Woman accused of embezzlement vows to get even....... (2 Viewers)

[lod01]

So reports are out there that Magic and his Dodger Partners want to buy the Clippers. I certainly wouldn't put it past that group to have reached out to this gold digger and plan a way to set up Sterling to expose himself as the racist pig he seems to be in order to force the sale.

You gotta be kidding me, is this for real?

It wouldn't be the first time something like that ever happened. When rich greedy people want something, not much in the way of tactics is off the table.

btw this little tramp had to know from the word go that he was racist. Talk about a gold digger. She put up with all of it in order to live the high life.

They are both losers at life. Rich loser but losers all the same.

Magic IIRC is already a part-owner of the Lakers along with the Bus family as of 5-10 years ago. I don't see him selling out of the Lakers to buy the Clippers, especially as a Lakers legend.

Magic sold his ownership piece of Lakers back in 2010.

Yeah I agree these are some sordid individuals, but the Magic angle is getting kind of conspiratorial. Is this being treated seriously?

I think a better theory is that maybe (if true) Sterling was fully aware of Magic's desire to get the team and that that was part of the source of his hatred for Magic in his diatribe.

Magic certainly wasted no time going from being linked in the initial story to saying the NBA has no place for someone like Sterling to expressing his desire to own the team. I would think the gold digger would have had more leverage to get money out of Sterling just by having the tapes instead of leaking them to TMZ. So who benefits the most by the tapes being leaked to the press? The group that wants to own the team.

I'd guess it's more the group that he is involved with rather than Magic himself. The fact is that owning most NBA franchises is like printing $. Certinly this guy is going to make a killing selling it if he has to.

The gold digger needs to go sign up for bangbros if she doesn't cash in on this current fiasco.

 

[Dr Oadi]

So reports are out there that Magic and his Dodger Partners want to buy the Clippers. I certainly wouldn't put it past that group to have reached out to this gold digger and plan a way to set up Sterling to expose himself as the racist pig he seems to be in order to force the sale.

You gotta be kidding me, is this for real?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/exit-strategy-for-nba--donald-sterling--sell-clippers-to-magic-johnson-073015142.html

"This is 100 percent Magic's plan," a league official intimately involved in the buying and selling of franchises told Yahoo Sports.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Sterling released a statement to TMZ:

Sterling and the Clippers organization tell TMZ Sports, "We have heard the tape on TMZ Sports. We do not know if it is legitimate or if it has been altered."

The statement goes on ... "We do know that the woman on the tape -- who we believe released it to TMZ Sports -- is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Sterling family, alleging that she embezzled more than $1.8 million, who told Mr. Sterling that she would 'get even.'"

That statement appears to be flat wrong. The Sterling family is not suing her for embezzlement. Rather, Sterling's estranged wife is suing to recover expensive gifts that Sterling gave her, since the gifts were given out of their community property.

That's not even close to embezzlement.

Also, it's pretty funny that Sterling doesn't know if the tape is legitimate or if it's been altered. He was part of the conversation. He doesn't remember whether he said those things?

 

[Juxtatarot]

Sterling released a statement to TMZ:

Sterling and the Clippers organization tell TMZ Sports, "We have heard the tape on TMZ Sports. We do not know if it is legitimate or if it has been altered."

The statement goes on ... "We do know that the woman on the tape -- who we believe released it to TMZ Sports -- is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Sterling family, alleging that she embezzled more than $1.8 million, who told Mr. Sterling that she would 'get even.'"

That statement appears to be flat wrong. The Sterling family is not suing her for embezzlement. Rather, Sterling's estranged wife is suing to recover expensive gifts that Sterling gave her, since the gifts were given out of their community property.

That's not even close to embezzlement.

Also, it's pretty funny that Sterling doesn't know if the tape is legitimate or if it's been altered. He was part of the conversation. He doesn't remember whether he said those things?

Don't lawyers often recommend the "I don't recall" defense?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Sterling released a statement to TMZ:

Sterling and the Clippers organization tell TMZ Sports, "We have heard the tape on TMZ Sports. We do not know if it is legitimate or if it has been altered."

The statement goes on ... "We do know that the woman on the tape -- who we believe released it to TMZ Sports -- is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Sterling family, alleging that she embezzled more than $1.8 million, who told Mr. Sterling that she would 'get even.'"

That statement appears to be flat wrong. The Sterling family is not suing her for embezzlement. Rather, Sterling's estranged wife is suing to recover expensive gifts that Sterling gave her, since the gifts were given out of their community property.

That's not even close to embezzlement.

Also, it's pretty funny that Sterling doesn't know if the tape is legitimate or if it's been altered. He was part of the conversation. He doesn't remember whether he said those things?

Don't lawyers often recommend the "I don't recall" defense?

Not if the tape has been altered. In that case, they recommend the "it was altered" defense.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Wow just saw a pic of this woman on yahoo. Is this all a billionaire can buy nowadays?

 

[Mr Capicollo]

I guess Magic wants in then. Don't underestimate him - he's a very savvy business man in his own right. He's not just some dumb former jock who's lucked into a good money manager or something.

 

[-fish-]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

not necessarily. inadmissible, yes. illegal? only if it is a "confidential communication."

 

[Mr Capicollo]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

no

Unless the law's changed recently, the rule is that you can't record a private conversation without the other person's knowledge unless it's being done to protect someone's physical safety. I'm paraphrasing, but I've actually litigated this before. There are civil penalties for that, but not criminal penalties.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

no

Yes?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So reports are out there that Magic and his Dodger Partners want to buy the Clippers. I certainly wouldn't put it past that group to have reached out to this gold digger and plan a way to set up Sterling to expose himself as the racist pig he seems to be in order to force the sale.

You gotta be kidding me, is this for real?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/exit-strategy-for-nba--donald-sterling--sell-clippers-to-magic-johnson-073015142.html

"This is 100 percent Magic's plan," a league official intimately involved in the buying and selling of franchises told Yahoo Sports.

A league official intimately involved in the buying and selling of franchises.

Uhm, there can't be too many of those.

Also, if that actually did happen that would seem a bit uh - weird?

Let's see Businessman wants to buy pro sports team. Owner won't budge.

Owner's rep for racial views (and maybe hate for in-city rival) probably an open secret among the L.A. sports community.

Onwer's floozie girlfriend takes picture with Businessman; posts it to Instagram, then records conversation with old kook coot Owner as he is led down the primrose path.

Tape is leaked.

Controversy ensues. Prime No. 1 candidate to buy team is Businessman.

Voila.

I mean....

 

[-fish-]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

no

Unless the law's changed recently, the rule is that you can't record a private conversation without the other person's knowledge unless it's being done to protect someone's physical safety. I'm paraphrasing, but I've actually litigated this before. There are civil penalties for that, but not criminal penalties.

California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code § 632). It's only illegal if it is a confidential communication.

I've litigated it before too.

 

[Zow]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

no

Unless the law's changed recently, the rule is that you can't record a private conversation without the other person's knowledge unless it's being done to protect someone's physical safety. I'm paraphrasing, but I've actually litigated this before. There are civil penalties for that, but not criminal penalties.

California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code § 632). It's only illegal if it is a confidential communication.

I've litigated it before too.

How is "confidential" defined?

I'm not questioning you, just would be nice to know how the California law works because this issue comes up for me time to time here in western AZ where some of the record conversations may have occurred in Cali.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

no

Unless the law's changed recently, the rule is that you can't record a private conversation without the other person's knowledge unless it's being done to protect someone's physical safety. I'm paraphrasing, but I've actually litigated this before. There are civil penalties for that, but not criminal penalties.

California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code § 632). It's only illegal if it is a confidential communication.

I've litigated it before too.

How is "confidential" defined?

I'm not questioning you, just would be nice to know how the California law works because this issue comes up for me time to time here in western AZ where some of the record conversations may have occurred in Cali.

Here's your answer:

(c) The term "confidential communication" includes anycommunication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicatethat any party to the communication desires it to be confined to theparties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a publicgathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive oradministrative proceeding open to the public, or in any othercircumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonablyexpect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.Incidentally I was wrong about it only being a civil infraction - you can be fined and/or imprisoned. That didn't come up in the case I litigated, which involved a woman telling her hairdresser about her plans to murder put her elderly husband out of his misery.

 

[-fish-]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

no

Unless the law's changed recently, the rule is that you can't record a private conversation without the other person's knowledge unless it's being done to protect someone's physical safety. I'm paraphrasing, but I've actually litigated this before. There are civil penalties for that, but not criminal penalties.

California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code § 632). It's only illegal if it is a confidential communication.

I've litigated it before too.

How is "confidential" defined?

I'm not questioning you, just would be nice to know how the California law works because this issue comes up for me time to time here in western AZ where some of the record conversations may have occurred in Cali.

It's not all that clear. It's not the same as the standard of an expectation of privacy...If it was a confidential setting, like attorney client or doctor patient, it's confidential. If you express an intention that the communication is confidential, it's confidential. It's less clear if it's just a conversation between two people and it's one of the two people and not a third party doing the recording. There are cases interpreting it, but like most things in California you'll find shades of grey in different courts.

 

[-fish-]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

no

Unless the law's changed recently, the rule is that you can't record a private conversation without the other person's knowledge unless it's being done to protect someone's physical safety. I'm paraphrasing, but I've actually litigated this before. There are civil penalties for that, but not criminal penalties.

California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code § 632). It's only illegal if it is a confidential communication.

I've litigated it before too.

How is "confidential" defined?

I'm not questioning you, just would be nice to know how the California law works because this issue comes up for me time to time here in western AZ where some of the record conversations may have occurred in Cali.

Here's your answer:

(c) The term "confidential communication" includes anycommunication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicatethat any party to the communication desires it to be confined to theparties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a publicgathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive oradministrative proceeding open to the public, or in any othercircumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonablyexpect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.Incidentally I was wrong about it only being a civil infraction - you can be fined and/or imprisoned. That didn't come up in the case I litigated, which involved a woman telling her hairdresser about her plans to murder put her elderly husband out of his misery.

in that case it wouldn't be illegal at all, since the statute allows recording in that situation.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

no

Unless the law's changed recently, the rule is that you can't record a private conversation without the other person's knowledge unless it's being done to protect someone's physical safety. I'm paraphrasing, but I've actually litigated this before. There are civil penalties for that, but not criminal penalties.

California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code § 632). It's only illegal if it is a confidential communication.

I've litigated it before too.

How is "confidential" defined?

I'm not questioning you, just would be nice to know how the California law works because this issue comes up for me time to time here in western AZ where some of the record conversations may have occurred in Cali.

Here's your answer:

(c) The term "confidential communication" includes anycommunication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicatethat any party to the communication desires it to be confined to theparties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a publicgathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive oradministrative proceeding open to the public, or in any othercircumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonablyexpect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.Incidentally I was wrong about it only being a civil infraction - you can be fined and/or imprisoned. That didn't come up in the case I litigated, which involved a woman telling her hairdresser about her plans to murder put her elderly husband out of his misery.

in that case it wouldn't be illegal at all, since the statute allows recording in that situation.

If you're referring to my case, yes, the statute has been construed not to preclude recording if you're trying to prevent someone from being harmed.

I believe, however, that the Sterling conversation would be deemed "confidential" under the statute. Essentially, it's any conversation you'd colloquially call "a private conversation" which you're carrying out in such a way that others can't reasonably overhear you, e.g. a 1:1 phone conversation versus a loud argument in a crowded restaurant.

 

[Rove!]

As well as him being a horrible person, this girlfriend of his is pretty horrible too. Not just what was probably illegal taping, but that she dated and stayed around this POS and collected 100 hrs worth of "material." What kind of person stays with a guy like this. Also, the guy was married.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

As well as him being a horrible person, this girlfriend of his is pretty horrible too. Not just what was probably illegal taping, but that she dated and stayed around this POS and collecthttp://sports.yahoo.com/news/exit-strategy-for-nba--donald-sterling--sell-clippers-to-magic-johnson-073015142.htmled 100 hrs worth of "material." What kind of person stays with a guy like this. Also, the guy was married.

I think the technical term for a girl like that is money-grabbing whore

 

[Your Mother's Twin Sister]

You go girl.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Lol at Mark Jackson telling fans to boycott the game. How noble of him to tell them fans of the team his team is playing to stay home.

 

[Christo]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

no

Unless the law's changed recently, the rule is that you can't record a private conversation without the other person's knowledge unless it's being done to protect someone's physical safety. I'm paraphrasing, but I've actually litigated this before. There are civil penalties for that, but not criminal penalties.

California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code § 632). It's only illegal if it is a confidential communication.

I've litigated it before too.

How is "confidential" defined?

I'm not questioning you, just would be nice to know how the California law works because this issue comes up for me time to time here in western AZ where some of the record conversations may have occurred in Cali.

Here's your answer:

(c) The term "confidential communication" includes anycommunication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicatethat any party to the communication desires it to be confined to theparties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a publicgathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive oradministrative proceeding open to the public, or in any othercircumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonablyexpect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.Incidentally I was wrong about it only being a civil infraction - you can be fined and/or imprisoned. That didn't come up in the case I litigated, which involved a woman telling her hairdresser about her plans to murder put her elderly husband out of his misery.

So, like a private conversation between a boyfriend and girlfriend about their relationship?

 

[-fish-]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

no

Unless the law's changed recently, the rule is that you can't record a private conversation without the other person's knowledge unless it's being done to protect someone's physical safety. I'm paraphrasing, but I've actually litigated this before. There are civil penalties for that, but not criminal penalties.

California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code § 632). It's only illegal if it is a confidential communication.

I've litigated it before too.

How is "confidential" defined?

I'm not questioning you, just would be nice to know how the California law works because this issue comes up for me time to time here in western AZ where some of the record conversations may have occurred in Cali.

Here's your answer:

(c) The term "confidential communication" includes anycommunication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicatethat any party to the communication desires it to be confined to theparties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a publicgathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive oradministrative proceeding open to the public, or in any othercircumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonablyexpect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.Incidentally I was wrong about it only being a civil infraction - you can be fined and/or imprisoned. That didn't come up in the case I litigated, which involved a woman telling her hairdresser about her plans to murder put her elderly husband out of his misery.

So, like a private conversation between a boyfriend and girlfriend about their relationship?

not necessarily. just because it's a conversation between two people doesn't mean that the circumstances indicate confidentiality.

anyway, her story is that he knew he was being recorded and she has a history of recording their calls, so the statute wouldn't apply.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So, still no word from the old kook coot?

How about Silver, has he said anything?

On the one hand what Sterling said, he said in private, and he was outted illegally.

On the other, he's been saying and doing things like this for decades, if there was such a thing as 'conduct unbecoming an owner' that would be him.

Any chance the league just bans him from games and interaction with and management of his team for 2-3 years, or something like that?

He could also just up and sell the team to someone out of town who wants one, like Seattle.

 

[comfortably numb]

So, still no word from the old kook coot?

How about Silver, has he said anything?

On the one hand what Sterling said, he said in private, and he was outted illegally.

On the other, he's been saying and doing things like this for decades, if there was such a thing as 'conduct unbecoming an owner' that would be him.

Any chance the league just bans him from games and interaction with and management of his team for 2-3 years, or something like that?

He could also just up and sell the team to someone out of town who wants one, like Seattle.

he is banned for life

fined 2.5M

 

[lod01]

Wow just saw a pic of this woman on yahoo. Is this all a billionaire can buy nowadays?

Maybe most gold digging chicks have a limit as far as what they will put up with as far as being treated like a pile of ####. Seems she drew the line at being cut off from the gold.

 

[dickey moe]

Moral of the story: don't utter racist statements, especially while cavorting with vindictive, gold digging whores.

 

[lod01]

Moral of the story: don't utter racist statements, especially while cavorting with vindictive, gold digging whores.

The thing is that he probably acted like this around her for so long that he was comfortable saying what he said to her. Then when cut off, she took him to school. They both suck.

It's amazing how many stupid people are so rich in this country. It's really bull ####.

 

[Henry Ford]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

not necessarily. inadmissible, yes. illegal? only if it is a "confidential communication."

I think a phone conversation with your mistress might pass the test of "objectively reasonable expectation of privacy."

 

[MaxThreshold]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

not necessarily. inadmissible, yes. illegal? only if it is a "confidential communication."

I think a phone conversation with your mistress might pass the test of "objectively reasonable expectation of privacy."

They don't call it "sneaking around" because it's public.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Sterling released a statement to TMZ:

Sterling and the Clippers organization tell TMZ Sports, "We have heard the tape on TMZ Sports. We do not know if it is legitimate or if it has been altered."

The statement goes on ... "We do know that the woman on the tape -- who we believe released it to TMZ Sports -- is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Sterling family, alleging that she embezzled more than $1.8 million, who told Mr. Sterling that she would 'get even.'"

That statement appears to be flat wrong. The Sterling family is not suing her for embezzlement. Rather, Sterling's estranged wife is suing to recover expensive gifts that Sterling gave her, since the gifts were given out of their community property.

That's not even close to embezzlement.

Also, it's pretty funny that Sterling doesn't know if the tape is legitimate or if it's been altered. He was part of the conversation. He doesn't remember whether he said those things?

The Deadspin article on this case is hysterical. Shelley Sterling apparently can't afford counsel with spell-check and Viviano's counsel filed a demurrer that isn't so much a pleading as an extended sneer.

 

[-fish-]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

not necessarily. inadmissible, yes. illegal? only if it is a "confidential communication."

I think a phone conversation with your mistress might pass the test of "objectively reasonable expectation of privacy."

she claims that she regularly recorded their calls and he was aware of it. if she can prove that it could go a long way toward gutting the claim of an expectation of confidentiality.

I litigated a case involving this statute once in California...guy gave his live-in girlfriend herpes. she sued him and recorded a phone call without his consent, but he also didn't express any affirmative desire that the conversation be confidential. nobody ever even considered criminal charges against her, and the court found a way to let it in.

the statute is aimed primarily at wiretaps and third parties. at least in my limited experience, it's not as black and white as people are making it seem.

notice how nobody is talking about charging her with anything?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

not necessarily. inadmissible, yes. illegal? only if it is a "confidential communication."

I think a phone conversation with your mistress might pass the test of "objectively reasonable expectation of privacy."

What if she was his archivist?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Kind of a neat mini-irony in that the Golden State assistant coach was apparently fired for surreptitiously recording Jackson and his staff.

 

[pats3in4]

Now THAT's a ban hammer!

 

[Henry Ford]

Did Sterling's girlfriend break the law by recording their conversation and releasing it without his knowledge?

If the conversation took place in CA, yes.

not necessarily. inadmissible, yes. illegal? only if it is a "confidential communication."

I think a phone conversation with your mistress might pass the test of "objectively reasonable expectation of privacy."

she claims that she regularly recorded their calls and he was aware of it. if she can prove that it could go a long way toward gutting the claim of an expectation of confidentiality.

That settles it. He's the dumbest billionaire in history.