Jump to content

"it's time for hunters to leave the NRA"


Gil Bang

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

So filing bankruptcy when you have a lot to hide (embezzling money, accepting annual $500K/week yacht trips from someone, and shredding evidence to avoid discovery) can lead to the discovery you wanted to avoid.  lulz. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So filing bankruptcy when you have a lot to hide (embezzling money, accepting annual $500K/week yacht trips from someone, and shredding evidence to avoid discovery) can lead to the discovery you wanted to avoid.  lulz. 
It's almost like they feel that they are above the law...
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

The Bahamas has pretty restrictive gun laws. Probably no need to do extensive security checks

To borrow a line from the gun toting crowd, those "no guns on campus" signs don't stop anyone from shooting up schools.  Though I can't say I've heard of a mass shooting in the Bahamas since...ever?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TexasEd said:

So filing bankruptcy when you have a lot to hide (embezzling money, accepting annual $500K/week yacht trips from someone, and shredding evidence to avoid discovery) can lead to the discovery you wanted to avoid.  lulz. 

I started my career off as a corporate BK attorney.  It's amazing to me how frequently C-level corporate officers don't get that once the BK is filed, they're not in control anymore.  This is despite them being told by their internal counsel and outside hired bk counsel.  Somehow they think they're going to get to call all the shots and the US Trustee's office isn't going to have a say, or that creditors won't have a say, or that the Judge isn't going to entertain questions from interested third parties.  It's a weird kind of cognitive dissonance, but essentially boils down to "I don't work by the rules, I work the rules for me."  Then they get mad when shenanigans see the daylight.  Then they say, "Why didn't anyone tell me?"  Fortunately, you can point to the hours and say, "We did, for this much time."  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I started my career off as a corporate BK attorney.  It's amazing to me how frequently C-level corporate officers don't get that once the BK is filed, they're not in control anymore.  This is despite them being told by their internal counsel and outside hired bk counsel.  Somehow they think they're going to get to call all the shots and the US Trustee's office isn't going to have a say, or that creditors won't have a say, or that the Judge isn't going to entertain questions from interested third parties.  It's a weird kind of cognitive dissonance, but essentially boils down to "I don't work by the rules, I work the rules for me."  Then they get mad when shenanigans see the daylight.  Then they say, "Why didn't anyone tell me?"  Fortunately, you can point to the hours and say, "We did, for this much time."  

Here's how I think the meetings went between NRA execs and their outside counsel

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

To borrow a line from the gun toting crowd, those "no guns on campus" signs don't stop anyone from shooting up schools.  Though I can't say I've heard of a mass shooting in the Bahamas since...ever?

A lot of mass cutlass maimings and killings in the early 18th century though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've hunted my entire life.

Shitbags like them make me embarrassed to be a hunter.  I have no ambition to hunt and kill a damned elephant.   It's a pointless hunt.  I have even less ambition to be shitty at it, and be a ghoul about it.  Sheesh.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2021 at 9:37 AM, Chad Fuck said:

I started my career off as a corporate BK attorney.  It's amazing to me how frequently C-level corporate officers don't get that once the BK is filed, they're not in control anymore.  This is despite them being told by their internal counsel and outside hired bk counsel.  Somehow they think they're going to get to call all the shots and the US Trustee's office isn't going to have a say, or that creditors won't have a say, or that the Judge isn't going to entertain questions from interested third parties.  It's a weird kind of cognitive dissonance, but essentially boils down to "I don't work by the rules, I work the rules for me."  Then they get mad when shenanigans see the daylight.  Then they say, "Why didn't anyone tell me?"  Fortunately, you can point to the hours and say, "We did, for this much time."  

Is this trial a preference deal, as far as you can tell? 

I assume the NY State proceeding is going forward in NY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is this trial a preference deal, as far as you can tell? 

I assume the NY State proceeding is going forward in NY?

Just spitballing here

I think they made a choice

  • to embezzle money
  • not return it 
  • file for bankruptcy thinking that the embezzlement would go un-noticed
  • run the gauntlet of discovery

They are getting to the "finding out" phase

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is this trial a preference deal, as far as you can tell? 

I assume the NY State proceeding is going forward in NY?

Not a preference deal.  We're not to that point.  The NY action is stayed.  

What it looks like to me, just from a cursory docket review, is a whole lot of people including NY have jumped up and said, "this bankruptcy is a sham" and are trying to get it dismissed entirely (so they can pursue civil/criminal liabilities elsewhere) or have a third party neutral trustee substituted for whomever is running the show at the NRA currently (so if it isn't tossed, they can perhaps have those liabilities preserved as to the current management).  That would be the creditors view here in a nutshell.  

I think @TexasEd is definitely onto something regarding the Debtors' view.  It is somewhat rare for BK courts to dismiss BKs.  The BK Courts give wide latitude to the Debtors (as they would say, in a plaintiffs case) as to the when/where/how of choosing their forum.  The assumption is the Debtor gets to stay in BK Court unless very clearly shown they shouldn't be there.   The problem is, the BK Courts are used to driving the reorganization train down the tracks, and while law outside BK comes into play, sprawling criminal and civil liabilities  - such as are implicated here - typically don't.  There's a natural aversion on the part of the BK Courts to dealing with them, whether recognized or not.  Thus, seeing everything through the lens of getting a Plan of Reorganization confirmed, these issues can get sidelined to a degree.   So maybe Debtors get favorable outcomes from a BK Court unused to dealing with these issues, or at the very least the Debtors may have these issues delayed.  From Wayne's view, looking down the barrel of criminal/civil liabilities outside BK Court, these both look like wins.  

This is all just 60,000 foot view conjecture though, I've only reviewed the docket and skimmed some pleadings.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only solace I can take from the elephant hunt is that it was guided and that big old guy paid for a lot of villagers. I can only hope he fed them too. 
How the fuck do you miss three times when he's laying on the ground?
 

When you’re nervous and your hand is shaking with adrenaline because you’ve only ever held guns for show shit happens. And perhaps, like a grinch, somewhere deep down in his psyche is a five year old on his first trip to the zoo who knows it’s just plain wrong to do what he’s doing.
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chad Fuck said:


When you’re nervous and your hand is shaking with adrenaline because you’ve only ever held guns for show shit happens. And perhaps, like a grinch, somewhere deep down in his psyche is a five year old on his first trip to the zoo who knows it’s just plain wrong to do what he’s doing.

Bourdain killed a pig with a spear. That was the honor of being the guest at the long house. If you can't steel yourself enough to put down the elephant just let the pros handle it. Three times is fucked up. Go sit in the truck.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anybody surprised that he can't shoot?  


He's a fucking metrosexual jerkoff that spends more on clothes in a year than most people spend on their homes.

I'm betting he listens to Korean Boy Bands when nobody's looking. 

 

He's a joke, just like the organization he heads. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

Not a preference deal.  We're not to that point.  The NY action is stayed.  

What it looks like to me, just from a cursory docket review, is a whole lot of people including NY have jumped up and said, "this bankruptcy is a sham" and are trying to get it dismissed entirely (so they can pursue civil/criminal liabilities elsewhere) or have a third party neutral trustee substituted for whomever is running the show at the NRA currently (so if it isn't tossed, they can perhaps have those liabilities preserved as to the current management).  That would be the creditors view here in a nutshell.  

I think @TexasEd is definitely onto something regarding the Debtors' view.  It is somewhat rare for BK courts to dismiss BKs.  The BK Courts give wide latitude to the Debtors (as they would say, in a plaintiffs case) as to the when/where/how of choosing their forum.  The assumption is the Debtor gets to stay in BK Court unless very clearly shown they shouldn't be there.   The problem is, the BK Courts are used to driving the reorganization train down the tracks, and while law outside BK comes into play, sprawling criminal and civil liabilities  - such as are implicated here - typically don't.  There's a natural aversion on the part of the BK Courts to dealing with them, whether recognized or not.  Thus, seeing everything through the lens of getting a Plan of Reorganization confirmed, these issues can get sidelined to a degree.   So maybe Debtors get favorable outcomes from a BK Court unused to dealing with these issues, or at the very least the Debtors may have these issues delayed.  From Wayne's view, looking down the barrel of criminal/civil liabilities outside BK Court, these both look like wins.  

This is all just 60,000 foot view conjecture though, I've only reviewed the docket and skimmed some pleadings.  

 

Could you just boil this down to "these ghouls will be crucified and left to rot."  TIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have not seen this posted.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/03/politics/nra-bankruptcy-texas/index.html

The whole reason for the trial is to dissolve the incorporation in NY because they are in legal trouble for misappropriation of charity funds.  They want to reincorporate in Texas to get around the stupid shit they did financially.

Apparently Wayne kept it a secret from in-house counsel.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Have not seen this posted.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/03/politics/nra-bankruptcy-texas/index.html

The whole reason for the trial is to dissolve the incorporation in NY because they are in legal trouble for misappropriation of charity funds.  They want to reincorporate in Texas to get around the stupid shit they did financially.

Apparently Wayne kept it a secret from in-house counsel.

Ah yes, that makes sense.  

For the peanut gallery, Chapter 11 bankruptcies are usually "run" by a "debtor in possession," meaning the corporation itself has the sole responsibility of running itself during the bankruptcy subject to supervision and reporting to the court and the creditors while it puts together a reorganization plan.

In personal bankruptcies and some Chapter 11s, a "trustee" is appointed to handle the assets of the debtor.

So, it seems this "trial," really a motion hearing but an elaborate one, is to dismiss the bankruptcy as abusive (this is where assets exceeding liabilities might come into play, otherwise you do not have to be insolvent to file bankruptcy) and/or that a trustee be appointed to run the NRA until a reorganization plan is confirmed.

Bankruptcy is basically designed to prevent a "run on the corporate bank," where a bunch of creditors sue, foreclose, etc. and it starts becoming a complete free-for-all clusterfuck of numerous creditors trying to grab limited assets.  It is designed to make an "equalish" and "fair" distribution of the debtors assets among the various creditors.  If the creditors would actually be better off without the bankruptcy (usually meaning there aren't many and there are plenty of assets to satisfy their claims), it can be dismissed, but that can be very hard to prove.  Fiduciary (embezzling type) abuses by the management of the corporation, or gross incompetence, or both, can be reasons to appoint a trustee so that the officers and board of directors are no longer in control of the operation of the debtor. I don't think it's an issue here, but one danger of having a trustee appointed is that the trustee decides that the ongoing operation of the corporation is not feasible and converts it to a Chapter 7 liquidation, which means bye-bye debtor.

I am kind of guessing that what this amounts to is that a) the NRA doesn't really "owe money all over town," it filed for protection from the NY AG, which isn't really seeking money anyway, and that might be considered abusive, and b) the shenanigans of NRA management mean a trustee should appointed to run their shit until the bankruptcy is done.  Hello Alix Partners!

Gerrit Pronske, the lawyer for NY AG Leticia James, used to be a total BK badass in Dallas.  And he's solo or close to it, which is fairly amazing to me.

@Chad Fuck can check for accuracy.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, that makes sense.  
For the peanut gallery, Chapter 11 bankruptcies are usually "run" by a "debtor in possession," meaning the corporation itself has the sole responsibility of running itself during the bankruptcy subject to supervision and reporting to the court and the creditors while it puts together a reorganization plan.
In personal bankruptcies and some Chapter 11s, a "trustee" is appointed to handle the assets of the debtor.
So, it seems this "trial," really a motion hearing but an elaborate one, is to dismiss the bankruptcy as abusive (this is where assets exceeding liabilities might come into play, otherwise you do not have to be insolvent to file bankruptcy) and/or that a trustee be appointed to run the NRA until a reorganization plan is confirmed.
Bankruptcy is basically designed to prevent a "run on the corporate bank," where a bunch of creditors sue, foreclose, etc. and it starts becoming a complete free-for-all clusterfuck of numerous creditors trying to grab limited assets.  It is designed to make an "equalish" and "fair" distribution of the debtors assets among the various creditors.  If the creditors would actually be better off without the bankruptcy (usually meaning there aren't many and there are plenty of assets to satisfy their claims), it can be dismissed, but that can be very hard to prove.  Fiduciary (embezzling type) abuses by the management of the corporation, or gross incompetence, or both, can be reasons to appoint a trustee so that the officers and board of directors are no longer in control of the operation of the debtor. I don't think it's an issue here, but one danger of having a trustee appointed is that the trustee decides that the ongoing operation of the corporation is not feasible and converts it to a Chapter 7 liquidation, which means bye-bye debtor.
I am kind of guessing that what this amounts to is that a) the NRA doesn't really "owe money all over town," it filed for protection from the NY AG, which isn't really seeking money anyway, and that might be considered abusive, and b) the shenanigans of NRA management mean a trustee should appointed to run their shit until the bankruptcy is done.  Hello Alix Partners!
Gerrit Pronske, the lawyer for NY AG Leticia James, used to be a total BK badass in Dallas.  And he's solo or close to it, which is fairly amazing to me.
[mention=699]Chad Fuck[/mention] can check for accuracy.

This is about the size of it. Recall how I said the BK Courts can get bamboozled into letting a Debtor off of other legal hooks (criminal and civil liabilities) because of their focus on that which they know - reorganization. That article makes clear this was the NRAs play here. What remains to be seen is if the BK Court will see it for what it is and chuck them back into the street or stick with their usual adherence to riding the reorg train. I’d give it 50/50 chance.

By the way, there are various white shoe law firms around the country pitching this to god knows how many corporations as a way to avoid civil liabilities (mainly plaintiffs claims). If the NRA gets away with this, it could mean the end of mass torts. While some may see this as a good thing, I assure you it is not. You’ll see corporations using Bk to avoid any number of regulations. Dumping toxic waste? No problem, we can make that go away! File your bankruptcy petition! On and on ad nauseum.
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2021 at 6:01 PM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

The elephant's front feet were shipped to the U.S. to make footstools for Wayne and his wife. 

God damn motherfucking assholes!  

 

 


arent elephant parts / furniture illegal in the US ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:


arent elephant parts / furniture illegal in the US ?

Nope

 

March 6, 2018 at 6:50 p.m. PST
Add to list

The Trump administration will allow Americans to bring tusks and other elephant body parts back to this country as trophies, in a pivot away from the support President Trump voiced last year for an Obama-era trophy ban.

 

The decision, announced quietly in a March 1 memorandum from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, withdrew previous rulings on trophy hunting and said the agency would allow sport hunters to receive permits for the trophy items on a “case-by-case basis.”

The move contrasts sharply with the position taken by Trump in November.

After the Fish and Wildlife Service announced a repeal of the ban on the importation of elephant-hunt trophies from Zimbabwe and Zambia, wide public outcry prompted Trump and Ryan Zinke, the secretary of the interior, which houses the wildlife agency, to put the repeal on hold until further review.

Trump later called elephant hunting a “horror show” and said that it would be very difficult for anyone to change his mind.

 

Proponents of big-game hunting and the current Interior Department leadership believe that money from permits to hunt elephants would aid in their conservation by putting more revenue in the system.  The agency’s memo cites a long-running lawsuit against the ban filed by Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm.

“The Trump administration is trying to keep these crucial trophy import decisions behind closed doors, and that’s totally unacceptable,” Tanya Sanerib, international legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told the Associated Press. “Elephants aren’t meant to be trophies, they’re meant to roam free.”

The president’s sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are avid game hunters. A photograph of Trump Jr. holding a knife and a dead elephant’s tail after a hunt in Zimbabwe in 2011 has drawn wide attention in the past.

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck the NRA. My Dad was a lifetime member and I joined in the 80's. It didn't take long to sniff out they were a fraud fund raising scam and I bailed when it expired. They (LaPierre and Co) care about money. They give zero actual fucks about gun control. They don't want to see their money cow go dry. If you object, you hate America and the 2nd!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...