About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view Ceyseau's profile
    Posted May 14, 2014 by

    More from Ceyseau

    Attorney Constance Rice, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Earvin “Magic” Johnson, etc., etc., and flocks of birds fly backwards against a strong tail wind too!!!


    “On street, Donald Sterling's comments about Magic Johnson called fouls” by SCOTT GOLD, HECTOR BECERRA, LAURA J. NELSON, LA TIMES, MAY 14, 2014.

    1. "How do you talk about Magic like that? That's Magic Johnson. Everybody loves Magic."- Michael Purnell

    2. "What does he do for the black people? Jews, Sterling said, take care of their own. But some African Americans "don't want to help anybody. Johnson, "acts so holy." – John Sterling



    YouTube: "Thank You for Serving the Oppressed so-Called Vexatious Litigant, Honorably Discharged U.S. Veteran, etc."






    All U.S. born Blacks are not a fans of Earvin “Magic” Johnson and Black America’s charlatan treasonous Black elected leaders, sellout Black lawyers, poverty pimps, etc., etc.


    “Magic Johnson defends himself against Sterling's broadsides” by JAMES RAINEY, LA TIMES, MAY 14, 2014.

    Selected excerpt:

    “Johnson mounted a robust defense of his integrity and his role as a leader of the black community, saying in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper that he was disturbed and angry that Sterling seemed entirely unaware of the business and charitable works that Johnson and other African Americans have done for their community.”












    Opinion Section:“Donald Sterling, don't dig yourself in any deeper” LA Times, May 14, 2014.

    Selected Excerpts:

    (1) “The Donald Sterling case is interesting. Many articles have addressed racism, an easy target. But where is the outrage for Sterling's private conversation being published or recorded without his consent? Doesn't one have a certain expectation of privacy in one's home?” - William Baker, Yorba Linda

    (2) Is it right to force an individual to sell his property against his wishes, as the NBA might make Sterling do with the Clippers? We must be able to separate these issues, as they raise some very difficult questions. Or are we afraid of being called racist for challenging them? - William Baker, Yorba Linda



    AMENDMENT XIV, Section 1

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



    SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws…….

    Unless it can be proven that Mr. and Mrs. John and Shelly Sterling have been charged, convicted and punished by the courts for violating the law, slim chance exists that NBA officials or anyone else can force Mr. and Mrs. John Sterling to relinquish his or her ownership rights to property, specifically in this instance ownership interest in the Los Angeles Clippers.

    “Some key facts about V. Stiviano, the woman at the center of the Donald Sterling scandal” Associated Press, April 29, 2014


    “Attorney: Sterling tape was leaked” Associated Press, May 2, 2014

    Selected excerpt:

    “LOS ANGELES -- An attorney representing the woman Donald Sterling was talking to when he made racist remarks said Thursday that the hour-long conversation was taped by mutual agreement last September and provided to a friend for safekeeping, who then leaked it to TMZ.”

    Which means the un-named friend who leaked the private conversation between Donald Sterling and V. Stiviano to TMZ is in violation of California Penal Code, §s 631-632.


    Until recently, Illinois, like California, was among just 12 states that required all parties to a conversation to consent to that conversation being recorded, absent a court order (the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.)

    Any person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication and California law…..


    California PENAL CODE, SECTION 631-632

    631. (a) Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or
    telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts
    to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
    ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

    (b) This section shall not apply (1) to any public utility engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction,
    maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility, or (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.

    (c) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.

    (d) Thi
    Add your Story Add your Story