Benny Baker Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/education/3862671-breaking-lawsuit-filed-stop-und-nickname-voteThe plaintiffs in the new nickname lawsuit have requested a temporary restraining order to prevent UND from moving forward with next week's nickname vote. The plaintiffs allege (1) that only the legislature has the authority to adopt a new nickname for a state university; (2) that President Kelley, as a state actor, acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner thereby violating the equal protection rights of North Dakota citizens; (3) that Kelley and the Task Force violated open meeting laws; and (4) that UND breached its "contract" with the Sioux Native Americans.Let the saga continue . . . ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Any link to the filing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 The file size is too big to upload Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Let's go to June 2012, the measure as it appeared on the ballot said:[7]This referendum measure concerns Senate Bill 2370 as passed by the Legislative Assembly in the November 2011 special session (Session Laws, Chapter 580). Senate Bill 2370 repealed section 15-10-46 of the North Dakota Century Code, which required the University of North Dakota to use the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo.YES – means you approve Senate Bill 2370, the effect of which would allow the University of North Dakota to discontinue the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo.NO – means you reject Senate Bill 2370, and would require the University of North Dakota to use the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo.So the Legislature passed SB 2370 to require UND to do something other than what it was planning to do. Doesn't that indicate that UND had/has the power and authority to change the name because what the Legislature did precluded UND's rightful authority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 It is capricious and arbitrary 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 Let's go to June 2012, the measure as it appeared on the ballot said:[7]So the Legislature passed SB 2370 to require UND to do something other than what it was planning to do. Doesn't that indicate that UND had/has the power and authority to change the name because what the Legislature did precluded UND's rightful authority? Plaintiffs allege that "the Board of Higher Education ("BHE"), UND, and Defendant Kelley administered the legislatures' directive regarding the December 2011 law." I assume they mean November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 "in the spring session of 2011, the North Dakota legislature definitive (sic) exercise total control over the name selection process for the nickname of UND. Despite the repeal of that law, the subsequent law enacted in December of 2011, again demonstrated that the North Dakota legislature definitely exercised total control over the name selection process and prohibited the selection of another name until 2015. Because the name selection process for UND is reserved to the legislature, the BHE, UND, and Defendant Kelley are without authority to act to change the name." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) What'd I learn today?If you go here: http://publicsearch.ndcourts.gov/Search.aspx?ID=200&NodeID=110,1118,1132&NodeDesc=Northeast Central DistrictSelect search by "Case" and put in "18-2015-CV-01843", search, click the link, and I learned it costs just $140 to make my head hurt. Edited October 16, 2015 by The Sicatoka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Another question:Why the request for a TRO on the vote? What are they afraid of there? If their (dubious in my mind) claim is only the Legislature can do anything isn't the vote moot? Edited October 16, 2015 by The Sicatoka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 Another question:Why the request for a TRO on the vote? What are they afraid of there? If their (dubious in my mind) claim is only the Legislature can do anything isn't the vote moot? I agree with your last comment/question, but the TRO request is likely just to prevent UND from doing anything further regarding the nickname. TROs are pretty easy to obtain but they expire after 28 days. So even if plaintiffs are successful on the TRO, they'll still need to have the court grant a preliminary injunction within 28 days after the TRO to continue to hold off the vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) "in the spring session of 2011, the North Dakota legislature definitive (sic) exercise total control over the name selection process for the nickname of UND. Despite the repeal of that law, the subsequent law enacted in December of 2011, again demonstrated that the North Dakota legislature definitely exercised total control over the name selection process and prohibited the selection of another name until 2015. Because the name selection process for UND is reserved to the legislature, the BHE, UND, and Defendant Kelley are without authority to act to change the name."So why all this now? Where was this lawsuit when the first committee was formed at the beginning of the year? They say in the article they want North Dakota back on the ballot. The true motives are known here. If the North Dakota option was on the ballot would this lawsuit exist? Edited October 16, 2015 by Siouxperfan7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 A far flung theory but here it goes:Stalling... for a certain date to pass 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison73 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Wow this just keeps getting better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Wow this just keeps getting better.Wait til the book comes out. This has had more twist and turns than a bag of twizzlers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 A far flung theory but here it goes:Stalling... for a certain date to pass hmmmmmm.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Wait til the book comes out. This has had more twist and turns than a bag of twizzlers.I think you mean wait until the next book comes out. There's already one called "The Sioux Were Silenced." I was given a copy but have have yet to read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (with apologies to Sir Paul) We're so sorry, plaintiff Alberts, We're so sorry if we caused you any pain. We're so sorry, plaintiff Alberts, But there's no chance in hell you’ll win And I believe the vote is gonna stay. We're so sorry but you haven't a clue this day, We're so sorry, plaintiff Alberts, But if anything should happen We'll be sure to give a ring. We're so sorry, plaintiff Alberts, But we haven't done a bloody thing wrong, the court will say. We're so sorry, plaintiff Alberts, But the vote’s going on And sanctions will come your way. Lawyers treading water (water), sad dreams just will not die, Lawyers treading water (water), sad dreams just will not die. President Kelley notified me, We’re gonna have a vote and he thinks you are crazy. I had another look and I have to agree, you’re a gonna cry. "couldn't sue for something else So you filed a steaming cow pie, alright!" Lawyers treading water (water), sad dreams just will not die, Lawyers treading water (water), sad dreams just will not die. File a lawsuit, waste your money, be so proud (be so proud), Get your hopes up off the ground, Yet reality will come around. File a lawsuit, waste your money, be so proud (be so proud), Get your hopes up off the ground, Yet reality will come around. Lawyers treading water (water), sad dreams just will not die, Lawyers treading water (water), sad dreams just will not die. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Ward Johnson signed this? *cough* Rule 11 Sanctions *cough* 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Ward Johnson signed this? *cough* Rule 11 Sanctions *cough* Can you explain for the non-attorneys in the room? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Can you explain for the non-attorneys in the room? Broadly defined, Rule 11 tends give courts discretion to award attorney fees and other sanctions against attorneys and/or their clients who make frivolous or baseless claims or make filings solely to harass parties, increase their adversary's expenses or unnecessarily drag out court proceedings. These are case-by-case findings, but it seems that this filing would fit into the bucket if the State has the balls to pursue the sanction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 "To me, a nickname doesn't seem that important to me," Longie said. "Do we need a seat at the table? It would be really nice if they included us because we are a significant population, but it's just a nickname and whatever they choose, it's just a nickname." http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/3863554-native-american-community-remains-divided-und-nicknameSo...it "doesn't seem that important" and "it's just a nickname," but if it's Fighting Sioux, it's an abomination and we are not your mascot. Thanks for the clarification, Erich. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 So say this lawsuit... proceedsWhat happens to the votes? Would they keep voting? Would it stop? Would they have to throw out all the votes and start over if the lawsuit was thrown out later on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 It is a shame that people donated money to this lawsuit. I really hope that the people who brought this lawsuit about pay these people back when it gets thrown out. Pathetic!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 Judge Olson has denied Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. The vote will continue; however, the lawsuit will still proceed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Seems like a resonable response. 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.