Benny Baker Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Now you're starting to understand why I say the only, only remaining option is the SL case v. the NCAA. Why that? Because it's in FEDERAL court, not State court. And now you see why I say SL's efforts would all be best directed to that case and that case alone. (The NCAA doesn't have to regard ND State laws.) The NCAA won't respect anything other than a ruling from a Federal court. PS - Unfortunately, I see SL's chances in "SL v. NCAA" as about the same as UAA or MSU-Mankato winning the DI mens hockey title this year. The NCAA is absolutely under the jurisdiction of North Dakota's laws and courts. The state's lawsuit against the NCAA was based upon a state antitrust claim. Surely the NCAA would have filed a motion to dismiss if not subject to North Dakota law, but rather it agreed to a settlement under our state courts. But, you are right about Spirit Lake's chances of winning its lawsuit against the NCAA. It'll be dismissed; appealed to the Circuit Court; dismissal upheld; writ denied by the Supreme Court . . . keeping the nickname issue alive for at least two more years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Fighting Sioux nickname hearing next week He argues that “the 1969 sacred Sioux ceremony giving the Fighting Sioux name to the University of North Dakota constitutes a religious function preventing civil interference,” and that it — along with Spirit Lake’s 2009 vote and council action favoring the nickname’s use — meets the NCAA’s requirement that UND obtain authorization from the two namesake tribes. I pity any fool that would hire this guy Soderstrom to represent them in a court of law. Some random attorney, nor any court in the state of North Dakota does not have the authority to determine what meets NCAA requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I pity any fool that would hire this guy Soderstrom to represent them in a court of law. Some random attorney, nor any court in the state of North Dakota does not have the authority to determine what meets NCAA requirements. That must be why the settlement agreement is enforced under the laws of North Dakota and gives our state courts continuing jurisdiction to resolve any dispute as to whether UND has meet the NCAA's requirements. Don't confuse this fact with Mr. Soderstrom's mistaken belief that the 1969 ceremony complies with the NCAA's requirements under the settlement agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Fighting Sioux nickname hearing next week I pity any fool that would hire this guy Soderstrom to represent them in a court of law. Some random attorney, nor any court in the state of North Dakota does not have the authority to determine what meets NCAA requirements. Soderstrom fails to grasp that even though SL recognizes the pipe ceremony, SR's government has explicitly disowned that ceremony. And both are "sovereign nations". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 It makes you wonder if he has even read the settlement agreement. The agreement specifically spells out how each tribe can communicate their approval to the NCAA, along with the deadline to do that. Standing Rock was allowed to give approval in any way acceptable in their Tribal Constitution. If Standing Rock wanted to accept the pipe ceremony they just needed to send a letter to the NCAA stating that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Looks like this is going to vote. Sounds like it will be on the June ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 "May the logo and the Fighting Sioux name live on forever!" Thank You Ralph Engelstad for the wonderful facility you gave to North Dakota ..................RIP 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Well that is TS for SR's goverment. It was a forever binding sacred ceremony that can never be undone. What part of forever binding do they not understand? They do not have the legal right to "disown" it. So now you decide what a sovereign nation has the legal right to do regarding the recognition of a ceremony from 40 years ago?? Just because culture and history indicate the council must accept the ceremony doesn't mean the law requires it. Here again I wish you were right, but you're not.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Well that is TS for SR's goverment. It was a forever binding sacred ceremony that can never be undone. What part of forever binding do they not understand? They do not have the legal right to "disown" it. No contract can be made "forever". That claim in and of itself voids the entire ceremony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 It wasn't a contract, it was a ceremony. It was sacred and can never be undone, that is what has been stated by the Native American people. Who are you to say they're wrong? How dare you!!! It still doesn't give UND the written 30-year agreement from both the SL and SR tribes and that is what the agreement says the school needs to retain the nickname without sanctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 It still doesn't give UND the written 30-year agreement from both the SL and SR tribes and that is what the agreement says the school needs to retain the nickname without sanctions. Thank you!! I know we'll never be able to convince the DaveK's of the world. But I feel we must continue to post reponses proving them wrong in case a casual fan visits this site and takes their posts as fact... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Your biased PC spin doesn't "prove" anything. You're spewing garbage in an attempt to scare people out of doing the right thing. I'll lay down the facts for you. The NCAA has placed UND under sanctions for keeping the Sioux name. Sanctions include not being able to host NCAA playoff games and not being able to wear any Sioux jerseys/articles of clothing during the NCAA playoff games. Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have all stated they will not schedule games/meets against UND as long as it is on the NCAA sanctions list. SL has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA. Said lawsuit was poorly written (inlcluded many spelling/grammatical errors), which alludes to how much effort Soderstrom (SL's attorney in this case) put into it. Why he put so little effort into the lawsuit filing is up for debate (many would say it's because he doesn't plan on winning anyway). Coaches from UND and other universities against whom we compete for athletic recruits have issued statements detailing the struggles UND has faced in recruiting battles with the impending sanctions on the horizon. You also refer to me as biased and PC. I love the nickname and I wish the NC$$ had not adopted such an idiotic policy. However, UND must play by the NCAA's rules if it wants to be a successful program. I care more about UND's success than a nickname and logo. If you feel that makes me PC, then I'd say you don't know what PC means, but I digress... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 The sanctions are not illegal. This has already been explained to you on another thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 The sanctions are illegal. The NCAA is playing with dynamite in thinking they can get away with this corrupt behavior. They will possibly end the very existence of their organization if they don't wise up and back off soon. I am now done arguing this topic (at least for tonight). I do not have any more free time to spend on trying to help the blind to see. Pot-Kettle-Black. Those who can't, teach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I'll lay down the facts for you. The NCAA has placed UND under sanctions for keeping the Sioux name. Sanctions include not being able to host NCAA playoff games and not being able to wear any Sioux jerseys/articles of clothing during the NCAA playoff games. Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have all stated they will not schedule games/meets against UND as long as it is on the NCAA sanctions list. SL has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA. Said lawsuit was poorly written (inlcluded many spelling/grammatical errors), which alludes to how much effort Soderstrom (SL's attorney in this case) put into it. Why he put so little effort into the lawsuit filing is up for debate (many would say it's because he doesn't plan on winning anyway). Coaches from UND and other universities against whom we compete for athletic recruits have issued statements detailing the struggles UND has faced in recruiting battles with the impending sanctions on the horizon. You also refer to me as biased and PC. I love the nickname and I wish the NC$$ had not adopted such an idiotic policy. However, UND must play by the NCAA's rules if it wants to be a successful program. I care more about UND's success than a nickname and logo. If you feel that makes me PC, then I'd say you don't know what PC means, but I digress... None of that matters because Rob Port is running around telling everyone that UND is fine and won't be kicked out of the BSC. I guess we have to believe him and none of the stuff we type means squat because he has the top political blog in North Dakota. Doesn't matter if he has interviewed, or emailed or talked to anyone maybe other than Terry Wanless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Oh yeah and I love the Fighting Sioux nickname. The fact that is funny is that many people pushing to keep the nickname never attended a day at UND. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 It wasn't a contract, it was a ceremony. It was sacred and can never be undone, that is what has been stated by the Native American people. Who are you to say they're wrong? How dare you!!! How dare Me? I'll tell you what dared me. It's the fact that I want athletics at UND in five years. Do you have a back up plan to the Big Sky asking us politely to leave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Well that is TS for SR's goverment. It was a forever binding sacred ceremony that can never be undone. What part of forever binding do they not understand? They do not have the legal right to "disown" it. Maybe you should sue SR and force them to bind themselves to moldy pictures and vague recollections. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Maybe you should sue SR and force them to bind themselves to moldy pictures and vague recollections. Don't give him ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sodbuster Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Pot-Kettle-Black. Those who can't, teach. And with the quoting of that asinine statement you've insulted countless numbers of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 It still doesn't give UND the written 30-year agreement from both the SL and SR tribes and that is what the agreement says the school needs to retain the nickname without sanctions. The settlement doesn't say anything about 30 years. It asked for written confirmation from someone in tribal government with authority to give that confirmation. The written confirmation had to be received by November 30, 2010. It didn't say how the decision had to be made, just that the tribal government, the only people allowed to officially speak for the government, had to communicate that decision to the NCAA in writing. If you think about it, that was probably a smart decision on the part of the NCAA. The way they structured that determination really should remove them from any legal blame about whether the pipe ceremony can be used as an approval. They didn't make a decision about whether the pipe ceremony was followed or not. They left that decision up to the legal body that should be the expert, the tribal government from Standing Rock. It was a delegation from Standing Rock that performed whatever ceremony was performed. They should know whether the ceremony had any legal standing. They say it did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 The wording on the ballot is now official. According to Al Jaeger: He said today that the referral’s ballot language has been approved, and the ballot question will be clear: A ‘yes’ vote will be for keeping the nickname law and, consequently, the nickname. Vote NO to allow UND to move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Wayne Stenjehem= worst attorney general in ND history. Settled a case he was going to win big time and caused this whole fiasco by assuming SR and SL would vote yes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Wayne Stenjehem= worst attorney general in ND history. Settled a case he was going to win big time and caused this whole fiasco by assuming SR and SL would vote yes. I'm not a big fan of the AD, but at the time of the settlement UND was going to lose either way. They probably had a chance to win the actual case, but the NCAA had already corrected that issue. The case was based on the NCAA allowing a committee to make a policy, UND was arguing that it was against the NCAA bylaws. UND was correct. But while they were doing discovery the NCAA had passed a new bylaw to allow the committee to create such a policy. The new bylaw passed by a huge majority even though the schools knew that it applied to the Native American policy. Then the committee passed the policy again as a backup in case they lost the lawsuit. So if UND lost the lawsuit, the NCAA won and had a policy in place. If UND won the lawsuit and they threw out the policy, the NCAA already had the same policy in place to replace the original. And they put the second in place the correct way. Either way the NCAA got their way. Reaching a settlement bought UND some time. The AD has stated that the NCAA would not accept less than 2 tribes. They seemed to be willing to deal on other issues, but not on that. Obviously they knew that Standing Rock was going to be a hard sell. But it sounds like that was the only way to get a settlement and buy some time. Otherwise UND would have been on the sanctions list shortly after the trial ended no matter whether they won or lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 And don't forget, the AD was just the person working the case. The State Board of Higher Education made the decision to accept or reject the settlement deal. If they thought there was a better deal they should have worked to get it. Or maybe it was as good as they thought they could get with the cards that both sides were holding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.