Los Angeles, California
May 19, 2014
(Today's Date)
May 19, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change in the original blog, either addition or subtraction, after initial publication.
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW material or information added to the blog after the initial publication.
***This article is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California.
This is the second article or blog posted regarding the Donald Sterling situation. I won't go into any detail about the Sterling controversy here, because it has been fully discussed and recounted in the press and briefly mentioned in my earlier blog, other than to say it is about the racist statements made by (L.A. Clippers' owner) Sterling that were recorded and played out in the media.
Again, while, as a Black man in California, I am offended by the statements made by Sterling(e.g., he didn't want a friend to bring Black men to Clippers games or to be seen in pictures with Black men), I am not that "hurt" by them. There's absolutely no impact or change in my life because of the statements. So my simple response to Sterling would be "likewise", or, as to him (and other racists with the same views as Sterling), the feelings "are mutual". And, I move on. (But, for Elgin Baylor, who was fired by Sterling because of his(Baylor's) race or color, it is different. Baylor was likely offended by both the statements and actions of Sterling, thereby expriencing the "action speaks louder than words" type of racism (discussed henceforth) from Sterling (without any broad local or national reaction to the "action" racism, in contrast to the widespread local and national reaction obtained by Sterling's taped statements)) as well.
On the other hand, as a Black lawyer in California, the racism of judges Jay S. Bybee, William Fletcher, and Richard Clifton ("Bybee"), offends me much, much more than the racism of Donald Sterling, because "action speaks louder than words". Bybee's "action" caused me the continued loss of my home-law office in Ventura, California, and it has impacted and changed both my personal and professional life in immeasurable ways. Briefly, the Bybee action was lying (in order to deny me relief) and making a ruling, through a Ninth Circuit appellate Order, against me as a Black man and Black lawyer, in violation of federal criminal law. And, the result of this criminal action was to cause me the continued denial of my home-law office; where a truthful and constitutional Order would have resulted in my re-possession of it. It is this type of racism, i.e., racial discrimination racism or action racism, that most offends me, because it has the greatest impact on the life of the person being discriminated against. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Nevertheless, if someone was to secretly tape private conversations of Bybee, Fletcher, and Clifton, in the same way or manner that Sterling was taped, would the taped conversations reveal similar comments as those of Donald Sterling? Based on the Sterling-Baylor scenario, i.e., circumstantial evidence (Baylor's firing by Sterling based on Baylor's race or color) to direct evidence (Sterling's racist statements) or "where there's smoke, there's fire", probably.
In any event:
"Action speaks louder than words".
Monday, May 19, 2014
THE DONALD STERLING SAGA , NO. 2 : A VIEW OF STERLING'S RACISM PLACED IN PROPER CONTEXT; AS A BLACK MAN IN CALIFORNIA, I AM OFFENDED BY DONALD STERLING'S RACISM (I.E., RACIST STATEMENTS), BUT AS A BLACK LAWYER IN CALIFORNIA, I AM MUCH MORE OFFENDED BY THE RACISM OF 9TH CIRCUIT JUDGES JAY BYBEE, WILLIAM FLETCHER, AND RICHARD CLIFTON. WHY ? BECAUSE "ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS".
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
THE DONALD STERLING SAGA*** : WHILE I APPLAUD THE SWIFT AND STERN ACTIONS OF THE NEW NBA COMMISSIONER, AND I BELIEVE THE ACTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED WITH THE ACTIONS OF THE NBA AND THE PLAYERS' ASSOCIATION; ORDINARILY(BUT NOT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE), WHILE CLEARLY OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING, STERLING'S STATEMENTS WOULD BE PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, WHICH DON'T EVEN RISE TO THE LEVEL OF HATE SPEECH . AS A BLACK MAN IN CALIFORNIA, I WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE IMPRESSED WITH THE NBA AND THE PLAYERS' ASSOCIATION IF THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE SAME STEPS THEY TOOK (AGAINST STERLINGS' STATEMENTS) IN DEFENSE OF ELGIN BAYLOR IN BAYLOR'S RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACCUSATIONS AGAINST STERLING; BUT THEN, THOSE ACTIONS WOULD HAVE INVOLVED MORE RISK-TAKING AND REQUIRED MORE COURAGE. BAYLOR WAS THE ONLY REAL BASKETBALL VICTIM OF STERLING'S RACISM AND HE RECEIVED NO HELP FROM THE NBA , THE PLAYERS, OR THE PLAYERS' ASSOCIATION . I ALSO WOULD BE IMPRESSED WITH THE PLAYERS' ASSOCIATION IF THEY PROVIDED BAYLOR WITH A LEGAL DEFENSE FUND TO PURSUE TWO LEGAL REMEDIES THAT BAYLOR STILL HAS AVAILABLE TO HIM, SHOULD HE DESIRE TO PURSUE THEM (AND, IF HE HAS ANY INTEGRITY, HE SHOULD). CALL ME, ELGIN.
Los Angeles, California
March 24, 2021
(Today's Date)
May 13, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change (either an addition or substraction) in the original blog after initial publication
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to original blog after initial publication)
***This will be the first in a series of four "short" articles dealing with the Donald Sterling situation.
****This article is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California
It is generally known now that pro basketball owner Donald Sterling of the L.A. Clippers was caught on audiotape making offensive and insulting statements concerning Black people. More specifically, he stated, on tape, that he didn't want his female acquaintance, V. Stiviano, to bring any Black people to the Clippers games or to be seen with any Black people, e.g., having pictures taken with them (one instance was a picture taken with Magic Johnson).
Clearly, the statements were not only offensive, insulting, and racist to Black people in particular and in general (and likely to many other non-black people as well), they were also specifically and especially offensive and insulting to Black Clippers' players and personnel, who must deal with Sterling (either directly or indirectly) on a daily basis, i.e., special circumstances; which is why NBA Commisssioner Adam Silver appropriately took immediate and stern action.
Ordinarily, if Sterling was not a NBA owner and the owner of the Clippers in particular, and he had made the same statements, his statements would be constitutionally protected "free" speech; and because he did not use any inflammatory words or language in his statements, i.e., "niggers" instead of Black people, the statements would not rise to the level of "hate" speech. Consequently, if Sterling had made the same statements under different circumstances, i.e., not a NBA owner and not the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, he would not be open to legal consequences for his statements; although social consequences would be a different thing.
I am not impressed with the action taken by the NBA or the Players' Association (suggesting a boycott of NBA games) because they did nothing more than "piggyback" on the gossip media TMZ's reported information (but, Black Clippers' players and personnel and former Clippers' general manager Elgin Baylor, in particular, should be thankful to TMZ, for otherwise they would never have known the real Donald Sterling--although Baylor did know). It was "safe" at that time and now to speak out about Donald Sterling's racism and how they (NBA and Players' Association) are so against racism and Sterling's statements. It didn't and doesn't involve any "risks" to take a stand after production of the taped statements, because "everybody" was and is against this type of racism. So we'll (NBA and Players' Association) join the rest of the offended people and demand that some type of action be taken, and demand that some action be taken against Sterling (the NBA) and threaten a boycott (the Players' Association).
So, why didn't the NBA and the Players' Association take the same steps when Elgin Baylor complained about Donald Sterling's racial discrimination, before he (Baylor) finally took legal action? ANS: Because it invoved more risks and required more courage. Moreover, the NBA displayed its own form of racism against Baylor by not acting on his complaints against Sterling. That is, because the NBA viewed Baylor as just another black man complaining about racism and racial discrimination against a white man (and in this instance, a white owner of a major sports team), it decided not to give Baylor's complaints any credence or credibility, notwithstanding Baylor being a legend or legendary basketball player who is highly respected in the professional basketball community (i.e.,the NBA's position should have been, "if Elgin Baylor is complaining about and charging racial discrimination, in view of what we know about him and his character, then it must be true; Baylor wouldn't charge it if it wasn't true" or, at least we should investigate the circumstances of the discrimination charges very closely, and lean to the side of believing Baylor in the first instance). The NBA's refusal and failure to back Baylor in his complaints against Sterling was the product of racism on the part of the NBA (which is why Baylor sued the NBA as well as Sterling in his lawsuit).
Further, it would have been risky for the NBA and the Players' Association to take Baylor's side regarding Baylor's complaints of racism and racial discrimination, because if Baylor was wrong, how would white players, personnel, and owners, and the white world view the NBA, and how would white players view the Players' Association? They (the NBA and the Players' Association) would look bad if Baylor was wrong, but, on the other hand, they would look good if Baylor was right. But, it would be a risk. The NBA and the Players' Association chose not to take the risk. Now, they see the risk would have been well taken. Baylor was right.
Moreover, it required courage for the NBA and the Players' Association to support Baylor and his complaints; courage that they did not have. They would have had to support a Black man and Black Executive against a white major sports team owner, with money, power, and prestige; and more importantly, they would have had to believe Baylor (and, contrastly, not believe Sterling or not believe that Sterling was innocent of discriminating) without the support of direct evidence of racism, i,e., the TMZ tapes. It took courage (from both the NBA and the Players' Association), and they didn't have it, so Baylor had to go it alone. Baylor was the only real and actual basketball victim of Sterling's racism and discrimination, and the only victim to suffer real damages, i.e., losing his job as general manager, and he received no help from either the NBA (who could have initiated its own actions on behalf of Baylor independent of any legal actions Baylor might take, e.g., like they are doing with Sterling now; the difference being : instead of taking action on behalf of the NBA, as is the case now, it (NBA) would have been action taken on behalf of Baylor) or the Player's Association (whose members either individually or collectively could have supported Baylor)(they simply "punked out").
Now, with the production of the TMZ tapes, they (NBA and Players' Association) want to assert to the world that they are against racism. If they are against racism after production of the tapes, they likely were also against racism without the tapes; they simply didn't have the courage to say so without the tapes. So, I'm not impressed with the NBA's and Players' Association's post-statements actions. They should have taken the actions sooner, i.e., for Baylor.
If the Players' Association want to be impressive, they should take steps to provide Baylor with a legal defense fund to pursue two legal remedies that he still has available to him, notwithstanding his losing his case at trial. One remedy would involve Baylor's discrimination case being re-opened, after setting aside the judgment, and the other remedy would involve an entirely new and independent claim arising from events occurring during pretrial or trial proceedings of the discrimination trial.
After the jury verdict in Baylor's trial, without a decision regarding the racial discrimination charge, I was moved, as a Black man, a Black lawyer, and a blogger, to discover why Baylor had withdrawn his racial discrimination charge against Sterling, especially since that appeared to be his primary charge, from the press reports. Upon examination of a portion of the trial record, I, as a civil rights and civil lawyer, am convinced that Baylor has two colorable civil remedies or claims arising from his discrimination case that should provide him with monetary relief against Sterling and others. Baylor was duped. I am not going into any details here about his claims. I must speak with Baylor first, to decide if he wishes to pursue his claims. If so, I will not publish any further information in blogs until such time as Baylor and myself believes it might be appropriate. If Baylor decides that he does not wish to pursue his remedies, I will then sometime thereafter post a blog about what the remedies are and their bases, if Baylor had decided to pursue them.
I will await a call from Baylor first. It appears to me that if Baylor has any integrity and dignity, and he truly believes that he was discriminated against, and I believe that he was, he would want to pursue the remedies that I have mentioned here. Baylor is not a lawyer, and only a lawyer would know of the bases for and the availability of the remedies that I have mentioned here.
Call me, Elgin. Business no. : (805) 901-2693. Or, if anyone who has read this blog knows Elgin, have him give me a call.
March 24, 2021
(Today's Date)
May 13, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change (either an addition or substraction) in the original blog after initial publication
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to original blog after initial publication)
***This will be the first in a series of four "short" articles dealing with the Donald Sterling situation.
****This article is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California
It is generally known now that pro basketball owner Donald Sterling of the L.A. Clippers was caught on audiotape making offensive and insulting statements concerning Black people. More specifically, he stated, on tape, that he didn't want his female acquaintance, V. Stiviano, to bring any Black people to the Clippers games or to be seen with any Black people, e.g., having pictures taken with them (one instance was a picture taken with Magic Johnson).
Clearly, the statements were not only offensive, insulting, and racist to Black people in particular and in general (and likely to many other non-black people as well), they were also specifically and especially offensive and insulting to Black Clippers' players and personnel, who must deal with Sterling (either directly or indirectly) on a daily basis, i.e., special circumstances; which is why NBA Commisssioner Adam Silver appropriately took immediate and stern action.
Ordinarily, if Sterling was not a NBA owner and the owner of the Clippers in particular, and he had made the same statements, his statements would be constitutionally protected "free" speech; and because he did not use any inflammatory words or language in his statements, i.e., "niggers" instead of Black people, the statements would not rise to the level of "hate" speech. Consequently, if Sterling had made the same statements under different circumstances, i.e., not a NBA owner and not the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, he would not be open to legal consequences for his statements; although social consequences would be a different thing.
I am not impressed with the action taken by the NBA or the Players' Association (suggesting a boycott of NBA games) because they did nothing more than "piggyback" on the gossip media TMZ's reported information (but, Black Clippers' players and personnel and former Clippers' general manager Elgin Baylor, in particular, should be thankful to TMZ, for otherwise they would never have known the real Donald Sterling--although Baylor did know). It was "safe" at that time and now to speak out about Donald Sterling's racism and how they (NBA and Players' Association) are so against racism and Sterling's statements. It didn't and doesn't involve any "risks" to take a stand after production of the taped statements, because "everybody" was and is against this type of racism. So we'll (NBA and Players' Association) join the rest of the offended people and demand that some type of action be taken, and demand that some action be taken against Sterling (the NBA) and threaten a boycott (the Players' Association).
So, why didn't the NBA and the Players' Association take the same steps when Elgin Baylor complained about Donald Sterling's racial discrimination, before he (Baylor) finally took legal action? ANS: Because it invoved more risks and required more courage. Moreover, the NBA displayed its own form of racism against Baylor by not acting on his complaints against Sterling. That is, because the NBA viewed Baylor as just another black man complaining about racism and racial discrimination against a white man (and in this instance, a white owner of a major sports team), it decided not to give Baylor's complaints any credence or credibility, notwithstanding Baylor being a legend or legendary basketball player who is highly respected in the professional basketball community (i.e.,the NBA's position should have been, "if Elgin Baylor is complaining about and charging racial discrimination, in view of what we know about him and his character, then it must be true; Baylor wouldn't charge it if it wasn't true" or, at least we should investigate the circumstances of the discrimination charges very closely, and lean to the side of believing Baylor in the first instance). The NBA's refusal and failure to back Baylor in his complaints against Sterling was the product of racism on the part of the NBA (which is why Baylor sued the NBA as well as Sterling in his lawsuit).
Further, it would have been risky for the NBA and the Players' Association to take Baylor's side regarding Baylor's complaints of racism and racial discrimination, because if Baylor was wrong, how would white players, personnel, and owners, and the white world view the NBA, and how would white players view the Players' Association? They (the NBA and the Players' Association) would look bad if Baylor was wrong, but, on the other hand, they would look good if Baylor was right. But, it would be a risk. The NBA and the Players' Association chose not to take the risk. Now, they see the risk would have been well taken. Baylor was right.
Moreover, it required courage for the NBA and the Players' Association to support Baylor and his complaints; courage that they did not have. They would have had to support a Black man and Black Executive against a white major sports team owner, with money, power, and prestige; and more importantly, they would have had to believe Baylor (and, contrastly, not believe Sterling or not believe that Sterling was innocent of discriminating) without the support of direct evidence of racism, i,e., the TMZ tapes. It took courage (from both the NBA and the Players' Association), and they didn't have it, so Baylor had to go it alone. Baylor was the only real and actual basketball victim of Sterling's racism and discrimination, and the only victim to suffer real damages, i.e., losing his job as general manager, and he received no help from either the NBA (who could have initiated its own actions on behalf of Baylor independent of any legal actions Baylor might take, e.g., like they are doing with Sterling now; the difference being : instead of taking action on behalf of the NBA, as is the case now, it (NBA) would have been action taken on behalf of Baylor) or the Player's Association (whose members either individually or collectively could have supported Baylor)(they simply "punked out").
Now, with the production of the TMZ tapes, they (NBA and Players' Association) want to assert to the world that they are against racism. If they are against racism after production of the tapes, they likely were also against racism without the tapes; they simply didn't have the courage to say so without the tapes. So, I'm not impressed with the NBA's and Players' Association's post-statements actions. They should have taken the actions sooner, i.e., for Baylor.
If the Players' Association want to be impressive, they should take steps to provide Baylor with a legal defense fund to pursue two legal remedies that he still has available to him, notwithstanding his losing his case at trial. One remedy would involve Baylor's discrimination case being re-opened, after setting aside the judgment, and the other remedy would involve an entirely new and independent claim arising from events occurring during pretrial or trial proceedings of the discrimination trial.
After the jury verdict in Baylor's trial, without a decision regarding the racial discrimination charge, I was moved, as a Black man, a Black lawyer, and a blogger, to discover why Baylor had withdrawn his racial discrimination charge against Sterling, especially since that appeared to be his primary charge, from the press reports. Upon examination of a portion of the trial record, I, as a civil rights and civil lawyer, am convinced that Baylor has two colorable civil remedies or claims arising from his discrimination case that should provide him with monetary relief against Sterling and others. Baylor was duped. I am not going into any details here about his claims. I must speak with Baylor first, to decide if he wishes to pursue his claims. If so, I will not publish any further information in blogs until such time as Baylor and myself believes it might be appropriate. If Baylor decides that he does not wish to pursue his remedies, I will then sometime thereafter post a blog about what the remedies are and their bases, if Baylor had decided to pursue them.
I will await a call from Baylor first. It appears to me that if Baylor has any integrity and dignity, and he truly believes that he was discriminated against, and I believe that he was, he would want to pursue the remedies that I have mentioned here. Baylor is not a lawyer, and only a lawyer would know of the bases for and the availability of the remedies that I have mentioned here.
Call me, Elgin. Business no. : (805) 901-2693. Or, if anyone who has read this blog knows Elgin, have him give me a call.
**UPDATE—March 24, 2021
REST IN PEACE, ELGIN : HISTORY WILL REMEMBER YOU AND YOUR FIGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS : YOUR RACE DISCRIMINATION CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN
Elgin Baylor, the former L.A. Laker basketball great and former L.A. Clipper general manager, has now passed away this week, at the age of 86. I will always regret not meeting Baylor and not having an opportunity to counsel Baylor regarding his race discrimination claim brought against Donald Sterling and the NBA. I believe he had a good case. He just had the wrong lawyers, and one of them was Black, Carl Douglas. Baylor turned to Douglas as a friend and a lawyer. And, I believe Douglas initiated prosecution of the civil rights claims in good faith. However, along the way , Douglas and the other lawyers who became involved in the case should have recognized that they were not properly skilled in that area of law, and they should have turned to other, more skilled lawyers.
Baylor’s race discrimination claim should not have been withdrawn. His lawyers dropped the ball. And, it is so clear to me that the race discrimination claim should not have been withdrawn, that it causes me to wonder why the ball was dropped. Baylor was up against Donald Sterling, the Clippers, the NBA, and the Players Association (in the sense that it would not support him), so he needed strong lawyers who would remain entirely on his side. There is serious question as to whether he received that.
Rest in peace , my brother, you have made your mark.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)