Legal Developments

Looking at the filings in the New York lawsuit to dissolve the NRA:

Here’s the final order in NRA’s bankruptcy case. NY filed it as an exhibit. We’ve heard that board members are being told that the court later ruled that NRA didn’t file in bad faith. Hit “search” and look for the word “faith.” The judge (who was a very polite fellow) preferred to say the filing was “not in good faith,” and he said that several times over.

We mentioned earlier that Frank Tait and another Life Member moved to intervene in the NY case, arguing that they should be allowed to protect the interests of the members and to oppose dissolution, pointing out that NRA’s attorney, Bill Brewer, had a conflict of interest. After all, he was LaPierre’s attorney in the past, and now LaPierre is shoveling him stacks of money to represent NRA, he’s unlikely to argue that the court should reject dissolution and just can LaPierre.

Well, NRA’s attorney just filed an opposition to Tait’s motion. He doesn’t want members sticking their noses in and suggesting stuff like that to the court.

“Movants argue that their interests in this action, are “the same as all other” NRA members, and purportedly consists of their: (a) individual and collective constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association; (b) private property rights, individually and collectively, to have the NRA’s assets held and used for their benefit as members; and (c) due process rights to fair and adequate representation. None of these purported interests are cognizable interests supporting intervention.”

“First, although all NRA members certainly have constitutional and public policy interests implicated by this case, corporate dissolutions are in rem proceedings, and the type of “interest”contemplated is a property interest. The NRA acts as the steward of its assets in the interest of its members, but individual members do not possess property interests in those assets. TheNRA’s Bylaws create “classes” of members, only certain of which are entitled to rights beyond,inter alia, the right to attend Association meetings. Even those members who are given substantive rights have only the right to vote; however, no class of members has property rights in the NRA’s assets.”

Tait’s motion said that the interests of NRA members will not truly be protected by NRA’s attorney, Brewer, nor obviously by the NY Attorney General, who wants to dissolve the NRA, not reform it. Brewer’s response, on pg. 19:

“Indeed, as conceded by Movants, the NYAG has general supervisory powers over non-profit charitable corporations and their officers and directors, and she has the authority to bring claims in that capacity. Movants’ speculation that the NYAG may not adequately represent them is insufficient as a matter of law to support intervention.”