Crosscut Seattle - Did Howard Schultz pull the last plug for the Sonics?

"Chopp felt like he was being used by Bennett, who only wanted to move the team and needed local politicians to blame." David Brewster, Crosscut.com
The irony is that is exactly what happened, Chopp did not act and guess what Frank, it is put on you. The retry at funding will be put at your feet again, Clay Bennett's gone, who can you blame for your inaction this time?
I'm sure you will think of somebody, other than yourself, of course.
Dumbass.
http://www.crosscut.com/blog/seattle-supersonics/17345/?comments=On&cID=8041#c8041

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone

Percy Allen: Howard Schultz drops Sonics suit

Steve Pyeatt, of Save Our Sonics, does not know why Howard Schultz decided to pull the plug on his court case on Friday. Percy Allen, from the Seattle Times, writes the end of the Schultz story in today's newspaper.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2008147943_schultz30.html
I can only account for my actions, or inaction. Others that keep silent become targets of speculation, even Howard Schultz, even by Steve Pyeatt.
The irony there is the tight-lipped nature of Save Or Sonics, and how
Pyeatt takes a shot at Schultz, even though he has not had a chance to talk to Schultz's lawyers. I read Pyeatt's quotes in the Seattle Times, and not at
SaveOurSonics.org, and not at SonicsCentral.com
Something like this Schultz announcement happens and there isn't a word from SOS on there sites. What should we make of that?
Through a lack of communication SOS may be reduced to two guys, and their secrets. That's not much lobbying power.

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone

Schultz drops lawsuit seeking return of Sonics

As reported by Greg Johns in the Seattle PI, Howard Schultz has dropped his case against Clay Bennett. Schultz cited the judge's decision to not allow the case to be split as making the litigation less likely to be successful. Schultz also said that his case might hurt the chances of the NBA returning to Seattle sooner.
Brian Robinson is off the hook.
Let's move on to an arena solution. Maybe Howard Schultz would like to help with that in some way. He did, after all, sell the team to the liar Clay Bennett.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/377089_schultz30.html

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone

"Brian may be heavily involved, possibly as a minority owner."

As re-reported in Hoopsworld, by Steve Kyler, Brian Robinson was "served a standard Subpoena during the course of my business day".

The rumor at the end of the story in interesting.

There is a back story to Brian's involvement in this issue. When Brian left HOOPSWORLD he was heavily involved in Clay Bennett's push to get a new arena, often dropping us notes and e-mails giving us the very latest from inside Clay's inner circle. When Clay decided to end pursuit of an arena and possible relocation, Brian changed from supporter to activist and founded Save Our Sonics and led a very public push to keep the team in Seattle. Sources close to the situation believe if Seattle is awarded a new NBA franchise at some point in the future, Brian may be heavily involved, possibly as a minority owner.
Hoopsworld

If Brian Robinson was getting sued because of SonicCentral.com, it would not be because of anything Brian has written. Brian has been pretty careful about what he has said online, much the the dismay of many of his readers.

What he hasn't said publicly, that is documented, may become part of the public record. The nature of his involvement, and his relationships with the Sonics, does not protect him from having to submit. It might not matter anyway, Brian Robinson is not the first parson, and absolutely not the last person, Clay Bennett allegedly lied to and used in order to commit his alleged fraud. It's enough to make a guy angry.

Telling lies is not against the law, doing it to induce somebody to act when they might not otherwise, for Bennett's material gain is called a fraud by Howard Schultz.

Mr. Robinson's relationships with both the Schultz and Bennett ownership groups may be a double-edged sword.

We shall see.

Sonics Editorial, Opinion and Sarcasm: 50 Feet from the Sun

Today, Brian Robinson of Save Our Sonics, and SonicsCentral.com, said that he had been served court papers inviting him to testify and turn over any meaningful documents in connection to Howard Schultz's case against Clayton Bennett. This should make for some interesting reading, but I am not sure how having Robinson provide facts that show he was lied to by Bennett can help Bennett's case.

Read Brian's song at SonicsCentral.com

This event reminded me of a story I had written just over a year ago.

http://theseattlesupersonics.blogspot.com/2007/08/50-feet-from-sun.html

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone

Schultz Lawyer Answers PBC's Statement on Spilitting the Trial in Two

As reported by Greg Johns, of the Seattle PI (the reporter that's actually working on the story), Schultz's lawyer has provided a response to the PBC's issues with splitting the trial in to two parts; the harm, then the remedy.
PBC does not want two trials because they have "anxiety" over the fraud charges.
Hmmm, wonder why?
PBC needs the case to be a rushed, jumbled, complex, mess. They need the case to be iconic, both sides do, iconic of the vision of the result of the actual result of the case.
Sideshow Brad Keller needs the judge to grow tired of the circus and give up on the idea of justice.
The most excellent Richard Yarmuth needs the fraud to be exposed on its own, that ensures that some kind of remedy is required. Another chance to explain the facts are different than they are for Clay.
Good luck with that, fat head.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/374114_trial08.html

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone

A Shout Out to Jerry Brewer "No hero, but Schultz sticks with Sonics fight"

What I am shouting is SCREW YOU!
Cynical Jerry Brewer ignored the points along the way, that Brewer cites, where Howard Schultz did not live down to Mr Brewer's negative hopes to arrive at... more negative hopes expressed by Mr Brewer. In order for Brewer to be right about his negative projections of Mr Schultz motivations and outcomes Mr Schultz will have to fail in his current effort. Mr Brewer admits that he has yet to be correct in his characterizations of the efforts Mr Schultz and his current lawsuit. Still, Jerry Brewer beats the drum of doom. This effort may not bring the team back from Oklahoma City, even though the Hornets moved there for two years and then left, regardless, at least recognize Mr Schultz is worthy of forgiveness. But then, you would have to admit you are wrong in all the motivations you have made up and projected on Mr Schultz. You don't know shit, neither do I, but one of us is capable of forgiveness, and it ain't you.

Jerry Brewer of The Seattle Times fails to find forgiveness on Sunday morning.

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone

SeattlePI: Stern denies threatening Schultz over lawsuit

As reported by Greg Johns, of the Seattle PI, David Stern formally denied that he did not threaten Howard Schultz. He did admit that he said what Mr Schultz claimed he said, including the part about the added expense of the lawsuit, but denied he threatened Schultz.

Perception is reality Stern.

The NBA answered Schultz's motion to deny the NBA the right to join, or limit the NBA's involvement to the potential remedy proposed by Schultz, that is to transfer the team to an honest owner. The NBA insists on being part of the liability phase of the case because the PBC could not fully represent the NBA's interest as a signing party of the Reception signing paper transfering ownership. That is like having an escrow company join in a lawsuit over the sale of a property to protect the integrity of its Notary stamp. The claim and liability rests on the fraud to induce the signing and sale.

It is telling that the NBA makes no claims on behalf of PBC as to the honesty, or contest that Bennett committed fraud. Their interest in the first part is pretty thin, and ignores the nature of the claim, Bennett lied in order to get the sale to happen.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ Greg John's story here.

Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone

"Motion to Intervene should be denied for two reasons."

As reported by Greg Johns of the seattle PI, Howard Schultz's lawyer Richard Yarmuth has filed an answer to the Motion filed by the NBa to intervene in the case between Howard (BCOS & CANARSIE HOLDINGS LLC) and Clay Bennett (THE PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL CLUB, LLC).

You can read is for yourself here, thanks PI.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION'S MOTION TO INTERVENE
Noted on Motion Calendar:
August 1, 2008
Here is the intorduction:

The National Basketball Association’s (“NBA”) Motion to Intervene should be denied for two reasons. First, the NBA’s submission fails to comply with Rule 24(c), which requires a prospective intervenor to file with its motion a pleading articulating the applicant’s proposed claims or defenses. The NBA’s failure to submit such a pleading, which would define the scope of the proposed intervention, violates Rule 24(c) and
compromises the ability of the Court and the parties to evaluate whether intervention is proper. The Motion should be denied on the basis of this defect alone.

Second, the NBA’s Motion should be denied because the NBA cannot satisfy Rule 24’s intervention requirements with respect to the liability component of this litigation, which should be tried first. By separate motion, plaintiff has moved the Court to bifurcate this case so that the parties first litigate the straightforward issue of PBC’s liability to BCOS, while reserving for a second phase the more complex issue of the appropriate remedy. Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Court should decide this Motion to Intervene after it decides Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate because the decision on bifurcation will determine the shape of the litigation, thereby informing the Court’s decision on the NBA’s Motion.

The NBA is not entitled to participate in the liability phase of a bifurcated trial because its only interest is in the choice of remedy. It is well established that, in a bifurcated proceeding, an entity may intervene only in those phases for which the applicant can satisfy the intervention requirements of Rule 24. One of these requirements is the existence of a protectable interest in the issue to be tried. The NBA has no protectable interest in the issue to be tried in the liability phase: whether defendant is liable to plaintiff for fraud or breach of contract. The NBA’s only interest arises out of the potential transfer of the team to a third party, and that issue would be addressed exclusively in the remedy phase of a bifurcated trial. If plaintiff prevails on the issue of liability, it may be appropriate for the NBA to participate in the crafting of injunctive relief. Until that time, however, the Federal Rules do not permit the NBA to participate in a phase of the litigation in which it has no interest.

Finally, the NBA’s motion should be denied because the NBA intends by its intervention to unnecessarily make this litigation “very expensive” for BCOS and its members, as reflected by the NBA’s statements and demand that plaintiff pay the attorneys’
fees for both the NBA and the PBC, even if plaintiff prevails. This Court should deny the NBA’s request to intervene, at least in the liability phase, so that the NBA is not permitted to impose unreasonable, unnecessary, and punitive burdens and expenses on plaintiff’s prosecution of its claims.
For these reasons, plaintiff respectfully submits that the Court should deny the NBA’s Motion, with leave to file a renewed Motion (that complies with Rule 24(c)’s pleading requirement) at the outset of the second phase of this litigation.

But wait, there's more, the nugget:

III.
NBA INTERVENTION SHOULD BE DENIED OR LIMITED TO THE REMEDIES PHASE.
A.
The NBA’s Motion Should be Denied for Failure to Comply With Rule 24(c).
The NBA’s motion does not comply with Rule 24(c) because the motion is not accompanied by a pleading setting forth a claim for relief. Rule 24(c) provides that a motion to intervene “must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c) (emphasis added).
An intervenor cannot become a party to a lawsuit without setting out its claims in a pleading any more than a plaintiff can commence litigation without a complaint. As is the purpose of a complaint or an answer, “the purpose of requiring an intervenor to file a pleading is to place the other parties on notice of the claimant’s position, the nature and basis of the claim asserted, and the relief sought by the intervenor.” Dillard v. City of Foley, 166 F.R.D. 503, 506 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (denying motion to intervene based on “procedural defect” of failure to file a pleading).
For this reason, courts routinely deny motions to intervene where the applicant fails to satisfy the pleading requirement. See, e.g., FTC v. Med Resorts Int’l, Inc., 199 F.R.D. 601, 606 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (intervenor’s “total dereliction” of Rule 24(c)’s “unambiguous” requirements “warrants dismissal of the motion”); Township of South Fayette v. Allegheny County Housing Auth., 183 F.R.D. 451, 453 (W.D. Pa. 1998) (“Because movants have not submitted pleadings setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought, their motions are subject to dismissal”); Roberts v. Heim, No. 88-3373TEH, 1989 WL 80401 *1 (N.D. Cal March 30, 1989) (“the motion to intervene must be denied” for failure to submit a pleading); Associated Students v. Kleindienst, 60 F.R.D. 65, 68 (C.D. Cal. 1973) (denying motion to intervene for failure to file a claim for relief).1
The NBA’s noncompliance with Rule 24(c) is no mere technicality. Permitting the NBA free-floating participation in the litigation untethered to a claim for relief or a defense would leave the Court and BCOS with no way to evaluate the appropriateness of the NBA’s discovery requests, motions, and other litigation activities. This is of particular concern here in light of Mr. Stern’s statement that the NBA will impose “very expensive” litigation costs on BCOS and its members, and because the NBA’s belief that BCOS will pay the NBA’s legal fees removes the cost deterrent that would normally restrict an intervenor from overlitigating a case. The Motion should be denied for failure to comply with Rule 24(c).
B
. If Bifurcation is Granted, NBA Intervention Should Be Limited to the Remedies Phase.

1.
In Bifurcated Litigation, an Applicant May Intervene Only in Phases For Which the Applicant Can Satisfy Rule 24. An entity applying to intervene bears the burden of establishing that (1) the applicant has a significant protectable interest in the litigation subject matter; (2) the disposition of the litigation may impair or impede that interest; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the existing parties may not adequately represent the interest. United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir. 2004). In determining whether intervention is appropriate, a court should be “guided primarily by equitable and practical considerations.” Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir. 1998).

Go read Greg John's story at the Seattle PI for the summary, and the filing is linked there, too.

There is always more.

Percy Allen Explores Seattle's Chances with NBA

SEATTLE - Percy Allen of the Seattle Times has a story published today that explores the chances of Seattle landing another NBA team to replace the one the politicians let get away. A few things of note from the story, though you should read the entire article, are these:

Save Our Sonics is working with the City of Seattle Mayor's office to help secure funding for the rebuild of Key Arena, by leveraging public support. Part of that effort will have to be keeping public interest in support going while a team is not here. In order for a city, like Seattle, to have a chance at getting an NBA team you have to have three things: committed business support (Ballmer, Griffin, SCI); an arena and public interest (see SOS not above); and the support of the NBA (see NBA statement on the settlement between Seattle and the PBC).

Other cities that are, or were, going after NBA teams have had arena deals fail, or no commitment from a potential buyer of an NBA team.
Las Vegas - no arena
San Jose - no arena
Kansas City - no owner, "settling for NHL"

Some in the story put Seattle at the top of the NBA list. Making sure we are at the front of the line depends on following through on financing of the Key Arena rebuild, and your support of it completing, while keeping the three parts together over the next 18 to 24 months.

To quote Bill Murray from the movie What About Bob, "Baby steps, I'm at elevator".

Step #1. (as always): fund Key Arena, encourage people that decide this funding to support your interests.

Percy Allen's column at Seattletimes.nwsource.com

I think that it is fair to say that Howard Schultz's lawsuit against Clay Bennett's PBC ,and now the NBA, could help make sure that Seattle is at the front of the line for the next expansion team or relocation. The case may ensure that the line that looks like one city, Seattle, stays a list of one city.
If the league did expand it would most likely be two teams to keep the Eastern and Western Conferences the same number. That is just not going to happen before an existing team is available for sale and relocation. An owner that wanted to relocate to Seattle but not sell to SCI (Ballmer, Griffin) would have to pay the 150 million dollars that SCI has committed to rebuilding Key Arena.
Have a great day,
Mr Baker

Sent from my iPhone

Nellams says 18 months for arena rebuild

SEATTLE - Tuesday morning on 950 KJRam radio Tom Carr from the Seattle Center was interviewed by Mitch Levy (listen to the podcast here).
Mr. Carr stated that the settlement the city has agreed to with Clay Bennett's Oklahoma City (PBC) ownership group does not involved the case Howard Schultz has against Mr. Bennett. Mr. Carr said that if Mr. Schultz won his case that the settlement would go away, provided that the remedy of returning the team to Mr. Schultz to resell to an honest committed ownership group was granted by the judge in this case, Judge Marsha Pechman.
It is possible that the Sonics could relocate back to Seattle next year, a long shot, but it is possible. A trial date has not been set for the Schultz case.
Meanwhile the NBA has stepped in as a defendant with Mr. Bennett. They are claiming the remedy proposed by Schultz, if acted on by the judge, would not be within the NBA league rules.
Seattle Times has posted the court file: NBA's motion to intervene (PDF)
Percy Allen of the Seattle Times has written a story on the case and the filing (posted here).

Yesterday morning on 950 KJRam radio Robert Nellams from the Seattle Center was interviewed by Mitch Levy (listen to the podcast here).

Mr. Nellams is the director of the Seattle Center. He stated that there was a priority to rebuild while the team was playing in the building, now that they are gone he said the time required is 18 months. I recall that it was going to take two years to accomplish the same thing with the team in the building.
Let's do some scheduling, the money from the state of Washington, if approved, will not happen until next spring, 2009. Let's add 18 months to that: Winter of 2011, almost the season opener. they may be able to have the inside ready for basketball, I do not really know.

See the Seattle Center "Century 21" page here.