Skip to comments.V. Stiviano taunted Sterling via text days before his rants went public
Posted on 05/24/2014 9:49:11 PM PDT by canuck_conservative
... Sterling revoked gal pal V. Stivianos tickets, parking passes and luxury suite access to Los Angeles Clippers games in April, possibly touching off a crazy chain of events that ended with him losing his high-flying basketball franchise, according to the LA Times.
Shelly Sterling the owners estranged wife filed a lawsuit against Stivano in March, demanding she return a laundry list of expensive gifts that Donald Sterling had given her.
Six days after that lawsuit was filed, Donald Sterling cut off Stiviano from Clippers games. When a team employee reached out to Stiviano, she texted a seemingly enigmatic response.
No tell Mr. Sterling that I dont need anything nor do I want anything, she reportedly texted. But thanks for asking. LET THE GAMES BEGAN.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
She wasn’t just “bringing men to the games”, but to his luxury box. That might tend to tick a guy off.
.... I know the race-baters know for a fact that this whole thing wasn't a setup but rather pure racism .... but this sure sounds like a setup.
I’m waiting for the NBA to be issuing an apology to Donald Sterling any minute now.
I never understood the idea that people could ‘demand’ the return of gifts. The only gift that I think of being owed in return is an engagement ring when a woman breaks off an engagement.
Like everything these days a “he’s racist” rules the day and makes news. Now being a racist is calling someone black
If you havent seen her interview with Dr. Phil, try to find it online. Very telling how she answers the questions. He gets her to contradict her statements on several occasions. Her motives are petty clear by the end. Shes half golddigger half crazy IMO. Also has had multiple aliases. .....Freakin little grifter.
I would love to see this attention whore put under oath and asked a bevy of straight questions —
> I would love to see this attention whore put under oath and asked a bevy of straight questions
I wonder how any others she’s dug her claws into. They’ don’t call them “gold diggers” for nothing.
I dated a “Christian” woman (I might add she was quite stunning) who shared with me she kept an engagement ring from a previous relationship. Her reasoning was it was proper etiquette.
She then asked me to take photos to help her sell it as she knew I had a very high-end camera.
That caught my attention. Big time. To me, it was like looking into her heart and seeing her character...or lack thereof.
I began to understand why she had been divorced twice.
Our relationship ended shortly after that moment.
I’d say if the guy breaks the engagement, it’s hers.
But if she breaks the engagement, it goes right back to the guy.
Let me summon some indignation and sympathy for Don.
Nope. Don’t have any.
He’s an idiot for putting himself in this situation. Did he really think she cared for him?
The ring could have been in his family.
In addition, she had no moral right to keep it regardless of who broke the engagement.
If the woman keeps the ring, that’s the same as stealing. Absolutely no moral reason for her to keep it...especially if she was planning to sell it.
No twisting of reality can change morality.
I agree with you, with one caveat. If the gal keeps that ring, it's for sentimental reasons or memories, not to be sold or used by someone else.
Other gifts shouln't be returned or asked for, unless someone wants to return them.
I disagree. The idea that a man “gives” an engagement ring to a woman as a promise of marriage, breaks that promise, and somehow is due the ring back means that she’s just renting out her finger for his claim on her as long as she so interests him. That is gross and creepy.
Rather sad you missed the morality aspect...
That’d be a sorry sentiment—holding onto a ring from someone who had humiliated her like that.
I think once any gift is given, it’s within the recipient’s right to do as he or she pleases with it. Perhaps she’ll find herself in a situation where she desperately needs the money for herself or a loved one.
Now, it actually might help her to reach closure and move on if she returned the ring to him, and that may be a noble gesture on her part. But I don’t consider it an obligation.
You seem to miss the morality aspect of that which is given—and that which somehow you think is conditionally given, dependent upon the changing mood of the giver.
Id say if the guy breaks the engagement, its hers.
But if she breaks the engagement, it goes right back to the guy.
Legally a ring is consideration to bind a contract and returns to the owner if the contract is broken. I think there have been a number of court rulings to this effect.
I know that has been a ruling and I think it is wrong—perhaps going back to the days when women didn’t hold equal property rights?
Yeah. She gave herself away.
Some people, when they look back, tend to focus on the positives of situations. Besides which, humiliation would be if some other woman ended up wearing that ring!
No, I read this relatively recently.
But it had to be based on some sort of precedent. You can’t for example, pay $10K down on something, change your mind about it, then expect to get your down payment back when you were the one who breached the contract.
I may be wrong but I never thought an engagement was a “legally binding” contract. More of a moral contract or promise so to speak.
The emerging approach on engagement rings, which has been adopted by a majority of states, is that an engagement ring is a conditional gift, which is conditioned upon marriage between the parties. If the condition does not occur, i.e., if the parties do not marry, then the gift is not completed and ownership of the ring reverts to the individual who gave (and presumably purchased) the ring.
Under this approach, courts refuse to consider which party is to blame for the failed engagement. As the Supreme Court of Kansas observed, courts may not be able to determine the precise reason that a relationship ended. Quite simply, courts who follow this approach do not want to wade into the murky waters of assessing fault in a breakup. States that have adopted this approach include Iowa, Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, among others.
As stated above, Jack gave Jill an engagement ring in exchange for her promise to marry. However, Jill gets cold feet and backs out of the engagement. In a state following the conditional gift approach, the engagement ring reverts to Jack because the condition upon which the ring was given, a marriage between the parties, never occurred.
Yeah, I understand a number of states have such a take on it, but I still say, that morally whoever backs out should do whatever possible to lessen the harm and pain inflicted on the other. In the case of the man, the least that should be expected is for him to to expect his “gift” back.
All the more reason that a man who makes such a moral contract or promise and then backs out shouldn’t go looking for his “gift” back.
Yeah, I understand a number of states have such a take on it, but I still say, that morally whoever backs out should do whatever possible to lessen the harm and pain inflicted on the other. In the case of the man, the least that should be expected is for him to to expect his gift back.
The man gets the ring back no matter what, not a gift, it is instead, consideration.
I don’t know how many ways to say this, but I know that’s how many states interpret it—I just don’t think it’s right for a man to break an engagement and then also expect the ring back.
That Dr. Phil showed up in the papers Sterling filed today. http://i.usatoday.net/sports/!sterling/2014-05-27%20Secured%20DTS%20Answer%20to%20NBA%20Charge.pdf
Among the points made: The conversation was last September.
Check the reply he filed at the link above. He’s making it very clear he didn’t grant permission to be recorded, and repeatedly refers to it as an illegal recording.
Thanks for sharing, hope in the end she gets whst she deserves...............a stay in the iron bar hotel, or atleast broke and destitute.
What link above?
I certainly don't see that at the NYPost source page.
Post 32 has a link to the Sterling response.
Certainly his using that as an argument in his response sounds good but..
I noticed that he never mentions a police investigation or a police report or complaint..
When you tell your insurance company that insured property has been stolen the first thing they ask is if you filed a police report.