USPSA lawsuit discussion

Benstoeger.com
PSTG.US for digital coaching
Ben Stoeger books on Benstoegerproshop.com
Podcast from pstg:
traininggroupl...

[@kenwickes2497]

Bill should charge USPSA 30 minutes. Guarantee they got more good legal information from this video than any other time in the last 20 years. take notes!

[@RobinRobertsesq]

Discovery is going to be great fun, indeed. If USPSA has any brains at all they will settle this immediately in order to avoid that embarrassment that will come from extensive discovery.

[@M1911jln]

The directors’ egos won’t allow that.

[@Ddayam82]

I don't think Joe wants to settle.

[@RobinRobertsesq]

USPSA could admit to every allegation involving his reinstatement and deny monetary damages. Then discovery scope would be almost nil. But yes, the board is too stupid to agree.

[@joshuabaker5712]

​@@Ddayam82I hope with everything I have that Papa Joe doesn't settle.

[@BlindBatG34]

The corporation renewal notice probably ended up in the same black hole as Kim's missing expense receipts.

[@wmetzler01]

This is the start, members / shareholders have recourse for officers that neglect their duties and oaths. Check the DGCL and it outlines the process; in short, they can be removed via simple majority vote in a meeting.

[@robertrussell3158]

At our local gun club, the membership has always had to vote for any bylaws changes to be approved.

[@noeyshot]

This is more entertaining than some netflix show lol

[@genegerhiser6131]

Are there tax implications for USPSA collecting/making money while they were not incorporated as a non-profit?

[@d.townzen1337]

Just imagine if the USPSA board has to sit for depositions and they get published. That would be a real interesting opportunity to see into the inner workings of the board.

[@graelgraan2428]

With the lapsed articles of incorporation, are there possible tax implications. Whether in Delaware Washington or Federal, if they are no longer incorporated as a non-profit do they retain the non-profit status?

[@PhillipDRobinson]

BILL OUR MAN IN AREA 4 🙌🙌

[@mikezupancic2182]

If they're not a legal entity, then what happens with 30k members x $$ per year? When I joined I assumed it was a legal organization.

[@madprofessor1]

As the drop turner turns, these are the days of our practical shooting

[@ProjectD13X]

I swear we could put the dracula flow guy in charge of the org and it would be better run

[@ExecutiveTrainingGroup]

Heck yeah dude keep after it

[@JofoTubin]

Epilepsy 360-guy's back in!

[@joshuabaker5712]

Ehh. Nothings gonna change. Shady companies always get away with shady compnay stuff.

[@OrionCorsari]

Wait wait - maybe I missed something but I thought you guys said the current by laws do not grant the authority to terminate a member. My reading of the by laws as adopted on 6/9/2023 clearly indicate otherwise and also provide for an appeals process for an affected member. See section 4.13. Please clarify the point you make that termination is not authorized.

[@mawint2]

They were saying that if the original bylaws didn't give the board the authority to remove a member AND any bylaw changes from inception needed to be voted on by members and never were, the board wouldn't have the authority to remove a member. EDIT: This is speculating that if bylaws required member votes for changes and the judge rolled it all the way back because members never voted. The more likely scenario they pointed out is that the judge would likely say nobody ever complained before so keep the current bylaws but future changes would need to follow the correct process.

[@OrionCorsari]

@@mawint2 OK I understood you perfectly and thanks for the explanation. I would really like to read the complaint with exhibits to see if the cause of action alleges that the bylaws ever contained (1) language requiring member approval for by law changes and (2) whether the member termination provision language was added in violation of the amendment process. As the by laws are currently written, no member approval is needed. I suspect this is pretty standard for organizations as large as USPSA. I can’t even imagine what it would take to involve the membership in bylaw changes. As to the corporation’s status, this is easily remedied and not a viable issue even though it does suggest poor management. I’d also like to know what the plaintiff alleges as to damages. Unless his membership created a stream of income, I’m not seeing this lawsuit going anywhere.

[@ryanhuber5817]

Delaware case law does not give them the right to remove members. See 62.h of the suit.

[@OrionCorsari]

@@ryanhuber5817 Delaware law is not necessary to authorize membership termination. Delaware law does not control the day to day operations of any corporation. That’s what the by laws are designed to do. The fact that the complaint states DE law does not authorize termination is very different from saying this is a prerequisite. Our nation’s system of laws allows EVERYTHING unless it is explicitly forbidden. Not the other way around.

[@ryanhuber5817]

When it is a Deleware nonstock charitable corporation it sure does...which USPSA seems to be. And the bylaws don't seem to mean shit since they were never voted upon by the members.

[@douglasbrinkman5937]

uspsa, inc; uspsa2, inc; uspsa3, inc......