Utopia Talk - Politics - NY AG Suing to dissolve NRA

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 19 11:49:46 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / NY AG Suing to dissolve NRA

Dakyron
Member Thu Aug 06 10:49:33
http://twitter.com/i/events/1291396859877969920

NY AG James @NewYorkStateAG - 11m

#BREAKING: I filed a lawsuit to dissolve the National Rifle Association for years of self-dealing and illegal conduct.

The
@NRA
is fraught with fraud and abuse.

No organization is above the law.

Dakyron
Member Thu Aug 06 10:51:27
http://www...-nra-after-fraud-investigation

The Attorney General of New York took action today to dissolve the National Rifle Association, following an 18-month investigation that found evidence the powerful gun rights group is "fraught with fraud and abuse."
Attorney General Letitia James claims in a lawsuit filed Thursday that she found financial misconduct in the millions of dollars, and that it contributed to a loss of more than $64 million over a three year period.
The suit alleges that top NRA executives misused charitable funds for personal gain, awarded contracts to friends and family members, and provided contracts to former employees to ensure loyalty.
Seeking to dissolve the NRA is the most aggressive sanction James could have sought against the not-for-profit organization, which James has jurisdiction over because it is registered in New York. James has a wide range of authorities relating to nonprofits in the state, including the authority to force organizations to cease operations or dissolve. The NRA is all but certain to contest it.
NPR has reached out to the NRA for comment, but has not received a response.

"The NRA's influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets," James said in a statement. "The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse, which is why, today, we seek to dissolve the NRA, because no organization is above the law."

James' complaint names the National Rifle Association as a whole, but also names four current and former NRA executives: Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, general counsel John Frazer, former CFO Woody Phillips, and former chief of staff Joshua Powell.
It lists dozens of examples of alleged financial malfeasance, including the use of NRA funds for vacations, private jets, and expensive meals. In a statement, her office said that the charitable organization's executives "instituted a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement and negligent oversight" that contributed to "the waste and loss of millions in assets."
The lawsuit seeks to dissolve the NRA in its entirety and asks the court to order LaPierre and other current and former executives to pay back unlawful profits. It also seeks to remove LaPierre and Frazer from the organization's leadership and prevent the four named individuals from ever serving again on the board of a charity in New York.
Allegations against CEO Wayne LaPierre
LaPierre, who also serves as CEO, has held the top position at the organization for nearly 30 years. In the Attorney General's lawsuit he is accused of using charitable funds for personal gain, including a post-employment contract valued at more than $17 million that was not approved by the NRA's board of directors.
The lawsuit also claims that LaPierre received more than $1.2 million in expense reimbursements over four years, including gifts for friends, travel expenses and memberships at golf clubs and hotels.
And it alleges that he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on private plane trips, including for extended family when he was not present; traveled to Africa with his wife on a safari gifted by an NRA vendor, and spent more than $3.6 million on luxury black car services and travel consultants in the last two years.
Those that attempted to blow the whistle on this behavior, the suit claims, were retaliated against by LaPierre.
Allegations against former CFO Woody Phillips, former chief of staff Joshua Powell and general counsel John Frazer
James' lawsuit alleges that Phillips, whose job it was to manage the financial operations of the charitable organization, lied on financial disclosure forms and set up numerous deals to enrich himself and his girlfriend.
The New York Attorney General claims that Phillips set up a contract for himself just before he retired, and that the package was worth $1.8 million — purportedly for consulting services to the incoming treasurer. But the incoming treasurer told the New York attorney general that he was not aware of this contract. Phillips also directed a deal worth more than $1 million to his girlfriend, the suit alleges.
Meanwhile, James alleges that former NRA chief of staff Joshua Powell's salary more than tripled a little more than two years into his tenure, which began in 2016. While he began at $250,000, Powell's salary rose to $800,000.
Powell is also accused of directing charitable funds to be used for the benefit of his family members. The New York Attorney General said that Powell approved of a $5 million consulting contract with the firm McKenna & Associates. That firm, in turn, hired Powell's wife and passed her $30,000 monthly consulting fee through the NRA. Powell also arranged for an NRA vendor to hire his father as a paid photographer, leading to $90,000 in fees for his father — funds that were ultimately billed to the NRA.
The New York Attorney General did not allege that NRA general counsel John Frazer committed financial misconduct, but said that he failed to comply with board governance procedures, failed to ensure the NRA was in compliance with whistleblower laws and repeatedly certified false or misleading annual statements by the NRA.
The NRA's already precarious financial situation
James' lawsuit is sure to be contested in court by the National Rifle Association.
But even before this move, the NRA was in dire financial straits. A secret recording of an NRA board meeting obtained by NPR in April showed LaPierre telling the audience that the NRA's legal troubles have cost the organization $100 million.
"The cost that we bore was probably about a hundred-million-dollar hit in lost revenue and real cost to this association in 2018 and 2019," LaPierre said, according to a tape recorded by a source in the room. "I mean, that's huge."
Much of this has to do with its legal troubles. Facing Congressional inquiries and investigations by multiple state attorneys general, as well as internal whistleblower complaints, the NRA's finances have sagged under the burden of legal costs. In the ongoing litigation between the NRA and Ackerman McQueen, its former public relations firm, a brief filed by the firm on April 15 indicates its belief that the NRA has paid its outside legal counsel "over $54 million" in the last two years.
The turmoil at the NRA also could have political ramifications ahead of the 2020 elections. The NRA spent tens of millions of dollars in 2016 to support then-candidate Donald Trump — a role it appears it will be unlikely to be able to repeat given its current financial condition.

Dakyron
Member Thu Aug 06 10:51:40
Sorry for the text wall.

Rugian
Member Thu Aug 06 10:56:02
New York hating on the 2and Amendment is nothing new.

God help us if that traitor fuck Roberts winds up ruling on this though.

Renzo Marquez
Member Thu Aug 06 11:01:00
Roberts will do whatever Epstein's handlers tell him to do.

Habebe
Member Thu Aug 06 11:25:51
I dont understand these stunts though. Do they notnunderstand this will benefit Trump and the gun lobby?

If they really want to take down the gun lobby look to Bloomberg and Soros. Bloomberg bought VA and had success and Soros ive heard*** has been buying gun companies tonshut them down, not sure on the validity or success.

Habebe
Member Thu Aug 06 11:25:51
I dont understand these stunts though. Do they notnunderstand this will benefit Trump and the gun lobby?

If they really want to take down the gun lobby look to Bloomberg and Soros. Bloomberg bought VA and had success and Soros ive heard*** has been buying gun companies tonshut them down, not sure on the validity or success.

Habebe
Member Thu Aug 06 11:26:36
I dont get this Roberts or Gorsuch hatred. I thinkntheyve done pretty good overall.

Forwyn
Member Thu Aug 06 13:13:52
Maybe GOA will step into the void.

Average Ameriacn
Member Thu Aug 06 13:29:07
Elitists want to take away our guns, will never happen!

sam adams
Member Thu Aug 06 15:08:37
Far left african womyn from new york with obviously biased political opinions trying to disolve the NRA?

What a fucking retard. Thats like 2 million votes for trump right there.

kargen
Member Thu Aug 06 15:54:02
Beyond possibly translating to votes for President Trump it will cause yet another spike in gun sales.

Rugian
Member Thu Aug 06 16:17:29
Habebe

I dont want to go on a lengthy diatribe, but Robert's has proven to be an unreliable vote on a whole range of issues including guns. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on a 2and Amendment case since 2010, and the speculation behind that is that the court's conservatives are afraid to take up a case because they fear how Robert's would vote.

As Alito said in one of his dissents earlier this year, the court is happy to issue rulings taking up abortion rights, but has abdicated its responsibility to defend 2and Amedment rights for a decade now.

Part of it too is that Robert's clearly wants the court to be in good standing with the Democrats. Several Democratic senators recently sent a letter to the court in which they threatened to refuse to recognize its legitimacy if more cases dont go their way; it's no coincidence that Robert's has tilted to the left ever since.

Hes a textbook swamp creature.

Habebe
Member Thu Aug 06 16:51:18
Rugian, He has given some great rulings IMO recently. Even you should be thrilled about the state's having to give equal chance at funding religious or non religious schools for example.

Ive heard about the 2nd amendment bit. But didnt they rule favorably in NYC case about transporting guns to firing ranges?

Rugian
Member Thu Aug 06 17:07:30
"Rugian, He has given some great rulings IMO recently."

This last SCOTUS season was abysmal. A huge expansion of gay & trans rights that was purely driven by judicial activism; letting sanctuary cities continue to operate; torpedoing DACA repeal; multiple decisions telling states that their abortion regulations are unacceptable; and ten (ten!) 2nd Amendment cases that they refused to rule on. There were a few cases that went well (the Montana case being one of them), but overall it was a major letdown.

"But didnt they rule favorably in NYC case about transporting guns to firing ranges?"

Exactly the opposite; the court refused to hear it at all. In effect they left it open for other states to try their luck in the future if they wanted to implement their own restrictions.

Rugian
Member Thu Aug 06 17:09:27
In fact, that NYC case was where Alito's dissent came from:

"[T]his case is not moot because the amended City ordinance and new State law do not give petitioners all the prospective relief they seek. Petitioners asserted in their complaint that the Second Amendment guarantees them, as holders of premises licenses, “unrestricted access” to ranges, competitions, and second homes outside of New York City, and the new laws do not give them that.

The new City ordinance has limitations that petitioners claim are unconstitutional, namely, that a trip outside the City must be “direc[t]” and travel within the City must be “continuous and uninterrupted.” Exactly what these restrictions mean is not clear from the face of the rule, and the City has done little to clarify their reach. At argument, counsel told us that the new rule allows “bathroom breaks,” “coffee stops,” and any other “reasonably necessary stops in the course of travel.” But the meaning of a “reasonably necessary” stop is hardly clear. What about a stop to buy groceries just before coming home? Or a stop to pick up a friend who also wants to practice at a range outside the City? Or a quick visit to a sick relative or friend who lives near a range? The City does not know the answer to such questions.…

Consider where acceptance of the argument adopted by the per curiam leads. Suppose that a city council, seeking to suppress a local paper’s opposition to some of its programs, adopts an ordinance prohibiting the publication of any editorial without the approval of a city official. Suppose that a newspaper challenges the constitutionality of this rule, arguing that the First Amendment confers the unrestricted right to editorialize without prior approval. If the council then repeals its ordinance and replaces it with a new one requiring approval only if the editorial concerns one particular city program, would that render the pending lawsuit moot and require the paper to commence a new one?

Or take this example. A State enacts a law providing that any woman wishing to obtain an abortion must submit certification from five doctors that the procedure is medically necessary. After a woman sues, claiming that any requirement of physician certification is unconstitutional, the State replaces its old law with a new one requiring certification by three physicians. Would the court be required to dismiss the woman’s suit? Suppose the court, following the precedent set by today’s decision, holds that the case is moot, and suppose that the woman brings a second case challenging the new law on the same ground. If the State repeals that law and replaces it with one requiring certification by two doctors, would the second suit be moot? And what if the State responds to a third suit by enacting replacement legislation demanding certification by one doctor?

Mootness doctrine does not require such results. A challenge to an allegedly unconstitutional law does not become moot with the enactment of new legislation that reduces but does not eliminate the injury originally alleged. And that is the situation here."

show deleted posts

Dakyron Member	Thu Aug 06 10:49:33 http://twitter.com/i/events/1291396859877969920 NY AG James @NewYorkStateAG - 11m #BREAKING: I filed a lawsuit to dissolve the National Rifle Association for years of self-dealing and illegal conduct. The @NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse. No organization is above the law.
Dakyron Member	Thu Aug 06 10:51:27 http://www...-nra-after-fraud-investigation The Attorney General of New York took action today to dissolve the National Rifle Association, following an 18-month investigation that found evidence the powerful gun rights group is "fraught with fraud and abuse." Attorney General Letitia James claims in a lawsuit filed Thursday that she found financial misconduct in the millions of dollars, and that it contributed to a loss of more than $64 million over a three year period. The suit alleges that top NRA executives misused charitable funds for personal gain, awarded contracts to friends and family members, and provided contracts to former employees to ensure loyalty. Seeking to dissolve the NRA is the most aggressive sanction James could have sought against the not-for-profit organization, which James has jurisdiction over because it is registered in New York. James has a wide range of authorities relating to nonprofits in the state, including the authority to force organizations to cease operations or dissolve. The NRA is all but certain to contest it. NPR has reached out to the NRA for comment, but has not received a response. "The NRA's influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets," James said in a statement. "The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse, which is why, today, we seek to dissolve the NRA, because no organization is above the law." James' complaint names the National Rifle Association as a whole, but also names four current and former NRA executives: Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, general counsel John Frazer, former CFO Woody Phillips, and former chief of staff Joshua Powell. It lists dozens of examples of alleged financial malfeasance, including the use of NRA funds for vacations, private jets, and expensive meals. In a statement, her office said that the charitable organization's executives "instituted a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement and negligent oversight" that contributed to "the waste and loss of millions in assets." The lawsuit seeks to dissolve the NRA in its entirety and asks the court to order LaPierre and other current and former executives to pay back unlawful profits. It also seeks to remove LaPierre and Frazer from the organization's leadership and prevent the four named individuals from ever serving again on the board of a charity in New York. Allegations against CEO Wayne LaPierre LaPierre, who also serves as CEO, has held the top position at the organization for nearly 30 years. In the Attorney General's lawsuit he is accused of using charitable funds for personal gain, including a post-employment contract valued at more than $17 million that was not approved by the NRA's board of directors. The lawsuit also claims that LaPierre received more than $1.2 million in expense reimbursements over four years, including gifts for friends, travel expenses and memberships at golf clubs and hotels. And it alleges that he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on private plane trips, including for extended family when he was not present; traveled to Africa with his wife on a safari gifted by an NRA vendor, and spent more than $3.6 million on luxury black car services and travel consultants in the last two years. Those that attempted to blow the whistle on this behavior, the suit claims, were retaliated against by LaPierre. Allegations against former CFO Woody Phillips, former chief of staff Joshua Powell and general counsel John Frazer James' lawsuit alleges that Phillips, whose job it was to manage the financial operations of the charitable organization, lied on financial disclosure forms and set up numerous deals to enrich himself and his girlfriend. The New York Attorney General claims that Phillips set up a contract for himself just before he retired, and that the package was worth $1.8 million — purportedly for consulting services to the incoming treasurer. But the incoming treasurer told the New York attorney general that he was not aware of this contract. Phillips also directed a deal worth more than $1 million to his girlfriend, the suit alleges. Meanwhile, James alleges that former NRA chief of staff Joshua Powell's salary more than tripled a little more than two years into his tenure, which began in 2016. While he began at $250,000, Powell's salary rose to $800,000. Powell is also accused of directing charitable funds to be used for the benefit of his family members. The New York Attorney General said that Powell approved of a $5 million consulting contract with the firm McKenna & Associates. That firm, in turn, hired Powell's wife and passed her $30,000 monthly consulting fee through the NRA. Powell also arranged for an NRA vendor to hire his father as a paid photographer, leading to $90,000 in fees for his father — funds that were ultimately billed to the NRA. The New York Attorney General did not allege that NRA general counsel John Frazer committed financial misconduct, but said that he failed to comply with board governance procedures, failed to ensure the NRA was in compliance with whistleblower laws and repeatedly certified false or misleading annual statements by the NRA. The NRA's already precarious financial situation James' lawsuit is sure to be contested in court by the National Rifle Association. But even before this move, the NRA was in dire financial straits. A secret recording of an NRA board meeting obtained by NPR in April showed LaPierre telling the audience that the NRA's legal troubles have cost the organization $100 million. "The cost that we bore was probably about a hundred-million-dollar hit in lost revenue and real cost to this association in 2018 and 2019," LaPierre said, according to a tape recorded by a source in the room. "I mean, that's huge." Much of this has to do with its legal troubles. Facing Congressional inquiries and investigations by multiple state attorneys general, as well as internal whistleblower complaints, the NRA's finances have sagged under the burden of legal costs. In the ongoing litigation between the NRA and Ackerman McQueen, its former public relations firm, a brief filed by the firm on April 15 indicates its belief that the NRA has paid its outside legal counsel "over $54 million" in the last two years. The turmoil at the NRA also could have political ramifications ahead of the 2020 elections. The NRA spent tens of millions of dollars in 2016 to support then-candidate Donald Trump — a role it appears it will be unlikely to be able to repeat given its current financial condition.
Dakyron Member	Thu Aug 06 10:51:40 Sorry for the text wall.
Rugian Member	Thu Aug 06 10:56:02 New York hating on the 2and Amendment is nothing new. God help us if that traitor fuck Roberts winds up ruling on this though.
Renzo Marquez Member	Thu Aug 06 11:01:00 Roberts will do whatever Epstein's handlers tell him to do.
Habebe Member	Thu Aug 06 11:25:51 I dont understand these stunts though. Do they notnunderstand this will benefit Trump and the gun lobby? If they really want to take down the gun lobby look to Bloomberg and Soros. Bloomberg bought VA and had success and Soros ive heard*** has been buying gun companies tonshut them down, not sure on the validity or success.
Habebe Member	Thu Aug 06 11:25:51 I dont understand these stunts though. Do they notnunderstand this will benefit Trump and the gun lobby? If they really want to take down the gun lobby look to Bloomberg and Soros. Bloomberg bought VA and had success and Soros ive heard*** has been buying gun companies tonshut them down, not sure on the validity or success.
Habebe Member	Thu Aug 06 11:26:36 I dont get this Roberts or Gorsuch hatred. I thinkntheyve done pretty good overall.
Forwyn Member	Thu Aug 06 13:13:52 Maybe GOA will step into the void.
Average Ameriacn Member	Thu Aug 06 13:29:07 Elitists want to take away our guns, will never happen!
sam adams Member	Thu Aug 06 15:08:37 Far left african womyn from new york with obviously biased political opinions trying to disolve the NRA? What a fucking retard. Thats like 2 million votes for trump right there.
kargen Member	Thu Aug 06 15:54:02 Beyond possibly translating to votes for President Trump it will cause yet another spike in gun sales.
Rugian Member	Thu Aug 06 16:17:29 Habebe I dont want to go on a lengthy diatribe, but Robert's has proven to be an unreliable vote on a whole range of issues including guns. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on a 2and Amendment case since 2010, and the speculation behind that is that the court's conservatives are afraid to take up a case because they fear how Robert's would vote. As Alito said in one of his dissents earlier this year, the court is happy to issue rulings taking up abortion rights, but has abdicated its responsibility to defend 2and Amedment rights for a decade now. Part of it too is that Robert's clearly wants the court to be in good standing with the Democrats. Several Democratic senators recently sent a letter to the court in which they threatened to refuse to recognize its legitimacy if more cases dont go their way; it's no coincidence that Robert's has tilted to the left ever since. Hes a textbook swamp creature.
Habebe Member	Thu Aug 06 16:51:18 Rugian, He has given some great rulings IMO recently. Even you should be thrilled about the state's having to give equal chance at funding religious or non religious schools for example. Ive heard about the 2nd amendment bit. But didnt they rule favorably in NYC case about transporting guns to firing ranges?
Rugian Member	Thu Aug 06 17:07:30 "Rugian, He has given some great rulings IMO recently." This last SCOTUS season was abysmal. A huge expansion of gay & trans rights that was purely driven by judicial activism; letting sanctuary cities continue to operate; torpedoing DACA repeal; multiple decisions telling states that their abortion regulations are unacceptable; and ten (ten!) 2nd Amendment cases that they refused to rule on. There were a few cases that went well (the Montana case being one of them), but overall it was a major letdown. "But didnt they rule favorably in NYC case about transporting guns to firing ranges?" Exactly the opposite; the court refused to hear it at all. In effect they left it open for other states to try their luck in the future if they wanted to implement their own restrictions.
Rugian Member	Thu Aug 06 17:09:27 In fact, that NYC case was where Alito's dissent came from: "[T]his case is not moot because the amended City ordinance and new State law do not give petitioners all the prospective relief they seek. Petitioners asserted in their complaint that the Second Amendment guarantees them, as holders of premises licenses, “unrestricted access” to ranges, competitions, and second homes outside of New York City, and the new laws do not give them that. The new City ordinance has limitations that petitioners claim are unconstitutional, namely, that a trip outside the City must be “direc[t]” and travel within the City must be “continuous and uninterrupted.” Exactly what these restrictions mean is not clear from the face of the rule, and the City has done little to clarify their reach. At argument, counsel told us that the new rule allows “bathroom breaks,” “coffee stops,” and any other “reasonably necessary stops in the course of travel.” But the meaning of a “reasonably necessary” stop is hardly clear. What about a stop to buy groceries just before coming home? Or a stop to pick up a friend who also wants to practice at a range outside the City? Or a quick visit to a sick relative or friend who lives near a range? The City does not know the answer to such questions.… Consider where acceptance of the argument adopted by the per curiam leads. Suppose that a city council, seeking to suppress a local paper’s opposition to some of its programs, adopts an ordinance prohibiting the publication of any editorial without the approval of a city official. Suppose that a newspaper challenges the constitutionality of this rule, arguing that the First Amendment confers the unrestricted right to editorialize without prior approval. If the council then repeals its ordinance and replaces it with a new one requiring approval only if the editorial concerns one particular city program, would that render the pending lawsuit moot and require the paper to commence a new one? Or take this example. A State enacts a law providing that any woman wishing to obtain an abortion must submit certification from five doctors that the procedure is medically necessary. After a woman sues, claiming that any requirement of physician certification is unconstitutional, the State replaces its old law with a new one requiring certification by three physicians. Would the court be required to dismiss the woman’s suit? Suppose the court, following the precedent set by today’s decision, holds that the case is moot, and suppose that the woman brings a second case challenging the new law on the same ground. If the State repeals that law and replaces it with one requiring certification by two doctors, would the second suit be moot? And what if the State responds to a third suit by enacting replacement legislation demanding certification by one doctor? Mootness doctrine does not require such results. A challenge to an allegedly unconstitutional law does not become moot with the enactment of new legislation that reduces but does not eliminate the injury originally alleged. And that is the situation here."
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: