New York attorney general seeks to dissolve NRA...

[Belsnickel]

...in suit accusing gun rights group of wide-ranging fraud and self-dealing (open in incognito to read)

Quote:The chief executive of the National Rifle Association and several top lieutenants engaged in a decades-long pattern of fraud to raid the coffers of the powerful gun rights group for personal gain, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday by the New York attorney general, draining $64 million from the nonprofit in just three years.

In her lawsuit, Attorney General Letitia James called for the dissolution of the NRA and the removal of CEO Wayne LaPierre from the leadership post he has held for the past 39 years, saying he and others used the group’s funds to finance a luxury lifestyle.

She also asked a New York court to force LaPierre and three key deputies to repay NRA members for the ill-gotten funds and inflated salaries that her investigation found they took.

James accused the NRA leaders of flouting state and federal laws and signing off on reports and statements they knew were fraudulent, while diverting millions of dollars away from the NRA’s charitable mission to benefit themselves and their allies.

The attorney general requested that the court bar the four men — LaPierre, general counsel John Frazer, former treasurer Woody Phillips and former chief of staff Joshua Powell — from ever serving in a leadership position for a New York charity in the future.

“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, a Democrat, said in a statement.

Her investigation, which began in February 2019, found a “a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement, and negligent oversight at the NRA that was illegal, oppressive, and fraudulent,” according to a statement by the attorney general’s office.

Meanwhile, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine announced Thursday that his office filed a separate lawsuit against the NRA Foundation, which is based in Washington. Racine accused the organization of being a puppet of the NRA, despite legal requirements that it independently pursue charitable purposes. Instead, Racine said his office found, the foundation repeatedly loaned the NRA money to address its rising deficits.

More at the link.

I wouldn't be surprised to see her claims hold a lot of water. The corruption at the top of the NRA is a poorly kept secret. However, requesting dissolution of the organization? That seems a little far reaching to me. Taking out LaPierre and other corrupt leaders, yeah, but I don't know about dissolution. I definitely look forward to seeing how this all plays out.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2020, 01:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: ...in suit accusing gun rights group of wide-ranging fraud and self-dealing (open in incognito to read)


More at the link.

I wouldn't be surprised to see her claims hold a lot of water. The corruption at the top of the NRA is a poorly kept secret. However, requesting dissolution of the organization? That seems a little far reaching to me. Taking out LaPierre and other corrupt leaders, yeah, but I don't know about dissolution. I definitely look forward to seeing how this all plays out.

You and I are of one mind in this regard.  I think there are millions of NRA member who would love to see LaPierre get his just desserts.  He's been deeply unpopular for some time and his malfeasance has been an open secret.  But, as you say, dissolve the organization as a whole due to the actions of some corrupt officials?  I suppose we'd have had to dissolve Congress some time ago using that criteria.  In my opinion she just handed the NRA a gift, because her seeking to dissolve the organization makes this look like a political act and a deliberate attempt to suppress the organization's goals.  She would have been much smarter to just nail those guilty of criminal activity.  I suppose being in a deep blue state she just couldn't help herself.

[BmorePat87]

https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/notforprofit-corporation-law/npc-sect-1101.html

NPR went into more detail on the accusations. If true, fraud is rampant and the top leadership continues to enrich themselves while the nonprofit goes further into debt. Whistleblowers are retaliated against and the legal counsel willingly signs off on fraudulent paperwork.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2020, 05:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/notforprofit-corporation-law/npc-sect-1101.html

NPR went into more detail on the accusations. If true, fraud is rampant and the top leadership continues to enrich themselves while the nonprofit goes further into debt. Whistleblowers are retaliated against and the legal counsel willingly signs off on fraudulent paperwork.

Indeed, as both Bel and myself stated, this was an open secret (although maybe not to this extent).  What do you think about her efforts to completely dissolve the whole organization because of this?

[Vas Deferens]

(08-06-2020, 10:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed, as both Bel and myself stated, this was an open secret (although maybe not to this extent).  What do you think about her efforts to completely dissolve the whole organization because of this?

To be honest, I think the idea of ‘dissolving the whole organization’ is a hyperbole. Unfortunately, hyperbole is more effective in singular instances coming from a relatively unknown figure rather than a constant barrage from those in a constant limelight. I just don’t think they would put bets on their own ability to do as such.

That being said. I almost feel like it would be better for those holding up the 2nd to fracture off into smaller groups at this point. The stigma the NRA has fostered in the last decade is a black mark on its long term survival (imho). Given the number of disenfranchised new gun owners as of late (myself included), who would never give a dime to this corrupt organization, smaller rights groups make much more sense.

Call me naive, but a few progressive Black friends of mine have taken the leap to gun ownership because they no longer feel safe relying on the ‘state’. I can’t disagree with them. I took up recently when my neighborhood was no able to be adequately policed while 300 officers on a variety of vehicles were deployed to stop a dozen 20 y/o female liberal studies undergrads from yelling in front of the police station.

There is a huge number of people who have taken up arms to protect themselves, fellow citizens and the state at large. Unfortunately, the intrinsic tie of the NRA to the police will hamper their ability to fund 2nd rights down the road.

Just my 2 cents. Nothing pointed at anyone here by any means.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2020, 10:46 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: To be honest, I think the idea of ‘dissolving the whole organization’ is a hyperbole.  Unfortunately, hyperbole is more effective in singular instances coming from a relatively unknown figure rather than a constant barrage from those in a constant limelight.  I just don’t think they would put bets on their own ability to do as such.

It's not hyperbole when you file a motion in court to do exactly that.  It's a declared goal.  

Quote:That being said.  I almost feel like it would be better for those holding up the 2nd to fracture off into smaller groups at this point.  The stigma the NRA has fostered in the last decade is a black mark on its long term survival (imho).   Given the number of disenfranchised new gun owners as of late (myself included), who would never give a dime to this corrupt organization, smaller rights groups make much more sense.  

Call me naive, but a few progressive Black friends of mine have taken the leap to gun ownership because they no longer feel safe relying on the ‘state’.   I can’t disagree with them.  I took up recently when my neighborhood was no able to be adequately policed while 300 officers on a variety of vehicles were deployed to stop a dozen 20 y/o female liberal studies undergrads from yelling in front of the police station.  

There is a huge number of people who have taken up arms to protect themselves, fellow citizens and the state at large.   Unfortunately, the intrinsic tie of the NRA to the police will hamper their ability to fund 2nd rights down the road.

 
This is a good point.  I'm not sure I completely agree, but I do find it analogous to NATO.  If we had dissolved "NATO" post cold war and started a brand new organization with the exact same goals, mutual defense, then I highly doubt Russia would have the same issues with nations joining it.  They may have joined themselves.

Quote:Just my 2 cents.  Nothing pointed at anyone here by any means.

It makes sense.  I just don't think such a transition is possible now.  The NY AG made that an impossibility.  Like I said above, she created a political battle out of a criminal one.  As I've said numerous times in the past, this happens when prosecutors charge with their heart and not their head.  IMO this move was a horrible miscalculation on her part.

[BmorePat87]

(08-06-2020, 10:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed, as both Bel and myself stated, this was an open secret (although maybe not to this extent).  What do you think about her efforts to completely dissolve the whole organization because of this?

If what is alleged is true, under New York law I think it's a fair route to take given the severity of the offenses. If a nonprofit was funneling millions to leadership for years, as well as violating numerous laws, all while having tax exempt status, something has to be done. 

New York did the same thing to the Trump Foundation.

[Vas Deferens]

(08-07-2020, 12:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It makes sense.  I just don't think such a transition is possible now.  The NY AG made that an impossibility.  Like I said above, she created a political battle out of a criminal one.  As I've said numerous times in the past, this happens when prosecutors charge with their heart and not their head.  IMO this move was a horrible miscalculation on her part.

So then if it fails, it fails. There seems to be a major disconnect between white collar & common crimes. I feel like the sentiment is often “if you don’t have anything to hide, comply with the law and go through the process.” What’s the major obstacle to creating NRA2021? Or SocialistGunRightsForAutonomy? Let’s face it. The NRA has a major PR problem that it’s current membership cannot outlive. Why not reframe the issue now and become more inclusive of a broader group to hold tight to the core mission?

I don’t care what happens to these fat cat lobbyists personally, but I do want to ensure everyone is held to the same standards. Whether ‘dissolving’ them is even a possibility from a state level, I don’t know, but if the goal is to support the 2nd for inalienable rights... start a new damn group! This whoa is me and my AK / clip capacity BS just doesn’t play well in the current environment, let alone 10 yrs from now. Better adapt now, because it’s only going to get tougher. (NRA org wise)

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2020, 01:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If what is alleged is true, under New York law I think it's a fair route to take given the severity of the offenses.

I see, if New York say so then an organization spanning the whole nation must be dissolved.  How very keeping in the the spirit of our Union.

Quote:If a nonprofit was funneling millions to leadership for years, as well as violating numerous laws, all while having tax exempt status, something has to be done. 

Something being the complete and utter dissolution of an organization well over a century old?  Let's just ignore that New York state has been diametrically opposed to this organization's political stance for some time.  I mean, that's not important to this discussion is it?

Quote:New York did the same thing to the Trump Foundation.

Bmore, please.  Is there really a logical comparison between the NRA and the Trump Foundation?

(08-07-2020, 01:19 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: So then if it fails, it fails.   There seems to be a major disconnect between white collar & common crimes.    I feel like the sentiment is often “if you don’t have anything to hide, comply with the law and go through the process.”   What’s the major obstacle to creating NRA2021? Or SocialistGunRightsForAutonomy?   Let’s face it.  The NRA has a major PR problem that it’s current membership cannot outlive.  Why not reframe the issue now and become more inclusive of a broader group to hold tight to the core mission?

I'll reiterate my original statement, if such malfeasance by upper leadership is cause for dissolution why is Congress still a thing?  Or maybe, just maybe, abuse by those in power does not reflect, or taint, the original goals of the organization?

Quote:I don’t care what happens to these fat cat lobbyists personally, but I do want to ensure everyone is held to the same standards.  Whether ‘dissolving’ them is even a possibility from a state level, I don’t know, but if the goal is to support the 2nd for inalienable rights...  start a new damn group!

 
Sure, we all know that name recognition, and the subsequent lobbying power inherent within, is inconsequential right?

Quote:This whoa is me and my AK / clip capacity BS just doesn’t play well in the current environment, let alone 10 yrs from now.  Better adapt now, because it’s only going to get tougher.  (NRA org wise)

If your point is that we need to continue surrendering our rights because the next generation finds the current ones unpalatable I find that utterly unacceptable on as strong a level as I can state.

[Benton]

(08-07-2020, 01:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: New York did the same thing to the Trump Foundation.

Just to point out, trump Foundation was based in new york. It was also, essentially, a family checking account masquerading as a charity. That kind of criminal fraud is apples and oranges from a few embezzling funds without any general knowledge by members or the bulk of decision makers.

[BmorePat87]

(08-07-2020, 01:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I see, if New York say so then an organization spanning the whole nation must be dissolved.  How very keeping in the the spirit of our Union.



Something being the complete and utter dissolution of an organization well over a century old?  Let's just ignore that New York state has been diametrically opposed to this organization's political stance for some time.  I mean, that's not important to this discussion is it?


Bmore, please.  Is there really a logical comparison between the NRA and the Trump Foundation?


I'll reiterate my original statement, if such malfeasance by upper leadership is cause for dissolution why is Congress still a thing?  Or maybe, just maybe, abuse by those in power does not reflect, or taint, the original goals of the organization?


 
Sure, we all know that name recognition, and the subsequent lobbying power inherent within, is inconsequential right?


If your point is that we need to continue surrendering our rights because the next generation finds the current ones unpalatable I find that utterly unacceptable on as strong a level as I can state.

I mean, it is in the spirit of the union. States regulate organizations based in their states. While it may span all 50, it operates out of New York, and our federal system gives them jurisdiction over it. 

I don't think the age of the organization should give it preferential treatment. There's an argument to make of it being targeted, but suggesting that its age should shield it from consequences wouldn't hold as much weight in court. The AG's personal bias should come into play. The courts would determine if there's merit or if it's a "witch hunt". However, as I've repeated, if the allegations are true, the crimes are what matters. 

You're being intentionally condescending with remarks like "Bmore, please". I gave it as an example of a non profit that was dissolved. There are many differences between the two, but I pointed to it to show that this is not some shocking route for the AG to take. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2020, 03:28 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I mean, it is in the spirit of the union. States regulate organizations based in their states. While it may span all 50, it operates out of New York, and our federal system gives them jurisdiction over it.

I believe it's incorporated in New York but originated in Virginia. Regardless, you fail to address the crucial point, does malpractice by senior members justify dissolution? 

Quote:I don't think the age of the organization should give it preferential treatment. There's an argument to make of it being targeted, but suggesting that its age should shield it from consequences wouldn't hold as much weight in court.

 
On its own, no.  But you established the criteria by comparing it to the fly by night Trump organizations.  By your own argument you made the organization's age and inherent earnestness a point of validity.

Quote:The AG's personal bias should come into play. The courts would determine if there's merit or if it's a "witch hunt". However, as I've repeated, if the allegations are true, the crimes are what matters. 

We mostly agree.  Where we differ is whether the management's improper actions warrant dissolution, or more importantly, in this instance, the request for dissolution.

Quote:You're being intentionally condescending with remarks like "Bmore, please".

Not at all, at least not intentionally.  I'll certainly give you the merit of this accusation from you perspective, although I find it of lesser merit when considering your lack of similar condemnation for other posters more in ideological lockstep with your own positions. I think we both know the reason for this statement.  If not I'll happily elucidate further.

Quote:I gave it as an example of a non profit that was dissolved. There are many differences between the two, but I pointed to it to show that this is not some shocking route for the AG to take. 

By your own admission there are "differences".  I would posit that such "differences" are so substantial as to make the comparison meaningless, and, possibly, intentionally inflammatory.

[Belsnickel]

(08-07-2020, 03:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe it's incorporated in New York but originated in Virginia. Regardless, you fail to address the crucial point, does malpractice by senior members justify dissolution? 

By your own admission there are "differences".  I would posit that such "differences" are so substantial as to make the comparison meaningless, and, possibly, intentionally inflammatory.

I saw the use of the Trump Foundation as primarily pointing out a case of a NY based non-profit that faced dissolution for fraudulent activities in recent history that is well known. That is the main similarity in this instance and it is a valid one to bring it up.

I will say, after reading some of the filing, I found the statutory language that gives the NY AG this authority.

Here is the filing for anyone interested: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_1.pdf

Here is Article 7 of the NY Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (N-PCL), section 1101: https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/notforprofit-corporation-law/npc-sect-1101.html

Quote:(a)The attorney-general may bring an action for the dissolution of a corporation upon one or more of the following grounds:

(1)That the corporation procured its formation through fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.

(2)That the corporation has exceeded the authority conferred upon it by law, or has violated any provision of law whereby it has forfeited its charter, or carried on, conducted or transacted its business in a persistently fraudulent or illegal manner, or by the abuse of its powers contrary to public policy of the state has become liable to be dissolved.

(b)An action under this section is triable by jury as a matter or right.

©The enumeration in paragraph (a) of grounds for dissolution shall not exlude actions or special proceedings by the attorney-general or other state officials for the annulment or dissolution of a corporation for other causes as provided in this chapter or in any other statute of this state.

So what it looks like is that NY law allows the AG to dissolve a corporation if it is engaged in fraudulent activity. I guess what I find problematic about this is that a corporation is a separate entity from its management. So I have to say that the NYAG's actions are appropriate under NY law, I don't know how much I actually like that law. I think that power is a little too broad.

[GMDino]

(08-07-2020, 07:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I saw the use of the Trump Foundation as primarily pointing out a case of a NY based non-profit that faced dissolution for fraudulent activities in recent history that is well known. That is the main similarity in this instance and it is a valid one to bring it up.

I will say, after reading some of the filing, I found the statutory language that gives the NY AG this authority.

Here is the filing for anyone interested: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_1.pdf

Here is Article 7 of the NY Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (N-PCL), section 1101: https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/notforprofit-corporation-law/npc-sect-1101.html


So what it looks like is that NY law allows the AG to dissolve a corporation if it is engaged in fraudulent activity. I guess what I find problematic about this is that a corporation is a separate entity from its management. So I have to say that the NYAG's actions are appropriate under NY law, I don't know how much I actually like that law. I think that power is a little too broad.

Good research.

If I were a member of the NRA I'd be beyond pissed and looking for any other group to take my support/money and represent my desire to protect the second amendment.  Of course the NRA silenced all of those from the big stage because they were run by a group who didn't care about their members or the 2A...just about collecting money.

If they can be dissolved something else will fill that void.  Just might take time.

[Belsnickel]

(08-07-2020, 09:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: Good research.

If I were a member of the NRA I'd be beyond pissed and looking for any other group to take my support/money and represent my desire to protect the second amendment.  Of course the NRA silenced all of those from the big stage because they were run by a group who didn't care about their members or the 2A...just about collecting money.

If they can be dissolved something else will fill that void.  Just might take time.

Well, there are already groups out there that would step up to fill the void of the fight for 2A rights, and many gun owners frustrated by the mismanagement of the NRA have already shifted to those groups. SSF and I have discussed this very thing on here in the past. None of them have the history or reach of the NRA, but that could change. I think the biggest void that will exist is the one that the NRA has really filled from their beginnings: teaching firearm safety.

The NRA is still the standard for firearms instructor training in this country. It's actually something that has aggravated me for a long time. I used to be an NRA instructor so I could teach Scouts how to shoot. I let it lapse specifically because of my many disagreements with the NRA and my desire to not give them any of my money. There really isn't another organization ready to take up that mantle. It'd be nice to see something like the CMP get a new mission and the resources to make it happen, which could keep the fight for 2A rights divorced from that mission which would allow for a more apolitical system. But this is wishful thinking on my part.

[GMDino]

(08-07-2020, 09:21 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, there are already groups out there that would step up to fill the void of the fight for 2A rights, and many gun owners frustrated by the mismanagement of the NRA have already shifted to those groups. SSF and I have discussed this very thing on here in the past. None of them have the history or reach of the NRA, but that could change. I think the biggest void that will exist is the one that the NRA has really filled from their beginnings: teaching firearm safety.

The NRA is still the standard for firearms instructor training in this country. It's actually something that has aggravated me for a long time. I used to be an NRA instructor so I could teach Scouts how to shoot. I let it lapse specifically because of my many disagreements with the NRA and my desire to not give them any of my money. There really isn't another organization ready to take up that mantle. It'd be nice to see something like the CMP get a new mission and the resources to make it happen, which could keep the fight for 2A rights divorced from that mission which would allow for a more apolitical system. But this is wishful thinking on my part.

I'd think their instructors would still be out there though, right?  

I'd also think that even with that their instructors varied from place to place.  I agree that having a national standard is the way to go but I know from personal experience that the further the teacher is from the head office the more the instructions can vary.

And I fear that any group that takes up the 2A battle will also see how much money can be made and be jumping in for the wrong reasons too.

[Belsnickel]

(08-07-2020, 09:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'd think their instructors would still be out there though, right?  

I'd also think that even with that their instructors varied from place to place.  I agree that having a national standard is the way to go but I know from personal experience that the further the teacher is from the head office the more the instructions can vary.

And I fear that any group that takes up the 2A battle will also see how much money can be made and be jumping in for the wrong reasons too.

The issue is that while the instructors would be out there, their certifications will lapse. Also, instructors come and go, so who will certify new ones? For instance, to be a BSA instructor, you have to certify through the NRA, first: https://www.scouting.org/outdoor-programs/shooting-sports/

So if there is no NRA, that void needs to be filled. The NRA has been doing it for a long time, so those shoes would be difficult to fill and the infrastructure would be difficult to set up.

[BmorePat87]

(08-07-2020, 03:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe it's incorporated in New York but originated in Virginia. Regardless, you fail to address the crucial point, does malpractice by senior members justify dissolution? 
 
On its own, no.  But you established the criteria by comparing it to the fly by night Trump organizations.  By your own argument you made the organization's age and inherent earnestness a point of validity.


We mostly agree.  Where we differ is whether the management's improper actions warrant dissolution, or more importantly, in this instance, the request for dissolution.


Not at all, at least not intentionally.  I'll certainly give you the merit of this accusation from you perspective, although I find it of lesser merit when considering your lack of similar condemnation for other posters more in ideological lockstep with your own positions. I think we both know the reason for this statement.  If not I'll happily elucidate further.


By your own admission there are "differences".  I would posit that such "differences" are so substantial as to make the comparison meaningless, and, possibly, intentionally inflammatory.

You asked 3 rhetorical questions, none of which were "does malpractice by senior members justify dissolution?". I am not sure how I can "fail to address the crucial point" if it was not part of your post, however, I did answer that in the post I made prior to that:

"If what is alleged is true, under New York law I think it's a fair route to take given the severity of the offenses."

I do not see the logic in saying that the age of an organization becomes a consideration because I, an internet commentator, mentioned that New York has sought dissolution before. I also did not use the Trump Organization as "criteria". You literally quoted me in the post before listing the things they are alleged to have been done as reason that "something has to be done". 

As to whether the years of fraud by executives warrants the action, this is why the court is involved, as I noted. 

You're calling for consideration of opposing views, but you're also using language to implies ignorance for any position other than the one you've taken on this, even as I have made sure to state my opinions as just that "if the allegations are true" and note the need for the courts to weigh in. 

I don't think bringing up that the state has taken this route before makes the reference "meaningless", though I understand that it would appear that way if you are attempting to take that comment as a complete apples to apples comparison, which never occurred. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2020, 07:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I saw the use of the Trump Foundation as primarily pointing out a case of a NY based non-profit that faced dissolution for fraudulent activities in recent history that is well known. That is the main similarity in this instance and it is a valid one to bring it up.

I will say, after reading some of the filing, I found the statutory language that gives the NY AG this authority.

Here is the filing for anyone interested: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_1.pdf

Here is Article 7 of the NY Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (N-PCL), section 1101: https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/notforprofit-corporation-law/npc-sect-1101.html


So what it looks like is that NY law allows the AG to dissolve a corporation if it is engaged in fraudulent activity. I guess what I find problematic about this is that a corporation is a separate entity from its management. So I have to say that the NYAG's actions are appropriate under NY law, I don't know how much I actually like that law. I think that power is a little too broad.

Thank you for the research.  You're now officially a better reporter than most paid journalists. 

I didn't ever doubt she had the legal authority to make such an attempt, I questioned her reasons for making the attempt.  I think we both agree on this, that such activity by some in management does not justify dissolution of the whole organization.  It's a terrible look for her and honestly I think it's more about headline grabbing.  I think this move will backfire though, as it looks, correctly IMO, like she's trying to eliminate the NRA for political reasons and she's using the corruption of some in upoer management to justify it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2020, 11:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You asked 3 rhetorical questions, none of which were "does malpractice by senior members justify dissolution?". I am not sure how I can "fail to address the crucial point" if it was not part of your post, however, I did answer that in the post I made prior to that:

"If what is alleged is true, under New York law I think it's a fair route to take given the severity of the offenses."

Which I honestly find a little disturbing.

Quote:I do not see the logic in saying that the age of an organization becomes a consideration because I, an internet commentator, mentioned that New York has sought dissolution before. I also did not use the Trump Organization as "criteria". You literally quoted me in the post before listing the things they are alleged to have been done as reason that "something has to be done". 

Of course the age of the organization means something.  This is not a fly by night Nigerian prince scam, it's the oldest civil rights organization in the nation.  It falling under the rule of some corrupt bureaucrats does not justify its dissolution.  You're punishing the millions of members of the organization for the actions of a minute few.  Go after those dues all you want, if they did what is alleged they deserve every bit of it.

Quote:As to whether the years of fraud by executives warrants the action, this is why the court is involved, as I noted. 

You're calling for consideration of opposing views, but you're also using language to implies ignorance for any position other than the one you've taken on this, even as I have made sure to state my opinions as just that "if the allegations are true" and note the need for the courts to weigh in. 

A fair point for which I will apologize.  It's been a long week and I may have been two Jack and cokes in when I typed that.

I don't think bringing up that the state has taken this route before makes the reference "meaningless", though I understand that it would appear that way if you are attempting to take that comment as a complete apples to apples comparison, which never occurred. [/quote]

As Bel pointed out, she has the legal authority to seek such an outcome.  That she is doing so, and the reasons for it, is horrible optics.  It reeks of a political motive and may end up hindering her criminal case, although probably not for all of those accused.  Especially in an election year, the optics of this move are as bad as they could possibly be.