search
top

Coverage of NRA’s Bankruptcy

John Richardson has excellent coverage, starting here with the opinion of an expert in bankruptcy law. Head over to John’s site and keep scrolling.

I’m starting to wonder if the only goal of Brewer’s law firm is just to keep adding more and more complexity to NRA’s lawsuits so as to extract more and more fees. Because I haven’t been able to see the sense in this strategy. I am not an expert, by any means, in bankruptcy law. In fact, I know next to nothing about it. But given we now have an opinion from someone who does, I’m now really wondering what Brewer’s strategy is here. Maybe it’s a Hail Mary. Who knows. But either way, I think things are a lot worse than we’ve been lead to believe.

I’m actually wondering if we might see a split in the NRA… NRA North and NRA South? With NRA North being the pieces of the original NRA that have been picked up by others, and NRA South being Wayne and Bill, Inc?

I am fairly certain Tish James isn’t just going to let NRA transfer everything to Texas without a flight, and it’s hard for me to see how this is going to improve NRA’s position, let alone give them trump card over James.

These are definitely the crazy years.

9 Responses to “Coverage of NRA’s Bankruptcy”

  1. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Can James put limitations on current board or leadership positions as a contingency of reincorporating somewhere else? All I want to see is WLP and his cronies be deposed. She could do us all a favor.

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      Not James, but the Courts.

      I agree, I want Wayne gone. This looks like a move to create a NWA (National Wayne Association). Declaring bankruptcy and moving isn’t a bad strategy. But the problem is the current board gave all the power to do it to Wayne. How will the new organization be set up? Will it be the same bylaws, or much worse?

      I fear the NRA is dead, due to Wayne’s malfeasance. Until he is gone and its run by better people, it is gone.

  2. Andy B. says:

    “I’m actually wondering if we might see a split in the NRA… NRA North and NRA South?”

    The one thing I think/hope we are never going to see again is an entity that is believed in with the blind faith we all used to have in the NRA. I’ve recited before my Old Stories about becoming an NRA member the day I was old enough (back when you needed the endorsement of a LEO or military officer for membership), and becoming a Life Member as soon as I went to work as an engineer and got the money together.

    But I also have always been somewhat of a canary-in-the-coalmine, and it was over 30 years ago I began to sense there was something just-not-quite-right about the NRA. That entirely related to its political positioning; I’ve never questioned their sporting/educational/training activities, which in principle have remained unchanged from the day I first became a member. Trouble has always resulted when the boundaries between the two things became blurred.

    We can quibble about when things started to go wrong; I think what can’t be denied is that they did.

  3. Andy B. says:

    Since my first post I have checked out John Richardson’s post and its links, and at the risk of appearing to disparage people with expertise I don’t have, I’ll make a metaphor that they seem like horticulturists so focused on the species of the trees, they’ve gotten lost in the forest.

    On the other hand I’m remembering the scene in the movie “Titanic”, where the ship’s engineer says “It is now a mathematical certainty that the ship will sink.” As I recall the plot, no one believed it before he said it. Chances are the guys working in the engine room knew it before he did.

    • Mike says:

      Filing for bankruptcy is a textbook example of “inviting the man into your life”. Bankruptcy is a very technical area of the law full of minefields and the blog post makes it clear how many possible ways they have opened themselves to be, for a lack of a better word, fucked with. For example, you generally can’t go on a “fishing expedition” in a normal deposition, but in a Rule 2004 examination, the bankruptcy equivalent, you expressly can.

      • Andy B. says:

        As someone else has suggested, I’m suspecting a charade, probably a make-work program for selected attorneys. I doubt there is any real consideration for the welfare of the organization, and certainly none for “The Cause.”

  4. Igor says:

    Screw these guys. I went to GOA.

    • Sebastian says:

      Might as well burn that money. GOA is no substitute.

    • Andy B. says:

      When I was more involved with GOA than I am now proud to admit, I would be puzzled why private/personal faxes from them came from an “English First” fax machine. In those pre-internet days I did not know that “English First” operated out of the same office as GOA. I later learned that Larry Pratt also operated “U.S. Border Control” and “Committee to Protect the Family.”

      That is not to comment on the virtues of any of those overt or implied issues. It is to observe that when you find someone has “bundled” your issue — somewhat covertly — with several other issues, you should suspect your issue, or any of the others, is not their real agenda.

      Refresh yourself on the definition of “front organization.”

top