A member of the National Rifle Association’s Board of Directors has filed a motion to the federal judge presiding in the NRA’s bankruptcy case in Texas to appoint an independent examiner to investigate allegations of financial mismanagement at the heart of a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
James filed her lawsuit in August 2020 and is seeking to dissolve the organization.
Judge Phillip Journey, who served as an NRA director in the mid-1990s and was re-elected to the board of directors last year, filed his motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. As explained in the court document, Journey “seeks the appointment of an examiner to bring to light the veracity of the alleged fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, and gross mismanagement that has plagued the NRA’s reputation, caused significant alienation of the Association’s members and supporters, and hampered its ability to fulfill its core organizational purpose.”
It’s just the latest chapter of a saga that began unfolding during the NRA’s 2019 convention in Indianapolis, where then-NRA President Lt. Col. Oliver North stepped down in what has been variously described as a “failed coup attempt” to oust longtime NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.
According to the Wall Street Journal, NRA’s “main outside attorney” William A. Brewer III, released a statement asserting, “Judge Journey purportedly supports the mission of the NRA and claims not to oppose the Association seeking to reincorporate in Texas. Unfortunately, he seems to mistakenly believe the NRA reorganization plan did not follow board and internal protocol. This plan was undertaken in full compliance with NRA policy.”
Journey’s action comes as the Washington Free Beacon has reported a major NRA donor is seeking LaPierre’s dismissal. The donor, identified as David Dell’Aquila by the Washington Free Beacon, is “leading” a class-action lawsuit related to allegations of financial mismanagement, wants the court to appoint a trustee “to temporarily oversee operations.”
James launched her lawsuit against the NRA last August. NRA counter-sued. Last month, NRA revealed it had launched an effort to pull out of New York State, where it was founded in 1871, and reincorporate in Texas.
Liberty Park Press reached out to Journey for comment. He referred us to the court document, which runs 16 pages. He is a Division 1 judge for the 18th Judicial District of Kansas.
According to Journey’s court filing, “At least one former board member has knowledge that the NRA routinely failed to follow its own bylaws by employing an internal auditor to monitor the expenditures of the organization.
“Other former and current board members,” the document adds, “have grave concerns about the overall propriety and oversight that the NRA’s board used to exercise over the Debtor gradually shrinking over the recent past few years to the point that prior to filing and continuing to this day, has reduced its role to merely that as a “figure head” while management steered the Debtors’ overall direction.
“In direct violation of its own bylaws,” Journey’s filing alleges, “the NRA did not disclose to the board of directors its intent to seek Chapter 11 relief. In further violation of the bylaws, no solicitation to the board for votes of approval of the filing was conducted. In fact, one or more board members only became aware of this case through media outlets.”
Journey’s court document also asserts “New York law, the NRA bylaws, and Robert’s Rules of Order were routinely violated by the NRA’s management.”
Journey alleges the “egregious violations” resulted in the resignations at least one and possibly more board members, and possibly the departure of NRA’s chief financial officer.
“Also, in direct violation of the NRA’s own bylaws, the board of directors did not approve the formation of Sea Girt, LLC, the new corporation created by the NRA to bootstrap this filing into this district and venue,” Journey’s court document reads.
Journey’s motion was submitted by attorneys with Bonds, Ellis, Eppich, Schafer, Jones LLP in Dallas.
First Oregon Anti-gun Bill Scheduled for Hearing
The Oregon Firearms Federation is alerting its members and supporters that the first gun control measure introduced this year is up for a hearing on Thursday, Feb. 18 at 1 p.m. before the House Judiciary Committee.
House Bill 2543 would essentially allow the State Police to delay a firearm’s purchase forever even when there is no denial on a background check. According to the bill, “If the department is unable to determine if the purchaser is qualified or disqualified from completing the transfer within 30 minutes, the department shall notify the gun dealer and provide the gun dealer with an estimate of the time when the department will provide the requested information. The dealer may not transfer the firearm unless the dealer receives a unique approval number from the department.” (Emphasis in original.)
Currently, according to an OFF alert, both Oregon and Federal law allow a buyer to take possession of a firearm if the State Police do not issue an approval after three business days so long as there has not been an actual denial. HB 2543 would change that.
“The OSP has a long history of failing to complete background checks and things have only gotten much worse since Covid and the increase in attempted purchases,” the OFF bulletin says.
The OSP’s “Firearms Instant Check” unit even “cancels” firearms sales that they do not want to bother investigating with no apparent lawful authority to do so, the group notes in its alert.
“People who are delayed are faced with the frustration of contacting the OSP ‘challenge line’ only to have their calls ignored or mishandled,” OFF said. “If this bill is passed persons who have no criminal history of any kind will have no recourse if the State Police either mismanage the background check or simply refuse to conduct one.”
Oregon’s legislature is controlled by Democrats, and OFF is critical of the process now in place to offer testimony. Opponents can testify in writing or “remotely.”
Written testimony may be submitted via the Oregon Legislative Information System (OLIS), according to the federation alert. It must be received within 24 hours after the start time of the hearing.
Click here for the Testimony portal.
Registration is required to provide oral testimony. To sign in, either call 833-588-4500 or go online here.
