ScottM

Why? Hoeven had a better opportunity to take a stand on the issue a few years ago, and he passed on politicizing it. Dalrymple is in a more difficult position, since it could spark a losing battle that may impinge the state's consitution. Moreover, the fact that the State AG has all but said he cannot (read: will not) revisit the settlement shows what an amazingly idiotic exercise this will be. And I thought legislators in the south had a monopoly on stupidity ...

I'd guess he's betting the legislation, if passed, probably won't alter the final result and the Sioux name/logo are formally retired at some point.

Um, Earth to Bedwetters: This "divisiveness" is not going away anytime soon. Regardless of how the name/logo mess eventually shakes out.

Maybe. I'm looking at another A4, a 335ix or a C300/350, since I don't like driving buses. My neighbor just leased an S550. I think that beast has its own zip code.

I'll take "What series of Mercedes will the lawyers buy?" for $200, Alex.

Well, at the very least, a number of lawyers will make some serious $$$ muddling through those same issues. The AG may be in the position of trying to welch on the settlement, defending the Board, attacking the NC$$, hiring outside firms, doing appellate work, etc. Good thing NoDak has a budget surplus to blow on this stuff.

Is she talking about the anti-trust claim that UND effectively agreed that it not raise in court again when it settled with the NC$$? That's what "dismissed with prejudice" will mean. Well that, and probably paying the NC$$'s attorney fees, court sanctions, etc.

If you keep giving legal counsel on this matter, you'd better start billing your time to the appropriate parties.

I wonder if the Alumni Association will be willing the carry the water for those of us no longer in the Ivy Towers ...

I'd rather rely on one of these ...

Heh. I lived next to Frenchy's for a year or so. Good times. An ex-GF got my mug. Damn, I miss that mug ...

I wonder if the legislation would run into prohibitions against ex post facto laws, especially since it could effectively prohibit certain legal activities after the fact, and then force the board/UND to attempt to unwind agreement.

UND effectively made its own bed with the settlement, and the requirement that two tribes' consent was part of the agreement to keep the name/logo. No court worth its salt would allow UND to unilaterally reopen the original case, regardless of some "new" law. The issue wasn't "illegal" when the settlement was signed, so some half-witted attempt to rewrite history is bound to fail in a very public way. Moreover, that pesky NoDak Constitution about the Board's authority over the universities just keeps getting in the way. Then again, as George W. Bush said about the US Constitution "It's just a goddamn piece of paper", so that may work for some of the deluded types around here.

God, if you have a degree from UND Law, return it now and get your money back. A settlement is a contract between two or more parties, and contracts do have "teeth" in the event of a breach, just in case you managed to sleep through Contracts I and II. And do tell us what "new law" in the federal antitrust context would effectively create a new avenue? Did somebody toughen Sherman or Hart Scott when I wasn't looking? And "dismissed with prejudice" means the facts of the original cause of action cannot be relitigated.

The former is more likely correct. Sophisticated parties in arms' length negotiations are generally held to the terms of their agreements, absent some sort of fraud, mistake, etc. A good, ongoing example is the litigation surrounding the advent of Facebook. Every court has basically told the "aggrieved" plaintiffs to get lost, and the 9th Circuit will probably do the same, and assess attorneys' fees. "New" legal requirements from the legislature probably won't pass the laugh (read: sanctions) threshold. Reopening a settlement, especially this long after the fact, is a purely asinine, political move that will do nothing but cause a shiatload of problems for UND and the board. Moreover, as somebody noted, the NoDak Constitution makes it pretty clear that the Board is overseer of the universities, and even some dog-bite lawyer would probably be able to make hay with that one.

Getting the board and UND sued for breach of contract (read: the Settlement) and/or having all possible sanctions aimed at UND et al. take effect? Moreover, I believe the original agreement contained standard "release forever" langugage as to claims in the litigation. Another patently stupid move by a legislature that was very late to the fight.

Showboat ...

Linky

Yes, that "NCAA Game One and Done" banner raising ceremony still brings a tear to many an SCCC alum, and is remembered with a local holiday every year since. I think the church bells ring, pigeons are released and the SCCC faithful do a shot of Prestone.

Toews gets a nice nod in this article about the battle between the CHL and colleges for elite Canadian players. NY Times

I remember sitting in the front bar at a table with my crew, and Clifford stopped by, chatted for a while and bought a round.

I have to agree. Made it back to GF a number of times after the flood, before I left MSP to go south, and Whitey's was so much different. It's tough to rebuild/recreate a classic. Still, I remember setting my Monday class schedules to accommodate the Sunday night festivities. Good times, indeed ...

RIP, old friend. I spent many a Sunday night in the Back Bar, and the Side Bar. Stennes was a class act. Can't speak to the current/newest owners, but how can you f**k that up?