Donald Sterling continuing to own the Clippers is as likely as pigs flying. His attorneys have not won a single motion in any court to date. The probate trial in Los Angeles has made good not quick progress. Due process is not a speed test. Gary Ruttenberg, Donald Sterling’s lawyer stated before the judge, “I can’t do a job unless I get witnesses.” And that is where the defense’s case simply fails: No witnesses, no evidence, just a loosing case. The judge is meticulously guiding the proceedings methodically now to preclude his judgment from being overturned by Donald Sterling in the California’s Appeals Court. All this works to the good. Shelly Sterling is winning and will win. The Clippers will be sold. The probate trial that will determine whether the sale of the Los Angeles Clippers is essentially over. Final arguments will be made in July 28th, but even now the dye is firmly cast based upon the testimony, or lack of testimony by the witnesses, and the physical evidence submitted to the court. The issue is did Shelly Sterling abide by the procedures of the Sterling Family Trust? The evidence presented at the Probate Court all testify as fact that she did. For removal as trustee, two doctors had to examine and find the trustee, Donald Sterling, was incapacitated. This the plaintiff accomplished. The task for Donald Sterling’s attorney’s was to show (a) that at least one of the two doctors lacked sufficient credentials, (b) that there findings were not properly produced, and (c) that examination and tests performed in coming to the conclusion that Donald Sterling was mentally impaired were either insufficient or inappropriate. The defense failed to make a case on any of these three levels. To the contrary, Sterling’s defense council told the court that the credentials and examining methodology of the doctors who examined Donald Sterling where beyond question. The defense attempted a speculative argument of conspiracy and drunkenness by one of the doctors. The doctor under oath testified to the contrary, that she had only a half glass of wine well after the patient’s examination, and that she was never intoxicated. The defense produced no witnesses other than the claims of Donald Sterling or any evidence to sustain their arguments against her. Shelly Sterling also testified that the doctor was not intoxicated. The defense argued rights-of privacy which did not address the issues before the court. In response, the presiding judge dismissed the defendant’s argument by instructing the defense attorney simply to move on to other issues. Therefore, the defense’s argument against the plaintiff’s medical experts, and particularly the one doctor that they tried to attack have simply failed. The defense had the opportunity to present expert medical testimony and evidence but declined to do so. Yes, a doctor in Las Vegas was willing to state to the press that Donald Sterling was neither incapacitated and did not have Alzheimer’s disease, but he has been a no show for the trial. Press clippings do not matter. To win a court case or even a legal argument requires witnesses and evidence, and the defense has produced neither. When the defense announced that their only expert witness was unavailable for trial, the judge graciously gave the defense permission to tape and present a video deposition by their doctor, but the doctor for the defense then declined. Making statements to the press will not destroy a medical doctor’s career. But swearing under oath after only meeting Donald Sterling for one hour that he was disease free could - should Sterling’s condition continue to deteriorate - cause the doctor to be cited for perjury and thereby loose his license to practice medicine. Certainly with all Donald Sterling millions, the defense should have found at least one doctor to testify at trial or by video on Donald Sterling’s behalf, but no doctor has come forward willing to play Russian roulette with his or her medical career. The only way to defeat the plaintiff’s claims by their doctors is with contradictory medical testimony and evidence. The defense has presented none. Therefore, the examinations, written reports, and the testimony by the plaintiff’s witnesses that Donald Sterling is impaired by Alzheimer’s has been sustained by the judge under the rules of evidence as admitted accepted fact; if for no other reason then that the defense never offered any expert testimony or evidence to deny the credibility of the plaintiff’s evidence. The judge has ruled that the plaintiff’s doctor’s testimony, reports, and evidence are indeed accepted as evidence by the court. Self-serving denial, typical to many who have this disease, is no substitute for the testimony of medical experts and the results of clinical tests. The testimony by Shelly Sterling and Donald Sterling, although dramatic, heart rendering, and many times outrageous, resolves itself to a “he-said she-said”. Here at this level, a judge must decide based upon the credibility of the witnesses. Shelly Sterling has been compelling, sympathetic, and believable. Donald Sterling alternatively has been out of control, not answering questions, threatening, arguing with everyone in the court, even his own attorneys, and essentially given to continuous rants. His behavior has been so outrageous that it supported the plaintiff’s claims that he suffers now mental impairment. The plaintiff’s witnesses have been simply far better than the defense’s witness. In summation, the plaintiff Shelly Sterling has successfully presented a convincing case, whereas the defendant Donald Sterling has failed and actually discredited any hope of receiving a judgment on his behalf. So put, the judge in this case will rule for Shelly Sterling based on the submitted evidence and testimony. There is no other outcome possible based upon the law and the legal agreements presented by the parties.
Posted on: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:19:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015