NanoBison Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Stenehjem said his office has no record or bills from the Utah attorneys and referred all questions about their payment to UND. The UND president, the head of the UND Foundation and an attorney managing a private NCAA litigation fund say they have not seen bills from the Utah attorneys. Peter Billings, the lead Salt Lake City-based attorney, did not return phone messages seeking comment. How much are the attorneys being paid? And who Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stromer Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Many UND professors worry that fundraising for this lawsuit will take away from dollars alumni donate to the university, said Heidi Czerwiec, who was among faculty who picketed before UND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Yes, isn't it amzing how a nickname protester worries about the cost of the lawsuit. And yet if UND spent $4 million of the taxpayers' money to change its nickname, all those protestors would be perfectly fine with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Don't you just love the "photo illustration" accompanying the article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-1 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 What was the point of this article? All I got out of it was that they have less than $100,000 to work with. Who gives a sh-t who pays the Utah lawyers, there is no way that the State of North Dakota can pay the lawyers, it would be on the books. Why is Amy Dalrymple so bent on who is paying for what...as long as the State doesn't pay, who gives a sh-t? She must be a big supporter of changing the name or something...this article was stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 The headline "Public case is private" is also extremely misleading. The entire case is a matter of public record for anyone who wants to read it. The court proceedings are open to the public. Some did not want the the lawsuit funded by taxpayers, and it's not. It should be no surprise that some of those making private contributions choose to keep their donations anonymous. If the media and the name-change activitists wanted everything about the lawsuit to be public, then they should have demanded that tax dollars pay for it. As it is, they're trying to have it both ways, which is all too typical of the hypocrisy and double-standards surrounding this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Someone's got some explaining to do... Here's the only explanation needed, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 And yet if UND spent $4 million of the taxpayers' money to change its nickname, all those protestors would be perfectly fine with it. Excellent point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforeverbaby Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Many UND professors worry that fundraising for this lawsuit will take away from dollars alumni donate to the university, said Heidi Czerwiec, who was among faculty who picketed before UND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Many UND professors worry that fundraising for this lawsuit will take away from dollars alumni donate to the university, said Heidi Czerwiec, who was among faculty who picketed before UND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverman Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undsportsfan Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 What was the point of this article? All I got out of it was that they have less than $100,000 to work with. Who gives a sh-t who pays the Utah lawyers, there is no way that the State of North Dakota can pay the lawyers, it would be on the books. Why is Amy Dalrymple so bent on who is paying for what...as long as the State doesn't pay, who gives a sh-t? She must be a big supporter of changing the name or something...this article was stupid. Amy Dalrymple has focused many articles on UND and the Fighting Sioux nickname and anything related to it. However, I do feel that she writes articles that are clearly opinion and looks for an answer that she wants & not necessarily out for truth. My own personal opinion is she's just a journalist trying to get a name for herself. She's put out columns before that were entirely unresearched, taking one person's comment or opinion and not really listen to much else. Like anything though, people always want to know where the money is coming from... whether it has to do with a nickname or someone's advertisement in the media. We're just all pretty nosey like that, and by we, I mean all Americans, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Amy Dalrymple has focused many articles on UND and the Fighting Sioux nickname and anything related to it. However, I do feel that she writes articles that are clearly opinion and looks for an answer that she wants & not necessarily out for truth. My own personal opinion is she's just a journalist trying to get a name for herself. She's put out columns before that were entirely unresearched, taking one person's comment or opinion and not really listen to much else. Like anything though, people always want to know where the money is coming from... whether it has to do with a nickname or someone's advertisement in the media. We're just all pretty nosey like that, and by we, I mean all Americans, right? The issue is from what I gather is that there is a alumni that has donated money to the cause, that person wants to remain out of the picture. I personally don't see anything wrong with that. If no state money has been spent so what. People like Dalrymple try to pose as objective journalist but it sounds as if she has an axe to grinde with UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Many UND professors worry that fundraising for this lawsuit will take away from dollars alumni donate to the university, said Heidi Czerwiec, who was among faculty who picketed before UND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jloos Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 The issue is from what I gather is that there is a alumni that has donated money to the cause, that person wants to remain out of the picture. I personally don't see anything wrong with that. If no state money has been spent so what. People like Dalrymple try to pose as objective journalist but it sounds as if she has an axe to grinde with UND. That is exactly what I took from the article. The reporter wanted to do a story about who is putting up the $$. She could not find out said information so she wrote a nasty article implying that there is something fishy going on. I would like to think the Forum's editors would screen garbage like this out. The title and the picture were very misleading. This is an example of journalism at its worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Given the hack-job done on other nickname supporters, no wonder someone wants to remain anonymous. PCM is right: Name-changers are up in arms about "less than $100,000" but they'd spend $4 MM (sounds low to me) to change the name. As far as the money itself, ScottM is right: These protesters assume these folks would give it to UND either way. Nice way to spend someone else's money there professor. As far as the SLC attorneys, I wonder if they aren't billing because maybe, just maybe, they are working on contingency (think: cut of big anti-trust settlement). In closing, the only quote in that article that matters is from Stenehjem (above). I'm not paying for this, at least with my tax dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Mayville, N.D., attorney Bill Brudvik, who opposed Stenehjem in last year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Some people said they didn't want any tax dollars funding the lawsuit. UND followed their advice. Now some those same people are complaining because UND did as they said. There's no pleasing some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 PCM is right: Name-changers are up in arms about "less than $100,000" but they'd spend $4 MM (sounds low to me) to change the name. I think $4 million is probably low, too. I was trying to be reasonable and show that even a low-ball estimate of the cost to change the name was considerably more than the cost of the lawsuit itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Great example of yellow journalism. It's not surprising that the Forum lets this go as it is hardly and objective news source. I thought the job of reporters and newspapers was to report FACTS not portray a political viewpoint based upon a twisted version of the facts. Even opinion based reporters must investigate the facts before they write articles. I hope that there is plenty of feedback to the paper (if the paper will print it) making this person look like the fool she is. So, private dollars are being used to pay for the lawsuit. Where's the almighty conspiracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 So, private dollars are being used to pay for the lawsuit. Where's the almighty conspiracy? Maybe the money is coming from a SU fan or, , a Gopher fan!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Some people said they didn't want any tax dollars funding the lawsuit. UND followed their advice. Now some those same people are complaining because UND did as they said. There's no pleasing some people. PCM we are never going to make these people happy. I say if we had to change the name make the pro-name change people pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommiejo Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 PCM we are never going to make these people happy. I say if we had to change the name make the pro-name change people pay for it. AMEN TO THAT GOON. Furthermore, if you ask me if it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk then it's a skunk. Right now I smell a skunk. SIOUX FAN SINCE 1973. 2006 BCS NATIONAL CHAMPIONS FLORIDA GATORS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Isn't this quality of journalism usually expected in the High Plains Reader or the Spectrum? I she an intern? Not quite ready for prime time. 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.