Judge blocks New York attorney general's attempt to dissolve NRA but allows suit to proceed

[natman]

Judge blocks New York attorney general's attempt to dissolve NRA but allows suit to proceed | CNN Politics

In a legal win for the National Rifle Association, a New York State Supreme Court justice has blocked the state attorney general's attempt to dissolve the organization but has allowed her suit against it to move forward.

www.cnn.com

The judge in the New York law suit against the NRA has dismissed New York state Attorney General Laticia James' politically motivated motion to dissolve the NRA, while allowing the case against the individual defendants to proceed.

The Attorney General’s claims to dissolve the NRA are dismissed. Her allegations concern primarily private harm to the NRA and its members and donors, which if proven can be addressed by the targeted, less intrusive relief she seeks through other claims in her Complaint. The Complaint does not allege that any financial misconduct benefited the NRA, or that the NRA exists primarily to carry out such activity, or that the NRA is incapable of continuing its legitimate activities on behalf of its millions of members. In short, the Complaint does not allege the type of public harm that is the legal linchpin for imposing the “corporate death penalty.” Moreover, dissolving the NRA could impinge, at least indirectly, on the free speech and assembly rights of its millions of members. While that alone would not preclude statutory dissolution if circumstances otherwise clearly warranted it, the Court believes it is a relevant factor that counsels against State-imposed dissolution, which should be the last option, not the first.

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/451625_2020_people_of_the_state_of_v_people_of_the_state_of_decision_order_on_609.pdf

While the charges against the individual defendants may have merit, the attempt to dissolve the entire organization was an egregious example of abuse of power.

But dissolution? We have been vehement critics of the NRA — of its dangerous stances against any sensible gun-safety measures and its heavy-handed tactics — and we would not mourn its demise. But other nonprofits that have had corrupt leadership were given the chance to clean house and institute reforms. A 148-year-old organization with, it claims, 5 million members would seem to merit a similar second chance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-this-really-the-right-penalty-for-the-nra/2020/08/07/f81778fc-d8e2-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html

It should go without saying that it would be entirely improper for a state official — or a federal official, for that matter — to use the awesome enforcement power of the government to target advocacy organizations with whose policies the official strongly disagrees.
Bloomberg opinion

 

[j brown's body]

What effect will sanctions on Russia have on the NRA's financial contributions to Republican political candidates?

 

[BlueTex]

The judge in the New York law suit against the NRA has dismissed New York state Attorney General Laticia James' politically motivated motion to dissolve the NRA, while allowing the case against the individual defendants to proceed.

The Attorney General’s claims to dissolve the NRA are dismissed. Her allegations concern primarily private harm to the NRA and its members and donors, which if proven can be addressed by the targeted, less intrusive relief she seeks through other claims in her Complaint. The Complaint does not allege that any financial misconduct benefited the NRA, or that the NRA exists primarily to carry out such activity, or that the NRA is incapable of continuing its legitimate activities on behalf of its millions of members. In short, the Complaint does not allege the type of public harm that is the legal linchpin for imposing the “corporate death penalty.” Moreover, dissolving the NRA could impinge, at least indirectly, on the free speech and assembly rights of its millions of members. While that alone would not preclude statutory dissolution if circumstances otherwise clearly warranted it, the Court believes it is a relevant factor that counsels against State-imposed dissolution, which should be the last option, not the first.

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/451625_2020_people_of_the_state_of_v_people_of_the_state_of_decision_order_on_609.pdf

While the charges against the individual defendants may have merit, the attempt to dissolve the entire organization was an egregious example of abuse of power.

But dissolution? We have been vehement critics of the NRA — of its dangerous stances against any sensible gun-safety measures and its heavy-handed tactics — and we would not mourn its demise. But other nonprofits that have had corrupt leadership were given the chance to clean house and institute reforms. A 148-year-old organization with, it claims, 5 million members would seem to merit a similar second chance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-this-really-the-right-penalty-for-the-nra/2020/08/07/f81778fc-d8e2-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html

It should go without saying that it would be entirely improper for a state official — or a federal official, for that matter — to use the awesome enforcement power of the government to target advocacy organizations with whose policies the official strongly disagrees.
Bloomberg opinion

LMAO.... You left out this part of the ruling...

The Attorney General’s allegations in this case, if proven, tell a grim story of greed, self dealing, and lax financial oversight at the highest levels of the National Rifle Association. They describe in detail a pattern of exorbitant spending and expense reimbursement for the personal benefit of senior management, along with conflicts of interest, related party transactions, coverups, negligence, and retaliation against dissidents and whistleblowers who dared to investigate or complain, which siphoned millions of dollars away from the NRA’s legitimate operations.

...

In short, the Complaint does not allege the type of public harm that is the legal linchpin for imposing the “corporate death penalty.”

 

[BlueTex]

What effect will sanctions on Russia have on the NRA's financial contributions to Republican political candidates?

Devastating... Maria aint around now more...



I'm sure Wayne misses her...

 

[natman]

LMAO.... You left out this part of the ruling...

The Attorney General’s allegations in this case, if proven, tell a grim story of greed, self dealing, and lax financial oversight at the highest levels of the National Rifle Association. They describe in detail a pattern of exorbitant spending and expense reimbursement for the personal benefit of senior management, along with conflicts of interest, related party transactions, coverups, negligence, and retaliation against dissidents and whistleblowers who dared to investigate or complain, which siphoned millions of dollars away from the NRA’s legitimate operations.

...

In short, the Complaint does not allege the type of public harm that is the legal linchpin for imposing the “corporate death penalty.”

And I quote: "While the charges against the individual defendants may have merit"

I did not defend the actions of the defendants in any way. But those charges are still pending. This thread is about what was resolved, namely the motion for dissolution.
But it was a nice try to deflect the issue, as was the Russia mention above.

 

[BlueTex]

And I quote: "While the charges against the individual defendants may have merit"

I did not defend the actions of the defendants in any way. But those charges are still pending. This thread is about what was resolved, namely the motion for dissolution.
But it was a nice try to deflect the issue, as was the Russia mention above.

LOL... The "resolution" will very likely result in the end of the NRA anyway...

 

[natman]

LOL... The "resolution" will very likely result in the end of the NRA anyway...

Really? How so? If the charges prove to be true, then the defendants that did them would be removed from office, among other punishments. If the charges are true, that would be a good thing for the NRA. The alleged corruption would stop and donations would once more flow in and the distraction and expense of the trial would be over.

BTW, still deflecting. Any comment on the actual subject, the NY AG's dissolution motion being dismissed?

 

[TomFitz]

Devastating... Maria aint around now more...



I'm sure Wayne misses her...
View attachment 67378017

I’m sure he does!

But he misses the money she and her comrades ran through the NRA to a host of GOP candidates. (He misses the rake off).

 

[mrjurrs]

Judge blocks New York attorney general's attempt to dissolve NRA but allows suit to proceed | CNN Politics

In a legal win for the National Rifle Association, a New York State Supreme Court justice has blocked the state attorney general's attempt to dissolve the organization but has allowed her suit against it to move forward.

www.cnn.com

The judge in the New York law suit against the NRA has dismissed New York state Attorney General Laticia James' politically motivated motion to dissolve the NRA, while allowing the case against the individual defendants to proceed.

The Attorney General’s claims to dissolve the NRA are dismissed. Her allegations concern primarily private harm to the NRA and its members and donors, which if proven can be addressed by the targeted, less intrusive relief she seeks through other claims in her Complaint. The Complaint does not allege that any financial misconduct benefited the NRA, or that the NRA exists primarily to carry out such activity, or that the NRA is incapable of continuing its legitimate activities on behalf of its millions of members. In short, the Complaint does not allege the type of public harm that is the legal linchpin for imposing the “corporate death penalty.” Moreover, dissolving the NRA could impinge, at least indirectly, on the free speech and assembly rights of its millions of members. While that alone would not preclude statutory dissolution if circumstances otherwise clearly warranted it, the Court believes it is a relevant factor that counsels against State-imposed dissolution, which should be the last option, not the first.

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/451625_2020_people_of_the_state_of_v_people_of_the_state_of_decision_order_on_609.pdf

While the charges against the individual defendants may have merit, the attempt to dissolve the entire organization was an egregious example of abuse of power.

But dissolution? We have been vehement critics of the NRA — of its dangerous stances against any sensible gun-safety measures and its heavy-handed tactics — and we would not mourn its demise. But other nonprofits that have had corrupt leadership were given the chance to clean house and institute reforms. A 148-year-old organization with, it claims, 5 million members would seem to merit a similar second chance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-this-really-the-right-penalty-for-the-nra/2020/08/07/f81778fc-d8e2-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html

It should go without saying that it would be entirely improper for a state official — or a federal official, for that matter — to use the awesome enforcement power of the government to target advocacy organizations with whose policies the official strongly disagrees.
Bloomberg opinion

You should read Misfire and then see if you think dissolution is politically motivated. This organization is rotten to the core.

MISFIRE by Tim Mak

Preorder MISFIRE by Tim Mak.

sites.prh.com

 

[natman]

You should read Misfire and then see if you think dissolution is politically motivated. This organization is rotten to the core.

MISFIRE by Tim Mak

Preorder MISFIRE by Tim Mak.

sites.prh.com

The alleged misdeeds of the defendants are the responsibility of the defendants, not the organization itself. Again, while the charges against the defendants may have merit, the motion for dissolution does not. And the judge agreed.

This lawsuit is the latest manifestation of a vendetta the state government of New York has been carrying out against the NRA for years:

If I could have put the N.R.A. out of business, I would have done it 20 years ago,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York said of the National Rifle Association.

N.R.A. Suit Claims Cuomo’s ‘Blacklisting’ Has Cost It Millions of Dollars (Published 2018)

On Friday, Governor Cuomo filed a motion to dismiss the case, in which the gun rights group claims state regulators have conspired to keep businesses from working with it.

www.nytimes.com

At issue is whether New York regulators violated the constitutional rights of the N.R.A. by preventing financial institutions and insurers in the state from doing business with the organization.

ACLU Supports NRA's Free-Speech Argument in Suit Against Cuomo Administration
In a proposed filing with U.S. District Judge Christian Hummel of the Northern District of New York, the ACLU said the gun lobby’s lawsuit against the state should continue because it addresses the free speech rights of the association.

ACLU Supports NRA's Free-Speech Argument in Suit Against Cuomo Administration | New York Law Journal

In a proposed filing with U.S. District Judge Christian Hummel of the Northern District of New York, the ACLU said the gun lobby’s lawsuit against the state should continue because it addresses the free speech rights of the association.

www.law.com

So far I've quoted The Washington Post, Bloomberg and the ACLU, all criticizing the actions of the NY state government. Anytime you can get those three to support the NRA, you know the NY state government has been up to no good.

 

[mrjurrs]

The alleged misdeeds of the defendants are the responsibility of the defendants, not the organization itself.

This lawsuit is the latest manifestation of a vendetta the state government of New York has been carrying out against the NRA for years:

If I could have put the N.R.A. out of business, I would have done it 20 years ago,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York said of the National Rifle Association.

N.R.A. Suit Claims Cuomo’s ‘Blacklisting’ Has Cost It Millions of Dollars (Published 2018)

On Friday, Governor Cuomo filed a motion to dismiss the case, in which the gun rights group claims state regulators have conspired to keep businesses from working with it.

www.nytimes.com

At issue is whether New York regulators violated the constitutional rights of the N.R.A. by preventing financial institutions and insurers in the state from doing business with the organization.

ACLU Supports NRA's Free-Speech Argument in Suit Against Cuomo Administration
In a proposed filing with U.S. District Judge Christian Hummel of the Northern District of New York, the ACLU said the gun lobby’s lawsuit against the state should continue because it addresses the free speech rights of the association.

ACLU Supports NRA's Free-Speech Argument in Suit Against Cuomo Administration | New York Law Journal

In a proposed filing with U.S. District Judge Christian Hummel of the Northern District of New York, the ACLU said the gun lobby’s lawsuit against the state should continue because it addresses the free speech rights of the association.

www.law.com

So far I've quoted The Washington Post, Bloomberg and the ACLU, all criticizing the actions of the NY state government. Anytime you can get those three to support the NRA, you know the NY state government has been up to no good.

When the individuals use a tax-exempt organization for fraud, the organization bears some of the blame.

Have you read Misfire?

 

[natman]

When the individuals use a tax-exempt organization for fraud, the organization bears some of the blame.

Let me make it clear, if it hasn't been already, that there are two issues here. One is possible financial misdeeds by some of the NRA executives and directors. If those allegations are true, then the individuals responsible should be held accountable and it was justified to bring suit to do so.

OTOH, trying to use these alleged improprieties as an excuse to dissolve the entire organization was politically motivated and was a gross overreach which was condemned by the ACLU, the Washington Post and just about everyone else, including the judge in this case.

 

[mrjurrs]

Let me make it clear, if it hasn't been already, that there are two issues here. One is possible financial misdeeds by some of the NRA executives and directors. If those allegations are true, then the individuals responsible should be held accountable and it was justified to bring suit to do so.

OTOH, trying to use these alleged improprieties as an excuse to dissolve the entire organization was politically motivated and was a gross overreach which was condemned by the ACLU, the Washington Post and just about everyone else, including the judge in this case.

You are not clear. Same state, same law. Why is this different?
"A New York judge has ruled that President Trump must pay $2 million in damages to settle claims that the Trump Foundation misused funds. The money will go to a group of charities, and the foundation is in the process of dissolving. The case is tied to a televised fundraiser for veterans held by Trump in Iowa when he was running for president in January 2016. Trump had said the funds raised would be distributed to charities. But according to court documents, the Trump Foundation improperly used $2.82 million it received from that fundraiser."

Judge Says Trump Must Pay $2 Million Over Misuse Of Foundation Funds

The money will go to a group of charities. The New York judge said money raised at a 2016 veterans fundraiser "was used for Mr. Trump's political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump's campaign staff."

www.npr.org

 

[natman]

You are not clear. Same state, same law. Why is this different?
"A New York judge has ruled that President Trump must pay $2 million in damages to settle claims that the Trump Foundation misused funds. The money will go to a group of charities, and the foundation is in the process of dissolving. The case is tied to a televised fundraiser for veterans held by Trump in Iowa when he was running for president in January 2016. Trump had said the funds raised would be distributed to charities. But according to court documents, the Trump Foundation improperly used $2.82 million it received from that fundraiser."

Judge Says Trump Must Pay $2 Million Over Misuse Of Foundation Funds

The money will go to a group of charities. The New York judge said money raised at a 2016 veterans fundraiser "was used for Mr. Trump's political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump's campaign staff."

www.npr.org

Because the Trump Foundation was a personal foundation which was voluntarily disbanded as part of a settlement. The NRA has a 150 year history, a valid purpose outside of its financial advantages and millions of members. While I doubt that Trump and Cuomo are besties, I don't think Cuomo publicly vowed to put the Trump foundation out of business.

 

[mrjurrs]

Because the Trump Foundation was a personal foundation which was voluntarily disbanded as part of a settlement. The NRA has a 150 year history, a valid purpose outside of its financial advantages and millions of members. While I doubt that Trump and Cuomo are besties, I don't think Cuomo publicly vowed to put the Trump foundation out of business.

I don't think you are right.

"The most substantive difference between a private foundation and a public charity is the manner in which funds are acquired. A private foundation is generally funded by an endowment from a single source, while a public charity must continually solicit donations from individuals and organizations."

Private Foundations vs. Public Charities: What’s the Difference?

Here’s a look at the differences between private foundations and public charities, both of which are types of charitable organizations.

www.investopedia.com

I understand that the NRA is not a charitable organization, but it still operates in a tax exempt manner.

 

[natman]

I don't think you are right.

"The most substantive difference between a private foundation and a public charity is the manner in which funds are acquired. A private foundation is generally funded by an endowment from a single source, while a public charity must continually solicit donations from individuals and organizations."

Private Foundations vs. Public Charities: What’s the Difference?

Here’s a look at the differences between private foundations and public charities, both of which are types of charitable organizations.

www.investopedia.com

I understand that the NRA is not a charitable organization, but it still operates in a tax exempt manner.

The NRA is not a single organization. There is the NRA, which has members and performs gun safety training, supports marksmanship, etc. There is the NRA-ILA, Institute for Legislative Action, which does lobbying. There is the NRA-PVA, which makes political contributions. Then there is the NRA Foundation, which accepts tax-exempt contributions. Money collected by the NRA Foundation has severe restrictions on how it's used, and allegedly those rules were abused.

I found a copy of Misfire and gave it a once over. It chronicles a history of Wayne LaPierre's alleged mismanagement and misuse of various NRA funds. The author admits as much in the introduction: This is a story of how, when it all came crashing down, Wayne turned his back on his closest confidants.

The crucial point is that Wayne LaPierre is the current leader of the NRA. He is NOT the NRA.

I'll repeat the judge's statement about dissolution. Read it again:

The Attorney General’s claims to dissolve the NRA are dismissed. Her allegations concern primarily private harm to the NRA and its members and donors, which if proven can be addressed by the targeted, less intrusive relief she seeks through other claims in her Complaint. The Complaint does not allege that any financial misconduct benefited the NRA, or that the NRA exists primarily to carry out such activity, or that the NRA is incapable of continuing its legitimate activities on behalf of its millions of members. In short, the Complaint does not allege the type of public harm that is the legal linchpin for imposing the “corporate death penalty.” Moreover, dissolving the NRA could impinge, at least indirectly, on the free speech and assembly rights of its millions of members. While that alone would not preclude statutory dissolution if circumstances otherwise clearly warranted it, the Court believes it is a relevant factor that counsels against State-imposed dissolution, which should be the last option, not the first.

 

[mrjurrs]

The NRA is not a single organization. There is the NRA, which has members and performs gun safety training, supports marksmanship, etc. There is the NRA-ILA, Institute for Legislative Action, which does lobbying. There is the NRA-PVA, which makes political contributions. Then there is the NRA Foundation, which accepts tax-exempt contributions. Money collected by the NRA Foundation has severe restrictions on how it's used, and allegedly those rules were abused.

I found a copy of Misfire and gave it a once over. It chronicles a history of Wayne LaPierre's alleged mismanagement and misuse of various NRA funds. The author admits as much in the introduction: This is a story of how, when it all came crashing down, Wayne turned his back on his closest confidants.

The crucial point is that Wayne LaPierre is the current leader of the NRA. He is NOT the NRA.

I'll repeat the judge's statement about dissolution. Read it again:

The Attorney General’s claims to dissolve the NRA are dismissed. Her allegations concern primarily private harm to the NRA and its members and donors, which if proven can be addressed by the targeted, less intrusive relief she seeks through other claims in her Complaint. The Complaint does not allege that any financial misconduct benefited the NRA, or that the NRA exists primarily to carry out such activity, or that the NRA is incapable of continuing its legitimate activities on behalf of its millions of members. In short, the Complaint does not allege the type of public harm that is the legal linchpin for imposing the “corporate death penalty.” Moreover, dissolving the NRA could impinge, at least indirectly, on the free speech and assembly rights of its millions of members. While that alone would not preclude statutory dissolution if circumstances otherwise clearly warranted it, the Court believes it is a relevant factor that counsels against State-imposed dissolution, which should be the last option, not the first.

Misfire is about more than LaPierre, there was a culture there. So in your position, the NRA bears no responsibility for defrauding X number of NRA members?

 

[natman]

Misfire is about more than LaPierre, there was a culture there. So in your position, the NRA bears no responsibility for defrauding X number of NRA members?

LaPierre doesn't get all the blame, there's plenty to go around. No, the NRA as an organization is not responsible for the actions of it's executives. I thought that bolding the critical part of my prior post would be enough to get your attention, but apparently not. So for the third time:
The Complaint does not allege that any financial misconduct benefited the NRA, or that the NRA exists primarily to carry out such activity, or that the NRA is incapable of continuing its legitimate activities on behalf of its millions of members.

 

[fbi10]

I appreciate the NRA fighting for our 2nd amendment rights while the left keeps trying to take them away while fighting for the « right » to kill babies…