TargetTalk

Accuracy Counts wrote:I am curious . . . never heard of board members not being protected from personal liability in connection with their duties on the board, especially from expenses incurred from legal fees. Many would argue not permitting indemnification or only allowing when a small executive committee approves it makes board members powerless, in which case why have a board.

Actually it is common, you can't just hide behind a board of a company (think Enron, Tyco, etc). As a director or officer of a corporation (including non-profits) you're responsible for your actions.

Few things are black and white in law and most things can be argued about. Yes, board members are personally indemnified from liability in the course of their duties. Caveat: unless they acted illegally or clearly in a wrong way. From the outset it appears that USAS made a boneheaded move and that the board members being sued did not act improperly. However, the catch is that board members usually get reimbursement of their legal expenses after the fact, when the legal process is over and all determinations have been made or the case settled. Until then, they are often on their own. That is very likely what USAS people are banking on. Of course a competent lawyer will file a counterclaim and request that USAS cover their side's expenses too.

jhmartin wrote:http://www.vc4hss.com/__USAS_Sec10_Complaint/index.htm
New docs posted

Thank you very much - an insightful (if incomplete) collection. Of notable interest specifically if you are (like I am) an advocate with some involvement in sports law, while being legal adviser to one (European) non-ISSF federation.
I have read it with a few chuckles and (more frequently) have been shaking my head about USAS.

Alexander

Why the hell did they split from the NRA in the first place? It couldn't have been the "service", looking at the state of USA Shooting now.

The CMP split from the AMU years ago, and Gary Anderson ended up head of the CMP. Now there is a row about management, and I see Gary Anderson's name in there again.

I don't know the details of the CMP/AMU split, it was before my time. Were the circumstances similarly tense in that split, and is Gary's commonality just a coincidence?

Rover wrote:Why the hell did they split from the NRA in the first place? It couldn't have been the "service", looking at the state of USA Shooting now.

For a simplistic explanation, NRA has been and is very much a political lobbying organization (specifically the ILA now) and an Olympic NGB cannot be political in that way. The simple solution was to form a new organization (USAS) as the NGB.

The CMP split from the AMU years ago,

The CMP (civilian Marksmanship Proram) is a descendant of the Army's old DCM (Department of civilian Marksmanship). Neither have been associated with the AMU (Army Marksmanship Unit), located at Ft Benning who's mission is to improve marksmanship throughout the army via developing methods of training suitable to all shooters (and tested and proven by the AMU members).

Rover wrote:Why the hell did they split from the NRA in the first place? It couldn't have been the "service", looking at the state of USA Shooting now.

In the late 1980s, there were allegations that the NRA was using the Olympic shooting team as a financial stalking horse, using it to raise money that the Olympic shooting program never saw in any form. This brewed up into a request, in 1994 IIRC, by several Olympic shooters to strip the NRA as NGB. The NRA gave up NGB status about a week before the USOC was to hold a hearing.

What's happening now is distressingly reminiscent of the events of thirty years ago.

I donated. I hope that many of you USA shooters do the same.

I also personally find it despicable that at least three of the board members/ top officials with USA shooting have decided to spend donations to USA shooting to sue their own athletes and other board members, to try and intimidate them into dropping their grievance.

Isabel, the prayer for declaratory judgement in a statal court mostly is a tactical move by USA Shooting, tactical in the sense of procedural tactics. Its intent is to stall the intra-organizational grievance hearing procedure, which by now has been escalated to USOC, but still is substantially (in its core) the orginal grievance from spring time - an important consideration,
Edward G. Williams Esq. will have to discuss with his clients whether he will object to this and ask for an in limine dismissal of this declaratory prayer, citing a present lack of competentia fori. That is a tactical decision, more than an argument of material law.

Alexander

Alexander wrote:Isabel, the prayer for declaratory judgement in a statal court mostly is a tactical move by USA Shooting, tactical in the sense of procedural tactics. Its intent is to stall the intra-organizational grievance hearing procedure, which by now has been escalated to USOC, but still is substantially (in its core) the orginal grievance from spring time - an important consideration,
Edward G. Williams Esq. will have to discuss with his clients whether he will object to this and ask for an in limine dismissal of this declaratory prayer, citing a present lack of competentia fori. That is a tactical decision, more than an argument of material law.

Alexander

I understand perfectly what you are saying here. These people don't want to lose their grip on power. This doesn't alter the fact that it is despicable, because it is being done with donated money, and also because the Colorado court in my opinion, probably lacks jurisdiction over a number of people named in the complaint, including some of the shooters, and members of the board.

(I've got a JD). But it has been a long time since I have taken Civil Proceedure.

Alexander & Isabel1130 ....

Too darned bad the motion to dismiss and the mediation are not televised live ... you two could provide the "color commentary" and explain to us in either American or English what all was going on.

It would be much more entertaining than a Sport Pistol final!

UPDATED - Oct 19
http://www.vc4hss.com/__USAS_Sec10_Complaint/index.htm

UPDATED - Oct 19 PM
Turner Motion to Dismiss or Stay w/ Exhibits added

jhmartin wrote:
It would be much more entertaining than a Sport Pistol final!

That's a fact that is beyond any refute. I watched a guy ( and helped a little) building a wall at our club. He was using concrete block. Watched him and handed him blocks and mortar for about an hour. Was way more entertaining than almost any sport pistol final I have ever watched.

Isabel1130 wrote: This doesn't alter the fact that it is despicable, because it is being done with donated money,

No question here. Despicable it is.

Isabel1130 wrote: and also because the Colorado court in my opinion, probably lacks jurisdiction over a number of people named in the complaint, including some of the shooters, and members of the board.

(I've got a JD). But it has been a long time since I have taken Civil Proceedure.

Personal jurisdiction exists if the defendants "purposely availed themselves of the benefits and protections of the forum state." This establishes "specific jurisdiction" of the court over a given matter before it (as opposed to more inclusive "general jurisdiction" which exists over those defendants who are residents of the forum state, such as Turner himself). Since all defendants are USAS board members, most likely they did "avail themselves" of the benefits and protections of the state of Colorado by conducting business in their role of board members. Note how the motion to dismiss did not even attempt to argue personal jurisdiction. However, it raised a number of other good defenses: failure to state a claim for which relief can be awarded, failure to exhaust statutory remedies, etc., and also, if the case nonetheless moves forward, the motion makes a request for USAS to cover the legal expenses of the defendants.

shaky hands wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote: This doesn't alter the fact that it is despicable, because it is being done with donated money,

No question here. Despicable it is.

Isabel1130 wrote: and also because the Colorado court in my opinion, probably lacks jurisdiction over a number of people named in the complaint, including some of the shooters, and members of the board.

(I've got a JD). But it has been a long time since I have taken Civil Proceedure.

Personal jurisdiction exists if the defendants "purposely availed themselves of the benefits and protections of the forum state." This establishes "specific jurisdiction" of the court over a given matter before it (as opposed to more inclusive "general jurisdiction" which exists over those defendants who are residents of the forum state, such as Turner himself). Since all defendants are USAS board members, most likely they did "avail themselves" of the benefits and protections of the state of Colorado by conducting business in their role of board members. Note how the motion to dismiss did not even attempt to argue personal jurisdiction. However, it raised a number of other good defenses: failure to state a claim for which relief can be awarded, failure to exhaust statutory remedies, etc., and also, if the case nonetheless moves forward, the motion makes a request for USAS to cover the legal expenses of the defendants.

All true, but one of the other reasons is, you don't want to get into a jurisdictional battle, when the entire point of the law suit was an attempt to run out the clock on the Grievance.

And you don't want to argue diversity, because the remedy would be removal to Federal court. Those things eat up time also.

The failure to state a claim, may be a winning argument. I mean the Grievance is being handled with an appeal to the IOC correct?

Isabel1130 wrote:I mean the Grievance is being handled with an appeal to the IOC correct?

USOC --- The Section 10 submittal

jhmartin wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote:I mean the Grievance is being handled with an appeal to the IOC correct?

USOC --- The Section 10 submittal

Yes, I stand corrected. And the sooner, the better.

Isabel1130 wrote: All true, but one of the other reasons is, you don't want to get into a jurisdictional battle, when the entire point of the law suit was an attempt to run out the clock on the Grievance.

And you don't want to argue diversity, because the remedy would be removal to Federal court. Those things eat up time also.

The failure to state a claim, may be a winning argument. I mean the Grievance is being handled with an appeal to the IOC correct?

Fortunately, plaintiffs cannot remove to federal court (and then further delay the process), only defendants can, and they probably do not want any delay. (But then who knows, often state courts have a bigger case load and move even slower. If I am not mistaken, Turner has a NY attorney, so removal in theory would make sense, but then there might be other tactical issues involved.) I am not sure if this case is removable at all: there is definitely no diversity here as at least one of the defendants is a citizen of Colorado, the state of USAS citizenship. However, if the case "arises under" a federal law, then removal is allowed. (And since Sports Act is being referenced in the USOC grievance, it might indeed turn on a federal law question.)