More News on Sonics Lawsuit

Pwned.

He's right... if the thing doesn't go his way, Pechman's knowledge of b-ball in Seattle won't be the same as the appellate judges who review the case.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Interesting from court room blog.

12:17 p.m. - The media overflow room just became a buzz of activity over a Seattle Times blog posting, which basically implied that the city attorney Paul Lawrence might be conceding the case. In cross-examination of Wally Walker, Lawrence told Judge Pechman he need to get information from Walker for a possible appeal. (See post at 10:57 a.m.) This apparently lit up the phones at Sports Radio KJR. Since then, the blog post has been dropped. Both a legal analyst for Save Our Sonics and a rep for the City of Seattle says that implication was overreaching. City rep Alex Fryer says that the City's attorneys would need that information as well if the Sonics appeal the ruling.

Not a big deal; all attorneys think ahead to appeal in such a case. Disregard that.

What you SHOULD regard, though, is the current happenings...PBC is kicking some butt making a showing of Seattle's unclean hands and plan to bleed the "Oklahomans" and everyone complicity from Slade to the mayor to the legislators.

OKCMallen - I think the key word in Lawrence's comment is "our". He didn't say "an appeal" or "their appeal". He said "our appeal".

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

Both sides want everything on the record for their appeal. Seattle's whole case is that the Sonics offer something intangible which cannot be accounted for with cash damages. The thrust of the comment was that.

I imagine Keller would have said something similar had the judge interrupted him, but I hope not in that manner. In the printed word, the Seattle attorney comes off as a tad passive aggressive, but other than that, I wouldn't read too much into it.

I don't want to read too much into the exact wording of things, but the clean hands argument, I think is winning the day here. Go read Doug's blog for a full explanation.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

From the testimony it appears that the city is trying with the lawsuit to bleed ownership to sell. I don't think it makes a hill-of-beans to Seattle if they win. They think with all the suits and appeals they can bleed more and get the owners to sell. Hope the court can see this now.

Midtowner's got it. The point is- on appeal, the sides do not get to present any new evidence. The appellate court most of the time simply reads the transcripts and briefs- nothing new is allowed in at all. So, that's why attorneys get rambunctious when it comes to judges putting the kibash on proffered items.

In the course of normal courtroom activity I can assume you are correct. But taken in the context of today's testamony I am pretty sure Lawrence thinks they are going to lose.

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

I get the same impression, Mallen. At the very least, everything the PBC has presented is at least no worse than anything suggested by the "man possesed" e-mail, the "sweet flip" e-mail, or even Aubrey's quote about intending to relocate.

What's funny is that just about everything that has happened has been pretty transparent to even the most casual observer and most intuitive conclusions have now been backed up by evidence presented during the trial.

It's seems the most common disconnect is that a lot of people assume that since the contract says "specific performance" that it's enforcable, even though it rarely is. IMO, Seattle has kind of won just by this poceeding happening, because it's delayed the discussion of money, which may need to be mediated. But, I think you suggested that if they win this case they can move even if the money hasn't been settled at the time of relocation, or was I reading you wrong?

Why would the team need to stay until the money issue is settled? The court will have the power to force Clay and company to pay regardless of where they are located. So there would be no need to hold them in Seattle until payment is recieved.

Because it's a big matzoh ball hanging out there.

But, generally, I agree with you. I just don't know if a court could place an injunction on the move until the buyout of the lease is settled.

News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | Evidence reveals Seattle sabotage plan


Seattle's plan to keep the NBA franchise from moving to Oklahoma City was laid out frankly in a document carried by former Sen. Slade Gorton: "The Sonics Challenge," it was titled, "Why a Poisoned Well Affords a Unique Opportunity."

Associated Press

SEATTLE (AP) -- One Sunday last September, three of the most prominent men in Seattle -- former Sen. Slade Gorton, Microsoft Corp. chief executive Steve Ballmer, and former Safeco Corp. CEO Mike McGavick -- arrived at the home of former SuperSonics president Wally Walker.

Their purpose -- keeping the NBA franchise from moving to Oklahoma City -- was laid out frankly in a document carried by Gorton: "The Sonics Challenge," it was titled, "Why a Poisoned Well Affords a Unique Opportunity."

"The critical path is to separate the NBA from the Oklahomans, while increasing the exposure for each," it said.

The document, which remained sealed until it was admitted as a lawsuit exhibit Friday, discussed "locking them into losses" and exposing "the league to embarrassment in a market they like." The role of Gorton and others would be to "increase pain of staying (financial and reputation)."

The hour-and-a-half meeting and e-mails about it were a focus of questioning Friday when Walker took the witness stand in the federal trial over the team's lease at KeyArena, the league's smallest venue.

Owner Clay Bennett, who bought the team in 2006 for $350 million, is trying to move the Sonics to his hometown, saying the team could lose $60 million if forced to stay for the final two years of the lease. The city of Seattle is asking U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman to enforce its terms, hoping two more years would be enough time to find a way to keep the Sonics -- or at least another NBA team -- in town.

Citing the "poisoned well" strategy, Sonics attorneys have argued that the city brought its lawsuit in an attempt to bleed Bennett's ownership group, the Professional Basketball Club, hoping that the expense of litigation would induce him to sell to a local owner. Because the lawsuit was brought in bad faith, the city has "unclean hands," and should not be allowed to reap the benefits of its actions in court, they say.

In response, the city insists that by definition, suing to enforce its rights under the lease cannot be considered bad faith. Furthermore, its lawyers argue, the city cannot force the team to sell.

Seattle lawyer Paul Lawrence objected to the admission of the "poisoned well" document as an exhibit, saying the city had no hand in creating it. Walker testified that it was primarily drawn up by McGavick, who was working on his own as a concerned citizen and basketball fan.

Lawrence was overruled: At the time of the meeting, Gorton had been hired as Seattle's lead counsel, Walker had been retained as a consultant, and Ballmer was considered a potential buyer for the team.

"You wanted to make it too expensive to leave?" Sonics lawyer Paul Taylor asked Walker.
"Oh, I think that's true, yes," he answered. "I would have been fine with whatever it took to keep them from moving the team."

But, Walker insisted, encouraging a sale to local owners was secondary: The first and foremost goal was to have the Oklahoman owners keep the team in town.

"We had no way to do anything other than hope they would sell to local ownership," Walker said. "Our goal was to start a process to get an arena solution at least to put them to the test over whether they would stay or not."

Walker also expressed his frustration with a "lack of leadership" by Washington politicians during an attempt in 2006 to win support for a KeyArena renovation.

Walker finished on the stand just before noon and was followed by Matt Griffin, a Seattle developer who led a group of local residents who tried to buy the team from Bennett.

Friday was expected to be the final day of testimony, with closing arguments set for next Thursday. If Pechman rules that the team can leave, a separate trial would be held to determine what damages the team must pay the city for breaking the lease.

__________________
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. --Master Yoda
Facts can change opinions, opinions cannot change facts.

it's possible, Kerry, that he gave us a little insight into what he was thinking.

I don't think the court in this case really would have the power to keep the Sonics in Seattle at that point. The reason is this -- if the Sonics win, this becomes a question of damages, cash. The equitable arguments (i.e., where the court says "do something" or "don't do something") are off the table.

Since the court would be acting in its law capacity and not its equity capacity, it'd really no longer have the power to keep the Sonics from doing anything. The court would retain the ability to order damages.

The next big question if OKC wins here is whether the appellate court stays the lifting of the injunction pending the outcome of the appellate court's decision.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Assuming they appeal; once they take a big loss, the city might lose their edge to keep throwing money at this in order to keep a tenant for 2 seasons.

OK, it's over for this week. To resume next Thurs. Anyone think the city comes with a settlement offer?

Guys, I finally put it all together. I NOW understand why the City of Seattle leaked out most of it's 'evidence' in the form of the emails.

Consider this:

1) Seattle wanted to sway public opinion, that Bennett is a snake and try to 'seed' a potential jury. This is obvious.

But what is not obvious, and that I just figured out is...

2) Seattle leaked the emails thinking that Bennett would leak HIS EVIDENCE, thus diluting it.

Doesn't this make sense, of why the city would do what they did? Considering the evidence that Bennett has - that the CITY and the Potential Local Team Owners were acting in collusion; that IF Bennett wanted to save public opinion of him by leaking the citys/Wally's/SteveB/etc emails - that it would weaken them in court and make it possible for an easier city victory.

But the shrewdness of Bennett and his attorneys, they held their smoking guns until just now - and Bennett's people look like the high payed, professional attorneys with significant evidence that they are, and have. Whereas the city looks like bafoons who attended the University of Mayor McCheese (our nickname for Mayor Nickels) - fumbling, deception, and humility while thinking you're highly intelligent.

This is too funny, I think the city was banking on Bennett trying to save his BUTT in Seattle - so they purposedly leaked what they had on him - in efforts so he'd leak what he had. Im sure, if Bennett leaked this evidence we now know, about Wally and Company - that public opinion would not be so harsh against Bennett!

But clearly, a leak woudl have blown Bennett's case. Instead, I honestly don't even think judge Marsha will even hear Schultz case - since Bennett isn't even the correct party to sue (due to the collusion and anti-good faith tactics of the city and Wally/Ballmer/and Co.

This is tooo funny. Im so glad it's OKC who is handing Seattle its lunch. What better than a looked down upon but up yet rising city (OKC) handing it to the good looking, pompass, elitist city who thinks the world owes them (Seattle).

Oklahoma City Barons or Thunder, 2008-2009 Season begins Oct 31, this fall!

__________________
Oklahoma City, RENAISSANCE CITY!

I think your right, in that the City of Seattle was so pompous to think that someone from Oklahoma cared what the City of Seattle thought of them.

They had to know what information PBC had, they just didn't know how they were going to use it. I think Snob City got it handed to them on a silver platter, an I think they are shock. The attorneys certainly were, and the die hard fans are in disbelief.

This trial didn't present a question of fact, but of equity. Thus, this sort of question is never tried to a jury.