UNDBIZ Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Any lawyers out there have some insight or opinions as to how the case was presented by each side?? Predictions?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 So, Chewey, Fetch, DaveK, where you there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 So, Fetch, DaveK, were you there? I'd prefer facts and well-thought-out opinions.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I was asking "attendance" not anything more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I was asking "attendance" not anything more. I don't think they have any excuse not to have been there. Work, travel, even the death of a loved one are all trivial matters when compared to the loss of the nickname... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I was in the Twin Cities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I was in the Twin Cities How dare you not be there covering Reed Soderstrom's back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Any lawyers out there have some insight or opinions as to how the case was presented by each side?? Predictions?? I wasn't there and had to rely on a "first hand account", as well as various newspaper articles. But SL might have problems if the judge asks whether a ceremony from 1969 could be used to fulfill a condition imposed in 2007. It's too bad, really. The anti-trust facet has some serious potential, and in the hands of a lawyer better-versed in that area might actually threaten the NC$$'s position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 So, Chewey, Fetch, DaveK, where you there? Yes in fact. If you want to see another example of NCAA abuse, watch "Man in the Glass". Dale Brown's (former LSU BB coach) story is one example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 They also settled out of court when Jerry Tarkanian sued them for harrassment after he wrote an article stating something to the effect that they looked the other way when big schools had infractions but punished smaller schools for the same thing (which was very true). They never admitted they harrassed Tarkanian for the two decades he claimed following the article, but everybody knew they had a hard-on for him and they settled out of court for $2.5 million to save the embarrassment of a trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 21, 2012 Author Share Posted April 21, 2012 They also settled out of court when Jerry Tarkanian sued them for harrassment after he wrote an article stating something to the effect that they looked the other way when big schools had infractions but punished smaller schools for the same thing (which was very true). They never admitted they harrassed Tarkanian for the two decades he claimed following the article, but everybody knew they had a hard-on for him and they settled out of court for $2.5 million to save the embarrassment of a trial. I don't think the NCAA will settle out of court. They have the settlement in their back pocket, so unless there is some ruling that the settlement is not constitutional because they left the tribes out then it will be a solid win for the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I don't think the NCAA will settle out of court. They have the settlement in their back pocket, so unless there is some ruling that the settlement is not constitutional because they left the tribes out then it will be a solid win for the NCAA. I wasn't relating anything to this situation, I was just adding to what Chewey stated that the NCAA has shown in the past that they have no problem badgering and harrassing people who resist them, to the point of abusing their power. In our case, they have a signed note which gives them permission to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 21, 2012 Author Share Posted April 21, 2012 I wasn't relating anything to this situation, I was just adding to what Chewey stated that the NCAA has shown in the past that they have no problem badgering and harrassing people who resist them, to the point of abusing their power. In our case, they have a signed note which gives them permission to do it. And they will keep doing it until Congress shuts the door on them. Which if they had a backbone would be soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxman Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I don't think the NCAA will settle out of court. They have the settlement in their back pocket, so unless there is some ruling that the settlement is not constitutional because they left the tribes out then it will be a solid win for the NCAA. I am certainly no lawyer, but a settlement that does not include the tribes as signatories should not be very relevant to the tribes. The lawsuit is between the tribes (or tribe, depending on how you view it) and the NCAA, while the settlement is between ND and the NCAA. And that appears to be the central piece of the tribes lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Yes in fact. Good. What was your favorite moment: - when Judge Erickson had to clue in Soderstrom et al that they'd completely missed the possible claim that the NCAA tortiously interfered with an agreement between SL and the State, or, - when Judge Erickson asked Duncan why one tribe was enough if the tribe was Seminole or Chippewa, but not SIoux, or, - when Judge Erickson asked Soderstrom how he can claim the statute of limitations for filing hadn't expired before SL filed. What did I learn? I learned Judge Erickson's favorite phrase is "I'm trying to wrap my head around" some argument or claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas_Sioux Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Yes federal judges do not like having I don't knows as answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 Good. What was your favorite moment: - when Judge Erickson had to clue in Soderstrom et al that they'd completely missed the possible claim that the NCAA tortiously interfered with an agreement between SL and the State, or, - when Judge Erickson asked Duncan why one tribe was enough if the tribe was Seminole or Chippewa, but not SIoux, or, - when Judge Erickson asked Soderstrom how he can claim the statute of limitations for filing hadn't expired before SL filed. What did I learn? I learned Judge Erickson's favorite phrase is "I'm trying to wrap my head around" some argument or claim. What was his response??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 What was his response??? Basically pointed to settlement agreement and pointed out the State agreed to it also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Yes federal judges do not like having I don't knows as answers. Erickson's physical reaction to that was priceless. (I like to watch mannerisms and behaviors to try to read what people are thinking.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 Basically pointed to settlement agreement and pointed out State agreed to it also. Is it safe to say that basically the settlement agreement is killing SL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Is it safe to say that basically the settlement agreement is killing SL? Judge Erickson had some deep and pointed questions on how SL had any standing (to bring a suit) relative to the State/NCAA settlement agreement. Maybe Chewey can explain the ND state law that Soderstrom tried to use to claim the pipe ceremony has some sort of legal standing in ND law because it was a "tribal ritual." Even after that, Judge Erickson asked even if the name was given as a gift was the State obligated or forced to use the name. To answer your question directly, the settlement is an extremely big hurdle for anyone going up against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Judge Erickson had some deep and pointed questions on how SL had any standing (to bring a suit) relative to the State/NCAA settlement agreement. Maybe Chewey can explain the ND state law that Soderstrom tried to use to claim the pipe ceremony has some sort of legal standing in ND law because it was a "tribal ritual." Even after that, Judge Erickson asked even if the name was given as a gift was the State obligated or forced to use the name. To answer your question directly, the settlement is an extremely big hurdle for anyone going up against it. What is even more puzzling is there are quite a few over at S.A.B. that think the NCAA Is going to settle out of court with the S.L. Tribe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 What is even more puzzling is there are quite a few over at S.A.B. that think the NCAA Is going to settle out of court with the S.L. Tribe. I don't know why the NCAA would, the only time you settle out of court is when you are obviously wrong or you think a jury might find you wrong even if you aren't. I'm sure they feel they have enough documentation to proceed with this if they have to. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 The NCAA kept going back to the settlement agreement and stating that they've done nothing to violate it. That doesn't sound like a group looking to settle out of court. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Good. What was your favorite moment: - when Judge Erickson had to clue in Soderstrom et al that they'd completely missed the possible claim that the NCAA tortiously interfered with an agreement between SL and the State, or, - when Judge Erickson asked Duncan why one tribe was enough if the tribe was Seminole or Chippewa, but not SIoux, or, - when Judge Erickson asked Soderstrom how he can claim the statute of limitations for filing hadn't expired before SL filed. What did I learn? I learned Judge Erickson's favorite phrase is "I'm trying to wrap my head around" some argument or claim. 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. 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.