Look who's back.

Sonic's own experts testified in court that OKC could be worse off when team moves here. Hmmm so what is the truth? What we are told now or then? Somebody is lying. Sonics | Sonics argue team has little economic impact on Seattle | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2008007993_sonics20m.html)

Economic experts are largely hired guns. If the PBC had hired this expert, he would be singing a different tune.

-- or do you really think that Seattle approached him and asked him to conduct an unbiased study which would be presented whether it was favorable to their position or not?

Surely you're not that naive.

You lost David. Move on.

Sonic's own experts testified in court that OKC could be worse off when team moves here. Hmmm so what is the truth? What we are told now or then? Somebody is lying. Sonics | Sonics argue team has little economic impact on Seattle | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2008007993_sonics20m.html)

I don't see the problem with this argument. Seattle has 3 professional teams and lots of tourism. Losing one team is not going to have as great of an impact as say the Packers moving from Green Bay would. A professional team is going to make far more of an impact on a city with one or no professional sports than it will on a city with several.

It's kinda like the Dodgers didn't hurt New York too bad financially when they moved as much as they helped Los Angeles. The Dodgers helped LA's economy and image far more than it hurt NY. Remember LA wasn't the same city in the 50s that it is now.

Sonic's own experts testified in court that OKC could be worse off when team moves here. Hmmm so what is the truth? What we are told now or then? Somebody is lying. Sonics | Sonics argue team has little economic impact on Seattle | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2008007993_sonics20m.html)

HAHAHHA, out of all of the FAVORABLE evidence presented in the case over the last 4 days, you clinch on this. Classic.

What we need you to do is go "do-good" on the Crosstown/railroad thing. Or expose Sally Kern as a bigot that has no place in our state government. KTHXBAI.

The question was what is the truth? Read what the Sonic's expert testified to - then comment. My point is about OKC economic impact. ""In your view, Oklahoma City might be worse off for having the Sonics move there?" Lawrence asked.

"Yes," said Humphreys.

Economic experts are largely hired guns. If the PBC had hired this expert, he would be singing a different tune.

-- or do you really think that Seattle approached him and asked him to conduct an unbiased study which would be presented whether it was favorable to their position or not?

Surely you're not that naive.Midtowner this expert was hired by PBC. Wasn't he? Or am I mistaking?

Look who's back.

He's coming back for 15 minutes of shame.

Sonic's own experts testified in court that OKC could be worse off when team moves here. Hmmm so what is the truth? What we are told now or then? Somebody is lying. Sonics | Sonics argue team has little economic impact on Seattle | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2008007993_sonics20m.html)

The worse off, I'm not so sure about. As far as economic impact, most sports economists say there is very little direct positive economic impact to having a team. Zimbalist actually does say that there is positive economic impact in western cities with a team located more than 200 miles from the nearest professional sports team, as people from outlying areas tend to travel to see a team. There is also at least one sports economist (cannot remember which one) who says that the first team a city gets is the only one that has a positive economic impact that is significant. That is because of attracting businesses and people due to improved quality of life. So, it's not completely unreasonable to say that the economic impact of having the first team in OKC is different from the economic impact of the third team in Seattle. Hosting playoffs or the NBA finals are different, because they do bring in people from outside the area who stay in hotels and eat at restaurants, similar to the Big Twelve Tournament situation, and if you have a team, you have a chance of hosting playoffs or finals.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I wasn't voting for a new arena because of it's demonstrated dollar economic impact. I was voting for intangible economic impact and quality of life issues. So, this doesn't bother me at all.

The question was what is the truth? Read what the Sonic's expert testified to - then comment. My point is about OKC economic impact. ""In your view, Oklahoma City might be worse off for having the Sonics move there?" Lawrence asked.

"Yes," said Humphreys.David, as someone has pointed out, you lost. So maybe it would in fact be best for you to move on. It really doesn't matter to a Sonic fan what the man said. I agree this statement seems to contradict previous claims of a great economic impact the team will bring to OKC. Nevertheless, no matter who's saying what, be it the truth, half truth, a big lie, or a little white lie, these things can be overlooked, disregarded, or whatever it takes, just as long as we get the Sonics. Thats the bottom line, end of story.

I just find it incredibly humorous that what I was saying is now backed up by the Sonic's expert testimony - under oath. It is amazing to see the ability of many on this list to dismiss contradictory information. I am interested in what people think the truth is. Is it what OKC and the legislature was told by the Sonic's advertising and lobbyists or what their experts are saying in court now? It can't be both.

Come on, David. Are you really making the argument that what one expert says is the 'truth,' vs. what another expert says? Who's to say another 'expert' can't be found to refute this theory.

We all know, that as noted above, these experts differ on their findings and opinions all day long, and for you to think you've got something to stand on here, some self-proclaimed smoking gun, well, is incredibly naive. Even you should know the make-up of this forum is smarter than that. You're slipping...................

And that is direct economic benefit. This expert did not quanify the distant indirect results or the intagible benefit to a city having a top-tier league in town.

Oh crap...I just responed to a troll...

Things are not going well for the City of Seattle in court. Sonics' lawyer is showing the city is trying to drain the owners of money and reputation in order to get them to sell. I think this case is about over.
Minute-by-minute: Day 5 at Sonics vs. Seattle trial | Sports | KING5.com | News for Seattle, Washington (http://www.king5.com/sports/stories/NW_062008SSB_fri_sonics_trial_minute_by_minute_TP. 1cf65f0b.html)

June 20, 2008 11:04 AM Seattle Times
Seattle's lead attorney Paul Lawrence all but concedes defeat

Posted by Jim Brunner

Seattle's lead attorney, Paul Lawrence, all but conceded defeat just now.

The city has been frustrated by Judge Marsha Pechman, who has overruled numerous objections this morning by Lawrence during the aggressive questioning of former Sonics President Wally Walker. At one point she also told Lawrence he was reading court rules incorrectly.

Pechman cut off Lawrence when he was asking Walker about his basketball career and connection with the Sonics, including Walker's presence on the 1979 Sonics championship team.

Pechman said she'd seen Walker play and didn't need to hear more about his NBA career.

"I appreciate that your honor, but we do have to make a record for our appeal," Lawrence said.

June 20, 2008 11:04 AM Seattle Times
Seattle's lead attorney Paul Lawrence all but concedes defeat

Posted by Jim Brunner

Seattle's lead attorney, Paul Lawrence, all but conceded defeat just now.

The city has been frustrated by Judge Marsha Pechman, who has overruled numerous objections this morning by Lawrence during the aggressive questioning of former Sonics President Wally Walker. At one point she also told Lawrence he was reading court rules incorrectly.

Pechman cut off Lawrence when he was asking Walker about his basketball career and connection with the Sonics, including Walker's presence on the 1979 Sonics championship team.

Pechman said she'd seen Walker play and didn't need to hear more about his NBA career.

"I appreciate that your honor, but we do have to make a record for our appeal," Lawrence said.
TRAVIS PITTMAN / KING5.com didn't say for an appeal. I would have thought he would have put that in his court room blog if that was said.

If said I would concur that he is admitting defeat. With Walker's testimony I don't see any way the judge will rule in favor of the city. In fact there maybe a chance that he lets the Sonics leave without paying out the lease.

Collusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion)

Collusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion)

In the vernacular of the basketball team, this looks like a slam dunk!

In the vernacular of the basketball team, this looks like a slam dunk!

BOOM SHAKALAKA!!!! (Had to do it).

I'm beginning to wonder if perjury might not be in order. Seattle may be wishing this thing would just go away the sooner the better.

Pwned.

June 20, 2008 11:04 AM Seattle Times
Seattle's lead attorney Paul Lawrence all but concedes defeat

Posted by Jim Brunner

Seattle's lead attorney, Paul Lawrence, all but conceded defeat just now.

The city has been frustrated by Judge Marsha Pechman, who has overruled numerous objections this morning by Lawrence during the aggressive questioning of former Sonics President Wally Walker. At one point she also told Lawrence he was reading court rules incorrectly.

Pechman cut off Lawrence when he was asking Walker about his basketball career and connection with the Sonics, including Walker's presence on the 1979 Sonics championship team.

Pechman said she'd seen Walker play and didn't need to hear more about his NBA career.

"I appreciate that your honor, but we do have to make a record for our appeal," Lawrence said.

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.

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".

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".

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.

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.

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?

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.

Why would the team need to stay until the money issue is settled?

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 (http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=8530952)


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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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


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

Unlikely considering that the PBC only obtained that information (or I'm 99% sure they obtained it this way) through discovery. That means that the city had to turn those records over to the PBC as part of their pre-trial disclosures.

In other words, there was no ambush here, or at least, there shouldn't have been. The Seattle team had more than enough time to figure out exactly what the PBC case was going to be, what evidence would be put on, etc.

You don't imagine that the PBC attorneys came up with their excellent cross examinations off the cuff, do you? Those questions had probably been tested on a simulated jury and passed through a jury consultant prior to trial. Seattle's attorneys, I'm assuming had the same kinds of resources at their disposal.

As for whether there's an appeal or not, an appeal costs FAR less than a trial does. An appeal consists of a brief, a record, and maybe a few motions. The expensive stuff is done. If nothing else, the prospect of an appeals process in the Ninth Circus (Circuit) Court of Appeals frightens me every time. These "city pride" and "diversity" argument which have everyone thinking "WTF?" right now might weigh pretty heavily on some of those legal "minds" in San Francisco.

Midtowner's right, but you have to admit the court of public opinion provides pressure, even to hardcore, non-sports women judges.

I wouldn't be surprised if the city works a deal with PBC to settle. IF I were the city I'm not sure that after what was presented I would worry that the judge might declare the lease void and let the team leave without paying for the last two years. This thing maybe over with come Thursday.

The lease would not be declared void, but it's possible that Pechman is not impressed and rules just for the lease money owed, which is like 10 mil.

I thought it was 10 million /year???

might be, but it's certainly less that what a settlement would be.

Any settlement would have to be a global one. It would work only if the Schultz suit is incorporated into it. That might even save Seattle the embarrassment of having that suit dismissed before trial.

The remaining lease is $10 total. About $5 million per year. I think the City lost the case on the first day with the Mayor's testmony and everything since has just been driving the buy-out cost down. Every time Wally Walker answered a question it cost Seattle $1 million.

The Seattle attorney should have just turned to Clay on Friday morning and said, "Screw this, write me a check for the $26 million you already offered and we will tear up the lease."

Midtowner's right, but you have to admit the court of public opinion provides pressure, even to hardcore, non-sports women judges.

She has a six figure job and a demigod-like position which must be worshiped by the local bar regardless of the outcome of the case.

As it was pointed out a couple months ago by Munson from ESPN, this case never meant much, the real threat is the Shultz lawsuit, ESPN radio has been saying for weeks that the city of Seattle had a weak case but the Shultz case was the real threat.

Hopefully the Shultz case will go as smoothly!

As it was pointed out a couple months ago by Munson from ESPN, this case never meant much, the real threat is the Shultz lawsuit, ESPN radio has been saying for weeks that the city of Seattle had a weak case but the Shultz case was the real threat.

Hopefully the Shultz case will go as smoothly!

Good one, Nathaniele. You made me laugh out loud. :congrats:

I have to admit though, I am feeling a lot better now that the Seattle case looked so weak =)

Well, the Schultz suit, as discussed earlier is built around an even weaker theory than the city's. Even if Schultz can prove bad faith and failure to use best efforts, it's extremely doubtful that the court would use its equitable powers in such a way.

I doubt the court will even grant a preliminary injunction there unless Schultz is personally willing to float a very large (think tens of millions) bond which would be payable in full to the PBC should the Shultz suit fail.

I can see how someone who doesn't know the law might be cowed into thinking that this is a viable legal theory because most people wouldn't know a viable legal theory from one which isn't. I don't think I've ever once heard of a constructive trust being used in the manner in which it is supposed to be used in Seattle.

Yes, the lawsuit is scary because the implications are huge if it's successful. Just realize that Shultz has virtually no chance of winning that case.

Sonics | The Seattle Times (http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/sonics/index.html#29706)


June 20, 2008 8:18 PM

Gorton should have withdrawn from case

Posted by Percy Allen

This one is easy. This day belongs to the Sonics. In a landslide.

And I don't need a law degree to know the Sonics attorneys made several intriguing points. They were so good, I'm beginning to wonder if District Court Judge Marsha Pechman should toss the case out of court based on the evidence presented Friday.

The Sonics got a lot of mileage from their "unclean hands" defense. They established a paper trail between former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton, who is the lead attorney for the city, and local investors intent on buying the Sonics.

Gorton has been up front about his passion to retain NBA basketball in Seattle, but that passion is undermining the city's case.

It's difficult to determine if Gorton's passion or his role for the city caused him to inflict pain on Sonics chairman Clay Bennett and his ownership group, the Professional Basketball Club. It's difficult to determine when Gorton was acting as the concerned citizen who loves the NBA or the city's attorney that's being paid $1 million.

It pains me to admit it, but Gorton should have withdrawn from the case early on. I think the city was negligent in not asking Gorton to withdraw from the case. And for the first time, I think the Sonics might lose what should have been a no-lose lawsuit.

We all know what Gorton has done for professional sports in this town. He's been amazing and every Mariners fan and Seahawks fans are in his debt for saving those teams. Next time you see Gorton at a game, buy the man a beer and a hot dog.

But this is different.

A cardinal rule in journalism for a reporter is you never want to be the focal point of the story. I think the same holds true for attorneys.

It's not a good sign when Paul Lawrence, the lead attorney in the city's case, is fielding questions about another attorney on the case.

I presume Lawrence and Gorton work in close proximity and I find it impossible to believe Lawrence didn't know Gorton was hatching a plan "bleed Bennett to force him to sell." Regardless of what you think about the Oklahoma City Raider (sorry JB I stole your line), the opposing lawyer shouldn't devise schemes in their off hours to force the defendant to lose millions.

That's just not ethical.

Under questioning, Seattle developer Matt Griffin all but admitted that he had a meeting with Gorton where they talked about forcing Bennett to sell the team.

The defense introduced several Gorton e-mails to former team executive and part owner Wally Walker, Safeco president Mike McGavick and Seattle real estate developer Matt Griffin about forcing Bennett to sell the Sonics.

Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis had to know about all of this. He had to know Gorton is a bulldog who wins tough fights. He had to know his bulldog would engage in this type of behavior.

As Walker said today: "I would do anything to keep basketball in Seattle."

Anything? And what about Gorton? Would he do anything? It appears so. It appears he already has.

This one is easy. Give this day to the Sonics.

The team's lead attorney Brad Keller slam dunked Griffin early and often.

And Sonics attorney Paul Taylor made Walker squirm so much on the witness stand, I thought the former team president was on trial for giving $35 million to Jim McIlvaine and driving George Karl away.

Despite repeated objections from Lawrence, Pechman allowed Taylor to introduce Exhibit 567, which may ultimately doom the city's case. The evidence is a PowerPoint presentation given by Gorton called: The Sonics Challenge: Why a Poisoned Well Affords a Unique Opportunity.

It's a 46-page detailed strategy to inflict economic hardship on Bennett. It's scary because it nearly worked. The plan had two critical shortcomings.

For starters, state lawmakers declined to authorize tax funds to help in the KeyArena renovation. And second, the plan became public.

I find it a tad bit ironic that while the city compiled reams of embarrassing e-mails from the Sonics owners to show they breached a "good faith best effort" promise, Gorton sent e-mails that are now being used against the city.

If that's not fitting, then I don't know what is.

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



Unlikely considering that the PBC only obtained that information (or I'm 99% sure they obtained it this way) through discovery. That means that the city had to turn those records over to the PBC as part of their pre-trial disclosures.

In other words, there was no ambush here, or at least, there shouldn't have been. The Seattle team had more than enough time to figure out exactly what the PBC case was going to be, what evidence would be put on, etc.

You don't imagine that the PBC attorneys came up with their excellent cross examinations off the cuff, do you? Those questions had probably been tested on a simulated jury and passed through a jury consultant prior to trial. Seattle's attorneys, I'm assuming had the same kinds of resources at their disposal.

As for whether there's an appeal or not, an appeal costs FAR less than a trial does. An appeal consists of a brief, a record, and maybe a few motions. The expensive stuff is done. If nothing else, the prospect of an appeals process in the Ninth Circus (Circuit) Court of Appeals frightens me every time. These "city pride" and "diversity" argument which have everyone thinking "WTF?" right now might weigh pretty heavily on some of those legal "minds" in San Francisco.


Midtowner, you missed my point. You explained the case from Seattle's and the legal POV.

That was NOT my point.

I know that PBC obtained the documents from the city thru discovery. And I know it was not a surprise to them once PBC introduced exhibits - in fact, Im sure the city thought they could successfully object, which they tried and failed to get sustained.

However, my point was - Seattle LEAKED its info on Bennett to 1) get the public fired up against Bennett in the hopes that 2) Bennett would leak HIS discovery on the city - thereby diminishing it when it goes to court. Also, it wasn't a sure thing that the trial would not have been a jury trial - Im from here and it wasn't until Jan or Feb that Marsha ruled it would not be a jury trial - which is a motion the city raised and many sonics fanatics here were counting on. ...

Like I said, this was all set up to be a PUBLIC trial - yet once Marsha was assigned to oversee it; she removed any and all publicity and is instead trying it on rules of law, something the city has yet failed to prove given it is their burden.

Again, I know the city knew this or that - but Im saying they thought they would win objections and pin it all on bennett and even prior to trial - Im sure they thought the Okie would 'fire back' with discovery he'd gained to Save His Face in Seattle. Remember, Bennett mentioned that he can't show his face here anymore, im sure that was a planned tactic by the city, thinking Bennett actually cared what common Seattleites thought of him.

However, my point was - Seattle LEAKED its info on Bennett to 1) get the public fired up against Bennett in the hopes that 2) Bennett would leak HIS discovery on the city - thereby diminishing it when it goes to court. Also, it wasn't a sure thing that the trial would not have been a jury trial - Im from here and it wasn't until Jan or Feb that Marsha ruled it would not be a jury trial - which is a motion the city raised and many sonics fanatics here were counting on. ...

Like I said, this was all set up to be a PUBLIC trial - yet once Marsha was assigned to oversee it; she removed any and all publicity and is instead trying it on rules of law, something the city has yet failed to prove given it is their burden.

The only possible jury question here would be damages. Whether the specific performance portion of the lease is enforceable or not is a question which would never go to the jury. Juries interpret questions of fact, not law -- and that's a question of law (equity in fact.. juries never preside over questions of equity either).

As for the damages in this case, the judge made a smart call -- had there been an unfavorable jury verdict, my feeling is it's more than likely that a jury would declare something like: "Seattle is damaged in an amount equal to the national debt plus statutory interest" (possible, considering the animus here), she'd have to reduce the damages and thereby make the determination anyway.

I think it was always a very safe bet that there would never be a jury involved here.


again, I know the city knew this or that - but Im saying they thought they would win objections and pin it all on bennett and even prior to trial - Im sure they thought the Okie would 'fire back' with discovery he'd gained to Save His Face in Seattle. Remember, Bennett mentioned that he can't show his face here anymore, im sure that was a planned tactic by the city, thinking Bennett actually cared what common Seattleites thought of him.

No one wins on objections -- and most of the time, unless something is clearly outside of the rules of evidence, in a bench trial, most questionable things come in. The judge can look at them and decide later whether they were admissible, do the probative v. prejudicial balancing, etc. and not really be prejudiced because of hearing inadmissible evidence.

A lot of people think what objections are overruled, etc. has a huge effect on a case -- it really doesn't. In the final analysis, the question of law isn't hugely difficult. It sets up like this (as we've said many times):

Specific performance is an equitable remedy. To be granted an equitable remedy, the movant must have clean hands, which means that the current crisis demanding the court's power is none of their own doing. If there's a lack of clean hands, even if the city can prove that there are unique benefits which can't be compensated for with cash damages, the city still loses -- good news for us.

The only remaining issue is a question of fact -- what are the damages? Here, the city will be offering the kitchen-sink sorts of arguments their economists came up with -- completely bizarre theories in my opinion. We're into the law of contract since this is a lease contract being broken. In this case, there are no punitives, or anything of that nature. The only thing the plaintiff can expect is to be placed in the same sort of position he would have been had the contract been executed.

Special rules apply to damages here -- the plaintiff must generally offer concrete and specific facts upon which he can be awarded damages. Here, the city is asking to be compensated for "pride," maybe concessions, etc. Pride is simply not compensable. Things like concessions and their take of the ticket prices, etc. are usually the type of thing a court would pronounce as being too speculative to be compensable.

My guess at this point is the same as it's been since the beginning -- this particular case will likely result in a verdict for the Plaintiff in an amount equal to what would have concretely been earned under the lease (perhaps minus what the city would have lost in their performance of the lease), and no specific performance.

As to Schultz' suit, it's so bizarre that I expect it to go down on a Motion for Summary Judgment, or maybe even a Motion to Dismiss. I find the legal theory there to way too "out there" for a court to undo a 9-figure transaction where both parties generally got what they wanted.

Midtowner
Thanks for explaining this case in simple terms

bwahahah... david glover is on newsok comments complaining about the sonics economists.
heh, makes me laff.

I have stayed consistent, unlike the Sonic owners, on the economics of sports on a city. Good public policy should use facts and numbers, peer reviewed studies and the history of other cities. But that just gets in the way of reality that this is moving 200+ million from the citizens to help the owners make money.

jcJ00j2bTO0

David, it is not as if we're getting nothing for something. None of us can afford an NBA team, but a lot of us want one. It takes a very wealthy person to purchase a hundreds of millions of dollars team. Then, after making that kind of investment, the owner actually doesn't make hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The owner makes an average of $10 million a year, which for Clay Bennett would represent less than a 3% return on his investment. That follows millions of dollars of losses in Seattle, costs of moving ($30 million) and rebranding ($5 million). Averaging $10 million a year is the upside, as 30% of the NBA owners last year lost money.

So, are we going to ask for what I call municipal welfare? You like to talk about corporate welfare, but the reverse exists too: The owner buys the team, assumes all losses AND pays for the arena so WE can enjoy it? Or, should perhaps the city make a contribution to something that certainly provides many intangible benefits and may, in a city like Oklahoma City, provide some direct economic benefits?

Personally, I don't care if we can show that the city makes a dime directly. I think there are that many intangible benefits for us as a city because we don't currently have a professional team. Of course the city will, because people will come from Tulsa, Enid, Wichita, etc to see games. If we were to make the playoffs, we would have people from all over the country coming to our city, staying in our hotels and eating in our restaurants. If we were to host the finals or an All Star Game, people from all over the world would come. In a smaller city like Oklahoma City, that is a far bigger deal than it is in a place like Seattle, which would continue to have two other professional teams.

Your assertions don't agree with the peer reviewed research by the Sonic expert in court testimony under oath.