Chewey

Reed indicated that it was akin to a binding contract. Judge Erickson did not buy it and that is to be respected even in spite of not agreeing with it.

As you have indicated, it was/is a tough hill to ascend. There were some valid grounds that could have conferred standing but the judge disagreed, of course. He also disagreed as to the 1969 pipe ceremony. Rights or privileges conferred by such ceremonies are recognized as valid and binding and I believe there is a Supreme Court case to that effect, though the name escapes me now.

ND's system is rigged and quite unfair to any claimant but ND runs claims through a state agency that I think companies pay into. Workers comp is big business in Minnesota because one is working against private insurers and self-insured businesses like Wal-Mart. I would not want to do that line of work in ND; I don't do it anyway in MN. Being a bankruptcy attorney in ND would also be a bad idea at this point. Ironically, insurers are good for claimants in MN whereas a state agency whom the ND taxpayers no doubt support in ND is really nothing more than a taxpayer subsidized functionality depriving people of actual meaningful redress as to some very valid claims. It's an antiquated paradigm and probably designed, in no small part, by business lobbyists at the time in collaboration with their contacts in the state legislature.

Indian law is addressed through the tribal courts/federal courts and some of the claims were based upon native american customs, etc. which are quite arcane to most lawyers unless they specialize in that indian law area much like bankruptcy or workers compensation - two other areas that have their own specialized court systems.

Reed is no clown. He's forgotten more about Indian Law than anyone on this listerv or 95% of the attorneys in ND will ever know.

They must be saving those for their cocktail parties.

I am somewhat curious as to why that's such a repeated concern for you. I guess am trying to think if such concern fits into some other transparently degenerate, manipulative, low-core aggressive proclivity but, then again, why should I care?

No. You're missing the point. If you're having a public declaration/display of support for your position you want people there. Quite different from attendance at a federal court hearing. Quite different from "who cares."

Really? Philion and Stewart were being paid to be there as part of their positions with Brady Martz? Ok. So DaveK and Fetch were evidently not in Fargo but you were and that information is supposed to explain what? Federal Court vs. what was conducted in Minot can be classified the same? Attendance in a federal courtroom or at the ND SC is a completely different thing from attendance for showing support at a public gathering. There are reasons why attendance is limited as to the former.

There's little basis for blame as to SL. The NCAA had no business of requiring anything. The resolution was passed in 2000. It had not been rescinded. Re-approving in writing an approval that's already been provided is nonsensical, insulting and a waste of time. Approval had not been rescinded so obviously the approval was still there. The 1969 ceremony was not just done for $#its, giggles and showmanship. To classify it as such serves to disrespect the ceremony and the sacred tradition behind it. A white guy was given a headdress and a formal Native American name as per a sacred ceremony and all that was for show and for some "class" or "project" that can only be established by inference and self-serving narratives of some remaining UND faculty members (who also conveniently oppose the nickname) and JTA and RHHIT? The NCAA did not bother to delve into what was meant by the ceremony, did not interview any of those present and did not even re-examine its position when presented with verifiable, contravening accounts by people who were actually there and actually participated. The NCAA could care less about respecting anything, especially NA customs and traditions, unless they're forced to do so by a court or "persuaded" to do so by ND's shadowy Congressional invertebrates. That position is not worthy of being defended as having any justification, credence or any moral validity whatsoever.

Eunice was referencing a vote on Standing Rock. What about every other Chippewa tribe or Seminole tribe in the country? As to other Native American tribes in the region, they are not Sioux tribes. It is misleading to characterize SL vs. SR as diametrically opposed positions when SL has approved and SR would approve if allowed to vote (indeed, already did approve in 1969). That's hardly a situation where diametrically opposed perspectives are present.

A part of me thinks Eades may be the better coach. He'll get snatched up fast. My guess is he'll get shifted back with Dean Blais. Owens has been out at CC for awhile and, after this year, his position may be less sound. Thanks Cary Eades for your many years of hard work. Will be weird to cheer against you in the future though.

You mean like how the SL Tribal Council's/Tribe's position has been respected? This sort of punt is somewhat of a surprise from you.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day and this claim has a basis.

"Curiosity"? The position I espouse is not "wrong." We've been there already with the whole "the NCAA policy is wrong" debate so no need to re-hash that. That and the fact that ND has a Congressional delegation that has been AWOL on this issue is where the term "wrong" needs to be used. Hoeven has no fear of being unseated. If Berg thinks taking a stand on this issue is going to cause him to lose to Heidi, he deserves to lose anyway. In ND with hardly one Democrat (I believe that's the case and I think Wayne Sanstead is the only one unless he's retired by now) in higher office, there is no way a Republican should lose to a Democrat who'd likely be in league with the EPA against fracking and aligned with the left on many other issues of economic importance to the state of ND. The Democratic Party used to be a good source of ideas - actual ideas and not propaganda like the Republicans - but that time has long passed.

If O'Keefe and the UND Alumni Association spent as much time publicly calling out and lobbying the Congressional invertebrates as they are flying around, there may be a different picture presented now.

Avis Little Eagle and seven other members of the Tribal Council making an 8-6 vote against allowing one.

Yes. And many of the state-related officials have already tread preciously in that regard and on that very topic. Kelley's public letter. Faison's misstatements and commentary on Tom Miller's 2/9/12 article. UND, Shaft, NDUS leading up to the ND SC arguments and ruling. A law was in effect then as well as now. There have already been sufficient grounds. The CUR no doubt took the high road. For Shaft, et al to stand quiet now - a time no different from two months ago - is somewhat odd. They should have been complying with it all along. Perhaps the determination involved efficacy or lack thereof or popularity or lack thereof concerning the SBoHE; maybe not. It certainly is a plus for that side that some party other than the SBoHE is doing something. As to Measure 2, only the AG has standing but that issue is being appealed. A private citizen should be able to bring such a claim. And yes Sic, I know about "DABDA". That's more of a concern for December or January, if at all. Nice turnout in Minot with basically two members of Brady Martz by the mic. Where were Reg Morelli, and the rest of the UND alumni?

Standing was a bigger reason. The NCAA had made public pronouncements concerning the involvement of NA's in the nickname issue and sacred tribal customs have been construed as binding under ND and Federal law. The anti-trust claims were well asserted and had potential. There was some room for the Judge to allow some claims to proceed to trial if he had wanted and thought that SL had standing. The Judge was/is quite erudite and hardly a liberal or conservative hack and he certainly is not worthy (is anyone, let alone an Article III Judge?) of any threats. He made the decision. It is to be respected. It could be appealed if there is an appropriate basis. The Judge and even NCAA's counsel indicated that the sanctions are "modest". Quite a different perspective from the extinction level event scenario posited by O'Keefe and company. With rhetoric about having 250K, jetting about in an NDSU plane and commenting amongst each other at "cocktail parties", one has to wonder if O'Keefe and company will receive a similar reception as the SBoHE? Looks like the SBoHE finally threw up its hands and is just deferring to O'Keefe and company now. Given the unpopularity of the SBoHE, kind of a predictable move but it's really just the passing of the Pope's ring from one similarly situated cocktail party-goer to another isn't it?

I agree, generally. One big difference is that Florida's Congressional delegation actually had a collective spine and challenged the NCAA. North Dakota's Congressional delegation is AWOL. A slippery collection of invertebrates to be sure.

Two ideas that the students (and Jim Grijalva, no doubt) should have probably thought about: 1.) nexus between alleged civil rights violations and Sioux nickname and 2.) verifiable facts substantiating that nexus. Good luck.

You start from the false premise that both are frivolous. There are factual differences. Are the so-called complainants in the students' law suit Sioux? Are they members of either of the State's Sioux tribes? With the SL lawsuit, there are damages and the complainants are Sioux. The issue is whether there is standing to pursue them.

Still looking for facts, other than innuendo and self-serving "the hairs stand on the back of my neck and that person across the room there must be thinking of me in a demeaning way when the nickname is mentioned" type statements. If you're looking for a frivolous suit, this is it. Say what you want about the Spirit Lake lawsuit, it has more merit than this one. If these yahoos beat Rule 56 Summary Judgment or 12(b)(6) and the matter goes to trial -- good luck there -- the Spirit Lake suit may go the same way. The viewing of facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and the genuine dispute of material facts are not tantamount to giving full and credible evidentiary weight to self-serving, factually unsupported statements and that would apply in both suits. These guys just have a particular bitch with a political backstop. Part of me wants to see their case go to trial where the good ol' boys and girls on any jury in Bismarck would deliberate for 10 minutes and send them packing. Part of me wants to see it get thrown out on 56 SJ or 12(b)(6) grounds. I'm sure there would be an appeal but I believe any standard of review would be quite high. The State should call Archie Fool Bear, Eunice Davidson, etc. as witnesses if it goes to trial and of course include the bit about the government coming in and finding no violation of civil rights vis-a-vis use of the nickname and logo. If the "violation of civil rights" is tantamount to and dependent upon one's own self-determination that one's own peculiar psychological sensibilities have been "offended" or "abused", we're in for a lot of trouble and that's a gross misuse of the legal system. If those dolts had been smart, they would have gone to a few psychologists or reported some "crimes" to campus security or to the GF Police Department but, as obtuse as they obviously are, even they understand that falsely reporting things usually gets people into trouble. I believe UND and Julie Evans are still stinging from a recent case were a rape was falsely reported and a kid had been expelled from school. It would be worth the time to see it go to trial just to see what the plaintiffs' medical records would show. Probably nothing which is why it would get bounced.

It is not a lost cause.

Obviously, number 2. Duncan kept saying that they'd consulted the tribes and gotten their input prior to the surrender agreement. There's plenty in the record disputing that claim. To my knowledge, there's nothing in the record substantiating Duncan's claim and that's why the Judge discussed it. How can a 1969 pipe ceremony satisfy a requirement of a "settlement" propounded in 2007? The point at issue is that a gift was given and never rescinded and no tribal council can undo via resolution what was permanently done through sacred ritual. Another point is why the NCAA failed to recognize it and what steps they took to understand its significance. Maybe they placed a 5 minute phone call to RHHIT or JTA? Is that sufficient? They want the NA's to have input about the issue but what steps did they take prior to the surrender agreement in that regard? If they're interested in getting such input, wouldn't or shouldn't the input of all Indians be equally weighed? If the 1969 ceremony is discarded, why isn't the approval of SL enough and why wasn't it enough for the surrender agreement when it was enough for other schools in other areas of the country? The Judge is a very erudite guy and he was obviously well-versed in the matter and had thoroughly read everything. Regardless of the outcome, he at least took the time to consider fully all of the arguments which is a lot more than I can say for a lot of parties involved in the process. Having a trial to determine what was meant exactly by the 1969 pipe ceremony and why the NCAA did not recognize that and why the NCAA wanted 2 tribes instead of 1 would be the best outcome. If memory serves me correctly - it's been awhile since I've looked at the case - the SC in Davidson said that the Committee for Understanding and Respect did not have standing but that if a tribe had actually been involved perhaps the tribe would have. It's too damn late to wade into that again so someone will have to correct me otherwise. The Judge asked if Soderstrom was representing just the Committee and it was pointed out that the SL Tribe empowered them and Soderstrom to do what they could to save the name. The resolution was entered into the record right there. The Judge certainly can elect to just dismiss the whole thing, if he wants to do so, just to be done with it. But, there is enough to have the matter proceed to trial too if the Judge feels the need to have the NCAA explain a few things.