I don't have the time or energy to comb through all that material. That's why I have you guys.
I'll just sit back here and let y'all throw this stuff around and throw in my 2-cents from time to time if that's alright
These folks from Seattle like to throw around words like "fraud" and "justice" and "fair dealing" and whatever... I see lots of terms of art being thrown around with little/no understanding of what those things really mean and what effect if any those things have on the outcome here. I see a lot of premature wrangling with issues before we've even seen the court clear up simple matters, such as standing. On that issue alone, I can see this thing being 12(b)(6)'d (that means dismissed because the cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) right out of town.
The constructive trust remedy is pretty insane though, isn't it? There's just so much wrong with his suit that it's not even worth delving into unless someone is willing to pay me a couple-hundred dollars an hour to do so.
-- but I'm not a lawyer yet, so that's doubtful.
What may be going on here though is a concerted effort by Seattle's good 'ol boys to do a
mitzfah for their city -- that is to say that all of this litigation makes Bennett offering the city a more favorable settlement more attractive than not. At this point, through May, a settlement moving the team, wherein Bennett agrees to certain painful financial concessions (which OKC will probably at some point be asked to pay him for) would not shock me.