Lawsuit against USPSA

[Dutchman195]

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

 

However, I think they do have to address the issue of corporate status and explain how that situation occurred, and what steps they are taking to prevent a re-occurrence.  

The smart move would be to address it head on. 

 

What really will happen is they'll say nothing and I would guess if asked in person or a direct email you'll get a response that says "Its being fixed"

[Braxton1]

My main issue in this is not "whether or not the Corporation exists".  It is the ability for the BoD to suspend members based on them "bringing the sport into disrepute".

 

I consider "bringing the sport into disrepute" to be acts such as showing up drunk at a match, being a lech and making inappropriate comments to women/children, and other types of general "anti-social behavior".  Cheating and consistently unsafe actions could also be under this umbrella.  Being a critic doesn't rise to that level, IMHO.

 

Criticizing the leadership of an organization is an act that goes back to pre-historic times.  I am sure that some mouthy cavemen complained that Thork the Chief was doing some wrong.  Maybe Thork was; maybe he wasn't.  He probably reacted by bashing his critics in the head with a club.  We have supposedly evolved past this type of behavior, especially since the Magna Carta....

 

Stoeger, Rutkowski, YML, et. al. have been doing pretty much the same things: criticizing the Board's actions.  Such is the life of an elected official.  Ask Joe Biden. 

 

Many of these folks do have bigger audiences than the rank-and-file membership, because they are social media influencers.  But, from what I've seen, they aren't being slanderous and talking about the BoD's mothers or anything like that.   Their opinions on how the organization is run will not affect my opinion if I know that they're wrong.  I think most members who truly care about the organization would have this same level of discernment.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Braxton1

[IVC]

13 hours ago, RJH said:

I completely disagree with this. If there's issues we need to know about them. So far they have been discussed in a pretty reasonable manner and I think that needs to happen.

 

2 hours ago, Dutchman195 said:

Disagree, It absolutely needs to be known and parroted to all the members. The people that have turned a blind eye to the mismanagement and said "oh it doesn't affect me because...." are the reason it got to this boiling point. 

 

The question is not whether we should discuss it, I agree with you that we should, the question is whether this is the correct forum. 

[Racinready300ex]

1 minute ago, IVC said:

 

 

The question is not whether we should discuss it, I agree with you that we should, the question is whether this is the correct forum. 

 

What is the alternative forum? 

[IVC]

13 hours ago, 858 said:

If you read the exibits, Sherwyn stated in writing to Joe he was being banned for bringing disrepute to the corporation in the future. 

You understand that this is completely permissible, right? Even Joe knows that it's permissible and he's not trying to get the court to tell the corporation how to run its business.

 

Instead, Joe is trying to claim damages based on allegation that the BOD has no right to suspend anyone for any reason because of the technicalities about the bylaws and the standing of the corporation in DE. 

[BMSMB]

9 minutes ago, IVC said:

You understand that this is completely permissible, right? Even Joe knows that it's permissible and he's not trying to get the court to tell the corporation how to run its business.

 

Instead, Joe is trying to claim damages based on allegation that the BOD has no right to suspend anyone for any reason because of the technicalities about the bylaws and the standing of the corporation in DE. 

Look and J and K in the claim for relief. Neither of those have to do with technicalities in the bylaws... They have to do with the board not giving him due process.

[IVC]

40 minutes ago, Braxton1 said:

Being a critic doesn't rise to that level, IMHO.

Therein lies the rub - it wasn't at all about "being a critic." That's how it started. As it progressed, the anti-gun mainstream media got involved, which in turn added parts of the executive branch into the mix, all of which were actions directly against the USPSA. 

 

But on the other hand, I'm not a fan of the decision to try to have the match in CO in the first place and I personally believe it was not just a mistake, but an unacceptable blunder. There was a new law with no test cases or precedent, and the USPSA went off of opinions of the local sheriff (executive branch), without having any idea how the other two branches would see it (legislative and judicial). While each one of us individually can make a decision about how much risk to take (coming from a CA resident), an organization has a fiduciary duty not to push the envelope with the law. That's why SVI pulled out too, they are a business not an activist organization. 

 

Joe was right all the way, up until the moment that third parties got involved as a leverage against the USPSA. That's where the situation materially changed against him. 

[IVC]

7 minutes ago, BMSMB said:

They have to do with the board not giving him due process.

It's a private business. There is no due process unless it's written into the bylaws. Similar to how there is no due process if the RM makes a final call on any of the issues he's authorized to make the final call by the rule book. 

[davidb72]

I think $25k is extremely reasonable if you look at how much he could have potentially won by participating in those matches.

They are basically denying him a livelihood which is not acceptable under most circumstances.

[whan]

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Maybe, hopefully we don't have to find out.

 

Lots of people at locals worry about classification, if the org goes classifiers go and those that are drawn to that fade away. Then I'd worry as time passes not running under a real rule book, and just running under what USPSA was when it existed. And no new RO's taking classes. The rules will start to slip, and vary from club to club. 

 

So if it went away tomorrow, I think you're right tomorrow many aren't effected. But, I don't think uspsa on the ground would last all that long without a org behind it.

 

I agree with you - though less important to a lot of people on this forum who are mostly focused on match performance/placing, I think the classification system is very important to the rest of the membership. Heck, when I started USPSA, my ultimate goal was to make M class (almost there now, 2% off). Though now I also care quite a bit about match placement, I still would be unhappy if classifications went away - after all, it is a goal I’ve worked for over the last 3 years. On top of that, I do think that in the rest of the shooting world, USPSA classifications are starting to carry weight. Being a GM or M does mean something - at the minimum you have a strong grasp of shooting fundamentals (even if there are some paper GMs/Ms that get smoked on field courses)

 

Of course I’d still continue to shoot locals (whether under outlaw or PCSL rulesets) if USPSA ceased to exist, but in many ways, I am of the view that we should try to salvage and fix it under new management vs. cheering for its demise. While there are probably some minor flaws with the ruleset, fundamentally the sport of USPSA is great which is why its popularity is much stronger than alternatives.

Edited September 11, 2023 by whan

[IVC]

20 minutes ago, davidb72 said:

I think $25k is extremely reasonable if you look at how much he could have potentially won by participating in those matches.

They are basically denying him a livelihood which is not acceptable under most circumstances.

He's not asking for 25K, it's just a random number to ensure his claim is above the limit of the small claims court. The actual number will be determined during trial, if it ever comes to it. 

 

And there is no such thing as "denying livelihood" when a person is kicked out. It's akin to suing your former employer if you get fired by claiming that you lost income. USPSA is a private organization, so rules are quite different. 

[BMSMB]

36 minutes ago, IVC said:

It's a private business. There is no due process unless it's written into the bylaws. Similar to how there is no due process if the RM makes a final call on any of the issues he's authorized to make the final call by the rule book. 

You should do a little homework before trusting what the board said on the matter.

 

Courts typically step in when non profits fail to give their members "due process" when disciplining them.  One of the common steps of that due process is an official list of charges against them. 

[BritinUSA]

59 minutes ago, IVC said:

Therein lies the rub - it wasn't at all about "being a critic." That's how it started. As it progressed, the anti-gun mainstream media got involved, which in turn added parts of the executive branch into the mix, all of which were actions directly against the USPSA. 

 

I think it depends on who/what the 3rd parties are/were. If its true that Joe reached out to the AG to get a definitive ruling on the issue then I am not sure that that USPSA could object to that. If he did contact the AG it would likely have been because he did not trust the information coming from the BOD, or the BOD was less than forthcoming about the issue.

 

Either way, seeking legal clarification is not a crime and I think the org would be hard-pushed to justify his suspension on those grounds.

 

59 minutes ago, IVC said:

Joe was right all the way, up until the moment that third parties got involved as a leverage against the USPSA. That's where the situation materially changed against him. 

 

If Joe did contact the AG and someone in that office then later contacted the media and/or anti-gun groups, then that is not the direct fault of the plaintiff, that would be a politization of a legal issue by someone at AG.

 

The range is run by the State, any employee of that state could have notified media/other groups.

 

Has USPSA provided proof that Joe directly contacted either the media or the anti-gun groups ? If this was part of the reason for his suspension then surely they would have provided that as part of the complaint against him that warranted his suspension.

 

If we perform a root-cause analysis of this situation, it would show that the originating cause was the decision to hold the Nationals at Cameo; Everything that followed..., the bad press, last minute change of venue, suspensions (not only of Joe, but others) were all a direct result of the Cameo decision. 

 

That decision was solely in the hands of the defendants.

Edited September 11, 2023 by BritinUSA

[Joe4d]

18 hours ago, IVC said:

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?  

dont need any of that,,, dont recall the legal term, but its a suit filed against a gov official at the next higher court when a gov official wont do their job.

[IVC]

25 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

If we perform a root-cause analysis of this situation, it would show that the originating cause was the decision to hold the Nationals at Cameo; Everything that followed..., the bad press, last minute change of venue, suspensions (not only of Joe, but others) were all a direct result of the Cameo decision. 

 

That decision was solely in the hands of the defendants.

We agree on that, it was all a direct result of the Cameo decision. Still, it doesn't make it wrong by itself since the suspensions process is documented in the bylaws and it gives the BOD wide latitude. This is by design, that is how the control of any corporation is exercised. 

[Rob Boudrie]

6 hours ago, Joe4d said:

dont need any of that,,, dont recall the legal term, but its a suit filed against a gov official at the next higher court when a gov official wont do their job.

Writ of Mandamus

 

Quote

We agree on that, it was all a direct result of the Cameo decision. 

I somewhat disagree.

 

When there is a software bug in a product, the root cause is always deciding to build the product.  I believe the root cause was not the goof in venue selection, but the board, president's, DNROI, and Director of Media and Event response when it was brought to their attention.   One legally and ethically correct decision could have very significantly limited damage:

(a) Announce that rule 3.3.1 would be applied as written

or

(b) Immediately reschedule to another venue that did not prevent the complication

 

Had either of these steps been taken there would have been a big "oops", the "It was like that when I got here" defense could have been offered (since the contract was apparently signed by the former president and finance manager), and there would have been no controversy, member suspensions, or litigation.  Effective leadership is about doing the right thing at the right time.     We would never have learned USPSA settled a sexual harassment suit with a former employee, nor would we have learned the author of the gun reviews in Front Sight was running a private business selling review guns he almost certainly got at a discount from the manufactuter.

Whether not USPSA leadership acted in the best interests of the members and organization is left as an exercise to the interested reader.

 

Quote

Courts typically step in when non profits fail to give their members "due process" when disciplining them.  One of the common steps of that due process is an official list of charges against them.

 

I am not fully cognizant as to the legal import, but the "String Rutowski up" email comment, "You may not have a representative or attorney present at your suspension hearing", and "we will not respond to any further communication" is unlikely to impress a court.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Rob Boudrie

[IVC]

4 hours ago, Dutchman195 said:

The smart move would be to address it head on. 

 

What really will happen is they'll say nothing and I would guess if asked in person or a direct email you'll get a response that says "Its being fixed"

Of course, and it must be addressed. It's up to us, members, to force the cleanup. It's a small enough community and we are dealing with fellow shooters and reasonable people.

 

But the BOD is in a tough position because everyone whines no matter what they do. I believe they are cleaning up the house and that we will see things get in order. However, look at what's been going on. There was one president who ended up in juvenile exchanges with a top shooter, even if the shooter was a pest and juvenile himself. He got ousted because it was unacceptable behavior for a president. Then we had a "situation" with the female employee that resulted in a lawsuit, a disgusting treatment of her, no question. Completely unacceptable, but not the fault of the BOD, it was individuals who lacked any common sense and the BOD had to clean up the mess. Next, another president does beyond juvenile acts such as dry-humping and using vulgar language to call Deltas, he gets dinged by the NROI, and a bunch of internet commandos call the BOD pariahs for taking action, no less on the heels of a sexual harassment lawsuit. And these are all people elected by the members. Where is accountability by the members who voted for those who misbehaved later? 

 

Fast forward to this issue, there is a member bringing all sorts of anti-gunners into the mix in order to get his way, he gets dinged, and the BOD are the bad guys again. 

 

None of these issues are isolated incidents nor do they exist in a vacuum. The BOD needs to clean up their act, mostly to get their personalities in check and start acting like they are part of a serious, large and growing organization. They also need to take care of the mundane corporate task. But they also face sheer stupidity. I mean, dry-humping by the president and an RO?? Along the way, as the organization is being cleaned up, everyone seems to cry foul as changes are made and everyone seems to blame the BOD no matter what happens. 

[IVC]

50 minutes ago, Rob Boudrie said:

Writ of Mandamus

Made of "unobtanium." We've been trying to get the Supreme Court to issue writ of mandamus for a slew of civil rights gun cases sitting in the 9th Circuit, never happened. A writ of mandamus in a basic civil case is likely unheard of. 

[BritinUSA]

48 minutes ago, IVC said:

Fast forward to this issue, there is a member bringing all sorts of anti-gunners into the mix in order to get his way, he gets dinged, and the BOD are the bad guys again.

Do you know this for a fact? Has this been proven, that he directly involved anti-gun groups during the Cameo situation ?

[sc68cal]

While the Cameo issue may have been the catalyst, what is really important to keep in mind is that the Board, at multiple points was unable to take any criticism and instead decided to escalate. They should not be surprised that the people they have banned for life from the sport didn't just disappear, and instead are deciding to escalate in kind.

[IVC]

40 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Do you know this for a fact? Has this been proven, that he directly involved anti-gun groups during the Cameo situation ?

Mainstream media is anti-gun. There was enough "noise" that it escalated way beyond private communication and into public domain. That's the whole issue with stopping document exchange and alike. It was leaked and disclosed. 

 

There are some fixes that should be done at the top level, but it's mostly political stuff, smoother reactions, clearer communications, etc. 

[DoubleDelta]

2 hours ago, IVC said:

Mainstream media is anti-gun. There was enough "noise" that it escalated way beyond private communication and into public domain. That's the whole issue with stopping document exchange and alike. It was leaked and disclosed. 

 

There are some fixes that should be done at the top level, but it's mostly political stuff, smoother reactions, clearer communications, etc. 

 

So you have information that the plaintiff called the media?

 

Cameo is a public range, paid for with public funds, why shouldn't an event there be in the public domain?

[Rob Boudrie]

2 hours ago, IVC said:

There are some fixes that should be done at the top level, but it's mostly political stuff, smoother reactions, clearer communications, etc. 

There has been a decision by the USPSA leadership to carefully curate what members hear.   There has been nothing in Front Sight or online communications about the CO issue; member suspensions; termination of relations with an advertiser / sponsor; the fact that USPSA settled a suit by an employee without admitting wrongdoing; or massive negative cash flow.  Instead we get puff pieces of drivel and a letter to the editor complaining about members being impolite to USPSA staff - not decisive reaction to a staff member calling USPSA members dickheads.

 

I understand that a member was prohibited from live streaming the member's meeting at the nationals, and USPSA declared that recording the meeting was prohibited.  

Edited September 12, 2023 by Rob Boudrie

[BMSMB]

4 hours ago, IVC said:

There are some fixes that should be done at the top level, but it's mostly political stuff, smoother reactions, clearer communications, etc. 

That's it? Not stuff like ensuring the corporation actually exists in the state it's supposed to be incorporated in? Not ensuring the org staff act in a professional manner instead of going and screaming at volunteers about what they post on social media? Not losing $800k in a year... I could go on, but I dont want this thread to get locked.

Edited September 12, 2023 by BMSMB

[IVC]

1 hour ago, BMSMB said:

That's it? Not stuff like ensuring the corporation actually exists in the state it's supposed to be incorporated in? Not ensuring the org staff act in a professional manner instead of going and screaming at volunteers about what they post on social media? Not losing $800k in a year... I could go on, but I dont want this thread to get locked.

You're correct, those need to get fixed, those are part of running the business. I was talking about the ethos of the board and "cleaning up the house." What you write about is embarrassing and must be sorted out, that's for sure. The current board should be able to take care of it after they put out all the unnecessary fires that have been sprouting due to the issues with the personnel. And if they can't, we all vote, right? 

 

Just remember that YML is the runoff election for the president, dry-humping and all. What does that say about the members being serious about cleaning up the house and holding the management in check?