The point of all of this is the "clean hands" doctrine. The clean hands doctrine requires a plaintiff in equity to approach the court with clean hands. In other words, if the plaintiff is in a hole and he wants the court to dig him out of it, the hole cannot be of the plaintiff's own making.

This is significant because the remedies sought in both cases are equitable, so the plaintiffs, if they have acted in a bad manner could very well have torpedoed themselves.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

HUGE deal! hahahahahah, I love it. We needed some good news on this and I think we have it.

I've been watching this with amusement.
Now many of you know sometimes what we think is fair isn't what the court will rule.
But I have to say this" I told you this is too good to be true, or even "I told you so."

What's "too good to be true"?

City says Bennett's sincerity no longer a key issue
By Jim Brunner

Seattle Times staff reporter

Lawyers for Seattle have spent the past few months digging up and publicizing a steady stream of embarrassing e-mails from Sonics owners, arguing they prove Clay Bennett's Oklahoma City partnership never made a good-faith attempt to keep the team here.

But with a trial looming in less than three weeks, the city's attorneys are now claiming that Bennett's intentions are essentially irrelevant to the lawsuit over whether the Sonics must play through the end of the KeyArena lease in September 2010.

As part of a flurry of pretrial motions filed this week, Seattle's attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman to prohibit Bennett from delving into how much time and money he spent trying to persuade state lawmakers to approve a $500 million arena in Renton.

Bennett has said he spent millions of dollars and exhausted every reasonable arena possibility in the Seattle area before deciding to move the Sonics to Oklahoma City. His attorneys were expected to detail at trial how much he spent on lobbyists and consultants.

But the sincerity of Bennett's arena efforts is "irrelevant to whether the Lease is valid, fair, or clear; whether damages are an adequate remedy for breach of the Lease," the city's attorneys argued in their motion.

Those questions should be reserved for a separate lawsuit filed by former Sonics owner Howard Schultz, the city argued. That lawsuit seeks to undo the 2006 sale of the Sonics, accusing Bennett of violating a promise — contained in his purchase agreement — to make "good faith best efforts" on an arena deal in the Seattle area for at least a year.

That's just one of several battles over what evidence and witnesses should be allowed at the trial, scheduled to begin June 16.

The Sonics want to prevent the city from calling local sports-radio host Mitch Levy and author Sherman Alexie as witnesses.

The city intends to call Levy, the host of KJR-AM's "Mitch in the Morning" program, to testify about fan interest in the Sonics. Alexie, a Sonics season ticketholder who has been writing a regular "Sonics Death Watch" column for the Stranger newspaper, is supposed to testify about the team's importance, especially to minority communities.

"Neither has any relevant testimonial knowledge. Both will only fuel the growing media circus. Both should be excluded," the Sonics' attorneys argued in their court filing, citing Alexie's "profanity-laced" views about Bennett's group.

Meanwhile, the city has asked Pechman to exclude several other pieces of evidence and arguments the Sonics want to raise at the coming trial:

• A poll conducted for the Sonics in January that found nearly two-thirds of 600 Seattle-area residents believed the team's departure would "make no difference" or that they would be "better off." By contrast, 57 percent of those polled said they'd be upset if the Mariners or Seahawks left. Seattle's attorneys argued the poll is irrelevant to the KeyArena lease and was tainted because it was conducted while the Sonics "were on their way to their worst record ever."

• Any evidence of "dysfunction" in the relationship between the city and the team. Sonics lawyers have cited the antagonistic relationship between current team owners and city leaders to argue the team should be allowed to leave KeyArena in exchange for a cash payment. But Seattle's lawyers argued that such personal feelings should not affect a "fully enforceable commercial contract."

• Evidence about a potential Sonics ownership group led by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. The Sonics have described Seattle's efforts to force a team sale to Ballmer as "a Machiavellian plan" that gives the city "unclean hands" in the lease case. But Seattle's attorneys argued that "there is nothing wrong with the city having discussions with a local group that wants to bring an NBA franchise to a renovated KeyArena."

• Statements by individual Seattle City Council members if the Sonics are claiming those statements represent the city's official position with regard to the team. For example, Sonics lawyers have cited Councilmember Nick Licata's February 2006 remark to Sports Illustrated that the economic impact of the team's departure would be "near zero." (He apologized for the remark a few months later.) Seattle's attorneys said such comments should not be taken as "a binding admission" on behalf of the entire city.

Paul Lawrence, an attorney with K&L Gates who is representing the city, said the series of pretrial motions is "an effort to keep the trial focused on what we think are the limited issues around specific performance [of the KeyArena lease]."

A spokesman for Bennett said the team would have no comment on the latest legal maneuvers.

A pretrial hearing in the Sonics lawsuit is set for June 6.

The six-day bench trial is scheduled to begin June 16 in federal court in Seattle.

Jim Brunner: 206-515-5628 or jbrunner@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

Sonics | City says Bennett's sincerity no longer a key issue | Seattle Times Newspaper

Looks like Midtowner called this one. This is from a story in this mornings Oklahoman.....

"In preparation for the trial, attorneys for the team's owners have been questioning Seattle city officials about their discussions with a group of local investors who want to buy the team and keep it in Seattle.

Owners are "expected to argue this evidence supports an ‘unclean hands' defense” to the city's claim that the team should be required to play two more years in Seattle, the city attorneys said."

Seattle wants results of survey excluded from trial | NewsOK.com

It just goes to show you -- billionaires in neither OKC nor Seattle are capable at managing a conspiracy properly.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Haha. What a mess.

What a bunch of two-faced corrupt wind-bags. I can't believe the people in Seattle are falling for all of these shenanigans. They have but one entity to be mad at for losing their team -- their own city council.

After the polls cited in that latest article though, I have to think that their council was acting just like two-thirds of the city wanted....

dismayed, let it not be forgotten that 75% of Seattle voters approved Proposition I-91, you might say our sales tax vote in reverse except with even greater support. There's plenty of blame all the way around in Seattle and Washington, generally.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

If I were a Seattle citizen, I would be mad at the completel WASTE of money the city is prompting through these lawsuits.

Maybe their being told by their elected officials the same thing we were told by ours..... you have to spend money, to make money.

2/3rds+ of them don't want the team already, supposedly. The city is going on with it anyway.

A Sonics trial may get ugly -- expert
NBA should push for fast settlement, veteran lawyer says
By GREG JOHNS
P-I REPORTER

With less than two weeks remaining until the start of the city's trial against the Sonics, an attorney unaffiliated with either party says this could turn into the legal equivalent of a barroom brawl if the case gets to court.

The looming question now is whether the struggle over the Sonics' lease issue at KeyArena will reach Judge Marsha Pechman's courtroom for the opening gavel on June 16 or if the sides will come to some sort of pretrial agreement.

Longtime Seattle attorney Randy Aliment said he's surprised the situation has gone this far without resolution and notes that more than 90 percent of cases are resolved out of court.

From Aliment's perspective, both parties in this particular battle have significant motivation to find a tenable solution, as does the NBA.

"You'd think the NBA would pull both sides into a room, knock their heads together and say, 'Let's get this resolved,' because it will be a bloodbath in that courtroom," said Aliment, whose Williams, Kastner & Gibbs firm represented Ken Behring when the former Seahawks owner was attempting to move his team to Los Angeles in 1996.

Aliment remembers armed guards in the lobby of his firm's office during the highly emotional Behring situation, which ultimately was settled out of court when Behring agreed to sell the Seahawks to Paul Allen.

The Sonics case could get even more heated if it reaches Pechman's U.S. District courtroom, given the lengthy run-up of legal machinations, a number of well-publicized e-mails and other evidence and the fact the NBA has already approved a move of the franchise to Oklahoma City once it receives legal clearance from its KeyArena lease that is scheduled to expire after the 2009-10 season.

Aliment said both sides have hired the best trial lawyers in Seattle and he expects a no-holds-barred situation should the case proceed as scheduled.

"You've definitely got a three-ring circus going now," Aliment said. "From a straight legal standpoint, this thing is just about unprecedented. I'm thinking one of the only other comparable situations was when Al Davis and the Oakland Raiders filed suit and things got stupid down there. That one actually went to trial."

Davis filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL in 1982 when the league attempted to block his move to Los Angeles. Aliment said the issues are different in this case and in a suit filed by former Sonics owner Howard Schultz seeking to rescind the sale to Clay Bennett's ownership group, but the bottom line remains.

"In legal battles, it's all about a dispute," Aliment said. "Whether you're talking about antitrust or breach of contract or whatever, it's a fistfight. So lawyers are reaching into their bag to figure out whatever legal theory will rule the day.

"Here you've got breach of lease, you've got breach of contract, you've got fraud. But bottom line, what you really have is a fight. Somebody is trying to steal the team, somebody wants to keep the team, and that's all the city knows and all Clay Bennett knows

"That's why the NBA has to be looking at this thing saying, 'We've got to put a stop to this' or who knows where the fallout will end? Because once that fistfight erupts in court, it's like a bar where eventually it spills out into the street. You'd think somebody would want to stop this before it goes that far."

Aliment feels NBA commissioner David Stern should be concerned about how Seattle's situation is being viewed by other cities around the league and the precedent that would be set by the upcoming court battle, not to mention the potential ugliness of the Sonics playing two lame-duck seasons at KeyArena after the league has already approved their departure.

Both the city and the Sonics' owners have risks in proceeding to trial. Even if they win, the Sonics almost surely would face an appeals process that would prevent the team from moving to Oklahoma City by next season, which means at least another year of $30 million in losses while playing at KeyArena.

Additionally, Schultz's lawsuit looms as another hurdle in Bennett's path.

The city runs the risk of pushing for a solution without a clear-cut victory, given that the Sonics will be free to leave in two years even if the city wins its case to enforce the lease, unless Schultz's suit also succeeds.

Additionally, Aliment says that while the city's case appears strong, judges frequently hesitate to keep two warring parties together in a binding lease agreement and often award financial damages instead of insisting on a "specific performance" request such as forcing the Sonics to play their games in a bad situation.

Is there room to settle?

"From the city's standpoint, forced occupation here is going to be a difficult proposition because the team would only be here two years, the NBA is going to be upset and the prospects for a team long-term are problematic," Aliment said. "Some type of mediated solution where Bennett can take his toys back to Oklahoma and the city gets a different team, or Bennett gets a new team and we keep our Sonics, would obviously be the best.

"But it's going to take participation by the NBA and other owners to approve something like that," he said. "That's a tall order, as evidenced by the fact it hasn't been done yet."

If the sides are negotiating, they're doing so quietly, which would be expected at this juncture. Most cases come down to last-minute settlements and it's possible for an agreement to be made even during or after a trial. The questions are: Who has the most leverage and are both sides willing to give?

Pechman has a pretrial conference scheduled for Friday, at which she'll hand down rulings on motions by both sides, outline trial requirements and see if there is settlement progress.

From Aliment's perspective, it's surprising the situation has come this far.

"It can still happen and I have no firsthand knowledge of any of this," he said. "But one would think the NBA would get these parties together and say, 'Clay Bennett, you have a team. Seattle, you want a team. Let's let the team go to Oklahoma City and you will get your team in (some future) season.' And then have a squaring up of the money."

Should the battle actually be waged in court, Aliment says it's possible there will be no winners in the big picture, given the black eye the NBA would receive as well as the mixed legal bag that likely will remain even once a decision is rendered.

"It's like if your kid comes home and says, 'I got in fight today, but I beat him,' " Aliment said. "And you look at your kid and his face is all bloodied and bruised. I just think someone has to step in and stop this thing and find a solution."

A Sonics trial may get ugly -- expert says

Good article, really, except for the part where the guy is from Seattle and characterizes Clay as "stealing." Jesus' mercy...

If someone will rob me and leave me with $350 million, I'll even leave the door unlocked for 'em.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Esp if what they take was valued at, what- I forget, $275MM?

But isn't the City's issue which caused them to file this lawsuit more about the lease, and less about the team?

I would actually say no: the point is keeping the team, and the legal theory is about the lease. They don't stand to make any super-great amount of money off specific performance of the lease, and they've been OFFERED that money already.

The point i'm making is: a seemingly large marjority of citizens don't WANT the team for two more years. Seattle's leadership could have accepted a settlement offer earlier that would have paid all the debt on KeyArena and then some. They didn't accept it and are now using public funds to fight an expensive lawsuit that, at best, gives them two more seasons with a team that is losing tons of money, pisses off the NBA, KeyArena still in debt and not serviceable on a going-forward basis, that the citizens don't even seem to want, ALL IN HOPES that Clay will sell or be forced to sell...so as to please a minority of the population?

Does that sound like worthwhile civic expenditures? At least our expenditures make for economic investment if we get the team. They just have a short-lived 2 seasons with the Sonics if they win, and given that they COULD have KeyArena's debt paid off, they might actually be in a significantly worse position than if they settled or even win.

OKCMallen, I respectfully disagree. That vast majority of Seattleites do want to keep the Sonics. I'm guessing you're referring to the poll results recently published in the Oklahoman. First off, let's remember that this poll was financed by the OKC ownership group. As we all know, opinion polls can be deliberately engineered in order to generate certain responses. Has the hard data from the Seattle poll been released? Or were just the juicy bits funnelled through the Oklahoman? Taking the poll results at face value, only 7% of Seattle respondants felt "they would be better off" if the Sonics left. Not quite the "vast majority" is it, OKCMallen? Conversely, 31% of Seattle respondants said they "would be worse off." True, 58% said they would be indifferent...and I'm guessing a good a percentage of these folks truly don't care one way or the other. But I'm also guessing a good percentage of these respondants have been soured on the NBA experience over the last 3 years and have resigned themselves to the possible relocation of Sonics. Since Bennett bought the team, traded away the Sonics best players, implemented a limited media/player access policy, demanded $400M in public funds (with $0 from PBC) for the pure benefit of a "sweet flip" and was subsequently caught lying about his intentions in Seattle, many Sonics fans have washed their hands clean. I can't really say I blame them. Acceptance is the final stage of grief.

This is a team that's has been supported through thick and thin for over 40 years...hard to believe that outside of the Chicago Bulls, the Seattle Sonics were the most successfull team of the 1990's. No doubt, with proper ownership over the last 4 years, the Sonics success would have continued. Regardless, there is a lease with the city that demands "specific performance." The PBC knew this when it bought the team. "Specific Performance" was demanded due to the unquantifiable revenue the team's acitivities bring to the area. It's not just a function of the Key Arena, but the surrounding community and business' that benefit as result of the Sonics 41 home games. That's why the City of Seattle agreed to a complete a mostly tax payer funded overhaul of the Key Arena no less than 12 years ago (an arena David Stern called a model for the NBA).

I would also venture to guess that the City is holding firm on the lease due to the fairly extensive correspondance by PBC members before and after the sale from the Schultz group. Remember, if Bennett loses or wins the lease suit with City, he still has to face Schultz and Yarmouth. Emails, depositions...take your pick...it gives plenty of ammunition to Schultz and his attornies. Many legal experts have put that case at 50/50

I olny made it through this first part. The survey that was done by Steve Ballmer's group about 8 months ago showed that a majority of people in Washington want the Sonics to leave, even with Ballmer spending $150 million of his own money on Key Arena. Say what you want about Clay's survey but the responds were more favorable to it than Ballmer's poll.

That is pretty amazing considering the depositions just came out and no one has seen all of the evidence. Don't believe every lawyer that is trying to sell a book, magazine, or tv ratings. Heck, Commisioner Stern is a lawyer and I'll bet you $1 million you don't believe him.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

In polls, 69% is a HUGE number, and is a supermajority, and if all those people are indifferent or WANT them to leave...WTH are you talking about? Only 31% said they'd be worse off, and then you say "That vast majority of Seattleites do want to keep the Sonics." Doesn't jive. And if you're going to say the survey is a big fat statistical lie, then I guess we can't even form a basis upon which to discuss. The media lies, the stats lie, blah blah blah. Easy to defend your opinion when you don't debate on any set premises.

BTW, not that you know this, but I don't need specific performance explained to me. There's also a concept in the law that sometimes a remedy will not be granted when it is bad commercially for all involved....which is arguably the case here. At any rate, most OKCians aren't worried about whether we get them in 3 months or in 2 years, as long as we get them, and it's looking good from here. In all honesty, which side would you rather be on, assuming getting the Sonics is your goal?


As to Shultz's suit, which is largely laughable, most people have said that case barely has legs. The most damning quote in it is a HALF-QUOTE. The one where CLay says best efforts to keep the team in Seattle!? The second part of that quote is something to the effect of "given that an agreeable arena deal is reached." Not to mention what a piece of work Shultz is anway, not wanting to unwind the deal and disgorge his 30 pieces of silver for which he sold "your" team...he wants the mother of all remedies: a constructive trust from which the team to be sold to any other buyer, but not himself!? Hell, that remedy alone shows he's not working in good faith here; if he was so benevolent, he'd just ask to unwind the deal and take the team back... You guys should be very worried about that suit because it's flimsy anyway, and moreover, it appears Schultz, Seattle, other powerbrokers up there were conspiring against PBC in order to sink the arena deal. Tsk tsk tsk, that's arguably in violation of the "clean hands doctrine" as you can read in this thread, meaning if that's true, you get no equitable remedies at all.

I appreciate you voicing your opinion in a calm, clear and non-insulting tone. Seriosuly, I just wish it would all end. Sick of it at this point.