Now that opening statements in the trial of People of the State of New York by Letitia James v. National Rifle Association, et al. (James v. NRA) have been made, the vendetta by New York’s AG Letitia James against the pro-Second Amendment organization has begun in earnest. And the defense by the NRA is determined to undermine and defuse each and every claim by the left-wing, anti-NRA prosecutor.
The NRA declares that internal changes that took place long before James targeted the group should be considered by the jury and that the miscreants — some top NRA officials, a travel agent, and a public relations agency — who had defrauded the group have already paid restitution.
Said Sarah Rogers, one of the NRA’s attorneys: “There can be no question that some individuals, some executives — an ad agency, a travel agent — betrayed (the NRA’s) mission.” But, in light of James’ demanding that those executives and other parties pay the NRA back, “Why [is] the NRA, the victim, a defendant in this case?”
Good question. The court proceedings have already revealed that NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre repaid some bills incurred by the NRA on his behalf in order to comply with the group’s updated guidelines. And another NRA executive, Joshua Powell, has agreed to pay back $100,000 to the group.
As Tom Knighton, writing for the website Bearing Arms, noted:
The NRA is a victim, as are its millions of members, because they were the ones essentially defrauded by LaPierre and his alleged cronies.
James is suing the NRA simply because she wants to punish the organization simply for daring to disagree with her and other anti-gun voices.
And
If the allegations are accurate … then why would the NRA defend the man who essentially took advantage of it?
What about the “secret ‘poison pill’” that James claimed LaPierre allegedly arranged — a “golden parachute” — to soften his landing when he leaves the NRA at the end of the month?
James demanded to know the details. On January 7 she wrote to Supreme Court Justice Joel Cohen, stating that “the NRA should not be permitted to present Mr. LaPierre’s resignation as a component of its defense [as it] would be highly prejudicial to [my] case [against the NRA].”
Love,
Please think about donating below.