Pablo Torre: Kawhi/Clippers/Ballmer/Aspiration Thread (part 2)

[inonba]

Would DR be at risk in the court of law if they found something in the investigation to escalate it to such ? I feel like he's gonna be in hot water as a fall guy.

What's the charge? Ballmer granted the benefits, Kawhi signed his name. Unless Uncle Dennis was involved in an elaborate scheme to defraud the investors at Aspiration, I don't see how he can be rooked in.

Ballmer on the other hand might be in some hot water. Same with Kawhi.

[Mephariel]

its a time sensitive issue and if theres enough evidence (there is) kawhis contract should be voided before the season starts at the very least. because they can't be punished as much after his contract ends

Its not really time sensitive.

If you are hoping to see Kawhi's contract voided, I think you will be disappointed.

IMO three likely outcomes.
1.) No finding. Balmer was truly oblivious and this was arranged by someone other than the Clippers, maybe some kind of fine or suspension for KL.
2.) Obvious tampering, but really no direct evidence to show it, penalized losing a couple 2nd round picks or similar.
3.) Obvious tampering, with evidence - Large fine, 500k to 1m, multiple firsts lost, and possible rule changes to combat this type of thing.

I also wouldn't rule out some sort of silent punishment, where Silver and Balmer work something out, make some transaction, as amends for this action.

But again, the NBA, to protect itself from lawsuits must do its due diligence, via the investigation, to avoid being sued by the Clippers, etc.

Evidence and Proof are not the same thing. We already have a substantial amount of evidence that cap circumvention happened. The chances of the NBA coming up with cold hard proof is slim to none but for the billionth time, the CBA does not require that. We've literally already crossed the threshold for what's required to determine cap circumvention. Its just up to the NBA how they want to respond.

I think at this point, I expect some evidence to be found. But saying the "CBA does not require that" means nothing. Silver already said he wants to operate with the goal of answer the question whether wrongdoing has occurred. So the level of evidence matters.

[inonba]

I think at this point, I expect some evidence to be found. But saying the "CBA does not require that" means nothing. Silver already said he wants to operate with the goal of answer the question whether wrongdoing has occurred. So the level of evidence matters.

I'll re-post this from part 1.

In law, evidence is the information presented in court to prove or disprove a fact, while proof is the result of that evidence, meaning the fact has been established to a sufficient degree of certainty.

Evidence:

In law, direct evidence directly proves a fact without inference, like a confession, while circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact through reasoning and inferences. Both are admissible and equally important in court, where circumstantial evidence may include forensic evidence (like fingerprints) or testimonial evidence (like a witness seeing the defendant near the scene). A case can be built or even decided solely on a strong chain of circumstantial evidence.


Direct Evidence

Definition: Evidence that directly proves a fact in dispute without the need for any additional inference or reasoning.

Examples:

A confession from the defendant.
The testimony of an eyewitness who directly saw the event occur.
A video recording of the crime.


Circumstantial Evidence

Definition: Indirect evidence that requires the finder of fact (judge or jury) to draw a reasonable inference to establish a material fact.

Examples:

Forensic evidence: Fingerprints at the scene of a crime, DNA analysis, or bloodstains.
Testimonial evidence: A witness who saw the defendant nearby, wearing similar clothing to the perpetrator, or acting suspiciously after the crime.
Other examples: Motive, exclusive opportunity to commit the crime, or a false alibi provided by the defendant.


Key Points

No Hierarchy: The law does not inherently consider direct evidence "stronger" or "more reliable" than circumstantial evidence; both are treated equally and can be used to build a compelling case.

Building a Case: Circumstantial evidence often fills in gaps, and a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence can provide a more complete picture of events.
Strength in Numbers: A case based solely on circumstantial evidence becomes more compelling when there is a strong, logical, and consistent chain of these facts, leading to an inescapable conclusion of guilt.

Those who are demanding only direct evidence are disingenuous in their motives as it's an attempt to set the goal post to a point that can't be reached. For example, if a women was raped, is it practical to only accept the identification of the victim as the only reliable evidence ? What if the perpetrator covered his face? What if the victim is mistaken on who the perpetrator is, or the victim flat out lies?

In this case, is a person testifying he colluded with Steve Ballmer to circumvent the salary cap really stronger evidence than the bank statements showing the flow of money from Ballmer to Kawhi?

[jbk1234]

Leonard was subject to the rules and he should've been punished. Further, the league has jurisdiction over all 30 teams and could have simply prevented them from having any communication with Leonard’s uncle going forward.

Hence why it was a loophole the league had to close. If you punish Kawhi for Uncle Dennis' actions, the player union would fight back and probably win. At the time, family members weren't barred from attending negotiations, and because Uncle Dennis wasn't employed by the league, he's under no obligation to know what the rules are.

I don't know where you're getting this from, but if the uncle is acting as the agent for the nephew, and the nephew knows as much, the nephew is absolutely liable for the acts of the uncle legally. The union could complain until they're blue in the face, but that's the law. Unless, Leonard could demonstrate that the uncle lacked the authority to make those requests, as he sat down with three separate teams and made them, Leonard is liable. You can't engage in prohibited conduct via a third party regardless of what version of the CBA you're talking about.

If it went down as you're suggesting, then shame on Silver. That was a choice and it was the wrong choice as evidenced by what happened next.

[JustLucky]

I dont think I have ever seen someone so confidently wrong as this jbk1234 character. and hes a mod with 60k posts jesus. Its really not that complicated

The lakers and the raptors reported all this nonsense. The league said they found no evidence after an investigation. new evidence has come up and now a new investigation is ongoing. How are the raptors or lakers at fault? They reported what they had and were told to piss off.

Jbk how do you know they didn't report Leonard to the league? who do you think started the 2019 investigation? Just because not everything is public does not mean it didn't happen. The raptors front office in particular was super notorious for not leaking things around this time. Just because shams didn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen. infact everything thats leaked suggests they did reporte it to the league to start the investigation.

Im generally curious where you got this nonsense from

The leagues not going to come out and say "x team reported x player" that is absolutely moronic they wouldn't throw a team under the bus like that but consider when the investigation started its clear that's what happened. The league works for the owners they wouldn't investigate if they didn't want it. clearly some team owners pushed for it behind the scenes

[ryguy613]

Its not really time sensitive.

If you are hoping to see Kawhi's contract voided, I think you will be disappointed.

IMO three likely outcomes.
1.) No finding. Balmer was truly oblivious and this was arranged by someone other than the Clippers, maybe some kind of fine or suspension for KL.
2.) Obvious tampering, but really no direct evidence to show it, penalized losing a couple 2nd round picks or similar.
3.) Obvious tampering, with evidence - Large fine, 500k to 1m, multiple firsts lost, and possible rule changes to combat this type of thing.

I also wouldn't rule out some sort of silent punishment, where Silver and Balmer work something out, make some transaction, as amends for this action.

But again, the NBA, to protect itself from lawsuits must do its due diligence, via the investigation, to avoid being sued by the Clippers, etc.

Evidence and Proof are not the same thing. We already have a substantial amount of evidence that cap circumvention happened. The chances of the NBA coming up with cold hard proof is slim to none but for the billionth time, the CBA does not require that. We've literally already crossed the threshold for what's required to determine cap circumvention. Its just up to the NBA how they want to respond.

I think at this point, I expect some evidence to be found. But saying the "CBA does not require that" means nothing. Silver already said he wants to operate with the goal of answer the question whether wrongdoing has occurred. So the level of evidence matters.

Silver said that before 2 or 3 more revelations were dropped by Torre, and before he had to clean up his own false statement that he had no idea who Aspiration was or that they had any association with the Clippers. At this point there is a substantial amount of evidence. Again, its not PROOF, but it is plenty of evidence.

[inonba]

I don't know where you're getting this from, but if the uncle is acting as the agent for the nephew, and the nephew knows as much, the nephew is absolutely liable for the acts of the uncle legally. The union could complain until they're blue in the face, but that's the law. Unless, Leonard could demonstrate that the uncle lacked the authority to make those requests, as he sat down with three separate teams and made them, Leonard is liable. You can't engage in prohibited conduct via a third party regardless of what version of the CBA you're talking about.

If it went down as you're suggesting, then shame on Silver. That was a choice and it was the wrong choice as evidenced by what happened next.

There are a lot of things you don't know, and a lot of things you make up to fill in what you don't know. Your entire post is nonsense and has already been answered. To put it mildly, here are some examples :

A security guard detains someone. By your logic, they're acting as a police officer, but they are treated as civilian.
A defendant chooses to represent themselves in court. That is their right, but he isn't a lawyer.

Acting isn't the same as actual and aren't treated the same in the eyes of the law, never mind the NBA.

[jbk1234]

I don't know where you're getting this from, but if the uncle is acting as the agent for the nephew, and the nephew knows as much, the nephew is absolutely liable for the acts of the uncle legally. The union could complain until they're blue in the face, but that's the law. Unless, Leonard could demonstrate that the uncle lacked the authority to make those requests, as he sat down with three separate teams and made them, Leonard is liable. You can't engage in prohibited conduct via a third party regardless of what version of the CBA you're talking about.

If it went down as you're suggesting, then shame on Silver. That was a choice and it was the wrong choice as evidenced by what happened next.

There are a lot of things you don't know, and a lot of things you make up to fill in what you don't know. Your entire post is nonsense and has already been answered. To put it mildly, here are some examples :

A security guard detains someone. By your logic, they're acting as a police officer, but they are treated as civilian.
A defendant chooses to represent themselves in court. That is their right, but he isn't a lawyer.

Acting isn't the same as actual and aren't treated the same in the eyes of the law, never mind the NBA.

Setting aside the fact that someone need not be an actual agent pursuant to the CBA to be considered an agent under common law, you should Google apparent agency or agency by estoppel. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Clav]

Would DR be at risk in the court of law if they found something in the investigation to escalate it to such ? I feel like he's gonna be in hot water as a fall guy.

What's the charge? Ballmer granted the benefits, Kawhi signed his name. Unless Uncle Dennis was involved in an elaborate scheme to defraud the investors at Aspiration, I don't see how he can be rooked in.

Ballmer on the other hand might be in some hot water. Same with Kawhi.

I really don't know honestly. It just seems like he's in the middle of this mess as a connecting point and we haven't received a lot of information about him lately. DR likely was a party to breaking of NBA rules but he's not an NBA player and doesn't need to follow those rules, maybe he didn't claim taxes properly on this income so it's more of a tax evasion issue. I'm just concerned that LAC/KL have an avenue to avoid punitive action if DR malfeasance is the primary result of the investigation. (for clarity, I do support Silver and NBA Board of Govs to suggest strict punishments against Ballmer and LAC.)

[inonba]

Setting aside the fact that someone need not be an actual agent pursuant to the CBA to be considered an agent under common law, you should Google apparent agency or agency by estoppel. You're embarrassing yourself.

and when someone that violates the CBA is punished under common law, that may apply. Until then, the league licenses player agents. If anyone can be "considered" an agent, then no one needs to get certified.

"You're embarrassing yourself"

[inonba]

I really don't know honestly. It just seems like he's in the middle of this mess as a connecting point and we haven't received a lot of information about him lately. DR likely was a party to breaking of NBA rules but he's not an NBA player and doesn't need to follow those rules, maybe he didn't claim taxes properly on this income so it's more of a tax evasion issue. I'm just concerned that LAC/KL have an avenue to avoid punitive action if DR malfeasance is the primary result of the investigation. (for clarity, I do support Silver and NBA Board of Govs to suggest strict punishments against Ballmer and LAC.)

The money was booked through a LLC. Most likely, Kawhi won't touch the money until after retirement from the NBA for tax purposes. Uncle Dennis and other close associates may or may not be drawing a salary from the LLC, but I doubt they didn't pay taxes as it would have drawn unwanted attention to the LLC.

The only thing I see that can potentially draw all parties into legal trouble is the Aspiration bankruptcy and the fraudulent nature of the business. Due to Kawhi getting preferential treatment on payment, that could put him in hot water. At that point, I think he's better off admitting to salary cap circumvention than potential charges in wire fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, etc.

[JonFromVA]

I don't think anybody understands what your complaint is, but I suspect it has to do with a lack of understanding. The NBA started their investigation shortly after Kawhi signed with the Clippers in July 2019 and concluded the investigation in December 2019. The investigation was initiated following complaints made by both the Raptors and the Lakers as there was high suspicions as to how the Clippers managed to sign Kawhi mainly due to what his camp was demanding. The league closed the investigation after failing to find evidence that the Clippers had granted any of the illegal requests, but warnings were issued to the Clippers that the issue would be reopened if evidence arises.

Your complaint is the league would have begun their investigation before Kawhi sign, which means you are expecting both the Raptors and the Lakers to file their complaint before he formally signed his contract effectively sabotaging their own free agency. Is that correct ?

I'm saying if you don't report the inappropriate conduct when it occurs, but wait until after the offending party's client signs elsewhere, you shouldn't be rewarded. You didn't do the right thing and report an attempt at salary cap circumvention when it occurred, you complained after you didn't like the outcome.

Also, I think you're taking all kinds of liberties with the reporting. I haven't seen an article where it is reported that either the Raptors or the Lakers filed a formal complaint detailing specifically what Leonard’s uncle requested. If you have a link, I'll read it. It seems odd the NBA would limit their investigation to what occurred with the Clippers if that was the complaint.

Ok. There is a misunderstanding of the rules. Lawrence Frank knows the rules, Steve Ballmer knows the rules, Kawhi knows the rules, but apparently you don't. Uncle Dennis was the person who did the inappropriate ask. Due to the fact that he's not employed by the NBA, the rules don't apply to him. The NBA subsequently closed the loophole and now only allows agents to negotiate on behalf of the players.

What you are not understanding is:
1. The breaking of the rules occur if a team granted the illegal request and not a family member asking for illegal perks. Reporting to the league before the contract is signed is the equivalent of preemptively shooting yourself in the foot as there's nothing to report before the contract is signed. The complaint stems from the suspicion that the Clippers granted the illegal perks due to Kawhi taking less guaranteed money from the team that didn't hold his bird rights. Despite your lack of understanding, both the Raptors and Lakers "did the right thing".
2. The media is not obligated to report every single detail. Just because there is a lack of detail from the reporting at the time, doesn't mean something didn't happen. What we know is both the Lakers and the Raptors DID file a complaint. You can infer from their complaint that the details of what Kawhi's camp was seeking was communicated to the league. Otherwise, no investigations could have occurred as the league wouldn't know what to look for. For those who think Brian Windhost is the league's source: Please get your head examined for trauma. We've only seen more details in the media as more sources are willing to talk after the scandal exploded.
3. The Clippers were the only party investigated because they're the team that signed the contract. Also, minority Larry Tannenbaum of was issued a warning from the league for talking endorsement numbers during contract negotiations.
4. What you think personally is inconsequential. The league has it's rules and penalties have never gone to the team that was harmed.

Ethical issues and conflicts of interest should be reported even if no rules were broken, but fact is teams bend the rules to their will all the time in order to collude with players and agents. Heck, it's the whole reason someone like World Wide Wes exists.

[wco81]

Uncle Dennis can ask or demand all kinds of things.

Clippers could and should have told him to go pound sand.

There isn't a rules violation without the Clippers agreeing to these demands.

The NBA and the Clippers can try to scapegoat Uncle Dennis all they want but there is still the tens of millions in payments by Clippers owners, mostly Ballmer.

[Mephariel]

I think at this point, I expect some evidence to be found. But saying the "CBA does not require that" means nothing. Silver already said he wants to operate with the goal of answer the question whether wrongdoing has occurred. So the level of evidence matters.

I'll re-post this from part 1.

In law, evidence is the information presented in court to prove or disprove a fact, while proof is the result of that evidence, meaning the fact has been established to a sufficient degree of certainty.

Evidence:

In law, direct evidence directly proves a fact without inference, like a confession, while circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact through reasoning and inferences. Both are admissible and equally important in court, where circumstantial evidence may include forensic evidence (like fingerprints) or testimonial evidence (like a witness seeing the defendant near the scene). A case can be built or even decided solely on a strong chain of circumstantial evidence.


Direct Evidence

Definition: Evidence that directly proves a fact in dispute without the need for any additional inference or reasoning.

Examples:

A confession from the defendant.
The testimony of an eyewitness who directly saw the event occur.
A video recording of the crime.


Circumstantial Evidence

Definition: Indirect evidence that requires the finder of fact (judge or jury) to draw a reasonable inference to establish a material fact.

Examples:

Forensic evidence: Fingerprints at the scene of a crime, DNA analysis, or bloodstains.
Testimonial evidence: A witness who saw the defendant nearby, wearing similar clothing to the perpetrator, or acting suspiciously after the crime.
Other examples: Motive, exclusive opportunity to commit the crime, or a false alibi provided by the defendant.


Key Points

No Hierarchy: The law does not inherently consider direct evidence "stronger" or "more reliable" than circumstantial evidence; both are treated equally and can be used to build a compelling case.

Building a Case: Circumstantial evidence often fills in gaps, and a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence can provide a more complete picture of events.
Strength in Numbers: A case based solely on circumstantial evidence becomes more compelling when there is a strong, logical, and consistent chain of these facts, leading to an inescapable conclusion of guilt.

Those who are demanding only direct evidence are disingenuous in their motives as it's an attempt to set the goal post to a point that can't be reached. For example, if a women was raped, is it practical to only accept the identification of the victim as the only reliable evidence ? What if the perpetrator covered his face? What if the victim is mistaken on who the perpetrator is, or the victim flat out lies?

In this case, is a person testifying he colluded with Steve Ballmer to circumvent the salary cap really stronger evidence than the bank statements showing the flow of money from Ballmer to Kawhi?

None of what you posted contradict what I said. I don't think anyone here said only direct evidence matters. Only that there is enough levels of evidence that Silver can say "he did it."

[Invictus88]

I'm saying if you don't report the inappropriate conduct when it occurs, but wait until after the offending party's client signs elsewhere, you shouldn't be rewarded. You didn't do the right thing and report an attempt at salary cap circumvention when it occurred, you complained after you didn't like the outcome.

Also, I think you're taking all kinds of liberties with the reporting. I haven't seen an article where it is reported that either the Raptors or the Lakers filed a formal complaint detailing specifically what Leonard’s uncle requested. If you have a link, I'll read it. It seems odd the NBA would limit their investigation to what occurred with the Clippers if that was the complaint.

Ok. There is a misunderstanding of the rules. Lawrence Frank knows the rules, Steve Ballmer knows the rules, Kawhi knows the rules, but apparently you don't. Uncle Dennis was the person who did the inappropriate ask. Due to the fact that he's not employed by the NBA, the rules don't apply to him. The NBA subsequently closed the loophole and now only allows agents to negotiate on behalf of the players.

What you are not understanding is:
1. The breaking of the rules occur if a team granted the illegal request and not a family member asking for illegal perks. Reporting to the league before the contract is signed is the equivalent of preemptively shooting yourself in the foot as there's nothing to report before the contract is signed. The complaint stems from the suspicion that the Clippers granted the illegal perks due to Kawhi taking less guaranteed money from the team that didn't hold his bird rights. Despite your lack of understanding, both the Raptors and Lakers "did the right thing".
2. The media is not obligated to report every single detail. Just because there is a lack of detail from the reporting at the time, doesn't mean something didn't happen. What we know is both the Lakers and the Raptors DID file a complaint. You can infer from their complaint that the details of what Kawhi's camp was seeking was communicated to the league. Otherwise, no investigations could have occurred as the league wouldn't know what to look for. For those who think Brian Windhost is the league's source: Please get your head examined for trauma. We've only seen more details in the media as more sources are willing to talk after the scandal exploded.
3. The Clippers were the only party investigated because they're the team that signed the contract. Also, minority Larry Tannenbaum of was issued a warning from the league for talking endorsement numbers during contract negotiations.
4. What you think personally is inconsequential. The league has it's rules and penalties have never gone to the team that was harmed.

Ethical issues and conflicts of interest should be reported even if no rules were broken, but fact is teams bend the rules to their will all the time in order to collude with players and agents. Heck, it's the whole reason someone like World Wide Wes exists.

So now is your tune changing from "I need proof from Ballmer's mouth that he did it" to "Everybody's doing it so it's really not a big deal"?

Hilarious. Just Hilarious.

[jbk1234]

Setting aside the fact that someone need not be an actual agent pursuant to the CBA to be considered an agent under common law, you should Google apparent agency or agency by estoppel. You're embarrassing yourself.

and when someone that violates the CBA is punished under common law, that may apply. Until then, the league licenses player agents. If anyone can be "considered" an agent, then no one needs to get certified.

"You're embarrassing yourself"

The player is subject to the CBA. The player cannot use a third party to engage in prohibited conduct on behalf of player. The label attached to the third-party is irrelevant. They cannot have a friend, spouse, or relative make a request of a team that they themselves cannot make. That's a CBA violation even though the player uses a cut out. Leonard could have, should have been investigated.

[jbk1234]

I dont think I have ever seen someone so confidently wrong as this jbk1234 character. and hes a mod with 60k posts jesus. Its really not that complicated

The lakers and the raptors reported all this nonsense. The league said they found no evidence after an investigation. new evidence has come up and now a new investigation is ongoing. How are the raptors or lakers at fault? They reported what they had and were told to piss off.

Jbk how do you know they didn't report Leonard to the league? who do you think started the 2019 investigation? Just because not everything is public does not mean it didn't happen. The raptors front office in particular was super notorious for not leaking things around this time. Just because shams didn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen. infact everything thats leaked suggests they did reporte it to the league to start the investigation.

Im generally curious where you got this nonsense from

The leagues not going to come out and say "x team reported x player" that is absolutely moronic they wouldn't throw a team under the bus like that but consider when the investigation started its clear that's what happened. The league works for the owners they wouldn't investigate if they didn't want it. clearly some team owners pushed for it behind the scenes

Tbc, I don't know what the Raptors and Lakers did, or did not report. No one does. Also, the debate isn't whether the Raptors and Lakers should be punished, it's whether they should be rewarded with the picks the Clippers might have to forfeit. If the NBA is going to do that. what they reported and when they reported it is going to matter a lot.

[jbk1234]

Uncle Dennis can ask or demand all kinds of things.

Clippers could and should have told him to go pound sand.

There isn't a rules violation without the Clippers agreeing to these demands.

The NBA and the Clippers can try to scapegoat Uncle Dennis all they want but there is still the tens of millions in payments by Clippers owners, mostly Ballmer.

The players (and individuals acting on their behalf) are bound by the salary cap circumvention rules. It's literally the first section of Artic XIII:

"Section 1. General Prohibitions.

(a) It is the intention of the parties that the provisions agreed to herein,
Including, without limitation, those relating to the Salary Cap, the
Exceptions to the Salary Cap, the scope of Basketball Related Income, the
Escrow and Tax Arrangement, the Rookie Scale, the Right of First Refusal,
the Maximum Player Salary, and free agency, be interpreted so as to preserve
the essential benefits achieved by both parties to this Agreement. Neither
the Players Association, the NBA, nor any Team (or Team Affiliate) or
player (or person or entity acting with authority on behalf of such player),
shall enter into any agreement, including, without limitation, any Player
Contract (including any Renegotiation, Extension, or amendment of a Player
Contract), or undertake any action or transaction, including, without
limitation, the assignment or termination of a Player Contract, which is, or
which includes any term that is, designed to serve the purpose of defeating
or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the
provisions of this Agreement."

[inonba]

Setting aside the fact that someone need not be an actual agent pursuant to the CBA to be considered an agent under common law, you should Google apparent agency or agency by estoppel. You're embarrassing yourself.

and when someone that violates the CBA is punished under common law, that may apply. Until then, the league licenses player agents. If anyone can be "considered" an agent, then no one needs to get certified.

"You're embarrassing yourself"

The player is subject to the CBA. The player cannot use a third party to engage in prohibited conduct on behalf of player. The label attached to the third-party is irrelevant. They cannot have a friend, spouse, or relative make a request of a team that they themselves cannot make. That's a CBA violation even though the player uses a cut out. Leonard could have, should have been investigated.

Well, you can make the rules as you go along and enforce them in your mind, but if such a rule did exist at the time, it wouldn't be called a loophole.
If you try to punish a player for the actions of a third party, expect the player union to fight back and win.

BTW, you can stop embarrassing yourself any time now.

[jbk1234]

and when someone that violates the CBA is punished under common law, that may apply. Until then, the league licenses player agents. If anyone can be "considered" an agent, then no one needs to get certified.

"You're embarrassing yourself"

The player is subject to the CBA. The player cannot use a third party to engage in prohibited conduct on behalf of player. The label attached to the third-party is irrelevant. They cannot have a friend, spouse, or relative make a request of a team that they themselves cannot make. That's a CBA violation even though the player uses a cut out. Leonard could have, should have been investigated.

Well, you can make the rules as you go along and enforce them in your mind, but if such a rule did exist at the time, it wouldn't be called a loophole.
If you try to punish a player for the actions of a third party, expect the player union to fight back and win.

BTW, you can stop embarrassing yourself any time now.

I suggest you read Article XIII of CBA. Specifically Sections 1 and 2(b).