Lawsuit against USPSA

[IVC]

23 hours ago, motosapiens said:

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.

There is more than that, but it's irrelevant based on what the lawsuit is asking for. The whole introduction about what happened in CO has nothing to do with the latter claims. The claims are all about bylaws not being authorized and the status of the USPSA as an organization limiting their ability to operate. 

 

There isn't a single line claiming what he did was right (or wrong), and there isn't a single line about dealing with the CO law. Anyone ever suspended by the USPSA for whatever reason could bring exactly the same lawsuit. 

[IVC]

On 9/9/2023 at 10:34 AM, GJM said:

Most cases settle, and only a small percentage go to trial. Not sure about in Ohio, but it is a two to three year process to get to trial in many state courts. This isn't good, but seems highly unlikely to tank the organization. 

There is nothing to settle - whether he gets reinstated or not, the claims about the bylaws and corporate status remain. He's not saying that he was wrongfully suspended, he's saying that the organization doesn't have the tools or the capacity to suspend anyone. Can't settle that... 

[IVC]

19 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

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. 

Yet again, it has nothing to do with the lawsuit. The paperwork violations will be corrected and the whole issue goes away.

 

What's left in the claim after USPSA cleans up the technicalities? They are certainly embarrassing and unacceptable, but that's for us, the members, to resolve. I mean, we had a discussion about YML on CalGuns (a political and gun forum) where people attacked USPSA for cleaning up unacceptable behavior. Can't have it both ways - either cleanup starts, or it never happens. But no matter what, these are all still technicalities that don't affect shooting directly. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by IVC

[IVC]

17 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

I think it's background information.

Of course it is. And that's the problem with these types of lawsuits, where it's all about whining and not understanding the legal system.

 

When a plaintiff makes a claim of injury, he has to show that the defendant was liable for it. The plaintiff in this case is essentially saying "The only reason they can't suspend me is because bylaws are illegitimate. If the bylaws were legitimate they could suspend me, just it wouldn't be nice because I don't like how the process works." 

 

Look at the complaint. Lines 62(E) and 62(I) are the all there is - USPSA hasn't approved bylaws and it's suspended, therefore it cannot act in any way, including suspending members. There is absolutely nothing about his actions or the process that is based on merits. There is no claim that the bylaws cannot be the way they are, or that they were improperly applied as they are written. Only that because of technicalities the organization cannot function. 

 

Bring out the popcorn and watch both this lawsuit and this thread develop... 

[RJH]

5 minutes ago, IVC said:

Of course it is. And that's the problem with these types of lawsuits, where it's all about whining and not understanding the legal system.

 

When a plaintiff makes a claim of injury, he has to show that the defendant was liable for it. The plaintiff in this case is essentially saying "The only reason they can't suspend me is because bylaws are illegitimate. If the bylaws were legitimate they could suspend me, just it wouldn't be nice because I don't like how the process works." 

 

Look at the complaint. Lines 62(E) and 62(I) are the all there is - USPSA hasn't approved bylaws and it's suspended, therefore it cannot act in any way, including suspending members. There is absolutely nothing about his actions or the process that is based on merits. There is no claim that the bylaws cannot be the way they are, or that they were improperly applied as they are written. Only that because of technicalities the organization cannot function. 

 

Bring out the popcorn and watch both this lawsuit and this thread develop... 

 

 

So since they couldn't change the bylaws, if that's the case and I'm reading what you're saying correctly, does that mean YML is still the legit President 

[DoubleDelta]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

 

 

So since they couldn't change the bylaws, if that's the case and I'm reading what you're saying correctly, does that mean YML is still the legit President 

 

I'm not even sure there is a president.  Heck, I'm not even sure there is a board. 

 

If the reasoning in the suit is correct that nothing done according to the bylaws (that have never been voted on) is valid, It calls all kinds of stuff into question.  One of those things is the board.  The original board was set by articles of incorporation which said they would serve until their replacements could be selected...according to the bylaws...which may never have been valid.

 

Wow, I picked a weird weekend to decide to get back into the game.

[JWBaldree]

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

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. 

I would hope this is not the case, as it would be a world class d-bag move. Basically 'We have to kill USPSA to save USPSA'.  While one can make the argument that USPSA has been doubling down on stupid, irrational and crazy, attacking it from the other end of the bell curve with that stupid, irrational and crazy won't make anything better.  I'm not making the argument that no one should criticize, I'm saying that at least make that criticism constructive and not self-destructive.

 

It would be nice if the board would at least acknowledge the disfunctionality going back into the Kim Williams era, and at least make an effort to make USPSA corporate not look like the Boss Hogg, good ole' boys club, of the sport we all enjoy. We as members also need to recognize that we have received all of the professionalism / disfunctionality that we have voted for and paid for as well. 

[BritinUSA]

The lawsuit will either fail or succeed, the members have no direct control over the outcome. The only people that can make changes to the situation - and learn from it - are the current BOD. They can either continue as before, or acknowlege that there are serious issues that must be addressed. 

 

The members cannot remove a BOD member; They can only vote for the people that may fix problems, but if they don't fix the problems then the members are stuck with that choice for years. There is no recall option, a provision that needs to be added to the bylaws to add accountability.

 

Those that participate solely in L1 matches may have little interest in the national issues affecting the organization. But there are a significant number that have invested heavily in this sport, both financially and in time and effort to improve their skills.

[858]

28 minutes ago, JWBaldree said:

I would hope this is not the case, as it would be a world class d-bag move. Basically 'We have to kill USPSA to save USPSA'.  While one can make the argument that USPSA has been doubling down on stupid, irrational and crazy, attacking it from the other end of the bell curve with that stupid, irrational and crazy won't make anything better.  I'm not making the argument that no one should criticize, I'm saying that at least make that criticism constructive and not self-destructive.

 

It would be nice if the board would at least acknowledge the disfunctionality going back into the Kim Williams era, and at least make an effort to make USPSA corporate not look like the Boss Hogg, good ole' boys club, of the sport we all enjoy. We as members also need to recognize that we have received all of the professionalism / disfunctionality that we have voted for and paid for as well. 

 

I don't know the purpose those people allegedly contacted the IRS but the USPSA runs a charity and there are tax implications to donors. I can see why someone would want to get out in front of the issue with the IRS. There's probably a reward in it too. 

[ltdmstr]

3 hours ago, IVC said:

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

 

Not sure what you think I said, but noncompliance with filing requirements is not a criminal matter.  And questions regarding powers of officers and directors of a void corporation would be matters for the chancery court (DE), not criminal court.

[Rob Boudrie]

2 hours ago, IVC said:

There isn't a single line claiming what he did was right (or wrong), and there isn't a single line about dealing with the CO law. Anyone ever suspended by the USPSA for whatever reason could bring exactly the same lawsuit. 

There is, but you have to read the claims carefully and understand the terms: 

"Public Policy" is a legal term with a specific meaning.  In this case, the plaintiff alleges that penalizing someone for disclosing wrongdoing on the part of an organization is contrary to "Public Policy" and therefore actionable.  The plaintiff is arguing that taking action against him for truthfully disclosing the organization advocating breaking of the law is "against public policy" and therefore invalid.   Decisions, contractual terms and policies enacted by organizations that are against public policy can be voided by the court.  

[Joe4d]

20 minutes ago, ltdmstr said:

 

Not sure what you think I said, but noncompliance with filing requirements is not a criminal matter.  And questions regarding powers of officers and directors of a void corporation would be matters for the chancery court (DE), not criminal court.

no but fraud, and aiding and abetting, complicity, conspiracy, and Rico are crimes. The CO AG needs to be added to the lawsuit for turning a blind eye.
Seriously guys,, Contact IPSC and tell them we need a new US org. I would think criminal activity of the leadership would justify it.
 

The Law § 18-1-603, C.R.S.

Under Colorado’s complicity statute, a defendant may be liable for a crime committed by another person if, “with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, he or she aids, abets, advises, or encourages the other person in planning or committing the offense.”

Our supreme court has interpreted this statute to require a dual mental state:

(1) the complicitor must have the culpable mental state required for the underlying crime committed by the principal,

and

(2) the complicitor must assist or encourage the commission of the crime with the intent to promote or facilitate it.

The jury instruction on the law reads as follows:

A person is guilty of an offense committed by another person if he is a complicitor. To be guilty as a complicitor, the following must be established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. A crime must have been committed.

2. Another person must have committed all or part of the crime.

3. The defendant must have had knowledge that the other person intended to commit all or part of the crime.

4  The defendant must have had the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime.

5. The defendant must have aided, abetted, advised, or encouraged the other person in the commission or planning of the crime.

[BritinUSA]

35 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

Seriously guys,, Contact IPSC and tell them we need a new US org. I would think criminal activity of the leadership would justify it.

It's got my vote. There are provisions in the IPSC Constitution to remove USPSA and pass the regional directorate to a new organization. 
 

I am not sure if the IPSC Executive Council is fully aware of these issues.

[warpspeed]

What is most interesting is the naming of the Board members as individuals. 

[BritinUSA]

47 minutes ago, warpspeed said:

What is most interesting is the naming of the Board members as individuals. 

 

I think that was necessary as the line-up has changed since the Cameo/Suspensions occurred.

 

There is also the possibility that the org/insurers can't/won't cover any financial settlement. The latter may depend on whether the org was a legal corporation at the time of the incident(s). 

[IVC]

5 hours ago, RJH said:

 

 

So since they couldn't change the bylaws, if that's the case and I'm reading what you're saying correctly, does that mean YML is still the legit President 

Hardly. It's only an allegation about the legitimacy of the bylaws. 
 

What we have here is akin to arguing that you can get out of the speeding ticket if the officer made an administrative error and put down the wrong section of the vehicle code. Well, he can correct the error and now we get to talk about the merits... Did YML dry-hump anyone and call deltas Richards? 

[IVC]

1 hour ago, warpspeed said:

What is most interesting is the naming of the Board members as individuals. 

It's very common. In fact, most complaints will include a number of "John Doe" defendants who are placeholders for the unknown individuals who will be added during the discovery phase when their identities become known.

[IVC]

2 hours ago, Rob Boudrie said:

"Public Policy" is a legal term with a specific meaning.  In this case, the plaintiff alleges that penalizing someone for disclosing wrongdoing on the part of an organization is contrary to "Public Policy" and therefore actionable.

No, there is no mention of any conduct or merits of the suspension, only the allegation that he couldn't have been suspended under any circumstance because of the technicalities. If you think otherwise, cite the section of the complaint where he supposedly makes this claim. 
 

Anyone ever suspended for any reason, say for smoking pot at "make ready" and then sweeping the RO intentionally, could raise exactly the same issues raised in the complaint - that the BOD and the bylaws are illegitimate because of a technicality and therefore the suspension is invalid. 
 

I didn't see a single claim that had to do with the merits of the suspension. Not one. In fact if the USPSA had the books in order, there would be nothing left in the complaint. 

[IVC]

1 hour ago, Joe4d said:

The CO AG needs to be added to the lawsuit for turning a blind eye.

Ugh! Don't know where to start with this. What exactly would the damage claim in a civil court be? And even if there is one, how would you even begin to address qualified immunity? Or gain standing?  

[IVC]

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

It's got my vote. There are provisions in the IPSC Constitution to remove USPSA and pass the regional directorate to a new organization. 

What happens when nobody joins the new organization and local marches just keep operating under the current USPSA rules?

 

The props, bays, targets, setup knowledge, stage design, organization, running of the matches, etc. are all part of the local clubs. USPSA is not some pariah organization holding an iron fist over shooting sports. It's an organization that provides consistent rules and gets nominal amount for each classifier. If someone takes over, the local clubs can continue operating without as much as a blink or a hiccup by ignoring it completely. Especially if the name "USPSA" can now be used freely because the organization no longer exists. 

[Rob Boudrie]

9 minutes ago, IVC said:

No, there is no mention of any conduct or merits of the suspension, only the allegation that he couldn't have been

I read it to refer to the mention of suspension for revealing the "ignore the law" position of the board as being contrary to public policy.   But what you or I think is irrelevant - only the court gets a vote, and I have seen some court decisions that require considerable analytical strain (with due credit to Judge Woodlock of the 1st Circuit for the expression)

[BritinUSA]

6 minutes ago, IVC said:

What happens when nobody joins the new organization and local matches just keep operating under the current USPSA rules?

It may be that the only people that join are those that wish to participate internationally, along with those that wish to use the same rule-book as the rest of the world. I don't know what those numbers are and neither will anyone else until a USIPSC organization is formed.

 

A more stream-lined and efficient organization would have costs significantly lower than USPSA; If it were me I'd run it as an LLC not a 501(c)(3) and invest excess profit back into L1 clubs to improve their facilities/equipment.

[IVC]

12 minutes ago, Rob Boudrie said:

I read it to refer to the mention of suspension for revealing the "ignore the law" position of the board as being contrary to public policy.   But what you or I think is irrelevant - only the court gets a vote, and I have seen some court decisions that require considerable analytical strain (with due credit to Judge Woodlock of the 1st Circuit for the expression)

If there were no question about the validity of the bylaws and the standing of the corporation, could he make any claim about the validity of his suspension? 

[BritinUSA]

2 hours ago, Rob Boudrie said:

"Public Policy" is a legal term with a specific meaning.  In this case, the plaintiff alleges that penalizing someone for disclosing wrongdoing on the part of an organization is contrary to "Public Policy" and therefore actionable.  The plaintiff is arguing that taking action against him for truthfully disclosing the organization advocating breaking of the law is "against public policy" and therefore invalid.   Decisions, contractual terms and policies enacted by organizations that are against public policy can be voided by the court.  

 I think @Rob Boudrie point is very clear. Item (K) clearly shows the grounds for appeal of the suspension. This could stand alone from the other issues of the corporation/bylaws.

 

They are claiming that USPSA suspended him because he called out their actions that were contrary to Public Policy. Rob also quoted one of the laws that would apply here,  § 18-1-603, C.R.S.

[RJH]

I don't know jack s*** about legal proceedings, etc. How many of y'all commenting on this have worked as a lawyer or something to that effect. I don't know who to listen to here. It is interesting hearing two takes, as a lay person I can kind of see both sides, but I really don't know what I'm looking at as I am by no means informed on this subject. So, tell me your legal background so I'll know if I should listen to you LOL