NRA’s “leadership” moved to expel its former president North from membership (yes, to cancel his life membership) in the NRA, he claimed protection under the “whistleblower” statute, and NRA sued him for a declaration that it had the right to expel him. He responded by moving to have the case “stayed” (put on hold) until the NY Attorney Generals lawsuit was decided, and Brewer opposed.
North won the motion. Add one more to NRA’s string of expensive losses. Among the court’s determinations are:
“Although the NRA’s damages claims are not directly at issue in the Dissolution Case, the AG’s Complaint is predicated on factual allegations that bear heavily on these claims. Thus, while the NRA seeks to recover damages for North’s alleged concealment of his lucrative employment relationship with Ackerman, the AG’s Complaint alleges, mirroring North’s Answer, that LaPierre himself “negotiated” the employment contract in order to persuade North to accept the “unpaid position” of NRA president (AG’s Complaint, ¶¶ 444-451, 465; see Answer, ¶ 11). Further, if North were found in the Dissolution Case to be a whistleblower who acted in good faith, the NRA’s allegation of “obstructive behavior” here (Amended Complaint, ¶ 109) would have to be viewed in a very different light.”
“Moreover, this litigation may itself be part of the retaliation allegedly inflicted upon North for his whistleblowing activities.”
This seems to be yet another case the attorneys created to generate legal fees. Is it important to anyone whether North keeps his NRA life membership? If it is, grow a pair, vote to expel him, don’t ask for a court’s advice. Let him sue, if he wants to. If you sue and he moves to stay the case, it’s obvious he is going to win that (does anyone seriously believe that his legal position won’t be much better or worse depending upon whether the AG wins or loses?), so agree to it and save NRA the cost of opposing.
This is just like the suit against Ackerman McQueen. In that lawsuit, NRA was attacking a written and grossly overpriced contract that LaPierre and its president and one vice-president had signed and the board had sheepishly accepted for many years. Here, NRA is complaining of a written arrangement made by LaPierre (the only one who would have known that Ackerman McQueen was available as the EVP’s slush fund, and that no one would complain if he diverted a million-plus via it). In both of the legal fights, the only ones who benefit are the attorneys.