New York attorney general seeks to dissolve NRA...

[Belsnickel]

Well, it's been a while since this thread saw any updates, but here we go. For those that may not be aware, the NRA attempted to file for Chapter 11 so they could reorganize in Texas and escape the NYAG's litigation against them. Today, the ruling from a bankruptcy judge in Texas dismissed the filing because, in his terms, it was not entered in good faith.

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/995934682/judge-dismisses-nra-bankruptcy-case-heightening-risk-for-dissolution-of-group

Quote:A federal bankruptcy judge dismissed an effort by the National Rifle Association to declare bankruptcy on Tuesday, ruling that the gun rights group had not filed the case in good faith.

The ruling slams the door on the NRA's attempt to use bankruptcy laws to evade New York officials seeking to dissolve the organization. In his decision, the federal judge said that "using this bankruptcy case to address a regulatory enforcement problem" was not a permitted use of bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy trial had paused other legal challenges the NRA had been facing, but this decision returns the NRA to its confrontation with the New York Attorney General, which is seeking to shut down the group for alleged "fraud and abuse."

"The @NRA does not get to dictate if and where it will answer for its actions, and our case will continue in New York court," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a tweet after the ruling. "We sued the NRA to put an end to its fraud and abuse, and now we will continue our work to hold the organization accountable."

More at the link, but the main thing was that the NRA said in court that they have money enough to pay their debts, they were just filing to avoid political persecution. Honestly, seems like valid argument. However, the judge was right to dismiss as this was an abuse of the bankruptcy process and should not move forward.

[Vas Deferens]

I’ve dealt with a handful of mid-sized business that filed for bankruptcy. I’m glad the NRA is being held to a baseline standard here. If they have the cash to pay the debts, why shouldn’t / haven’t they? Cash flow and contract management is a *****. I can only imagine what’s it’s like when you insert a PR nightmare into a pseudo pyramid scheme.

Forcing those responsible at the top to publicly testify will help educate the people who’ve been blindly $X /yr/ mo like is a damn content subscription that auto withdrawals from the account.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-11-2021, 08:31 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I’ve dealt with a handful of mid-sized business that filed for bankruptcy.   I’m glad the NRA is being held to a baseline standard here.  If they have the cash to pay the debts, why shouldn’t / haven’t they?   Cash flow and contract management is a *****.   I can only imagine what’s it’s like when you insert a PR nightmare into a pseudo pyramid scheme.  

Forcing those responsible at the top to publicly testify will help educate the people who’ve been blindly $X /yr/ mo like is a damn content subscription that auto withdrawals from the account.

The issue is they are trying to flee New York due to highly partisan, politically motivated action by the NY attorney general.  If she was doing her job properly none of this would be necessary.  As I said earlier in this thread, I have absolutely zero issue with anyone in the NRA leadership being held to account for any illegal activity on their part.  What I have a major issue with is the AG using this as a fulcrum to try and destroy the organization outright.  She's garbage and she's the cause of this bankruptcy tactic.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-11-2021, 11:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The issue is they are trying to flee New York due to highly partisan, politically motivated action by the NY attorney general.  If she was doing her job properly none of this would be necessary.  As I said earlier in this thread, I have absolutely zero issue with anyone in the NRA leadership being held to account for any illegal activity on their part.  What I have a major issue with is the AG using this as a fulcrum to try and destroy the organization outright.  She's garbage and she's the cause of this bankruptcy tactic.

If the leadership had a modicum of propriety, they wouldn’t need to file for bankruptcy to evade legal consequences. Somebody done ****** up. Sounds like a great opportunity for a new organization to step up and fulfill the needs of the NRA members.

[Tiger Teeth]

(05-11-2021, 08:31 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I’ve dealt with a handful of mid-sized business that filed for bankruptcy.   I’m glad the NRA is being held to a baseline standard here.  If they have the cash to pay the debts, why shouldn’t / haven’t they?   Cash flow and contract management is a *****.   I can only imagine what’s it’s like when you insert a PR nightmare into a pseudo pyramid scheme.  

Forcing those responsible at the top to publicly testify will help educate the people who’ve been blindly $X /yr/ mo like is a damn content subscription that auto withdrawals from the account.

And you all thought Vas was just good lookin'.

[Belsnickel]

(05-11-2021, 11:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The issue is they are trying to flee New York due to highly partisan, politically motivated action by the NY attorney general.  If she was doing her job properly none of this would be necessary.  As I said earlier in this thread, I have absolutely zero issue with anyone in the NRA leadership being held to account for any illegal activity on their part.  What I have a major issue with is the AG using this as a fulcrum to try and destroy the organization outright.  She's garbage and she's the cause of this bankruptcy tactic.

I don't disagree with you on any of this. However, rather surprisingly for a left-leaning individual I am an institutionalist. Bankruptcy laws are not meant to be used in this way, and trying to do so is an abuse of the system and should not move forward.

[Au165]

(05-11-2021, 11:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The issue is they are trying to flee New York due to highly partisan, politically motivated action by the NY attorney general.  If she was doing her job properly none of this would be necessary.  As I said earlier in this thread, I have absolutely zero issue with anyone in the NRA leadership being held to account for any illegal activity on their part.  What I have a major issue with is the AG using this as a fulcrum to try and destroy the organization outright.  She's garbage and she's the cause of this bankruptcy tactic.

What makes it "partisan and politically motivated"? Did the officers illegally operate the organization, essentially abusing their non-profit status? The answer is yes. What happens when a non-profit is ran outside the scope of the legal requirements? It's dissolved and financial restitution is sought. The resolution she is seeking is actually very similar to the resolution the Trump family went through when their "non-profit" was found to be operating outside the bounds of what a non-profit should be doing years ago. 

Everything she is doing is exactly within the scope of her job and what she should be doing. The abuse of "non-profit" status is one that I wish more states would crackdown on as it's almost become a joke how bad some of these are. There is nothing stopping the NRA from moving to another state, once they answer for their crimes, and setting up there but you don't get to run away because you were caught after the fact.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-12-2021, 08:10 AM)Au165 Wrote: What makes it "partisan and politically motivated"? Did the officers illegally operate the organization, essentially abusing their non-profit status? The answer is yes. What happens when a non-profit is ran outside the scope of the legal requirements? It's dissolved and financial restitution is sought. The resolution she is seeking is actually very similar to the resolution the Trump family went through when their "non-profit" was found to be operating outside the bounds of what a non-profit should be doing years ago. 

Everything she is doing is exactly within the scope of her job and what she should be doing. The abuse of "non-profit" status is one that I wish more states would crackdown on as it's almost become a joke how bad some of these are. There is nothing stopping the NRA from moving to another state, once they answer for their crimes, and setting up there but you don't get to run away because you were caught after the fact.

Spot on.

[fredtoast]

(05-11-2021, 11:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The issue is they are trying to flee New York due to highly partisan, politically motivated action by the NY attorney general.  If she was doing her job properly none of this would be necessary.

How exactrly is it the fault of the New York AG that the NRA does not have the money to pay its debts?

[Au165]

(05-12-2021, 09:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: How exactrly is it the fault of the New York AG that the NRA does not have the money to pay its debts?

They actually do have the money to pay their debts per their own admission to the bankruptcy court in Texas, which is why their attempt to use it as a way to side step accountability was called out for being in bad faith. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2021, 08:10 AM)Au165 Wrote: What makes it "partisan and politically motivated"? Did the officers illegally operate the organization, essentially abusing their non-profit status? The answer is yes. What happens when a non-profit is ran outside the scope of the legal requirements? It's dissolved and financial restitution is sought. The resolution she is seeking is actually very similar to the resolution the Trump family went through when their "non-profit" was found to be operating outside the bounds of what a non-profit should be doing years ago. 

Everything she is doing is exactly within the scope of her job and what she should be doing. The abuse of "non-profit" status is one that I wish more states would crackdown on as it's almost become a joke how bad some of these are. There is nothing stopping the NRA from moving to another state, once they answer for their crimes, and setting up there but you don't get to run away because you were caught after the fact.

I've actually addressed this exact point earlier in the thread.  If you find malfeasance on the part of some NRA board members, then prosecute them.  This abuse by some does not irrevocably taint the organization as a whole.  Unlike the Trump non-profit you cite, the NRA is an old organization with a long history of fighting for civil rights, not some fly by night scam.  Seeking dissolution of the group in its entirety, thus affecting millions of members, is both extreme and unnecessary.  As for this being a wholly partisan exercise and a gross misuse of the AG's authority, well, she proved that herself when she labeled the NRA a "terrorist organization" long before bringing these allegations.  Here's some more choice quotes from her;

"The National Rifle Association, the nation's preeminent guns-rights group, had a "poisonous agenda" that was "directly antithetical" to New York's tough gun-control laws, James said at the time."


"The NRA is an organ of deadly propaganda masquerading as a charity for public good," the plan read. "Its agenda is set by gun-makers who think arming teachers is a better idea than making it harder for kids to get military grade guns."



"The NRA holds (itself) out as a charitable organization, but in fact, (it) really (is) a terrorist organization," 



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/19/nra-lawsuit-ny-ag-letitia-james-past-comments/5606437002/


So I don't even have to do any proving on my own, she does it for me.  I can understand if you don't like the NRA, or if you don't approve of its position on firearms.  But you literally can't say this corrupt POS isn't trying to destroy the NRA for purely partisan reasons.  She told you so herself.

[Au165]

(05-12-2021, 10:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've actually addressed this exact point earlier in the thread.  If you find malfeasance on the part of some NRA board members, then prosecute them.  This abuse by some does not irrevocably taint the organization as a whole.  Unlike the Trump non-profit you cite, the NRA is an old organization with a long history of fighting for civil rights, not some fly by night scam.  Seeking dissolution of the group in its entirety, thus affecting millions of members, is both extreme and unnecessary.  As for this being a wholly partisan exercise and a gross misuse of the AG's authority, well, she proved that herself when she labeled the NRA a "terrorist organization" long before bringing these allegations.  Here's some more choice quotes from her;

"The National Rifle Association, the nation's preeminent guns-rights group, had a "poisonous agenda" that was "directly antithetical" to New York's tough gun-control laws, James said at the time."


"The NRA is an organ of deadly propaganda masquerading as a charity for public good," the plan read. "Its agenda is set by gun-makers who think arming teachers is a better idea than making it harder for kids to get military grade guns."



"The NRA holds (itself) out as a charitable organization, but in fact, (it) really (is) a terrorist organization," 



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/19/nra-lawsuit-ny-ag-letitia-james-past-comments/5606437002/


So I don't even have to do any proving on my own, she does it for me.  I can understand if you don't like the NRA, or if you don't approve of its position on firearms.  But you literally can't say this corrupt POS isn't trying to destroy the NRA for purely partisan reasons.  She told you so herself.

If nearly the entire executive board is tainted then by virtue the organization is tainted. If the use of the funds breached the allowable uses to remain a non-profit, then they are no longer a non-profit. Dissolving them as a NY non-profit doesn't "end" them it gets them out of their state while officially classifying the business as what they have been for a while now, an illegally operating organization. 

They were actually looking for the court in Texas to proactively dissolve them in NY and reestablish them in Texas. That shows the organization themselves aren't really worried about the dissolution, it is avoiding the monetary penalties that they are really worried about. Her views on them doesn't make them any less of an illegally operating and corrupt (as mentioned by the volume of board members operating corruptly) organization. In the end, she doesn't get to make the call anyway it's up to court. If the court agrees with her, then I guess it wasn't all politics was it?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2021, 10:28 AM)Au165 Wrote: If nearly the entire executive board is tainted then by virtue the organization is tainted. If the use of the funds breached the allowable uses to remain a non-profit, then they are no longer a non-profit. Dissolving them as a NY non-profit doesn't "end" them it gets them out of their state while officially classifying the business as what they have been for a while now, an illegally operating organization. 

They were actually looking for the court in Texas to proactively dissolve them in NY and reestablish them in Texas. That shows the organization themselves aren't really worried about the dissolution, it is avoiding the monetary penalties that they are really worried about. Her views on them doesn't make them any less of an illegally operating and corrupt (as mentioned by the volume of board members operating corruptly) organization. In the end, she doesn't get to make the call anyway it's up to court. If the court agrees with her, then I guess it wasn't all politics was it?

You're mistaking should and can.  No one is disputing her ability to both pursue the charges and the dissolution.  Also, I completely disagree with you that corruption at the leadership level irrevocably taints the organization as a whole.  But that's not really my point, which is that her prosecution of the NRA is obviously motivated by partisan and personal bias.  A prosecutor can stay completely within the scope of their duties and allow their personal biases to taint the prosecution.  In this instance, with the scathing, and insanely hyperbolic, public statements she's made about the NRA, on several occasions she has shown herself to be a partisan actor in regards to the NRA.  Prosecutors and bench officers with an obvious bias should always recuse themselves.  The appearance of impropriety is as bad as actual impropriety, and in this case we have both.

I think I know you well enough to know that you're not ok with prosecutors or bench officers allowing their personal biases to intrude on their work.  Lastly, I'll remember your position on being right if a judge agrees with you the next time one hands down a decision you don't like.  

[Au165]

(05-12-2021, 10:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're mistaking should and can.  No one is disputing her ability to both pursue the charges and the dissolution.  Also, I completely disagree with you that corruption at the leadership level irrevocably taints the organization as a whole.  But that's not really my point, which is that her prosecution of the NRA is obviously motivated by partisan and personal bias.  A prosecutor can stay completely within the scope of their duties and allow their personal biases to taint the prosecution.  In this instance, with the scathing, and insanely hyperbolic, public statements she's made about the NRA, on several occasions she has shown herself to be a partisan actor in regards to the NRA.  Prosecutors and bench officers with an obvious bias should always recuse themselves.  The appearance of impropriety is as bad as actual impropriety, and in this case we have both.

I think I know you well enough to know that you're not ok with prosecutors or bench officers allowing their personal biases to intrude on their work.  Lastly, I'll remember your position on being right if a judge agrees with you the next time one hands down a decision you don't like.  

So because of her takes on the organization, she is incapable of carrying out her duty against them even if they themselves have admitted to the crimes? The judge agreeing is about the correctness of her actions in seeking the punishment she has, not that all judges are right but that it isn't some wild witch hunt in seeking the punishment because a judge at least found it reasonable to seek. Are we now to believe that any ramifications to the organization that knowingly broke the law is political no matter what they do? The way you have positioned it is that essentially the NRA, the organization, can't be punished because the person looking to enforce the laws publicly doesn't like them...that is a bit of reach.

As I said, it doesn't shut them down for good, that is simply hyperbole people who support them want to get out there. They can re-establish themselves very easily in any state that will take them. Call this what it is, an attempt to avoid consequences for their organizational lack of control. Hell, at any time they could have reclassified and moved away from being a non-profit, but they didn't because they wanted the benefits of illegally keeping the status.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2021, 10:58 AM)Au165 Wrote: So because of her takes on the organization, she is incapable of carrying out her duty against them even if they themselves have admitted to the crimes? The judge agreeing is about the correctness of her actions in seeking the punishment she has, not that all judges are right but that it isn't some wild witch hunt in seeking the punishment because a judge at least found it reasonable to seek. Are we now to believe that any ramifications to the organization that knowingly broke the law is political no matter what they do? The way you have positioned it is that essentially the NRA, the organization, can't be punished because the person looking to enforce the laws publicly doesn't like them...that is a bit of reach.

No, you're completely missing the point being made.  The organization, and the members engaged in corrupt activity, absolutely can be punished.  The person actively prosecuting the case absolutely should not be someone with a known, extensive history of partisan hostility towards the organization being prosecuted.  Seriously, this is a cornerstone of the legal system, recusing yourself when there is even the possibility of a perception of bias.  Well, if you're at all ethical that is.

Quote:As I said, it doesn't shut them down for good, that is simply hyperbole people who support them want to get out there. They can re-establish themselves very easily in any state that will take them. Call this what it is, an attempt to avoid consequences for their organizational lack of control. Hell, at any time they could have reclassified and moved away from being a non-profit, but they didn't because they wanted the benefits of illegally keeping the status.

Again, you're not addressing the actual point being made.  The motivation for them filing in Texas has literally nothing to do with the point of my argument.

[Au165]

(05-12-2021, 11:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you're completely missing the point being made.  The organization, and the members engaged in corrupt activity, absolutely can be punished.  The person actively prosecuting the case absolutely should not be someone with a known, extensive history of partisan hostility towards the organization being prosecuted.  Seriously, this is a cornerstone of the legal system, recusing yourself when there is even the possibility of a perception of bias.  Well, if you're at all ethical that is.


Again, you're not addressing the actual point being made.  The motivation for them filing in Texas has literally nothing to do with the point of my argument.

You keep saying I am missing the point, I think you are missing the point. The organization admitted to almost everything she is claiming they did. They just don't like the punishment she is proposing so they are scrambling to run away. She is proposing a punishment for said crimes that backed with precedent in other cases in the state of New York. It's simply a proposal that must be accepted by a judge, you know doing the whole thing that is ACTUALLY the cornerstone of how the legal system works. You can scream bias all day, but you literally said the organization can be punished, so why do her feelings about them matter if we agree they are corrupt and we recognize that the proposed punishment is within scope for such a crime? Again, she isn't unilaterally deciding on any punishment in fact her recommendations don't actually matter in the end.


The Texas thing does matter as I keep bringing up because the punishment of dissolution is not actually a death blow as you positioned it to be, they simply re-establish in another state. It doesn't disenfranchise millions of members because they simply get new cards in a few months with new addresses on them. If we remove that from the list of punishments then everything else is monetary, so why are were worried about a corrupt organization having to pay fines and restitution? It feels like it's more of a martyr syndrome than anything.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2021, 11:16 AM)Au165 Wrote: You keep saying I am missing the point, I think you are missing the point. The organization admitted to almost everything she is claiming they did. They just don't like the punishment she is proposing so they are scrambling to run away. She is proposing a punishment for said crimes that backed with precedent in other cases in the state of New York. It's simply a proposal that must be accepted by a judge, you know doing the whole thing that is ACTUALLY the cornerstone of how the legal system works. You can scream bias all day, but you literally said the organization can be punished, so why do her feelings about them matter if we agree they are corrupt and we recognize that the proposed punishment is within scope for such a crime? Again, she isn't unilaterally deciding on any punishment in fact her recommendations don't actually matter in the end.


The Texas thing does matter as I keep bringing up because the punishment of dissolution is not actually a death blow as you positioned it to be, they simply re-establish in another state. It doesn't disenfranchise millions of members because they simply get new cards in a few months with new addresses on them. If we remove that from the list of punishments then everything else is monetary, so why are were worried about a corrupt organization having to pay fines and restitution? It feels like it's more of a martyr syndrome than anything.

I honestly don't know how to make it any clearer than I already have.  I don't think you're grasping the concept of recusal, why it exists and why it's important.  We're literally talking in circles now.

[fredtoast]

(05-12-2021, 11:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  The person actively prosecuting the case absolutely should not be someone with a known, extensive history of partisan hostility towards the organization being prosecuted.

So any DA who talks bad about drug dealers should not be allowed to prosecute drug dealers?

[TheUberHuber]

(05-12-2021, 11:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you're completely missing the point being made.  The organization, and the members engaged in corrupt activity, absolutely can be punished.  The person actively prosecuting the case absolutely should not be someone with a known, extensive history of partisan hostility towards the organization being prosecuted.  Seriously, this is a cornerstone of the legal system, recusing yourself when there is even the possibility of a perception of bias.  Well, if you're at all ethical that is.


Again, you're not addressing the actual point being made.  The motivation for them filing in Texas has literally nothing to do with the point of my argument.

Your own subjective opinion is the cornerstone to the legal system?? 

[Au165]

(05-12-2021, 11:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I honestly don't know how to make it any clearer than I already have.  I don't think you're grasping the concept of recusal, why it exists and why it's important.  We're literally talking in circles now.

I don't think you understand that prosecutors are ALWAYS inherently biased against criminals. 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".