Here is the NRA’s opposition to allowing Rocky Marshall to intervene in the suit to dissolve the NRA. Marshall’s arguments included that the court should not dissolve the NRA if it finds that things are corruptly run: it should remove the “leadership” and order new board elections, from which past directors (unless they had tried to do the right thing) would be excluded.
Would this be in NRA’s best interests? Assuredly. It’d only become a consideration if the judge concluded that NRA was being run so corruptly it deserved to be dissolved, and then it would give him an out short of dissolution.
NRA’s attorneys of course oppose it. Better to have the organization terminate than be reformed! A few quotes from the opposition (important portions bolded)
P. 17: “Movant’s [Marshall’s] proposal would frustrate the wishes of, and prejudice, the very members he seeks to represent by cancelling their democratically elected choices that comprise the current Board. Indeed, every Board member currently serving has been elected or reelected since 2018, when whistleblowers within the NRA came forward to raise concerns about mismanagement and wrongdoing by former officers of the Association and by certain former vendors. In fact, almost one-third of the current Board of Directors, or 21 of 75 members, are new Board members elected since 2018.
In reality, no officer of the Association controls the Board of Directors, but rather, the executive leadership of the Association answers to the Board.”
“At this year’s Fall Board of Directors meeting held in Charlotte, North Carolina on October 2, 2021, the Nominating Committee submitted to the Board the names of Wayne LaPierre for the office of Executive Vice President, Sonya Rowling for Treasurer, and John Frazer for Secretary. . . . Mr. LaPierre was reelected by the Board of Directors, receiving 44 votes, with 2 votes cast for Movant. Ms. Rowling and Mr. Frazer were reelected without opposition. The results of the election obviously reflect the Board’s considered judgment as to the direction the Association has taken since 2018.”
“the events of the recent NRA Annual Meeting of Members held in Charlotte on October 2, 2021, shows the degree to which members have robust opportunity to be heard under the NRA’s Bylaws and democratic governance.”
Enough. The Attorney General must be happy with this position. NRA’s attorneys are telling the court that, if it finds corruption, it’s corruption that the board and the members find acceptable and do not wish to change. The only conclusion the court could then reach would be: then dissolve the corporation. The whole thing is incurably corrupt; it’s the only thing left to do. If the board and even the members are happy with the corruption, and refuse to deal with it, what else can the court do?
The Attorney General likewise opposes Marshall’s motion. We talked to an attorney friend, who has long been associated with NRA, and he pointed out “She’s arguing that Marshall should be permitted to argue a derivative action, seeking damages for the NRA from LaPierre and the others, but that Marshall shouldn’t be allowed to defend NRA against dissolution, to argue that the court should give a lesser remedy if it finds things are completely corrupt. She knows where Marshall poses a danger to her plans. That NRA is taking the same side as her tells you a lot. The Association’s attorneys don’t want something that poses a danger to her plans. It poses a danger to theirs, too. The only question is, what those plans are.”