darell1976 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Thank you Al Carlson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Can't this just be settled out of court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Can't this just be settled out of court? This thing was settled before Al Carlson started this state law BS. I hope this overthrows the measure. Then maybe this whole thing can end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 If enough petitions are signed and the state supreme court doesn't rule against it - why can't a vote on amending the constitution take place? How could that be overruled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 If enough petitions are signed and the state supreme court doesn't rule against it - why can't a vote on amending the constitution take place? How could that be overruled? Feds > State Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsowe Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 It's too bad we can not put these hippies in their place just wake me up when its done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 What has our world (the US anyway) become? I could answer that question but I might get suspended from Sioux Sports for a few weeks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 http://www.valleynew...ame-controversy So that vote in June may be worthless. More twists and turns than a roller coaster. Still looking for facts, other than innuendo and self-serving "the hairs stand on the back of my neck and that person across the room there must be thinking of me in a demeaning way when the nickname is mentioned" type statements. If you're looking for a frivolous suit, this is it. Say what you want about the Spirit Lake lawsuit, it has more merit than this one. If these yahoos beat Rule 56 Summary Judgment or 12(b)(6) and the matter goes to trial -- good luck there -- the Spirit Lake suit may go the same way. The viewing of facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and the genuine dispute of material facts are not tantamount to giving full and credible evidentiary weight to self-serving, factually unsupported statements and that would apply in both suits. These guys just have a particular bitch with a political backstop. Part of me wants to see their case go to trial where the good ol' boys and girls on any jury in Bismarck would deliberate for 10 minutes and send them packing. Part of me wants to see it get thrown out on 56 SJ or 12(b)(6) grounds. I'm sure there would be an appeal but I believe any standard of review would be quite high. The State should call Archie Fool Bear, Eunice Davidson, etc. as witnesses if it goes to trial and of course include the bit about the government coming in and finding no violation of civil rights vis-a-vis use of the nickname and logo. If the "violation of civil rights" is tantamount to and dependent upon one's own self-determination that one's own peculiar psychological sensibilities have been "offended" or "abused", we're in for a lot of trouble and that's a gross misuse of the legal system. If those dolts had been smart, they would have gone to a few psychologists or reported some "crimes" to campus security or to the GF Police Department but, as obtuse as they obviously are, even they understand that falsely reporting things usually gets people into trouble. I believe UND and Julie Evans are still stinging from a recent case were a rape was falsely reported and a kid had been expelled from school. It would be worth the time to see it go to trial just to see what the plaintiffs' medical records would show. Probably nothing which is why it would get bounced. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Still looking for facts, other than innuendo and self-serving "the hairs stand on the back of my neck and that person across the room there must be thinking of me in a demeaning way when the nickname is mentioned" type statements. If you're looking for a frivolous suit, this is it. Say what you want about the Spirit Lake lawsuit, it has more merit than this one. If these yahoos beat Rule 56 Summary Judgment or 12(b)(6) and the matter goes to trial -- good luck there -- the Spirit Lake suit may go the same way. The viewing of facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and the genuine dispute of material facts are not tantamount to giving full and credible evidentiary weight to self-serving, factually unsupported statements and that would apply in both suits. These guys just have a particular bitch with a political backstop. Part of me wants to see their case go to trial where the good ol' boys and girls on any jury in Bismarck would deliberate for 10 minutes and send them packing. Part of me wants to see it get thrown out on 56 SJ or 12(b)(6) grounds. I'm sure there would be an appeal but I believe any standard of review would be quite high. The State should call Archie Fool Bear, Eunice Davidson, etc. as witnesses if it goes to trial and of course include the bit about the government coming in and finding no violation of civil rights vis-a-vis use of the nickname and logo. If the "violation of civil rights" is tantamount to and dependent upon one's own self-determination that one's own peculiar psychological sensibilities have been "offended" or "abused", we're in for a lot of trouble and that's a gross misuse of the legal system. If those dolts had been smart, they would have gone to a few psychologists or reported some "crimes" to campus security or to the GF Police Department but, as obtuse as they obviously are, even they understand that falsely reporting things usually gets people into trouble. I believe UND and Julie Evans are still stinging from a recent case were a rape was falsely reported and a kid had been expelled from school. It would be worth the time to see it go to trial just to see what the plaintiffs' medical records would show. Probably nothing which is why it would get bounced. I know this will probably send you into another nonsensical rant but the lawsuit you're railing against is no less frivolous than the Committee for Understanding and Respect's lawsuit against the NCAA or the lawsuits you advocate against schools like Minnesota that refuse to schedule UND because of the nickname. All are or would be frivolous lawsuits brought by parties that lack standing and haven't suffered any damages. You can't really rail against one and then piss and moan about the other just because you agree with one side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 My first question is; Are any of the plaintiffs in this case SIOUX? I know that most of the on-campus declarations of victimization have been by Non Sioux NAs.. Also, if the legal system rules in favor of these claims, wouldn't it effectively be setting a president that would end the use of all nicknames based on any people in all sports? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I know this will probably send you into another nonsensical rant but the lawsuit you're railing against is no less frivolous than the Committee for Understanding and Respect's lawsuit against the NCAA or the lawsuits you advocate against schools like Minnesota that refuse to schedule UND because of the nickname. All are or would be frivolous lawsuits brought by parties that lack standing and haven't suffered any damages. You can't really rail against one and then piss and moan about the other just because you agree with one side. I know this will probably send you into another nonsensical rant but the lawsuit you're railing against is no less frivolous than the Committee for Understanding and Respect's lawsuit against the NCAA or the lawsuits you advocate against schools like Minnesota that refuse to schedule UND because of the nickname. All are or would be frivolous lawsuits brought by parties that lack standing and haven't suffered any damages. You can't really rail against one and then piss and moan about the other just because you agree with one side. You start from the false premise that both are frivolous. There are factual differences. Are the so-called complainants in the students' law suit Sioux? Are they members of either of the State's Sioux tribes? With the SL lawsuit, there are damages and the complainants are Sioux. The issue is whether there is standing to pursue them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I would tend to believe that actual civil rights violations against Native American students on campus of a school, and that those violations might be associated with a Native American sports nickname, would have more standing than perceived damages suffered by a namesake tribe located 90 miles away. The students don't need to be Sioux if they have suffered civil rights violations that can be associated with a Native American nickname. Most white people couldn't tell the difference between someone of Sioux descent versus someone of Chippewa descent. The issue will be whether there were actually civil rights violations, not whether the students are Sioux or not. I don't believe that the student lawsuit has much chance of success because we haven't seen much evidence of civil rights violations. If they do have actual evidence it could be a different story. And their case could very well take precedence over all other issues associated with the nickname if they can prove civil rights violations, even a North Dakota Constitutional Amendment. The US government and the court systems take civil rights very seriously. But again, they will have to prove those violations occurred to be successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 My first question is; Are any of the plaintiffs in this case SIOUX? I know that most of the on-campus declarations of victimization have been by Non Sioux NAs.. Also, if the legal system rules in favor of these claims, wouldn't it effectively be setting a president that would end the use of all nicknames based on any people in all sports? The courts aren't going to care if the plaintiffs are Sioux or not. They are Native American and claiming civil rights violations that are associated with the school using a Native American sports nickname. The question will be whether civil rights violations actually happened, not which tribe they belong to. And no, a ruling in favor of these claims wouldn't set a precedence that would end the use of nicknames based on people. The ruling would be related to civil rights violations, so other cases would also have to prove civil rights violations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 The courts aren't going to care if the plaintiffs are Sioux or not. They are Native American and claiming civil rights violations that are associated with the school using a Native American sports nickname. The question will be whether civil rights violations actually happened, not which tribe they belong to. And no, a ruling in favor of these claims wouldn't set a precedence that would end the use of nicknames based on people. The ruling would be related to civil rights violations, so other cases would also have to prove civil rights violations. Which rights were violated?? To my knoledge they were not barred an education due to their race since they are graduating. Is it because UND is the "Sioux" and not the Natives or Tribe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 The courts aren't going to care if the plaintiffs are Sioux or not. They are Native American and claiming civil rights violations that are associated with the school using a Native American sports nickname. The question will be whether civil rights violations actually happened, not which tribe they belong to. And no, a ruling in favor of these claims wouldn't set a precedence that would end the use of nicknames based on people. The ruling would be related to civil rights violations, so other cases would also have to prove civil rights violations. Regardless of the merits of their case civil rights issues are big priorities with the current administration, and if the case gets any lift I wouldn't be surprised to see DOJ take another look at the issue. That may also give the NC$$ the opening it needs to look at the state's conduct in this matter and levy sanctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Regardless of the merits of their case civil rights issues are big priorities with the current administration, and if the case gets any lift I wouldn't be surprised to see DOJ take another look at the issue. That may also give the NC$$ the opening it needs to look at the state's conduct in this matter and levy sanctions. You may have just started a sh*t storm over at Bisonville. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 You may have just started a sh*t storm over at Bisonville. Why? I thought the bison faithful didn't think those sanctions were such a big deal. Could they have lied to us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 The courts aren't going to care if the plaintiffs are Sioux or not. They are Native American and claiming civil rights violations that are associated with the school using a Native American sports nickname. The question will be whether civil rights violations actually happened, not which tribe they belong to. And no, a ruling in favor of these claims wouldn't set a precedence that would end the use of nicknames based on people. The ruling would be related to civil rights violations, so other cases would also have to prove civil rights violations. Two ideas that the students (and Jim Grijalva, no doubt) should have probably thought about: 1.) nexus between alleged civil rights violations and Sioux nickname and 2.) verifiable facts substantiating that nexus. Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) Two ideas that the students (and Jim Grijalva, no doubt) should have probably thought about: 1.) nexus between alleged civil rights violations and Sioux nickname and 2.) verifiable facts substantiating that nexus. Good luck. On summer my ex-girl friend and I house sat for Jim one summer back in 1995 or 1996... It's going to be a stretch to prove this if there is no police reports or complaints to prove this isn't it? Archie Foolbear was on a radio show one time and talked about how he had gone to the UND to check out the various complaints about UND and the Fighting Sioux nickname being rascist and some other issue said he found nothing. Edited April 27, 2012 by Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxman Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I think that I just saw Lee Korso, on the ESPN pregame football show, wearing an Indian headdress, with warpaint on his face, throw a spear, decorated with feathers, into the ground. I say "I think" because I cannot believe that just happened with all that has taken place the past few years so there is a very slim possibility that I imagined the whole thing. I would expect the NCAA to complain vehemently to ESPN, unless this involves $$$ in which case the NCAA will be completely silent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I think that I just saw Lee Korso, on the ESPN pregame football show, wearing an Indian headdress, with warpaint on his face, throw a spear, decorated with feathers, into the ground. I say "I think" because I cannot believe that just happened with all that has taken place the past few years so there is a very slim possibility that I imagined the whole thing. I would expect the NCAA to complain vehemently to ESPN, unless this involves $$$ in which case the NCAA will be completely silent. http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=acc&id=44575 Ugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I think that I just saw Lee Korso, on the ESPN pregame football show, wearing an Indian headdress, with warpaint on his face, throw a spear, decorated with feathers, into the ground. I say "I think" because I cannot believe that just happened with all that has taken place the past few years so there is a very slim possibility that I imagined the whole thing. I would expect the NCAA to complain vehemently to ESPN, unless this involves $$$ in which case the NCAA will be completely silent. 1. The NCAA doesn't control ESPN + 2. They were talking about Florida State, which has permission to use the name and uses similar costumes and actions = Nothing is going to happen and the only ones that are going to get upset about it are UND fans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 1. The NCAA doesn't control ESPN + 2. They were talking about Florida State, which has permission to use the name and uses similar costumes and actions = Nothing is going to happen and the only ones that are going to get upset about it are UND fans No, the NCAA doesn't control ESPN. But they could bring up this behavior at the next contract negotiation session and "strongly encourage" them not to do it again. And I think everyone knows what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 No, the NCAA doesn't control ESPN. But they could bring up this behavior at the next contract negotiation session and "strongly encourage" them not to do it again. And I think everyone knows what I mean. The NCAA doesn't have anything to do with the TV contracts for college football. The conferences and schools have their own contracts. So I'm not sure which contract negotiating session you are talking about, the one for NCAA tournaments? A small incident like this wouldn't even be on either the NCAA or ESPN radar. Plus, FSU has the right to use the nickname and imagery from the NCAA, and ESPN was just mimicking FSU. The NCAA isn't going to cause a fuss over that. It is doubtful that anyone other than some sensitive UND fans and maybe a few Native American activists would care about this, and the Native American activists probably don't watch much college football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoHawks! Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I watched College Gameday today as well, saw students in war paint, pictures of dudes in suits with warpaint and feathers painted on by the fans. Saw a picture of Zach Galifinakis with an arrow through his head. Gave me a pit in the stomach, thinking of how UND respected the name, and FSU and their fans make a mockery of it. BUT, the Seminole tribe says it is okay..... 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.