Lawsuit against USPSA

[motosapiens]

4 hours ago, ltdmstr said:

 I'm not sure what you're beef is, 

i don't have a 'beef'. I just pointed out that this statement was not accurate. It is in fact highly likely and quite common that untrue or misleading allegations would be included in a lawsuit.

Quote

Wow!  Highly unlikely they'd include the allegations about corporate status in the complaint if those weren't already verified as true. 

 

[motosapiens]

2 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

What is damning to the organization is the clear inference that USPSA was encouraging members to violate/ignore CO state law.

On the one hand, I believe USPSA made a mistake in that instance because a national event is just too big a thing to expect to get away without someone noticing.

 

OTOH, the majority of USPSA shooters seem to be perfectly ok with ignoring colorado state law (and similar laws in other states that appear to be totally unenforced). Pretty much everyone I know has shot some matches at cameo, and pretty much all of them broke the law to do so. Obviously a state-level match is much less of a thing than nationals, and whoever was freaked out about colorado laws probably just chooses to not shoot level 1 or level 2 matches there without a second thought. It's a much bigger deal to choose not to shoot nationals.

 

From the viewpoint of anti-gun libtards, and from the viewpoint of uspsa-haters, uspsa's actions were damning to the organization, but most other people seem to be fairly indifferent, at least based on the out of state attendance at the bighorn classic match.

[ltdmstr]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

 I just pointed out that this statement was not accurate. It is in fact highly likely and quite common that untrue or misleading allegations would be included in a lawsuit.

 

 

How is the statement (regarding their corporate status as alleged in the complaint) not accurate?  It's already proven to be true. 

[ampleworks]

Several mentions of E&O insurance providing a defense for the organization but the real issue here is that any insurance company worth a salt is going to NOPE out of that duty the moment they find out that the org signed (or renewed) the policy that they were not an actual corporation.

 

3.3.1 would've been difficult to prove depending on the firearm except for those that didn't exist in 2013 (like most of the popular CO guns as well as the Sig PCC).  The real problem with 3.3.1 are the implications for those who are in a cleared job field despite it only being a misdemeanor, it's still a charge that you'll be reporting to your FSO or listing on your next  SF86. 

 

Having gone public with this in the form of a lawsuit, I don't feel that Joe will allow this to settle out of court for several reasons: (1) he already claims his due process was violated. (2) a settlement will have confidential terms as well as no admission of fault - because of the alleged actions by the board, it's unlikely he would accept this outcome because the large number of exhibits produced clearly demonstrates that he intends to hold the board accountable. (3) he has nothing to loose as he's already banned from the sport and the lawsuit will turn the 1 year duration into a permanent lifetime sentence should he lose.

[Rob Boudrie]

53 minutes ago, ampleworks said:

3.3.1 would've been difficult to prove depending on the firearm except for those that didn't exist in 2013 (like most of the popular CO guns as well as the Sig PCC).  The real problem with 3.3.1 are the implications for those who are in a cleared job field despite it only being a misdemeanor, it's still a charge that you'll be reporting to your FSO or listing on your next  SF86. 

Since the grandfathering requires "personal possession" prior to the ban and the CO law went into effect July 1, 2013, good luck to the 21 year old shooter who claims he stockpiled mags when he was 11.  It would be easy to prove that not every competitor (i.e., not "all competitors") could legally possess high cap mags at the match, thus making 3.3.1 applicable.

 

Another example - a crime involving guns or ammo for which any jail time can possibly be imposed (even small misdemeanors nobody ever gets time for typically have a maximum time on the books) is a lifetime ban on possession of guns, ammo or high cap mags in the Democratik People's Republik of Massachusetts.

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Rob Boudrie

[BritinUSA]

2 hours ago, ltdmstr said:

How is the statement (regarding their corporate status as alleged in the complaint) not accurate?  It's already proven to be true. 

Additionally, the complaint is signed under penalty of perjury. If the complaint contains materially false statements then USPSA could counter-sue and the plaintiff could find himself in legal jeopardy.

[ltdmstr]

29 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Additionally, the complaint is signed under penalty of perjury. If the complaint contains materially false statements then USPSA could counter-sue and the plaintiff could find himself in legal jeopardy.

 

That's correct.  And the lawyers, if they did so knowingly, or even negligently, could be subject to sanctions and/or disciplinary action. 

[Gene_WI]

I think USPSA in its current form is done. The mismanagement is so severe that the org is probably beyond saving. I would not be surprised if some of the current board members/employees end up doing time for fraud.

 

The sport will be fine. The rule set will live on, some other entity will by buy it and keep going.

[BritinUSA]

At some point IPSC may have to become involved if they determine that USPSA no longer meets the requirements for membership.

 

Quote

5.9 The Executive Council may, by unanimous vote, suspend the affiliation of any Regional Directorate for failure to respect the Principles of Practical Shooting, or for defalcation or mismanagement of the affairs of its Region, or for misrepresentation of or failure to represent the interests of Practical Shooters residing therein, or for any action deemed harmful to another region or to the confederation as a whole.
 

Such suspension must be ratified by a majority of votes cast at the next ensuing Assembly. The Assembly may, on recommendation of Executive Council and by a majority of three- fourths of the votes cast, expel a Regional Directorate for the reasons aforementioned, whereupon the Region shall be declared vacant.

I realise that such a step would have little impact on the vast majority of our members, but for those who wish to compete internationally (including our national teams) they would need to be members of an IPSC region.

 

Whether USPSA continues under a different name, we would still require a USIPSC.org that operates under the IPSC ruleset as they would be unlikely to accept a new org that used a different rulebook. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by BritinUSA

[858]

3 hours ago, ampleworks said:

Several mentions of E&O insurance providing a defense for the organization but the real issue here is that any insurance company worth a salt is going to NOPE out of that duty the moment they find out that the org signed (or renewed) the policy that they were not an actual corporation.

 

 

 

I wondered how valid their insurance policy was when the corporation was no longer held open by DE? All states hold open corporations when they expire but even that time period has passed for the USPSA 501C3. Like you, I think USPSA may be paying the legal bills out of the Organization's cash accounts. The individual board members are also named and it will be interesting to see who pays their legal fees if the insurance policy doesn't. I bet discovery will be unpleasant.

 

 

[GJM]

I think it is important to remember that a lawsuit is one side's version of events. Once USPSA lawyers up, they will surely have defenses, including that despite some initial confusion, and correspondence with the local sheriff, out of an abundance of caution and at great expense, they moved the event across the country to Alabama. 
 

If I were in charge, I would be unbanning a number of people, in exchange for an agreement to work in the best interest of USPSA. 
 

By now, USPSA's counsel will have advised all directors and employees to not destroy and maintain all email, text messages, other documents or social media posts relevant to Cameo and the terminations. This is going to be expensive and uncomfortable, and all should consider settling this. 

[mreed911]

42 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Whether USPSA continues under a different name, we would still require a USIPSC.org that operates under the IPSC ruleset as they would be unlikely to accept a new org that used a different rulebook. 

 

Wonder who owns that domain.  Registered late last year through a private hosting/registrar company.  Not me.

[mreed911]

1 minute ago, GJM said:

By now, USPSA's counsel will have advised all directors and employees to not destroy and maintain all email, text messages, other documents or social media posts relevant to Cameo and the terminations. This is going to be expensive and uncomfortable, and all should consider settling this. 

 

Discovery of text messages from personal cell phones should be fun, as should personal emails between board members, AD's, etc.

[Rob Boudrie]

19 minutes ago, GJM said:

By now, USPSA's counsel will have advised all directors and employees to not destroy and maintain all email, text messages, other documents or social media posts relevant to Cameo and the terminations. This is going to be expensive and uncomfortable, and all should consider settling this. 

The spoliation letter from Rutowski was sent out months ago (and is one of the attachments in the filing).

Quote

If I were in charge, I would be unbanning a number of people, in exchange for an agreement to work in the best interest of USPSA. 

The problem with that is that the board thinks it is acting in the best interests of USPSA.   

Edited September 10, 2023 by Rob Boudrie

[858]

55 minutes ago, Rob Boudrie said:

The spoliation letter from Rutowski was sent out months ago (and is one of the attachments in the filing).

The problem with that is that the board thinks it is acting in the best interests of USPSA.   

 

You got an honorable mention by the BOD in exhibit 13.

 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by 858

[Out of Ammo]

The problem is that some people, even when shown by all the evidence that they've made the wrong decision, will continue and won't make a correction.   Why? Because they've sucked themselves into a black hole and see themselves as victims and it's us against the world.

[konkapot]

Random thoughts. 

 

Why not just decline to shoot the match in Colorado? Get your match free refunded and call it a day? Life is short, and using bandwidth engaging in legal action against a shooting organization is very low on my "to do" list. 

 

USPSA is not three guys sitting around a table at a gunshow. It's a multimillion dollar organization with highly paid staff. It's reasonable to expect the staff to be doing their job and doing it in a reasonably civilized manner. 

[cheby]

2 minutes ago, konkapot said:

 

 

 

USPSA is not three guys sitting around a table at a gunshow. It's a multimillion dollar organization with highly paid staff. It's reasonable to expect the staff to be doing their job and doing it in a reasonably civilized manner. 

Not exactly…. USPSA is a very small organization. Here’s the financials: 

https://uspsa.org/documents/minutes/20230828 2022 Financial Statements.pdf

 

From the money perspective it’s a mom and pop shop. 

[BritinUSA]

40 minutes ago, konkapot said:

Why not just decline to shoot the match in Colorado? 

There are two types of members; Those that shoot for fun, the hobbyist, and those that take the sport very seriously, these are the competitors.

 

Competitors train all year to improve their skills, and the best place to test those skills is at a National competition, where they can compete head-to-head against the best shooters in the country.

 

Competitors should not have been placed in a position to choose between competing and breaking the law, that is the fault of the organization.

 

I can understand why they scheduled the match at Cameo; There was a bill in Colorado to allow standard capacity magazines for sporting use and the revenue the Nationals would bring to the local community was significant. This might give incentive for the politicians to allow the provision in the law.

 

But the moment that the bill died in committee, USPSA should have moved the event. They did not. Instead they doubled-down on that bad decision, and everything that followed, including multiple suspensions, was a direct consequence of that decision.

 

Members wanted to shoot Nationals, they did not want to break the law to do it.

Edited September 10, 2023 by BritinUSA
Typo

[mreed911]

45 minutes ago, konkapot said:

USPSA is not three guys sitting around a table at a gunshow. It's a multimillion dollar organization with highly paid staff. It's reasonable to expect the staff to be doing their job and doing it in a reasonably civilized manner. 

 

That's exactly the point of the suit, it seems.  That doesn't appear to be happening today and it's having effects on individual members in what's alleged to be a capricious manner, along with not doing the things that constitution running the organization in a reasonably civilized manner.  Will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

[IVC]

On 9/8/2023 at 2:51 PM, ltdmstr said:

Failure to follow state filing requirements and/or articles of incorporation has legal implications for officers and directors of the corporation.  Again, this is all basic corporate law.  If the allegations are true, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.  And that's just the corporate status part of it.  What happened with the particular individual involved is a whole separate issue.

That would be for a DA/AG to enforce in a criminal case. This is a civil, not criminal issue. 

[IVC]

On 9/8/2023 at 3:18 PM, BritinUSA said:

If it goes to trial then the BOD will have to fully explain why the membership was terminated; This will open up the can of worms regarding the internal emails that were flying around at the time concerning the magazine issue.

Why would they have to explain his suspension? The Claim for Relief on page 22 of the complaint alleges all sorts of wild things, but not a single one is about whether his actions were sufficient for suspension. 

[BritinUSA]

FYI: practical.shooting.insights on Instagram has reported that several people have notified IRS that USPSA was not a registered corporation in good standing since 2018.

 

I think the 501(c)(3) is dependent on being a registered corporation. 

[IVC]

On 9/9/2023 at 9:29 AM, BritinUSA said:

The exhibits contain examples of the Magazine, tax filings etc. Of particular interest is the slew of emails to and from Joe/USPSA concerning the Nationals that was scheduled for cameo.

Yet none of that appears in the Claim for Relief, which is the essence of a complaint in the civil court, and which is the basis for claiming injury. 

[BritinUSA]

Just now, IVC said:

Yet none of that appears in the Claim for Relief, which is the essence of a complaint in the civil court, and which is the basis for claiming injury. 

I think it's background information.