Motion To Intervene Denied

As I said earlier today, there was the hearing on the Motion to Intervene this afternoon.

After hearing the arguments for and against, Judge Joel Cohen denied the Motion.

The basis for his decision as I can understand it is that having only two member representing the interests of the members was not enough. He kept referring to a 5% of the membership rule as the minimum needed to intervene. Even though the attorneys for the intervenors said they were representing a class of members, the judge disagreed. He kept coming back to the argument that if you let one group intervene then you have to let others intervene.

While it was assumed a sitting director would be joining the Motion to Intervene today, Judge Cohen said he could only rule on the motion in front of him. He did not rule out a revised Motion to Intervene with a sitting director as one of the intervenors.

It is a hell of thing when you have a group on one side that wants to do away with the NRA and a group on the other side that wants to keep looting it with no one allowed in the middle representing the millions of dues paying members.

Motion To Intervene Hearing Today

The hearing on the Motion to Intervene on behalf of the members of the NRA in the dissolution lawsuit will be held this afternoon. Judge Joel Cohen issued a notice on Tuesday that the hearing will proceed as scheduled. It is set for 2:30pm in Manhattan.

In his letter to the court on announcing a sitting director of the NRA would be joining the Motion to Intervene, attorney Taylor Bartlett gave the court the option of postponing it as he expected both the NRA and the NY Attorney General’s Office would ask for time. Bartlett did note that they were ready to go.

We will know the name of the director or directors who will be joining the suit later today. Given a sitting director has the absolute right to intervene and thus has standing, it will be interesting to hear the arguments against allowing it.

If I can find an audio link to the hearing, I will post it.

Stay tuned!

NRA Dissolution Lawsuit Promises To Get More Interesting

In June, Frank Tait and Mario Aguirre filed a motion seeking to intervene on behalf of NRA members in the NRA dissolution case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Their contention, rightly in my opinion, was that no one was adequately representing the approximately five million NRA members.

As you might expect, both the Attorney General and the NRA have objected to this. A hearing is currently scheduled for September 9th to hear arguments relating to this motion.

Last year, I had some discussions with others who were interested in seeing an intervenor motion filed in the dissolution lawsuit. One of the major issues brought up was that there was some doubt that under New York that members themselves would have standing. It was thought that only a sitting director would have standing to intervene in the dissolution lawsuit.

We now know, thanks to a letter filed this afternoon with the court by Taylor Bartlett, attorney for Tait and Aguirre, that this issue will now be off the table. There will be one, if not two, sitting directors joining the motion to intervene on behalf of the members of the NRA.

451625_2020_People_of_the_State_of_v_People_of_the_State_of_LETTER___CORRESPOND_334-1

William Brewer himself, the world’s most brilliant attorney according to some of the lesser minds on the NRA board, wasted no time filing a letter to the judge stating that he found the request for leave by the intervenors to file an amended motion “improper”. He then indicates in so many words that the NRA is prepared to fight this motion.

I have been told confidentially the name of one of the potential directors who will be joining in the motion to intervene. As such, I respect that trust and will hold off on announcing the name until it is announced in the court proceedings.

I would also point you to a post this afternoon by David Codrea concerning this letter to the court by Taylor Barlett for his take on it.