Let your voices be heard in Bismarck-Sioux logo

[westsidesioux]

Wow don't be so positive about everything.. jeesh! Those who have given up have truly shown their character.. who cares if its been dragging on, or the state came in late, or the NA's in standing rock didn't vote...etc... If your favorite team gave up a game with a period left would that be ok? If they gave up with 2 minutes left... it wouldn't be ok

The problem is this....there is no time left. I do cheer for my team until the horn sounds, but we are out of time. The November deadline has come and gone and the board has decided to move on. The legislature is just really late to the party. No clue why this didn't grab there attention in previous sessions.

[Old Time Hockey]

So no playoffs at either the AC, REA or the Betty....ever. No Gophers, Iowa, or WIsconsin except the WCHA (until they leave), and who knows what other sanctions the NCAA could throw at us. Retire the name. Its over. Whats the point if we go to the WCHA final five in plain ol North Dakota jerseys and not being known as the Fighting Sioux (per NCAA sanctions).

Quitter!

FInal Five is a conference tournament, not a NCAA tournament. The Alerus, nor the Betty will see a home NCAA playoff event for a long time.

[Old Time Hockey]

I can't believe this idiocy is going to pass. The ND legislators pushing for this must be functionally illiterate. Isn't there an attorney anywhere on this legislative committee who can explain what it means when something is "dismissed with prejudice"? If a lawyer in private practice pulled something like this they would be sued for malpractice and deservedly so.

This is pretty much going along as I feared. UND athletes in sports like BB, FB, etc. will take it in the shorts so the hockey team can wear the Sioux jersey for a few more seasons. It's not right and those athletes deserve better than to be used as fodder for politicians who really could give rats ass about the issue but see it as an opportunity to grandstand.

You hate hockey... we get it. I think you are mplsbison under another name!

[The Sicatoka]

The anti-trust lawsuit was already brought and dismissed with prejudice as part of the settlement. It would be a sanctionable offense if the State re-brought that lawsuit.

The settlement is trumped by the change in the law. The settlement is an agreement between parties based on the status of the law at that time.

OK, I'm not Perry Mason. Heck, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So which of these is accurate?

[Blackburn87]

Why the hell NOT try this route? To my knowledge, no public institution with a Native American moniker has had the backing of its own state legislature to keep the name. Granted, the UND powers-that-be and SBoHE decided not to fight for a name the clear majority of all North Dakotans and alumni wished to keep; however, the name itself has that kind of support even when the will higher education leadership doesn't appreciate nor acknowledge it. It's time to call it like it is... maybe it's okay if it's better late than never. I don't know what the NCAA will do if the state legislataure orders a publicly owned and run institution to retain the Sioux name. I don't know if the UND administration and the SBofHE will have the wherewithal to sue the State unless Stenejehm feels compelled to do it himself.

The fight's not over, and I agree with an earlier post made elsewhere on this board that it's not necessarily a bad thing. Call it the North Dakotan in me, but I don't appreciate the players in this mess, with no clear understanding of the culture and the people of North Dakota, deciding what's going to happen to a name that binds Native and non-Native American people together. I heard the impassioned testimony of the Sioux people who have blessed us with the gift of this name. I am impressed with the people of Spirit Lake who sued to keep the name. I appreciate the tireless efforts of several members of Standing Rock to let their people's voices be heard. Keeping the Sioux name does not necessarily hurt the entirety of Sioux athletics. It is not the death knell of non-hockey sports at UND. In fact, it might invigorate support for college athletics across the board.

I, for one, am glad something is finally happening.

[darell1976]

Quitter!

FInal Five is a conference tournament, not a NCAA tournament. The Alerus, nor the Betty will see a home NCAA playoff event for a long time.

No faith in our football team Old Time Hockey? NDSU just hosted a playoff game and we become playoff eligible next year. As for the Betty no faith in our men's or women's bball team. There is more to Sioux athletics than hockey. And what about the chance the NCAA will throw more sanctions against UND or better yet...make our D1 transition longer. They did it to another school.

[darell1976]

Why the hell NOT try this route? To my knowledge, no public institution with a Native American moniker has had the backing of its own state legislature to keep the name. Granted, the UND powers-that-be and SBoHE decided not to fight for a name the clear majority of all North Dakotans and alumni wished to keep; however, the name itself has that kind of support even when the will higher education leadership doesn't appreciate nor acknowledge it. It's time to call it like it is... maybe it's okay if it's better late than never. I don't know what the NCAA will do if the state legislataure orders a publicly owned and run institution to retain the Sioux name. I don't know if the UND administration and the SBofHE will have the wherewithal to sue the State unless Stenejehm feels compelled to do it himself.

The fight's not over, and I agree with an earlier post made elsewhere on this board that it's not necessarily a bad thing. Call it the North Dakotan in me, but I don't appreciate the players in this mess, with no clear understanding of the culture and the people of North Dakota, deciding what's going to happen to a name that binds Native and non-Native American people together. I heard the impassioned testimony of the Sioux people who have blessed us with the gift of this name. I am impressed with the people of Spirit Lake who sued to keep the name. I appreciate the tireless efforts of several members of Standing Rock to let their people's voices be heard. Keeping the Sioux name does not necessarily hurt the entirety of Sioux athletics. It is not the death knell of non-hockey sports at UND. In fact, it might invigorate support for college athletics across the board.

I, for one, am glad something is finally happening.

How about kicking us out of the NCAA. Its their association its their rules. NAIA here we come.

[SIOUXPR]

OK, I'm not Perry Mason. Heck, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So which of these is accurate?

Neither of those statements make any difference. This bill is worth-less. The language in the bill has a fatal conflict with the North Dakota State Constitution, which gives the SBHE full control and authority orver the states colleges and universities. I guess this joke of a republican legislature doesn't care about the constitution. Typical big government imposing its will on a lessor entity. Oh wait, isn't that what the tea-baggers always say. Hypocrites.

[ScottM]

OK, I'm not Perry Mason. Heck, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So which of these is accurate?

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.

[PhillySioux]

Neither of those statements make any difference. This bill is worth-less. The language in the bill has a fatal conflict with the North Dakota State Constitution, which gives the SBHE full control and authority orver the states colleges and universities. I guess this joke of a republican legislature doesn't care about the constitution. Typical big government imposing its will on a lessor entity. Oh wait, isn't that what the tea-baggers always say. Hypocrites.

This is correct.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, Al Carlson does not give two bleeps about the Fighting Sioux nickname. This bill has nothing to do with what is good for UND, UND athletics, UND's fanbase or UND's alumni. This bill has everything to do with his (and his caucus') overall disdain for SBoHE. They will eff with them anytime they can.

[Siouxbooster#33]

The SBOHE has control over the Universities, to a degree. The SBOHE has, in this instance, taken no stance on the legislation and is not attempting to set up a turf war with the House. Regarding the "Settlement," its a document with no teeth. Its a contract between parties. As I said earlier, the question of sanctions must be litigated in Court. Follow the scenario:

1. North Dakota passes a law which says the Sioux name must remain, and can't be changed.

2. The Unviversity and the SBOHE follow the law, and the name stays.

3. The NCAA lawyers come back to North Dakota and argue that the settlement has been breached.

4. North Dakota answers that the settlement was NOT breached, because they followed all of the terms and conditions of the settlement, exactly, up until they were prevented by the Law. There has to be a showing of deliberate and baseless breach in order for the Court to assign sanctions for violation. The Univeristy system is unable to complete the terms of the agreement (the Settlement) because of a change in the law.

5. Following the exact terms of the Settlement will cause the University to break the law. Please try to understand, the Settlement is NOT law, and no Settlement can be enforced if the enforcement of the terms of that agreement would cause one party to violate the law. SOOOO, there can be no voluntary breach of the settlement for which damages (sanctions, attorney fees) can be attached.

6. The NCAA and North Dakota are now back in Court. How do the parties deal with this situation? The NCAA cannot simply apply sanctions on its own, not anymore, because the entire matter is under the umbrella of the Court system. Until the case is CLOSED, the NCAA must have all of their actions on this topic, against UND, approved by the Court as proper temporary sanctions and solutions pending a final resolution.

7. The Case is not closed. The terms and conditions of the Settlement have not been fully complied. There has been no filing with the Court that full compliance is met (because it hasn't).

8. The parties are now back in Court, but this time with an entirely different paradigm: The NCAA is attempting to force the University to break the law, e.g., change the name. The NCAA has two choices: take the matter to trial, or enter another settlement agreement.

9. The new anti-trust litigation would be based upon the new law. This is very common, when new laws are enacted -- parties will take the matters into court and test the terms and conditions of the new law, or use the new law in court to redress issues. "Dimissed with prejudice" is a dismissal based on several factors: the matters dismissed are restricted to those litigated; and the dismissal is based, usually, upon the full and complete termination of the terms and conditions of any settlement. As noted, without the closed settlement, the dismissal is not fully triggered. Furthermore, as noted, the new law created a new avenue of litigation not previously argued in Court -- and therefore is outside of the dismissal's fact pattern basis.

So for all those who want o give up, or want to run around screaming like chicken little that the sky is falling and home playoff games will be lost and terrible NCAA judgment will befall our teams -- relax. Don't give up the fight. There is a LOT of fight left. There is a lot more going for UND and our beloved Sioux name.

[ScottM]

The SBOHE has control over the Universities, to a degree. The SBOHE has, in this instance, taken no stance on the legislation and is not attempting to set up a turf war with the House. Regarding the "Settlement," its a document with no teeth. Its a contract between parties. As I said earlier, the question of sanctions must be litigated in Court. Follow the scenario:

1. North Dakota passes a law which says the Sioux name must remain, and can't be changed.

2. The Unviversity and the SBOHE follow the law, and the name stays.

3. The NCAA lawyers come back to North Dakota and argue that the settlement has been breached.

4. North Dakota answers that the settlement was NOT breached, because they followed all of the terms and conditions of the settlement, exactly, up until they were prevented by the Law. There has to be a showing of deliberate and baseless breach in order for the Court to assign sanctions for violation. The Univeristy system is unable to complete the terms of the agreement (the Settlement) because of a change in the law.

5. Following the exact terms of the Settlement will cause the University to break the law. Please try to understand, the Settlement is NOT law, and no Settlement can be enforced if the enforcement of the terms of that agreement would cause one party to violate the law. SOOOO, there can be no voluntary breach of the settlement for which damages (sanctions, attorney fees) can be attached.

6. The NCAA and North Dakota are now back in Court. How do the parties deal with this situation? The NCAA cannot simply apply sanctions on its own, not anymore, because the entire matter is under the umbrella of the Court system. Until the case is CLOSED, the NCAA must have all of their actions on this topic, against UND, approved by the Court as proper temporary sanctions and solutions pending a final resolution.

7. The Case is not closed. The terms and conditions of the Settlement have not been fully complied. There has been no filing with the Court that full compliance is met (because it hasn't).

8. The parties are now back in Court, but this time with an entirely different paradigm: The NCAA is attempting to force the University to break the law, e.g., change the name. The NCAA has two choices: take the matter to trial, or enter another settlement agreement.

9. The new anti-trust litigation would be based upon the new law. This is very common, when new laws are enacted -- parties will take the matters into court and test the terms and conditions of the new law, or use the new law in court to redress issues. "Dimissed with prejudice" is a dismissal based on several factors: the matters dismissed are restricted to those litigated; and the dismissal is based, usually, upon the full and complete termination of the terms and conditions of any settlement. As noted, without the closed settlement, the dismissal is not fully triggered. Furthermore, as noted, the new law created a new avenue of litigation not previously argued in Court -- and therefore is outside of the dismissal's fact pattern basis.

So for all those who want o give up, or want to run around screaming like chicken little that the sky is falling and home playoff games will be lost and terrible NCAA judgment will befall our teams -- relax. Don't give up the fight. There is a LOT of fight left. There is a lot more going for UND and our beloved Sioux name.

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.

[Siouxbooster#33]

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.

And the breach is?

You appear to be operating under the assumption that an improper breach would automatically be found, and that the end result of that determination would be sanctions against the breaching party. Not completing the terms of a contract because the final term is now illegal is a valid reason to breach the contract. A valid breach -- excused by law, not an invalid breach -- punishable by the Court. If a party cannot complete the terms of the agreement because to do so would be illegal, no Court would ever find material invalid breach. Contracts I. "You cannot contract to accomplish an illegal activity."

Also know this: Litigation is not over until a final ruling. Settlements are nice, but they are only as binding as the law upon which they are drafted. They are only as binding as the courts in litigation give them the authority to be binding. If the terms of the contract are suddenly illegal, please indicate what court will find against the validly breaching party?

And dismissal with prejudice, in a civil matter wherein there is a settlement agreement, is only triggered with finality when the full terms and conditions of the settlement are resolved. If the settlement is terminated or unable to be completed (because . . .. follow me here . . . a material change in the law), then the entire litigation is back, alive and well. Rookies and non-litigation types are too often easily tripped up by "dismissal with prejudice." It carries teeth -- but only when the triggering mechanism give it those teeth. In this case, the settlement is not closed. There has not been filed any satisfaction of the settlement with the Court.

So answer me this: if the settlement can't be completed -- because of the change in the law -- then how can random parts of other litigation which were tied to the settlement be forever barred? They can't. If the settlement is called into question, and invalidated by either party, then all items in litigation came back into Court.

Settlements are indeed like contracts. If that is the case, then perhaps history is instructive. Here is an example: when prohibition was enacted in 1919, there were thousands of saloon owers, liquor distributors, etc . . . who had contracts with distilleries and breweries. The change in the law in 1919 prevented most of these people from completing the terms and conditions of their contract, because the law had changed. All of those contracts were invalidated. Canadian whiskey operations could not sue saloon owners for deliveries which were now deemed illegal. A contract cannot force a party to engage in illegal acts.

That is the fundenmental change in this matter.

The new law suddenly takes away the NCAA's position as aggressor in the case. Now the lawsuit would not be about what the NCAA says (e.g., what is hostile and abusive) but instead is now about the NCAA forcing a party to a contract (e.g., member of the NCAA) into acting in a manner which is totally illegal. The NCAA no longer would no longer dictate the terms and conditions, but would instead be arguing from a position of legal and ethical weakness -- e.g., forcing somebody to commit an illegal act.

[supersioux]

No faith in our football team Old Time Hockey? NDSU just hosted a playoff game and we become playoff eligible next year. As for the Betty no faith in our men's or women's bball team. There is more to Sioux athletics than hockey. And what about the chance the NCAA will throw more sanctions against UND or better yet...make our D1 transition longer. They did it to another school.

Football is possible....Basketball Men's or Women's will never host, not because the ability of the teams but because they way the NCAA runs the tournament (Predetermined Regional Sites)

[The Sicatoka]

This is correct.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, Al Carlson does not give two bleeps about the Fighting Sioux nickname. This bill has nothing to do with what is good for UND, UND athletics, UND's fanbase or UND's alumni. This bill has everything to do with his (and his caucus') overall disdain for SBoHE. They will eff with them anytime they can.

And I'm still suspicious of Carlson. He's a Fargo guy. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if his mindset set is "If it hurts UND (like NCAA sanctions or worse), it helps NDSU."

And step back from the NCAA for a second. Nothing, absolutely nothing, requires Team X, Y, or Z to schedule UND. UND could face scheduling problems because X, Y, and Z all have someone else in mind for that date (or some other convenient excuse not to schedule a team called "Fighting Sioux").

[The Sicatoka]

8. ... The NCAA has two choices: take the matter to trial, or enter another settlement agreement.

No. The NCAA has another option: Kick UND out of its organization.

[Blackburn87]

No. The NCAA has another option: Kick UND out of its organization.

No one knows how this will play out and I'll be the first to admit that: however, I highly doubt that would occur under these unique circumstances. If the change in law forces a renegotiation of the settlement, perhaps the outcome will be that like that of the Seminoles, Utes, and similarly situated teams: i.e., one tribe's approval is enough. We have at the very least what the other schools do in terms of Native American support.

[The Sicatoka]

No one knows how this will play out and I'll be the first to admit that: however, I highly doubt that would occur under these unique circumstances.

But, you admit, it is a possibility.

... perhaps the outcome will be that like that of the Seminoles, Utes, and similarly situated teams: i.e., one tribe's approval is enough. We have at the very least what the other schools do in terms of Native American support.

It would be nice if UND was treated equally and equitably compared to Florida State, Utah, and Central Michigan, where in each case only the support of one (nearest) tribe was required.

[Oxbow6]

On a side note....actually in Bismarck. Read Tribune sport's page with a big picture of Solen HS boy's basketball player on it. Solen's nickname is the Sioux and "SIOUX" was on front of the Solen HS player's jersey. Also Solen is in Sioux County. But it's a predominantly Native American school, town and county... Just thought that was interesting to see the other side of the equation. Carry on...

[star2city]

No. The NCAA has another option: Kick UND out of its organization.

The NCAA hasn't kicked out any of the South Carolina schools for having a state flag that the NCAA considers racially insensitive - even though the South Carolina legislature gave the finger to the NCAA.

The NCAA never kicked SMU out over wholesale cheating. Nor has the NCAA kicked out certain schools, like Portland State or Eastern Washington or Idaho State, for horrible APRs.

Tennessee hasn't been threatened by the NCAA, even though the Volunteer football team has practically threatened the entire city of Knoxville with violence.

The NCAA is just a bully organization that cowers at the thought that real political forces will get involved with it. In this time of tea party activism at many levels, the NCAA will tread lightly. The political climate has totally changed from when the NCAA first made the nickname an issue.

[Chewey]

The NCAA hasn't kicked out any of the South Carolina schools for having a state flag that the NCAA considers racially insensitive - even though the South Carolina legislature gave the finger to the NCAA.

The NCAA never kicked SMU out over wholesale cheating. Nor has the NCAA kicked out certain schools, like Portland State or Eastern Washington or Idaho State, for horrible APRs.

Tennessee hasn't been threatened by the NCAA, even though the Volunteer football team has practically threatened the entire city of Knoxville with violence.

The NCAA is just a bully organization that cowers at the thought that real political forces will get involved with it. In this time of tea party activism at many levels, the NCAA will tread lightly. The political climate has totally changed from when the NCAA first made the nickname an issue.

Yes. As to that, see ouster (err "Retirement") of Dorgan and total ouster of Pomeroy and future anticipated ouster (errr "Retirement") of Conrad. But, have hope, there are still the Al Franken's running around. Hopefully, Hoeven will voice some support of all of this.

[Knickball2]

What if the new suit with the NCAA is in Federal Court and not State Court, then, is it not a different and distinct action, say like a Federal copyright/trademark action. Yes, the state court of Grand Forks County

dismissed the suit with prejudice, but not the Federal Court. I do not believe we've reached the end yet.

[ScottM]

It would be nice if UND was treated equally and equitably compared to Florida State, Utah, and Central Michigan, where in each case only the support of one (nearest) tribe was required.

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.

[mksioux]

And the breach is?

You appear to be operating under the assumption that an improper breach would automatically be found, and that the end result of that determination would be sanctions against the breaching party. Not completing the terms of a contract because the final term is now illegal is a valid reason to breach the contract. A valid breach -- excused by law, not an invalid breach -- punishable by the Court. If a party cannot complete the terms of the agreement because to do so would be illegal, no Court would ever find material invalid breach. Contracts I. "You cannot contract to accomplish an illegal activity."

Also know this: Litigation is not over until a final ruling. Settlements are nice, but they are only as binding as the law upon which they are drafted. They are only as binding as the courts in litigation give them the authority to be binding. If the terms of the contract are suddenly illegal, please indicate what court will find against the validly breaching party?

And dismissal with prejudice, in a civil matter wherein there is a settlement agreement, is only triggered with finality when the full terms and conditions of the settlement are resolved. If the settlement is terminated or unable to be completed (because . . .. follow me here . . . a material change in the law), then the entire litigation is back, alive and well. Rookies and non-litigation types are too often easily tripped up by "dismissal with prejudice." It carries teeth -- but only when the triggering mechanism give it those teeth. In this case, the settlement is not closed. There has not been filed any satisfaction of the settlement with the Court.

So answer me this: if the settlement can't be completed -- because of the change in the law -- then how can random parts of other litigation which were tied to the settlement be forever barred? They can't. If the settlement is called into question, and invalidated by either party, then all items in litigation came back into Court.

Settlements are indeed like contracts. If that is the case, then perhaps history is instructive. Here is an example: when prohibition was enacted in 1919, there were thousands of saloon owers, liquor distributors, etc . . . who had contracts with distilleries and breweries. The change in the law in 1919 prevented most of these people from completing the terms and conditions of their contract, because the law had changed. All of those contracts were invalidated. Canadian whiskey operations could not sue saloon owners for deliveries which were now deemed illegal. A contract cannot force a party to engage in illegal acts.

That is the fundenmental change in this matter.

The new law suddenly takes away the NCAA's position as aggressor in the case. Now the lawsuit would not be about what the NCAA says (e.g., what is hostile and abusive) but instead is now about the NCAA forcing a party to a contract (e.g., member of the NCAA) into acting in a manner which is totally illegal. The NCAA no longer would no longer dictate the terms and conditions, but would instead be arguing from a position of legal and ethical weakness -- e.g., forcing somebody to commit an illegal act.

The lawsuit was dismissed. The court action is closed, even if the resulting settlement is not totally fulfilled. The resulting settlement agreement is like a contract, but the underlying lawsuit is gone, replaced by that "contract." The parties may have future disputes over the interpretation or application of that "contract," but the "contract" now and will forever control the dispute, not the underlying claims that were made in the lawsuit.

As to your argument that a new law would be a "game changer" and your comparisons to prohibition, the fatal flaw in your argument is that, in this case, the State of North Dakota itself is a party to the lawsuit. The State cannot unilaterally resurect a claim it made against a private party that it previously settled and stipulated to dismiss with prejudice just because it passes a new law. If that were the case, nobody would ever settle a lawsuit with the State. If the State could renege by simply passing a new law, the settlement wouldn't be worth the piece of paper it was printed on.

Also, this new proposed law changes nothing in the overall litigation and resulting settlement agreement. Ultimately, with UND being a public institution, the State of North Dakota has always had the ability to decide whether to retain the Fighting Sioux nickname. The NCAA has never disputed that. This new proposed law, if deemed constitutional, would simply change how that decision is made (written into law by the legislature, as opposed to a decision by the SBoHE). The end result would be that the State is choosing to keep its nickname and it would still have to live with the repercussions under the settlement agreement.

North Dakota's anti-trust claim against the NCAA was dismissed with prejudice, North Dakota released the NCAA from that claim. North Dakota cannot bring that same claim against the NCAA again. All the rest is just noise.

[mksioux]

What if the new suit with the NCAA is in Federal Court and not State Court, then, is it not a different and distinct action, say like a Federal copyright/trademark action. Yes, the state court of Grand Forks County

dismissed the suit with prejudice, but not the Federal Court. I do not believe we've reached the end yet.

Res judicata would preclude the anti-trust claim, even if it were brought in federal court this time.