Additionally, there is an errata or correction sheet of 28 pages that can be found here. Despite these 28 pages of corrections, the transcript is not 100% error free.
For example, on page 104 at lines 12-14, Sarah Rodgers of Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, appears to be referring to Sonya Rowling who was a mid-level accountant with the NRA before being elevated to CFO. However, the transcript calls her “Sandra Froman”. Ms. Froman, of course, is a past NRA President, an attorney, and a current member of the Board of Directors.
If that is the only error found and not corrected, I’d be surprised. I feel for the court reporter dealing with all sorts of accents trying to accurately convey word for word what was said.
As to the transcript itself, I’m sure that is plenty of good stuff in there that was never reported in the media.
I saw something put out yesterday by NRA-ILA that brought back memories.
If you have ever read Adam Winkler’s book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America (#commission earned), you know there were those within the NRA that tried to discourage the Heller case. The fear was that a loss in the Supreme Court would forever end the Second Amendment as an individual right. Nonetheless, Alan Gura, Bob Levy, and Clark Neily persisted and the case went to the Supreme Court where it was won.
Alan Gura has since moved on to become the VP for Litigation at the Institute for Free Speech. He is the lead counsel on an amicus brief supporting the respondents in a case before the US Supreme Court. That case, Lackey v. Stinnie et al, deals with entitlement to attorneys fees in civil rights cases and preventing the government from strategically mooting cases to avoid paying these fees.
The issue before the Court is whether plaintiffs who win a preliminary injunction granting their requested relief are “prevailing parties” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)—and thus entitled to attorney fees—when that injunction is never reversed. The amici argue that if such plaintiffs are not “prevailing parties,” governments that violate constitutional rights would be able to avoid attorney fee awards by strategically mooting cases. This would embolden abusive governments and discourage public interest litigation. By contrast, requiring the government to pay attorney fees for violating constitutional rights deters such violations and ensures that civil rights plaintiffs can afford to vindicate their rights through litigation.
Joining the NRA and Institute for Free Speech as amici in this brief are Southeastern Legal Foundation, Cato Institute, New Civil Liberties Alliance, Liberty Justice Center, and Second Amendment Foundation.
I am glad to see old adversaries now cooperating. Even more important is the NRA’s win in NRA v. Vullo which dealt with free speech and governmental coercion intended to suppress it. There is no question the case was a win for the NRA but it was also remanded back to the Second Circuit for further proceedings. There is nothing to say New York State won’t adopt a law or regulation that would effective moot this case. Attorneys have told me it can cost upwards of $1 million (or more) to bring a case up through the courts and be heard by the Supreme Court. It would be nice to have New York’s Department of Financial Services have to pay this back to the NRA.
I have a LinkedIn account which I don’t use much any more. Every now and then I might wish someone a happy work anniversary or link an article. I checked it today because I got an email saying I had a message waiting which turned out to be spam. Go figure.
While there I happened to see this notification.
Since I have nothing to hide I don’t really care one way or another. That said, I find it interesting that they would be checking out my LinkedIn profile. It certainly is not because they plan to offer me a job or that I’ve applied for one with them.
Perhaps they just want to know who that damn John Richardson is that wants to cut off their gravy train.
When I see how much money was wasted on legal fees to that firm, I could cry. That is because with a budget of half that amount ,the NRA-ILA could have engaged in so much pro-2A litigation the gun prohibitionists would not have known what hit them.
One other thought has come to mind. Could it be that the Brewer firm has been engaged to do background checks on all candidates for the NRA Board of Directors? If so, someone in Fairfax has some explaining to do.
Doug Hamlin, EVP of the NRA, named James P. “JP” Carter as the new Executive Director of the Office of Advancement this morning. He replaces Tyler Schropp who was “let go” approximately two weeks ago.
Photo from Holding Fast Solutions
From the announcement:
From: Hamlin, Douglas <DHamlin@nrahq.org> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 8:59 AM To: #All NRA Employees <#AllNRAEmployees@nrahq.org> Subject: Announcement – Executive Director of Advancement
To All NRA Staff:
I am pleased to announce that beginning Monday, August 19th, 2024, James P. (“JP”) Carter will come onboard as the Executive Director, Office of Advancement. If his name sounds familiar, it is due to his former service in the Publications division as a successful sales executive.
JP holds an undergraduate degree from the University of South Carolina, an M.B.A. from University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and an M.S. in Project Management from Boston University. He has earned several awards for his leadership abilities at various levels of command with the USMC, a diversity leadership award, as well as a Bronze Star for Combat Valor in Afghanistan. He also serves as a Board Member for the Los Angeles Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation. His past work history includes senior management positions in both Fortune 500 and middle market companies, focused on operational strategies and leadership excellence. He brings a team mentality to drive action and encouraging organizations to reach their next level of growth/success.
Most recently, JP founded and was the CEO of a company focused on revenue growth, operational efficiencies, sound business processes, best practices, and strong leadership. Please welcome JP back to the NRA Family – thank you for your support.
Full Speed Ahead!
Doug Hamlin
Executive Vice President/CEO
National Rifle Association of America
Carter founded and is, or was, CEO of Holding Fast Solutions in Fort Mill, SC. They provide operational consulting and government contracting services. The company is certified as a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business. While Carter has sales experience as Hamlin notes above, I don’t see that he has any major gift or fundraising experience other than perhaps as a board member with the LA Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation. It would almost seem he was better suited to be the Executive Director of General Operations.
It is my understanding that the job was not advertised nor were any internal candidates considered for the position. If I had to offer a guess, I would say that Hamlin wanted someone in that position who would have his back as well as someone he had worked with in the past regardless of whether the candidate perfectly fit the position. I would also hazard a guess that Carter’s appointment has been in the works for some time now and it was long before Schropp was shown the door.
There is no word on salary or compensation nor did I expect it. Ideally, in my opinion, this type of position should compensated with a modest salary plus a commission on what is brought in. It incentivizes bringing in the money which is the key issue for the NRA currently.
As I noted in Part 1, Judge Cohen specified six items of relief in his interim decision. Part 1 cover items one through three and this post will cover the final three. When the trial ended and this decision was rendered, the two items out of the six that got the majority of the attention were numbers four and six.
Jumping right in, item four took direct aim at the NRA’s Audit Committee. Judge Cohen said,
Changing the Audit Committee so that it would not include people, at least not – at the very least not – as chair or co-chair, that served on the committee during the violations found in this action. Despite the changes in some members, there is an argument that there needs to be a sharp break with the past – sharper break with the past – than is reflected in the most recent committee appointments. Similar decisions could be made with respect to other committees, as well.
I believe Judge Cohen took note of NRA President Bob Barr’s assignments to the Audit, Finance, Ethics, Legal Affairs, and Bylaws & Resolutions Committee released on July 10th. He, like many of us, was none too happy to see so many of the Cabal in leadership positions. Chief among those was former NRA President Charles Cotton who was appointed chair of Audit and Ethics, vice chair of Bylaws & Resolutions, and a member of the rest. He had specifically called out Cotton along with Barr for their spin on the jury’s verdict calling it “simply false”.
Barr did take note of Judge Cohen’s “concerns” and replaced Cotton as chair of the Audit Committee with Curtis Jenkins. This was on August 1st. From what I understand, Jenkins and Barr go way back together in Georgia politics. Notice that there is no mention of Cotton being removed entirely from the Audit Committee.
Note that item four did not restrict itself to only the Audit Committee. While that was the only specifically mentioned, Judge Cohen said similar decisions could relate to other committees. David Coy who headed the Finance Committee during the period of the violations is still the chair of that committee. During the jury trial, Assistant Attorney General Monica Connell mentioned 14 board members who had been strong backers of Wayne LaPierre. Thanks to Defense Exhibit 4-2-001, we have those names. Of those 14 board members, eight are on these important committees. Of the remaining six, three have joined with the reformers, two are no longer on the board, and only Tom King was not named to one of these important committees. To think that Judge Cohen is ignorant of that would be wishful thinking by Bob Barr and the rest of the Cabal. I would not be surprised if the final decision is even stronger with regard to those who let the corruption and grifting to flourish under their noses.
Moving on, item five deals with the term of office of the Chief Compliance Officer. Currently, it is a 1-year term just like the EVP, Secretary, and CFO. Judge Cohen suggest that the term of office be extended to a 3-year term at least initially. I think he is rightly concerned that a board controlled by the Cabal could decide to replace the Chief Compliance Officer if he or she didn’t go along with their whims. Judge Cohen would like to make it so that the CCO could only be replaced during that period by the entire board for “good cause”. Some examples of what constitutes good cause would be fraud, theft, drug or chronic alcohol abuse, sexual harassment, or a felony conviction. I believe a bylaw change would be required to put this into effect.
The sixth and final item is a suggestion that there be a bylaw referendum to reduce the size of the board or “to reorganize it to create a smaller, more focused group to oversee the key operations and finances of the organization.” He goes on to suggest what I have been in favor of for a long time. That is, something akin to what many colleges or universities have with a board of trustees and a board of visitors. The trustees or directors deal with the core financial and managerial aspects of the organization while the board of visitors or advisors concentrate on things like fund-raising, building support for the organization, and advisory functions. He goes on to say that a board the size of the NRA’s is just “not a manageable to make decisions on micro issues and, also, to provide close oversight.” He is correct on that and it one of the major reasons Wayne and his fellow grifters got away with it for so long. There is one thing that should not happen when it comes to the reduction in size of the board. That is just to make the existing Executive Committee the new, reduced in size, Board of Directors.
Judge Cohen concludes that these are the types of remedies that he has considered. However, since so much of the bench trial was focused on a special monitor, he wants the parties to discuss it, negotiate, and perhaps to come up with additional remedies beyond those he has suggested for his consent order. He says that ultimately it will be his decision but he would like more precise guidance on what he has suggested.
Attorneys for the Attorney General’s Office and the NRA will meet tomorrow for a face-to-face meeting to hammer out an agreement based upon the judge’s six items as well as any additional items that might be proposed by each side. If they can’t hammer out an agreement on the six items, then they will each work on separate proposals which they will present to Judge Cohen for his consideration. Given the reasonableness of Judge Cohen’s six items especially for the NRA, I would hope that they can come up with a joint agreement tomorrow so that this case can come to a conclusion. The sticking points might be the opening up the 2025-2027 board elections, who else is to be removed from a committee, and the mechanics of reducing the size of the board.
I will be looking out for any news released after that meeting and will report on it when I get reliable information.
Judge Joel Cohen issued an interim decision on July 29th in the New York trial of the NRA. Beyond deciding that a special monitor was not warranted, he specified six items of relief that he was considering. He ordered both parties, the NY Attorney General’s Office and the NRA, to do a post-trial briefing and negotiation on the six items. This post will examine items one through three while a second post will look at the remaining three items.
The first item was that some or all of the “NRA Compliance Commitment to Members” be incorporated into a court order. Included in that document were a number of items that would be reported to members on an annual basis. These included, in part, a compliance officer and internal audit annual report on travel and entertainment expenses, contracts, related party transactions, and business ethics. In addition, a report from the independent auditor would be published annually, the IRS Form 990 would be signed by both the CEO and CFO, a bylaw change making the Audit Committee elected by the whole board, adoption of a policy forbidding related party transactions unless approved by the whole board, and mandatory disclosures by any candidate for the Board of Directors. There would also be a secure online portal for board and committee members to access documents prior to meeting. This was over a concern about “leaks”.
Most of these are good ideas and were developed by the entire Audit Committee. I do have misgivings about a policy to “stop leaks” as it seems counter-intuitive to their professed concern about being open with members. I will also say that as a candidate for the board myself I have not yet been asked to consent to a background check or any of the other items. This may be because it will only apply to those actually individuals whose names will appear on the ballot.
Judge Cohen’s second item goes directly to the election of members of the Board of Directors. He wants to make it easier for people to run for the Board for at least the next three years. He took note indirectly of the election of the Four for Reform as well as the Nominating Committee’s continual re-nomination of sitting directors every three years. He found the past work of the Nominating Committee “led to significant and unhealthy entrenchment of both management and the board” which made it very hard for new members to have any impact. As such, he is strongly suggesting that for the next three years that anyone who meets the minimal qualifications for election to the board be allowed to run if they so desire. The current minimal qualifications are that candidates have been a life member for at least five years. He goes on to add that there would be no need to go through the petition process.
The nominating process has already started. The time period for submission of names to the Nominating Committee has closed and documentation from candidates needed to be received by the Office of the Secretary by August 8th. The committee will meet on August 24th to review the potential nominees and make their decision. Petition candidates have until October 8th to have their petition signature sheets returned to the Office of the Secretary. Judge Cohen’s final order on this item could toss all of this. The replacement would be a long ballot consisting of those whose names have been submitted along with anyone else who wanted to run. We shall see.
Item number three on the list is a requirement that the NRA retain an independent compliance consultant of their choice for at least a three year period. This person would work with the Chief Compliance Officer “and staff to make recommendations to the board.” More importantly from the NRA’s perspective, this person would not be reporting to either the Court or the NYAG. The goal of this consultant would be to provide an independent perspective to the board and to help them implement best practices to carry out Judge Cohen’s final directives.
This item makes perfect sense to me. My primary hope is that the selection of this compliance consultant be made by Doug Hamlin without the interference of Bill Brewer or any of the Cabal. As the Chief Compliance Officer cannot be replaced by the EVP and Robert Mensinger was pushed to the NRA by Bill Brewer, any compliance consultant must be truly independent and without taint. Mr. Mensinger may be worth every bit of his $400,000 salary and be cleaner than the driven snow. However, I have a hard time trusting anything or anyone connected to Bill Brewer or Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors. The damage that Brewer has done to the NRA, financial and otherwise, is incalculable. Even Mike Bloomberg and his billions could not have done as much damage.
Part 2 will now look at the final three items in Judge Cohen’s interim decision.
I saw a comment on NRA In Danger that the NRA’s Legal Affairs Committee is meeting today in Fairfax. It seems to have been confirmed by a response to an email sent to NRA EVP Doug Hamlin.
Supposedly, according to both the comment and a private email I’ve received, the topic of discussion will be on terminating the services of Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors. The word is that both Sandy Froman and Bill Barr will be there.
If that is true and Brewer is terminated, hallelujah!
UPDATE: I have not heard any thing reported as a result of this meeting. In retrospect, there could be one other topic that might have been discussed. That is what is to be discussed in the face-to-face meeting tomorrow between the NYAG’s attorneys and the NRA’s attorneys as they hammer out a joint submission that addresses Judge Cohen’s six items in his interim decision.
by 
