Jury selection starts January 2 (the judge obviously doesn’t take long holidays) and the trial starts January 8.
A sample of what lies ahead can be gotten from this motion transcript, in which one of the NY attorneys says what he believes they will prove on just two issues:
“Millie Hallow was convicted of stealing from the charity that she worked for back in the ’70s, I believe. She then went to work for the NRA. We have Mr. LaPierre’s testimony that he didn’t do a background check. He personally hired her without knowing anything about her background. Skipping ahead to the Frenkel report, one of the documents at issue — and I’m a little hesitant to talk too much substantively about it because I’m am not sure where we are on sealing with respect to the Frenkel report, but that directly addresses Ms. Hallow and it directly addresses many of the same types of conduct that we allege occurred later in time.
Then we skip ahead to the 2007 anonymous whistleblower letter which also talks about Ms. Hallow and her stealing from the company and using her credit card inappropriately.
Then we get to our complaint where we talk about starting in the early 2010s she was having the NRA pay for her child’s wedding and was also abusing her credit card privileges.
So all of this, you know, claim in his deposition that he was goes to Mr. LaPierre’s claim in his deposition that he was shocked to learn that Millie Hallow was doing these things and that Millie Hallow lied to him. We just don’t think that’s credible and that this evidence shows over the span of decades how Mr. LaPierre has been on notice of this conduct and did nothing about it. . . .
Then, similarly, with respect to what we’ve called variance Report, the ’96-’97 report that was put was put together by the then sitting members of the NRA’s finance committee; that report discusses a number of issues that are relevant to the case here. Mr. LaPierre’s tendency to verbally approve contracts without going through the formal processes that the NRA has; the NRA’s relationship with Under Wild skies, one the vendors that we have allegations about in our complaint, and they’ve continued that relationship to, I think 2017 or 2018. And then, also, with respect to Associated Television International or ATI, is an entity owned by David McKenzie, we also have allegations about in the complaint.”
Elsewhere, NY explains “For our case it’s clear that, and the NRA has tacitly admitted, NRA regulations which the individual defendants are bound to follow prohibit the use of private flights at all relevant times for travel for the NRA. They are barred by various policies of the NRA which we set out, including requirements that NRA employees agreed to seek the most cost-effective methods of using charitable funds, that NRA employees travel by coach, that NRA employees bid out contracts that will end up in paying over $100,000 a year and get requisite approvals, and all of those policies. So we have shown that the individual defendants in the NRA have violated those policies plainly.”
“I want to just say, your Honor, this is not about whether Mr. LaPierre receives threats or not. It’s not about with whether there is any way a charity could potentially pay for private flights. That’s not what this is about. It’s about the secrecy, the violation of internal controls, and the waste and diversion of funds. We’re talking about millions here.”
“First, your Honor, plaintiff has alleged and alleges still that for years the NRA checked off in their 990 that they have and enforce and comply with a travel policy for first class and charter travel and that that was a lie.”
“Having an expert testify whether flights are or are not normally considered as part of the assessment of compensation really wouldn’t be helpful here. The question here is did the — were these flights authorized by the board. And the extreme secrecy that Mr. LaPierre followed and the complex structures that he put in place to hide the flights would indicate they had not.”
It’s obvious that the judge is skeptical of some of the NRA attorney’s claims:
“THE COURT: Not to be too simplistic about it, but they [NRA’s IRS Form 990s] say what they say.”
“THE COURT: For example, the forms that make the statement to the federal government that the NRA has discovered certain items that it believes are excess benefits, that is an affirmative statement. Why wouldn’t it be admissible to just prove that?. . . .”
“THE COURT: And they are clearly relevant, aren’t they?
MS. ROGERS: In many instances, yes.”
NRA in Danger 
I’m looking forward to this trial finally happening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I still have a hard time understanding how the NRA is able to push this out so long, while the former president of the country, Donald Trump, is fighting to stop the suit against him by the NY AG from being tried in court before the Republican convention. Perhaps I don’t fully understand the issues completely, or it is simply a partisan issue and that is all there is to it.
I also am looking forward to this NRA case coming to trial and I hope that someone publishes a day by day condensed version of the events that happened in court. I also hope that the Judge in this case rules that the golden parachute given to WLP was not done by the by-laws, and therefore is null and void. He could have avoided much of this by simply resigning long ago. But then I guess he would not have been able to get the NRA, meaning the members, to pay for his legal expenses which were significant and took money that could have kept the Democrats from gaining the entire government here in Michigan. The laws passed by the Empress of Lansing, Whitmer and company are among the most progressive in the nation second perhaps only to California. She really does want to be on the national stage after term limits force her out after this term.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Attorney fees and costs incurred by a corporate officer or diredtor are usually covered by an insurance policy. As a general rule, to be entitled to indemnification or advancement under a Directors’ and Officers’ Indemnification and Advancement Insurance Policy, a director or officer must have acted in a manner he or she reasonably believed to be in the best interest of the corporation. Generally, directors and officers are not entitled to indemnification for any claim, issue or matter where he or she has been found liable or to have acted unlawfully. If a director or officer received advancement before being found liable for having acted unlawfully, he or she must reimburse the corporation the amounts advanced.
A review of the N.Y. Atty. Gen.’s complaint and amended complaint filed in court in N.Y., review of depositions, review of the bankruptcy hearing and ruling by the bankruptcy court that NRA’s filing lacked merit, NRA’s former treasurer invoking the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, LaPierre’s admission to receiving access benefits, and the demonstrated failure to follow NRA’s bylaws and internal safeguards, it difficult to understand how such a pattern of misbehavior is in the best interest of NRA. Of course, it is possible that the present incompetent NRA board simply agreed to pay LaPierre’s attorney fees and costs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
For all you diehards who put in hours trying to help, or save, or whatever, here’s the truth: Your efforts are a waste. The NRA is gone. Those who stole massively from the NRA will never have to give back a dime. You tell yourselves, “But the court will bla-bla-bla.” … You are fools. You live in honor and you imagine that the thieves who used the NRA for nothing but personal enrichment care about honor. They don’t. From the top down (and the top these days is Brewer), they are all garbage. They are grossly immoral. Some were in on it from the start. At least one was hired BECAUSE he was stupid and saw the $$$ he was offered as unbelievable; within a couple of years, he finally understood WHY he was given an outrageous salary. When he realized that his biggest value was that he was stupid and able to be bought, he was so attached to the $$$ that he decided to go along with it; i.e., he’s garbage also.
While it’s admirable that you diehards are honest and want to “save the NRA,” it’s a waste of effort. You are trying to resurrect a dead cat. It’s just a sad, tragic waste. Jeff Knox should have been listened to 20 years ago. No one wanted to listen to him because y’all hated his daddy. Ya, sometimes his daddy could be an *ss, but his daddy never so much as tried to steal one dime from the NRA. His daddy’s goal was never to enrich himself.
Me? I am a life member. I _might_ waste a stamp to vote for the four who got on by petition, but that’s only a “might.” The NRA is no longer worth any time or effort, and postage these days is 66 cents.
In the end, the NRA has lost all power, and those who stole will still have all the $$$$$$ that they stole. Stop fooling yourselves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
While I understand everything you wrote, I have to disagree with your conclusion that the NRA is not worth saving. Even though there are a number of other organizations that are carrying the fight in the court system, the fact is that they simply do not match the numbers or the multi year legacy that the NRA does.
That the NRA has gone through a horrible time, with pitifully incompetent and corrupt leadership and an absent board is a symptom of the way the world has become today. It shows that the by-laws of the organization need to be reviewed with an eye towards changing both the size of the board and the manner in which they are elected, as well as ensuring that there is a complete understanding of the responsibilities of oversight that they have in regard to following both their fiduciary and moral oaths of acting as a member of a board the size and importance of the NRA.
The continuation of the NRA has nothing to do with money. The fact is that there are hundreds, even thousands, of NRA members or potential members who are more than willing to donate money to an NRA that is no longer controlled by criminals. Until the legal system finishes the case the only thing we can do is wait. I hope that it ends well for the NRA.
LikeLiked by 4 people
You, “sir” are the offensive fool.
LikeLiked by 1 person