State of New York v. NRA et all

Uncategorized

Judge Allows Motion On Supplemental Deposition Of Willes Lee

October 10, 2023 by

I was alerted a few minutes ago by an email from the blog NRA In Danger that Judge Cohen had granted the NY AG’s “motion to compel a post-note of issue, supplemental deposition” of Willes Lee. In doing so, he rejected the arguments put forth by the NRA and Lee.

The meat of Judge Cohen’s order is this:

Here, Mr. Lee’s post-NOI public statements, resignation from the SLC, and removal from NRA leadership are “unusual or unanticipated circumstances” that warrant a “brief and targeted” (NYSCEF 2205 [OAG Reply Brief at 12]) supplemental deposition (Esteva v Catsimatidis, 4 AD3d 210, 211 [1st Dept 2004]). Contrary to the NRA’s argument, in these circumstances the OAG’s ability to cross-examine Mr. Lee at trial is not a sufficient replacement for pre-trial discovery. Further, there is no assurance that Mr. Lee will testify at trial, thus potentially locking in his initial deposition testimony without the opportunity to further question the witness based on subsequent events.

He also found that the potential prejudice to the NYAG’s Office outweighed any potential prejudice to the NRA from having Lee desposed.

The deposition must take place within the next 30 days, it can be for up to seven hours, and it will be limited to the new facts and circumstances that the NY AG’s motion identified.

Given the contradictions between what Lee said in his earlier depositions to both the NY AG and the Bankruptcy Court and what he has posted on social media, this will be interesting. The former directors that I contacted about Lee’s assertions in his affidavit were in agreement he never challenged the NRA’s leadership nor encouraged others to do so.

Uncategorized

Willes Lee Is Balking On Supplemental Deposition

October 4, 2023 by 5 Comments

Now that the New York Attorney General’s Office is requesting a supplemental deposition from Willes Lee due to his social media posts, he is balking. This past Friday, September 29th, Sarah Rogers of Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, filed a “Memorandum of Law in Opposition” to the state’s motion to compel further testimony from Lee. She included a number of exhibits with this filing including an affidavit from Lee. I should note that Rogers represents the NRA including Lee as a member of the Board of Directors.

The Memorandum of Law in Opposition asserts two main issues. First, it is asserted that the NYAG has failed to show “unusual and unanticipated circumstances” within the meaning of the rules of the court. Second, Rogers says that the NYAG would not suffer “substantial prejudice” if they did not have the supplemental deposition from Lee. Rather, she says it is the NRA and its attorneys who would suffer as it impairs their pretrial preparation especially with intervening holidays. I presume she means Thanksgiving, Hannukah, and Christmas but not Halloween.

The majority of the Memorandum is devoted to the first issue. They assert that Lee’s postings are nothing unusual and that he has not suffered any retaliation from the NRA’s leadership. Moreover, even if Lee’s posting provide somewhat contradictory or inconsistent information from his prior depositions, they say this is not grounds to allow a “post-note of issue” supplemental deposition. They then say differences of opinion within a 76-member board are not unusual and are par for the course. The NRA says that if the Attorney General’s Office wishes to question Lee about his postings, then do it during cross-examination at trial.

So while the arguments by the NRA’s attorneys in response to the motion of the Attorney General’s Office are on interpretations of law, I find the affidavit filed by Willes Lee to be of greater interest. He says he is an unpaid volunteer and that a supplemental deposition would place “an unreasonable burden on my personal and professional schedule.” I’m not sure whether a deposition legally could be done by Zoom or WebEx but will note this court has already had hearings using such electronic means.

I found Paragraph Five of the affidavit to be most interesting.

Moreover, contrary to the NYAG’s motion, my recent social media posts are not “unusual.” In fact, ever since first joining the NRA Board, I have raised questions and posed challenges to the NRA’s leadership, and urged other directors to do the same in the service of the NRA’s members. And since I began posting my “challenges” in a public forum, not a single member of the NRA leadership has tried to silence me.

Given the assertions of Lee that he raised questions and challenges to the leadership as well as urged others to do so were at odds with what I understood, I sought out a number of former NRA directors who served on the Board during this period for their impressions. I sent them a copy of the affidavit and asked if the assertions in Paragraph Five correlated with what they saw and heard. The responses I got cast serious doubt on Lee’s assertions.

One director said, ” I still can’t understand how anybody has taken his self-righteous reversal seriously.  He WAS the cabal. He enabled the CABAL.”

Another director who I asked if Lee had done as he said he did responded, “Nope. I only saw him as a cheerleader for the establishment.” A third director said, “If he ever did anything in the way of resistance to their “plans” it was not in my sight.”

Finally, there is this from a fourth director, “Willis never spoke out at any time on any issue ever! Even during the contentious meeting where the BOD had to ratify the bankruptcy filing after the fact, he sat at the head table like a stone.” He went on to add, “Willis was complicit in his silence and bears as much responsibility in the wrong doing as Charles Cotton because he was on the SLC and did not oppose anything that had occurred. It is rich, that after he was removed as an officer, suddenly he found so much wrong doing.”

While the NRA certainly doesn’t wish that Lee be deposed again, I would wager house money that many of the “Friends of Wayne” would cheerfully throw him under the bus after his spate of social media posts. They would agree with the former directors that Lee never challenged the leadership nor encouraged others to do so. I do understand why Lee doesn’t wish to be re-deposed. His social media rants are not under oath unlike his prior depositions. He could be accused of being a hypocrite but perjury would remain off the table. A supplemental deposition under oath might change things along those lines.

Uncategorized

NY AG Seeks Supplemental Deposition From Willes Lee

September 21, 2023 by 3 Comments

By tradition, Willes Lee should have been the next President of the NRA. Instead, Charles Cotton was given a third term and Willes was replaced as 1st Vice President by Bob Barr. As one might imagine, this did not sit well with Willes. He had been a loyal supporter of the existing regime within the NRA for four years as 1st and 2nd Vice President, had served as the attack dog for the powers that be, had supported the abortive bankruptcy filing as a member of the Special Litigation Committee, and the list goes on. Not only had he been blindsided by the move to keep Cotton as President for a third term but he only found out he was being ousted as an officer when the Nominating Committee report was slipped under his door.

Since his ouster, Willes has take to social media to give his side of the story as well as make teasing remarks about what really was going on. His posts have appeared on Facebook, X as Twitter is now called, and Instagram. I, like others such as NRA In Danger, have been following his posts on an almost daily basis. It was like watching a train wreck and you can’t look away.

You know who else was following his posts on Facebook? The New York Attorney General’s Office and now they want to know more. Yesterday, they filed a motion to compel the “post-note of issue supplemental deposition” of him. The motion makes note of his Facebook postings and how they seem to be at odds with his prior testimony before the US Bankruptcy Court and in his deposition in the New York case. Alexander Mendelson, Assistant Attorney General (of New York), argues that “unusual and unanticipated circumstances” allow a supplemental deposition even though the time for deposition of witnesses has nominally closed. The circumstances that Mendelson refers to are Willes’ Facebook posts and his ouster as an officer. It is argued that this supplemental deposition can be done before the beginning of the trial and this would be better than wasting time on an exhaustive cross-examination during the trial itself.

451625_2020_People_of_the_State_of_v_People_of_the_State_of_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_2149

Mendelson supports this motion with 20 exhibits including past testimony and the deposition by Willes, a compilation of his Facebook posts, an affidavit by the Attorney General’s IT professional who downloaded the posts, and a series of emails between the attorneys. It appears that from reading these emails that the only objections come from the attorneys for John Frazer and Woody Phillips. Interestingly, the NRA’s lawyers from Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, have not objected. Moreover, given Willes is still a board member they will accept the subpoena on his behalf as well as represent him.

If Judge Cohen approves this motion and I have no reason to believe he won’t, it is going to get interesting. For example, you have Willes complaining about being left off of committees while at the same testifying in his deposition that it was OK for Tim Knight, Esther Schneider, and Sean Maloney to be excluded. Moreover, given the numerous posts complaining about Charles Cotton and David Coy and their roles as heads of the Audit and Finance Committees, you can be sure that his questioners are going to be digging deeper. I just wonder how much that the NRA’s attorneys will be able to prevent from being on the record.

There is a great lesson here for all of us. Don’t put stuff out on social media and expect it to stay private. What you say there lives forever and it will come back to bite you at the worst possible time. As for Willes who normally has multiple daily posts on Facebook, Instagram, and X, he has gone silent since yesterday. Frankly, I’m glad he hasn’t been silent in the past as his comments will force the truth to come to light.

Uncategorized

NRA’s New York Trial Delayed Until 2024

August 9, 2023 by

NRA In Danger is reporting that the trial for People of New York vs. National Rifle Association is now delayed until sometime in early 2024. It was thought the trial would have started in mid-October 2023.

According to a comment by Frank Tait, it is thought the reason for the delay is the withdrawal of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP as counsel for Josh Powell. As I noted earlier, they had a parting of the ways over Powell’s ability to pay his legal bills.

One must wonder if this case will ever get to the trial stage. The case is now officially 3 years and 3 days old. I think the only people who are happy about this are the attorneys for the defendants as it gives them even more time to run up their bills with more useless filings.

UPDATE: Stephen Gutowski of The Reload is reporting that Josh Powell intends to represent himself at the trial.

Even as far back as the 1700s, it was thought foolish to represent oneself in court. I wish Mr. Powell well but history has not been kind to those who represent themselves.

Uncategorized

Guest Post By Rocky Marshall

January 25, 2023 by 1 Comment

Roscoe “Rocky” Marshall is a former member of the NRA Board of Directors. More importantly, he is an experienced business executive. He is now founder and CEO of Frontier Truck Gear. Prior to that, he served as president of two subsidiaries of oil field services giant Baker Hughes which is a Fortune 150 company. In other words, he can drill down into an income statement or balance sheet to get to the real health of an organization. What he has to say below is not encouraging as to the health of the NRA.

Rocky had sought to be an intervenor in the lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of New York against the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, John Frazier, Woody Phillips, and Josh Powell. He sought to do so to be an advocate for the members of the NRA as it seems no one is actively representing their interests before the court as opposed to the interests of LaPierre and company. His motion was ultimately denied. I met Rocky in person at the 2022 NRA Annual Meeting and have corresponded with him extensively. What he is saying below is not some spur of the moment comment. He has been reading the tea leaves and saying this exact thing for some time now.

The Late Great National Rifle Association R.I.P. by Former NRA Director Rocky Marshall
To NRA Members: IT IS OVER!


The NRA’s financials are spiraling rapidly towards insolvency, and the future appears bleak for
the survivability of the NRA which may be forced into bankruptcy (for real this time) in the
coming months. The next and final chapter for the NRA will be in a bankruptcy court where a
Judge will likely appoint a “Receiver” to take control of the assets of the NRA.


The NRA has been thriving for over 150 years; but will likely not survive to the end of this year.
This once great organization is now facing dissolution as the direct result of malfeasance by
Wayne LaPierre and the impotent Board of Directors (BOD). Undoubtedly, key management
personnel including Wayne Lapierre, Wilson Phillips, and others will likely face criminal charges
for embezzlement, fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and other charges.


The NRA in the coming months will not be able to pay outstanding bills or maintain staff to
fulfill the mission due to the rapid decline of donations by members. In 2016, NRA revenues
reached a peak of $367 million and currently is projected to receive $200 million for the current
fiscal year 2022. The collapse in donations is directly related to the revelations that the NRA
Management misused millions of dollars of donations for personal benefit. The misuse of NRA
monies by NRA Management and the BOD has been reported as far back as 1998 when a
complaint was filed by NRA Directors with the FEC.1


A question that is often repeated is: “Why did the NRA BOD allow Wayne Lapierre and others to
misuse the donations and defraud the members?” The most obvious answer is because a few
key Directors were being paid. From 2002 through 2020, over $10 million dollars have been
paid directly or indirectly to NRA Directors. A secondary issue is that NRA Directors were not
informed and also routinely presented false information by NRA Officers and Management in
order to hide the truth. During my tenure as an NRA Director, I was routinely denied access to
information and also received blatantly untrue information from NRA officers. The NRA BOD
has not provided proper fiduciary oversight of the NRA for decades. The NRA BOD could have
easily stopped the fraud and mismanagement by Wayne LaPierre (and others) but instead
chose to ignore the obvious illegal activities. The BOD audit committee (chaired by the current
President Charles Cotton) approved transactions retro actively without BOD approval.


The current lawsuit from the New York Attorney General will likely not go to trial; but instead,
will be superseded by a forced bankruptcy. The negative press reports from these legal filings
will continue to drive donors away and revenues will decline. As a former Director for the NRA,
I have researched the complaints by the New York Attorney General and found all charges to be
true. I could not identify a single charge that was untrue or exaggerated. As has been
reported, Wayne Lapierre has admitted to several of the charges in the previous bankruptcy
trial in Dallas.


Historians and columnists will report in future years that the NRA was destroyed from within by
the greed of NRA Management Wayne LaPierre, Woody Phillips, (and others) and also by the
lack of oversight by the NRA Board of Directors. Collectively this group has destroyed the most
valuable gun rights organization on the planet.

  1. Weldon H. Clark Jr. FEC Complaint 1998 (https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/4865/00001F57.pdf)
Uncategorized

The Frenkel Report

December 2, 2022 by 4 Comments

From what I can gather, the Frenkel Report was a confidential document prepared by an outside attorney for the NRA in approximately 2003. The attorney’s name was Jacob Frenkel. His specialty is conducting internal investigations and providing white collar criminal defense. The report in question concerned expenditures by Wayne LaPierre for travel as well as multi-million dollar payments to favored vendors. This report was provided to the Audit Committee and then laid dormant until recently.

The blog NRA In Danger has done great work in bringing out the testimony and legal wrangling over disclosure of this report. The NRA wants the document kept sealed contending that it is covered by attorney-client privilege while the New York AG’s office and the Special Master disagree.

Judge Joel Cohen agrees with the Special Master and the NYAG regarding the sealing of the document.

From NRA In Danger:

The ruling was that the NRA attorneys screwed up and waived the argument by not raising it earlier. “The NRA’s piecemeal approach to raising objections to producing this document is inefficient. and inappropriate. All objections to production should have been raised and litigated in connection with the prior motion. Those that were not argued are waived. The fact that the NRA purported to reserve the right to assert additional objections at a later date does not make it so.”

The court adds that the objection would have lost anyway. Attorney-client privilege is lost if the client shares the document with non-attorneys, and NRA shared it with its accountants. “In any event, even if the privilege objection is considered timely, it is unavailing. The Report was, by design, shared with a third party, namely PricewaterhouseCoopers. Any privilege that otherwise might have attached to this document was waived.”

Again, Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, have lost in court and the NRA has racked up even more legal bills.

More on the Frenkel Report can be found here and here. As NRA In Danger notes, whatever is in that 19 year report must be “really hot”. If I had to speculate and this is all it is, the report must be enough to at least bring criminal charges against Wayne along with potential liability to both the current President and 2nd VP of the NRA who have served on the Audit Committee.

Uncategorized

NRA Case Positive Spin: NRA

March 3, 2022 by 1 Comment

Like New York Attorney General Letitia James, the NRA is also putting a positive spin on Judge Joel Cohen’s ruling yesterday. Indeed, the headline on their release states, “NRA Prevails Over NYAG”.

The NRA’s release includes comments from NRA President Charles Cotton, former NRA President Carolyn Meadows, 1st VP Willes Lee, and, of course, outside counsel William Brewer III. Missing, however, from the comments on the ruling was anything from defendants Wayne LaPierre and John Frazer.

Charles L. Cotton
Charles Cotton – NRA Official Photo

“This is a resounding win for the NRA, its 5 million members, and all who believe in this organization,” says NRA President Charles Cotton. “The message is loud and clear:  the NRA is strong and secure in its mission to protect constitutional freedom.”

The release says the NRA will continue to defend the remaining causes of action brought but that Letitia James can’t shut down the NRA.

While it appears that most of the heavy lifting before the court was done by William Brewer’s partner Svetlana Eisenberg, Brewer is still the one who gets quoted.

William A. Brewer III
William Brewer – Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors bio photo

“We applaud the court’s recognition that dissolution is neither appropriate nor justified,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to the NRA. “We look forward to continuing the defense of the NRA – and proving that it acts in the best interests of its members and the Second Amendment freedoms in which they believe.”  

I’m sure Mr. Brewer is look forward to continuing the defense of the NRA as legal fees now are reportedly 20% of the NRA’s total budget and it seems his firm is getting the majority of that.

Brewer who probably wrote the NRA’s over the top release goes on to say:

Brewer adds, “Today’s developments underscore the simple truth that since taking office in 2019, the Attorney General has pushed a contrived narrative about the NRA in her attempt to support a dissolution claim that is improper. This is a victory for not only the NRA, but all who believe in the right to free speech and association.”

Other comments came from Carolyn Meadows and Willes Lee:

“I’ve always said that the dissolution case was part of a political vendetta to take down the NRA,” says NRA Past President Carolyn Meadows. “I want to thank NRA members for helping us confront this abuse of power. They deserve an enormous amount of credit.”

NRA First Vice President Willes K. Lee said, “As an NRA member, this decision gives me great pride. It reaffirms an important belief:  the NRA continues to serve as the greatest voice in the fight to protect Second Amendment freedom.”   

The key things to remember about Judge Cohen’s ruling is that the remaining 14 causes of action will go to trial, that included in those are allegations of unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty, and that he took a dim view of the current management of the NRA including that of Wayne LaPierre and John Frazer. Moreover, the ruling still could be appealed by James who has indicated she is pondering her legal options. I do doubt that it will be appealed as it was as much of a win for the Attorney General’s Office as it was for the NRA.

Uncategorized

NRA Case Positive Spin: Letitia James

March 3, 2022 by

Both sides of the dissolution lawsuit involving the New York Attorney General and the NRA are trying to put a positive spin on Judge Joel Cohen’s ruling yesterday. Below is the spin put on it by NY Attorney General Letitia James.

Letitia James in New York City on 19 November 2019.
Reuters photo

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after Justice Joel Cohen of the New York County State Supreme Court rejected a second round of motions brought forward by the National Rifle Association (NRA), Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre, and Corporate Secretary and General Counsel John Frazer as they sought to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Attorney General James against the organization in August 2020:

“Today, the court affirmed my office’s right to pursue its long-standing claims that fraud, abuse, and greed permeate through the NRA and its senior leadership. While we’re heartened that the judge rejected the NRA’s attempts to thwart most of the claims in our case against the NRA, we are disappointed that the judge ruled against the dissolution portion of the case. We are considering our legal options with respect to this ruling. We remain committed to enforcing New York law regardless of how powerful any individual or organization may be.”

In today’s decision, the court let stand all of the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) claims of self-dealing, abuse, and unlawful conduct by LaPierre, who has been at the helm of the NRA for three decades. Similarly, the court rebuked the efforts by Frazer to dismiss him from the case, finding that OAG’s allegations that Frazer violated his obligations as the NRA’s General Counsel for failing to address conflicts of interest and respond to whistleblowers who alerted the NRA to systemic financial wrongdoing were valid. The court also held that OAG’s claims against the NRA for false regulatory filings and failing to address conflicts of interest will proceed. 

As an attorney friend mentioned to me yesterday, Judge Cohen’s ruling could be appealed. James is acknowledging this in her statement where she says they “are considering our legal options”. That said, I’d be a little surprised if they do appeal it. A partial win is better than no win at all.

Uncategorized

NRA Will Not Be Dissolved

March 3, 2022 by 7 Comments

Judge Joel Cohen issued a ruling today in the New York Attorney General’s dissolution suit against the National Rifle Association. He dismissed four of the 18 causes of action in the amended complaint brought by Attorney General Letitia James but allowed the remain 14 to continue. Specifically, Judge Cohen dismissed the first, second, 16th, and 18th causes of actions.

The first and second causes of action sought the dissolution of the NRA. In the first cause of action, the NRA was said to have “conducted its business in a persistently illegal manner and abused its powers contrary to the public policy of the State of New York by operating without effective oversight or control by its officers and directors” which was grounds for dissolution under N-PCL § 1109(b)(1). The second cause alleged that “directors or members in control of the NRA have looted or wasted the corporate assets, have perpetuated the corporation solely for their personal benefit, or have otherwise acted in an illegal, oppressive or fraudulent manner.” This would be grounds for dissolution under N-PCL § 1109(b)(1).

He wrote in dismissing those two causes of action:

In arguing for dissolution, the Attorney General’s allegations fail to delineate between the NRA, on the one hand, and its leaders on the other, who acted “without regard to the NRA’s best interests” (see id. ¶ 143 [“LaPierre, together with his direct reports, including Defendants Phillips, Frazer and Powell, instituted a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement, and negligent oversight at the NRA . . . without regard to the NRA’s best interests.”]; id. ¶ 646 [“Despite a conflict of interest and his lack of authority to do so, LaPierre unilaterally determined to place the NRA into bankruptcy to evade a regulatory action in which he was named as a defendant . . . cost[ing] the NRA tens of millions of dollars”]). Conflating the Individual Defendants with the NRA writ large for purposes of dissolution is inappropriate here for the reasons discussed supra. It also ignores the allegations that the wrongdoers in control of the NRA do not necessarily speak for other NRA members, some of whom have tried to instigate reform within the organization but have been met with resistance from entrenched leadership (see, e.g., id. ¶ 491). (emphasis mine)

The 16th cause of action involved the prudent management of institutional funds. This cause of action was dismissed by Judge Cohen as it didn’t properly distinguish between “program-related funds” and “institutional funds”.

The 18th cause of action was specifically against LaPierre, Frazer, Phillips, and Powell. It accused them of common law “unjust enrichment” and sought to recover monies paid to them that were “excessive, unreasonable, and/or unauthorized.” Judge Cohen based his dismissal of this cause of action as it ran afoul of earlier NY Court of Appeals rulings about unjust enrichment. In other words, this was only dismissed due to a technicality.

While the NRA will not be dissolved, this is not to say that the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, and the others are in the clear. The third and fourth causes of action against LaPierre and John Frazer allege breach of fiduciary duty. This was allowed to proceed onwards. Likewise, Judge Cohen found that the allegations contained in the seventh and eighth causes of action which accuse both LaPierre and Frazer of failing to properly administer charitable assets were sufficient to proceed.

The 11th and 14th causes of action were against LaPierre and the NRA respectively. These accuse LaPierre and the NRA of engaging in “unlawful related party transactions.” Judge Cohen found that both claims were sustained.

The 15th cause of action which was allowed to go forward involved violation of the New York whistleblower protections. Judge Cohen said there was sufficient evidence to show that the NRA, Powell, and LaPierre retaliated against whistleblowers and that Frazer was incompetent in carrying out the whistleblower policy. The retaliation against Oliver North as well as the freezing out of directors such as Tim Knight and Esther Schneider from committee assignments is coming back to haunt the NRA.

The final cause of action sustained against the moves by LaPierre and Frazer to have them dismissed is the 17th. That cause of action stated that the NRA and Frazer “made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the annual reports the organization filed with the Attorney General.” Judge Cohen said that the NRA didn’t contest the falsity of the filings for now and the allegations against Frazer were specific enough that they should continue.

It should be noted that neither Josh Powell nor Woody Phillips sought to have the specific causes of action against them dismissed.

If after all the court proceedings are finished, it could result in the all four of the individual defendants being being barred from the NRA or other New York non-profits and forced repayment of their ill-gotten gains. Moreover, I can foresee a forced restructuring of the NRA in such a way as to prevent the abuses we have seen and are now seeing.

The bottom line is while the NRA has escaped dissolution this is not the end of things.

You can read the full 42-page opinion by Judge Cohen below. It makes for interesting reading.

451625 2020 People of the State of v People of the State of DECISION ORDER on 611 by jpr9954 on Scribd

Uncategorized

Intervention By Rocky Marshall Denied

February 16, 2022 by 1 Comment

Former NRA Director Rocky Marshall had filed a motion to intervene in the NRA dissolution case. His motion was filed in September 2021. He was still a director when he filed the motion to intervene. New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law § 720 b (1) gave him the statutory right to intervene.

Today a hearing was held on this motion in New York County Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Judge Joel Cohen denied Mr. Marshall’s intervention motion. I did not have an opportunity to listen to the hearing.

However, Stephen Gutowski of The Reload did cover the hearing and posted a series of tweets about it.

He wrote:

The hearing over former board member Rocky Marshall’s attempt to intervene in the New York suit against the NRA is happening. Marshall and others are trying to intervene as a way of providing an alternative representation of members. 

The judge seems skeptical of letting Marshall intervene without evidence he was illegitimately pushed off the NRA board. 

Marshall’s lawyers are noting they have different claims against the NRA than what New York has brought. They note that a big one is potentially trying to recover legal fees that the interveners believe are excessive. 

The judge says that sort of claim isn’t at issue in the New York suit and wouldn’t be decided there. So, an intervention isn’t necessary. Marshall’s lawyers counter that the NRA could be dissolved in this suit and they wouldn’t be able to make any claims at that point. 

The interveners argue NRA leadership, such as CEO Wayne LaPierre, has acted against the interests of NRA membership. They argue leadership has harmed the organization and they should be able to intervene on behalf of NRA members. 

The NRA’s lawyers are arguing, basically, what the judge had argued earlier. They say Marshall doesn’t have standing to intervene since he isn’t a director anymore. 

The NRA is arguing that because Rocky Marshall ran for NRA president during last year’s board meeting he has a conflict of interest in trying to invene (sic) in the case. 

The NRA is also arguing Marshall filed his intervention too late. The New York AG’s office also don’t want Marshall to intervene. They also argue he has no standing. 

The judge has denied former board member Marshall’s motion to intervene in New York’s case against the NRA. 

The judge says he does value the input of NRA members who don’t agree with how NRA leadership has run the organization, though. 

Judge says Marshall lacks standing because he is no longer an NRA board member. 

It will be interesting to see whether the judge has to decide this same intervention question for a third time if Frank Tait, who is another one of the interveners, is able to get on the NRA board. 

Well, crap! I thought Mr. Marshall had a chance to become an intervenor. As things stand now – and I hate to say it – the closest thing we as members have to someone representing our interests in the case is the NY Attorney General’s Office. That sucks.

Frank Tait noted in a post today:

Rocky’s attorneys made the point that the NRA is being bled dry and that this helps achieve the NY AG’s intent of dissolving the NRA.

That correlates with reporting in The Reload that analyzed the NRA’s finances and found that 20% of the budget is now going for legal expenses. Moreover, Wayne’s attorney Phillip Correll has billed the NRA approximately $175,000 in legal fees as of this past August.

One last thing that came out in the hearing today is that Susan LaPierre is also being represented by Phillip Correll. That leads to the obvious question is who is paying him to represent her – the NRA or the LaPierres?