Donald Sterling Clippers owner alleged racist.

[delldude]

And the LA DA came out and said they are not going to charge her with any crime in regard to the recordings.

 
I saw the other day the chick claims she had his permission. She probably said that on advise of an atty, even claims to have a witness....we'll see.
 
Don't forget DOSJ DA Holder.......I'm sure he'll be out for Social Justice one way or another....plus this guy is a filthy rich capitalist.

 

[Dog Wonder]

also old and White.

 

[delldude]

also old and White.

 
Some my best friends white people......

 

[eolesen]

She probably said that on advise of an atty, even claims to have a witness....we'll see.

For the amount of money she bilked out of the Sterling family, she can pay for two or three witnesses. And there's nobody to confirm that they were actually a witness.

I'd place money that Holder will act on this long before he acts on criminal charges for Lois Lerner.

 

[southwind]

There are more than enough threads about the plight of the aircraft mechanic on each of the airline threads... do you really have to start hijacking things here in the Cooler?...


Don't disagree, which is why Silver will do whatever it takes to make sure the voting isn't private.

Are you saying Silver will be "Transparent", like BaRack?

 

[Ms Tree]

I guess I am missing something. Why would this be a federal case handled by Holder? Why would this not be handled just like any other case in a district court.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Some my best friends white people......

I knew a White guy once.

 

[700UW]

Its a violation of state law, not Federal, the DOJ has no jurisdiction in this case.

 

[eolesen]

The fact that it is a state matter and there's no jurisdiction didn't stop Holder from interfering in the Zimmerman trial. It wouldn't surprise me to see the DOJ try to trump up a federal charge if things don't go the way the uber-correctness crowd want it to go.

As I said last night, I think the attempt to remove the team from Sterling may be a dead end. The New York Times appears to agree with me...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/0505/Why-the-other-Clippers-owner-Rochelle-Sterling-backs-NBA-sanctions

Silver has said he expects at least 23 of the 30 league owners – the required three-quarter percentage – will vote to oust Sterling. But legal experts quoted in The New York Times have said that, even if that vote is achieved, Sterling may be within his rights to sue the NBA, since the league’s constitution does not name racist remarks as a reason for why an owner can be ousted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/sports/basketball/silver-sees-basis-for-ousting-clippers-owner-donald-sterling.html

 

[delldude]

Its a violation of state law, not Federal, the DOJ has no jurisdiction in this case.

 
LOL.......good thing there are no fourth amendment issues, or federal electronic communication privacy act law violations.
 
You apparently have no idea what the electronics communication privacy act entails.
 
Everyone should be aware.

 

[700UW]

For example in NC it is legal to tape a person as long as one person in the conversation knows, so I could tape you and you cant do anything about it as long as I know.
 
So its legal in NC, yet you say it violates Federal Law?
 

Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation?
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.
In addition to federal law, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted "one-party consent" laws and permit individuals to record phone calls and conversations to which they are a party or when one party to the communication consents. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on state wiretapping laws.
 

 

[delldude]

You call me on a cell phone and threaten to do bodily harm to me and you've violated the ECPA.
Same with sending an email or a facebook threat.
Use an electronic device to commit any crime and its fed time.
 
Being shes latino-black, I seriously doubt Holder will do anything.
 
But remember, we have a very filthy rich old white guy and a black/latino girl and a whole team full of black victims here.
 
I think we have a DOJ bingo here.....for some 'social justice'.

 

[700UW]

You didnt answer what I posted.
 
The one party law is federal, and its legal, depends on each state on what laws they have on the books.
 
You said it wasnt legal, I provided examples of how it is legal.

 

[delldude]

You didnt answer what I posted.
 
The one party law is federal, and its legal, depends on each state on what laws they have on the books.
 
You said it wasnt legal, I provided examples of how it is legal.

 

 
Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.

 
If she didn't have his consent and used an electronic device she got federal issues along with state.
 
Go read the act.
If she violated the EPCA it goes federal.
If she violated his civil rights it goes federal.
 
I wasn't talking about the one party wire tap issue.  Use an electronic device to commit a crime and its federal. Little known fact in federal law.

 

[777 fixer]

The fact that it is a state matter and there's no jurisdiction didn't stop Holder from interfering in the Zimmerman trial. It wouldn't surprise me to see the DOJ try to trump up a federal charge if things don't go the way the uber-correctness crowd want it to go.

As I said last night, I think the attempt to remove the team from Sterling may be a dead end. The New York Times appears to agree with me...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/0505/Why-the-other-Clippers-owner-Rochelle-Sterling-backs-NBA-sanctions


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/sports/basketball/silver-sees-basis-for-ousting-clippers-owner-donald-sterling.html

 
He could fight it in court but it might be in his best interest to sell the team now.  Sponsors are already baling on him which is costing him money.  A protracted legal battle will cost him a lot of money and will more than likely see the value of his team fall even more.