New York attorney general seeks to dissolve NRA...

[Au165]

I think it's worth noting, the IRS is still probing the NRA and could eventually revoke their non-profit status as well, which would then actually be the death kneel that a potential dissolution in NY was positioned as.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2021, 11:25 AM)TheUberHuber Wrote: Your own subjective opinion is the cornerstone to the legal system?? 

This response is both silly and adds nothing to the conversation.  Well done.

(05-12-2021, 11:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: I don't think you understand that prosecutors are ALWAYS inherently biased against criminals.

Oh dear god.  Is the NRA a criminal organization?  Did she label them as one prior to pursuing this case?

Quote:The beauty of the legal system is they can argue that her "bias" is grounds to disregard all crimes and punishments proposed. A judge will hear their argument and make that decision, luckily another judge calling out their bad faith argument as is the context of this recent discussion still provides the NRA their day in court to talk about that "bias".

Again, I'll be sure to remind you of this position the next time a judge rules in a way you dislike.  I suppose this back and forth perfectly illustrates how willingly blind people can be to obviously bias when it's directed at a target they don't like.  That being said, this is getting silly as well.  I've made my point, you disagree.  Fine, time to move on.

[Au165]

(05-12-2021, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This response is both silly and adds nothing to the conversation.  Well done.


Oh dear god.  Is the NRA a criminal organization?  Did she label them as one prior to pursuing this case?


Again, I'll be sure to remind you of this position the next time a judge rules in a way you dislike.  I suppose this back and forth perfectly illustrates how willingly blind people can be to obviously bias when it's directed at a target they don't like.  That being said, this is getting silly as well.  I've made my point, you disagree.  Fine, time to move on.

Admitted criminal doesn't like the punishment being proposed for the crimes they admitted they committed...weird thing for you and your law and order position to be defending but hey something something bias. You claiming someone is biased doesn't make it so. We have systems for determining that and so you are correct this back and forth doesn't matter because your opinion on if a bias or issue exists is irrelevant, the NRA will have their day in court to make such an argument.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2021, 11:55 AM)Au165 Wrote: Admitted criminal doesn't like the punishment being proposed for the crimes they admitted they committed...weird thing for you and your law and order position to be defending but hey something something bias.

The NRA is a criminal organization?

Quote:You claiming someone is biased doesn't make it so.

Not on its own, of course not.  But if you can read her own words and think she can operate in an unbiased fashion when prosecuting the NRA then you're not someone open to a reasonable argument on this subject.

Quote:We have systems for determining that and so you are correct this back and forth doesn't matter because your opinion on if a bias or issue exists is irrelevant, the NRA will have their day in court to make such an argument.

Again, I'll be sure to remind you of this position the next time a judge hands down a ruling you don't like.  

[Au165]

(05-12-2021, 12:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The NRA is a criminal organization?



Not on its own, of course not.  But if you can read her own words and think she can operate in an unbiased fashion when prosecuting the NRA then you're not someone open to a reasonable argument on this subject.


Again, I'll be sure to remind you of this position the next time a judge hands down a ruling you don't like.  

An organization that admitted to committing crimes? Yes.

The prosecution is simply charging for crimes that are believed, or in this case admitted, to have occurred. If we removed her name from the charging documents and made them an assistant of hers do your concerns magically go away? It's a nice strawman argument but doesn't really make any sense since she is literally doing exactly what the law would call for in such a case...or, you know, doing her job.

Okay? So you are admitting that if the Judge agrees with her you automatically disagree with the ruling? Interesting you are so adamant the system doesn't work when it's related to a group you are biased in favor of (which really isn't the organization but what they claim to be for). As someone who likes to champion the system often and prosecutors being tough on crime, it is very apparent that only applies if you agree with the people in the system.

You went as far as discussing how the Lt. who was improperly treated should have just complied and there wouldn't be an issue, even after "the system" found he was within his rights the whole time. You then decided that based on your own opinion the system was biased against the cops and it was all crap, because one time you knew a guy something something. I'll do it your way, if the NRA just didn't commit crimes the AG wouldn't have to charge them with crimes. 

If we are being perfectly honest, the bias you have shown on this board probably should preclude you from your job. Do you hold yourself to this same standard of administering justice while stating publicly biases? Of course not, because you believe you can separate your duty from your biases. Not sure why that is so hard to understand. If it was actually a problem I am sure your superior would have a review process to either agree or disagree, similar to such a process that can play out in court.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2021, 12:26 PM)Au165 Wrote: An organization that admitted to committing crimes? Yes.

Which is absolutely not the same as a criminal organization.  Al Qaeda is a criminal organization, Los Zetas is a criminal organization, the Mexican Mafia is a criminal organization.  La Cosa Nostra is a criminal organization.

Quote:The prosecution is simply charging for crimes that are believed, or in this case admitted, to have occurred. If we removed her name from the charging documents and made them an assistant of hers do your concerns magically go away? It's a nice strawman argument but doesn't really make any sense since she is literally doing exactly what the law would call for in such a case...or, you know, doing her job.

The appearance of bias, or the idea that the justice system should be unbiased is hardly a straw man, it's a cornerstone of our judicial system.  That you don't get this is honestly unnerving.  As to your question, no one in her organization should be trying the case.  She's the boss and she's shown herself to be biased against the NRA.  Much like the McCluskey case in St. Louis the case should be moved to an organization that hasn't been tainted.

Quote:Okay? So you are admitting that if the Judge agrees with her you automatically disagree with the ruling?

Is that what I said?  Am I arguing with Fred now?  You made a statement that if a judge goes along with her recommendations then that proves no bias on her part.  Apart from this being a clear logical fallacy I merely pointed out that I'll remember your blind adherence to judicial authority the next time a ruling comes down that you don't like.

Quote:Interesting you are so adamant the system doesn't work when it's related to a group you are biased in favor of (which really isn't the organization but what they claim to be for). As someone who likes to champion the system often and prosecutors being tough on crime, it is very apparent that only applies if you agree with the people in the system.

Again, not what I said.  I said this particular AG and her office have demonstrated clear bias and should not be involved with the case.  That, btw, is the system working as intended.

Quote:You went as far as discussing how the Lt. who was improperly treated should have just complied and there wouldn't be an issue, even after "the system" found he was within his rights the whole time. You then decided that based on your own opinion the system was biased against the cops and it was all crap, because one time you knew a guy something something. I'll do it your way, if the NRA just didn't commit crimes the AG wouldn't have to charge them with crimes. 

This is an actual straw man, and a poorly constructed one at that.  Also, it does not speak to the issue of bias, which is the crux of my argument.

Quote:If we are being perfectly honest, the bias you have shown on this board probably should preclude you from your job.

LOL, in what way?  In the way that you automatically believed the initial reports that the officer in Ohio just gunned that girl down with no warning?  You quickly deleted it and I was not going to bring it up, but you want to make it personal then fine.

Quote:Do you hold yourself to this same standard of administering justice while stating publicly biases?

Give me an example of a bias I have expressed that would lead a reasonable person to conclude I can't execute my job without it interfering.

Quote:Of course not, because you believe you can separate your duty from your biases. Not sure why that is so hard to understand. If it was actually a problem I am sure your superior would have a review process to either agree or disagree, similar to such a process that can play out in court.

I can tell you this, if I was on record in the news as saying that Antifa was a terrorist organization then you damned well better believe I wouldn't be put in charge of an investigation into Antifa, for the exact reasons I've already stated.  As I've already stated, the appearance of impropriety is as bad as actual impropriety, especially where the criminal justice system is concerned.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-12-2021, 02:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The appearance of bias, or the idea that the justice system should be unbiased is hardly a straw man, it's a cornerstone of our judicial system.  That you don't get this is honestly unnerving.  As to your question, no one in her organization should be trying the case.  She's the boss and she's shown herself to be biased against the NRA.  Much like the McCluskey case in St. Louis the case should be moved to an organization that hasn't been tainted.

I'm honestly not following your bias argument here SSF.  What is the NET effect of her 'bias' on this case?  That she brought it at all?  Her previous comments don't give her the ability to work outside of the legal framework previously established.  She has an obligation to prosecute malfeasance of this nature, plain and simple.  

The way I am interpreting your position (forgive me if I'm wrong), is that she has the power to determine which cases are egregious enough to prosecute and that her determination to pursue charges was driven by that bias.  Her 'bias' has been informed by the NRA's own actions though, both political and organizationally.  

If I'm missing something here, let me know.  I just do not appreciate holding organizations, corporate entities and their leadership to a different standard based solely on their pocketbooks ability to absorb increased legal expenses.  If they ****** up, they ****** up.  Seems to me that they've put all their chips in on fighting the legal and PR battle rather than owning up and paying the restitution; an ante that will probably cost them much more in the long run (creative accounting aside).  I'd be willing bet that decision was made by the guy who many members already want to see removed from his position.  This is his little bighorn.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2021, 04:42 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I'm honestly not following your bias argument here SSF.  What is the NET effect of her 'bias' on this case?  That she brought it at all?  Her previous comments don't give her the ability to work outside of the legal framework previously established.  She has an obligation to prosecute malfeasance of this nature, plain and simple.

I've explained earlier in the thread, but I'll reiterate.  I have zero issue with bringing charges against NRA board members who broke the law.  In fact, I highly support it as the current NRA leadership is bad for the organization (mind you I'd support prosecution of them if they were great for the organization but broke the law).  What I do not support, and see as a bridge way too far, is the AG's attempt to dissolve the NRA as an organization because of the actions of some board members.  This is not some fly by night scam non profit.  This is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States.  Whether you support their cause or not they represent and defend millions of members who care about their gun rights.  I've seen the argument made that dissolution doesn't really mean anything as they can just reform in another state.  If it doesn't mean anything then why is it being pursued?  Why not just prosecute the members engaged in criminal conduct and let the organization reincorporate in Texas?  That's where the AG's obvious bias comes in.  She's not just out to punish law breakers in the NRA, she's out to destroy the NRA and her previous statements about the NRA provide all the information a logical person needs to determine why.  And that is a classic example of biased prosecution.

Quote:The way I am interpreting your position (forgive me if I'm wrong), is that she has the power to determine which cases are egregious enough to prosecute and that her determination to pursue charges was driven by that bias.  Her 'bias' has been informed by the NRA's own actions though, both political and organizationally.  

I think I addressed this above.  Let me know if you need further clarification.

Quote:If I'm missing something here, let me know.  I just do not appreciate holding organizations, corporate entities and their leadership to a different standard based solely on their pocketbooks ability to absorb increased legal expenses.  If they ****** up, they ****** up.  Seems to me that they've put all their chips in on fighting the legal and PR battle rather than owning up and paying the restitution; an ante that will probably cost them much more in the long run (creative accounting aside).  I'd be willing bet that decision was made by the guy who many members already want to see removed from his position.  This is his little bighorn.  

Oh, I agree about LaPierre.  He's the reason I let my membership lapse and I won't be reupping until he's gone.  But, again, his poor decisions and alleged criminal conduct does not irrevocably taint the entire organization.  Bottom line is this AG has an obvious, publicly stated, personal bias against the NRA.  She should not be involved in a case in which the attempted resolution is the dissolution of the NRA as she has a clear and obvious bias against the organization.

I once moved a case as one of the suspects involved was a member of a family that a friend of mine was friends with.  I didn't know those people at all, but I could see how an outsider could see the potential for bias or favoritism.  It's always better to move such cases to people in which no possible conflict of interest can be perceived or exist.  Failure to do so sows doubt as to the impartiality of the process.  One of the cornerstones of our judicial system is an unbiased process carried out by unbiased individuals.  The New York AG tainted herself irrevocably in regards to the NRA and the fact that she wouldn't recuse herself or her office from this prosecution speaks volumes about her lack of integrity and IMO, is further evidence of her bias.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-12-2021, 07:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've explained earlier in the thread, but I'll reiterate.  I have zero issue with bringing charges against NRA board members who broke the law. [...]

Appreciate the clarification on your perspective. Bottom line is I don’t know the intricacies of this portion of Corp law, nor do I have insight into restitution sought in this case, to make an ethics judgement on the actions of the AG.

I hope we can both agree that my vitriol for corporate monstrosities poisoning our well of a republic without consequence and your staunch belief in 2A have similar effects on our blood pressure and occasionally frighten my wife’s friends when the topic is broached IRL.

Anyway. Good on ya bud.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2021, 09:24 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Appreciate the clarification on your perspective.   Bottom line is I don’t know the intricacies of this portion of Corp law, nor do I have insight into restitution sought in this case, to make an ethics judgement on the actions of the AG.  

I hope we can both agree that my vitriol for corporate monstrosities poisoning our well of a republic without consequence and your staunch belief in 2A have similar effects on our blood pressure and occasionally frighten my wife’s friends when the topic is broached IRL.

Anyway. Good on ya bud.

Oh, I completely agree.  I am not even remotely a "corporations are people" guy and am immensely concerned with their financial influence on our political system.  But my position on this particular subject isn't really grounded in that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Sorry to be a thread necromancer, but it's better than starting a new one. As I stated earlier in this thread, the NY AG's attempt to "dissolve the NRA" was pure political theater. I also added that it was proof of ill intent on her part beyond the scope of her office, but that's a separate matter. In any event, the bench officer completely concurred with my assessment of the huge overreach by the NY AG (a woman clearly angling for higher office, again IMO). In their ruling the bench officer stated;

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.

A clear rejection of the obvious partisan, and self promoting, nature of the AG's attempt. If you are so inclined you can read the entire ruling here;

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fiapps.courts.state.ny.us%2Fnyscef%2FViewDocument%3FdocIndex%3DpedNynJ0u4uutvj%2F_PLUS_l6Uig%3D%3D

Now, as to the allegations of fraud, etc., I'm all for going after anyone in the NRA leadership who committed a crime. I've let my NRA membership lapse and have told every call trying to get me to rejoin that I wouldn't consider doing so until Lapierre and his cronies are gone. But the attempt to dissolve the organization was pure bullshit and the judge absolutely recognized this.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Just a brief addition, as it directly validates my entire argument in this thread, but the judges wording in the above post is the legal equivalent of a saying the AG 's attempt to dissolve the organization was garbage from the jump.