot of thoughts are being bounced back and forth in different threads and it's hard to keep track. Just a suggestion.