Hawkster Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 to GreauxSioux, I'll admit, I'm not real happy about the timing of the D1 move, but I've decided that it will work out. No use bickering about that. The move and getting into good conference are more important. The name is another story, and I don't want it hanging over us forever. True, I'm not afraid to call things as I see them, it doesn't make me less of a fan or an alum. I honestly want to see the University move forward. I just wish the money would flow for academics like it does for sports. Problem is no one ever cheered for anyone talking a phschology test like they do for scoring a touchdown. Maybe we should stop griping about the lawsuit, the NDSU thing, and whatever other problems come up. Lets work toward getting into meaningful conferences and dominating the Great West before we move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 Mascot ban carried too far I can only imagine the NCAA is guarding its efforts to save the world from post-season offensive mascots. They must be ready to unleash another ruling against the University of Notre Dame. That stereotype of an Irish temper, drinking and fighting must send them into a tizzy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 It was reported on the news that the Lawsuit fund has been shut down. Sounds like they will still accept money if given, but they aren't beating the bushes for it anymore. Does that mean we can get back to the business of playing games and getting into the conferences we deserve and quit this assinine lawsuit? Pump the money into the teams, not the lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 It was reported on the news that the Lawsuit fund has been shut down. Sounds like they will still accept money if given, but they aren't beating the bushes for it anymore. Does that mean we can get back to the business of playing games and getting into the conferences we deserve and quit this assinine lawsuit? Pump the money into the teams, not the lawyers. I guess that you didn't listen to the whole story. They shut down the fund that was handling the money because the anonymous person that was handling it has some health problems. They are just going to handle the money through a separate fund within the Alumni Association instead. The lawsuit is still on and the only thing that has changed is which checks will pay the bills. Besides, I don't think that Oshie, Langen, Bunning or any of the others playing games or handling the Athletic Department are taking much of their time doing legal research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux7>5 Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 It was reported on the news that the Lawsuit fund has been shut down. Sounds like they will still accept money if given, but they aren't beating the bushes for it anymore. Does that mean we can get back to the business of playing games and getting into the conferences we deserve and quit this assinine lawsuit? Pump the money into the teams, not the lawyers. It my be assine to you, but to most of us a fight worth fighting. It is the right thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 They shut down the fund that was handling the money because the anonymous person that was handling it has some health problems.Glad to hear that there's been some reason given. My first reaction was "why shut it down now? What was the reasoning behind a separate structure in the first place, and what has changed since then?" I could understand if there was a cost savings in terms of not having to set up some sort of corporation or trust, etc: or if the needed to make sure that an Alumni Association person was only working on Alumni Association matters. Simply curious here, when the first requests came out, what name was given as the "make checks payable to" entity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted April 19, 2007 Author Share Posted April 19, 2007 UND LAWSUIT: UND objects to NCAA requests in nickname lawsuit; NCAA asks judge to dismiss antitrust claims UND's attorneys will ask a Grand Forks judge today to turn down NCAA requests for information about internal university discussion of the Fighting Sioux nickname and nickname-related correspondence with the Ralph Engelstad family. In a motion for protective order, UND also objects to NCAA information requests related to American Indian programs on campus, university contact with local Indian tribes and dealings between UND and the federal Office of Civil Rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 UND's attorneys will ask a Grand Forks judge today to turn down NCAA requests for information about internal university discussion of the Fighting Sioux nickname and nickname-related correspondence with the Ralph Engelstad family. In a motion for protective order, UND also objects to NCAA information requests related to American Indian programs on campus, university contact with local Indian tribes and dealings between UND and the federal Office of Civil Rights. Interesting. What could possibly be "illegal" in correspondence with the Englestads? Embarassing, yes. But if the administration told the Englestads (or anyone else) that the University would defend the nickname to the last, what difference would that make to the case? If the University had asked the tribes to give its blessing: again, so what? The NCAA made it plain that they would lay off if enough namesake tribes gave permission to offend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Interesting. What could possibly be "illegal" in correspondence with the Englestads? Embarassing, yes. But if the administration told the Englestads (or anyone else) that the University would defend the nickname to the last, what difference would that make to the case? If the University had asked the tribes to give its blessing: again, so what? The NCAA made it plain that they would lay off if enough namesake tribes gave permission to offend. I suspect that the NC00 may wish to look for "arm-twisting" by RE about the Sioux name and the building. I presume that they may be looking for "recommendations" to change and the responses to those "recommendations." Some of the trip trap that the PCers troll out is that Kupchella, at one time, "supported" a name change and then changed his tune. Another example is how "racist" RE was and how the school and the building are so connected with such a "bigot." I get the impression that the NC00 and its PC hacks are deluded enough to actually believe that "most" people other than the good RE family would not mind a name change. I would think the NC00 would win this one although I hope not. If there are "racist" tirades in there, based upon the precedent last month, they would probably be not released to the media. I would not put it past the NC00 clowns to "leak" some of them though. I doubt that any are there. I think the NC00 just wants to jack up the legal costs to further the PC lunacy that this is just a "big waste of money." Let's hope Jahnke goes with the good guys on this one. The panzified ND Congressional delegation is nothing but a waste and they are joined at the hip with the PC rubes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I suspect that the NC00 may wish to look for "arm-twisting" by RE about the Sioux name and the building. I presume that they may be looking for "recommendations" to change and the responses to those "recommendations." Some of the trip trap that the PCers troll out is that Kupchella, at one time, "supported" a name change and then changed his tune. Another example is how "racist" RE was and how the school and the building are so connected with such a "bigot." I get the impression that the NC00 and its PC hacks are deluded enough to actually believe that "most" people other than the good RE family would not mind a name change. I would think the NC00 would win this one although I hope not. If there are "racist" tirades in there, based upon the precedent last month, they would probably be not released to the media. I would not put it past the NC00 clowns to "leak" some of them though. I doubt that any are there. I think the NC00 just wants to jack up the legal costs to further the PC lunacy that this is just a "big waste of money." Let's hope Jahnke goes with the good guys on this one. The panzified ND Congressional delegation is nothing but a waste and they are joined at the hip with the PC rubes. I agree, the NCAA could make a big public relations coup by spinning this whole fight as a school that sold its soul to a nazi-loving bigot. We know it's not that way, but they could spin it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 My understanding is that alot of these letters are probably already in the public domain, or are subject to NoDak's open-records laws. This is nothing more than an overreaching discovery request, which is typical in cases like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 By requesting documents related to UND's internal nickname debate, the school's attorneys said, the NCAA hopes to expand the case to the more substantive question of whether the Fighting Sioux nickname is "hostile and abusive" as the association has claimed. Is the NCAA sure it really wants to do that? "Hostile and abusive" is not "fighting words". You can only censor "fighting words". Like Judge Jahnke said in the temporary injunction: As the court stated at the outset of the November 9, 2006 hearing, this litigation will not determine whether UND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 The panzified ND Congressional delegation is nothing but a waste and they are joined at the hip with the PC rubes. That pretty much what some of us have said about the three amigos for quite some time now. Posers are all they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I'm reading this as Judge Jahnke reiterating his desire for an out of court settlement. http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/i...mp;section=News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I'm reading this as Judge Jahnke reiterating his desire for an out of court settlement. http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/i...mp;section=News A Judge should stay under his robe and behind his bench. Again, I can appreciate encouraging settlement but come on. Is he saying that "this case is too complicated for poor little old me to handle"? I have never doubted that the NC00's tactic of attempting to spend down the adversary. It has very deep pockets and has no code of honour or decency, from my perspective. At least the alumni are committed to winning this fight but I am sure that the NC00 is counting on attrition and capitulation to win its case for it. This is the sort of garbage that one sees from the ACLU when it wishes to sue a city for having a 2 inch statue of Jesus in the boulevard grass by a fire hydrant. Insurance companies are great at this too when defending PI claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 I'm reading this as Judge Jahnke reiterating his desire for an out of court settlement. http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/i...mp;section=News UND argues the protective order is necessary to keep the lawsuit focused on the procedural issue: whether or not the NCAA honored its own constitution and bylaws when it issued the mandate, and not the broader, substantive question of whether the Fighting Sioux nickname is "hostile and abusive" as the association has claimed. The NCAA argues the procedural issues cannot be viewed in a vacuum and a protective order would tie its hands in investigating the validity of UND's arguments. Now, what would internal discussions at UND have to do with whether the NCAA violated it's own procedures? This makes no sense to me. Somehow that isn't surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted April 20, 2007 Author Share Posted April 20, 2007 Since Jahnke is concerned about costs in this case, I'm guessing that he will tell the NCAA "no" to their fishing expedition into UND's records. What they are seeking isn't really part of the argument anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 ...the NC00 has... no code of honour or decency...You got that right. I'd imagine the judge's "lets get this settled out of court" is a standard speech he gives for all civil litigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Since Jahnke is concerned about costs in this case, I'm guessing that he will tell the NCAA "no" to their fishing expedition into UND's records. What they are seeking isn't really part of the argument anyway. on the other hand, almost all fans here a few pages back wanted the NCAA records released, and were wondering what a public organization like the NCAA was hiding. I would assume all the fans that were calling for the public airing of NCAA dirty laundry would also call for the airing of und's dirty laundry. all of the arguments would be exactly the same, only more so, since und should certainly not hide anything from it's own fans, students, and citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Why are you assuming that UND has something to hide? The NC$$ is requesting information that is not connected to the lawsuit. The information that the NC$$ does not want made public is connected to the case. Just go and look at the NC$$'s history of litigations. Their consistent methods are to drag the lawsuits out as long as possible and to rack up legal fees. What to know what I think? No? Well, I'm going to tell you anyway. In addition to many other 'tricks up their sleeves', I think the NC$$ hopes to bankrupt the legal defense fund and win by default. But then, that's just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Don't argue with happy. He's the Gophers version of me, only even less literate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Don't argue with happy. He's the Gophers version of me, only even less literate. I win many more arguments. besides, why would anyone ever sue the NCAA, they are like the Easter Bunny, harmless do-gooders who wouldn't hurt a flea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux7>5 Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 I win many more arguments. besides, why would anyone ever sue the NCAA, they are like the Easter Bunny, harmless do-gooders who wouldn't hurt a flea. I am really trying not to laugh at your last statement. I am praying you wrote that with some sarcasm, if not then you need to crawl back under the rock where you came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 I win many more arguments. besides, why would anyone ever sue the NCAA, they are like the Easter Bunny, harmless do-gooders who wouldn't hurt a flea. Even "happy" couldn't say that with a straight face: He's the one that had to take down those MBB Final Four banners from The Barn at U of M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 on the other hand, almost all fans here a few pages back wanted the NCAA records released, and were wondering what a public organization like the NCAA was hiding. I would assume all the fans that were calling for the public airing of NCAA dirty laundry would also call for the airing of und's dirty laundry. all of the arguments would be exactly the same, only more so, since und should certainly not hide anything from it's own fans, students, and citizens. Read 'em. Read 'em all. What are you going to find in there that's worse than what UND has been slandered with already? But if you do open and read 'em all, send me all of the NCAA's stuff. 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.