Merlo on a new "BIG STORY" & Gun Give Away Attorney General (title edited for drift)

My email said "cheater at the CC? Off to Sparta. Better than the Shaeffer incident"

I am hoping Merlo posts soon.

 

You better be careful posting information you receive via email on here. No one will believe you even if you are right.

 

I hope it's better-sourced than the Flyer-Like Championship Series last Labor Day.

N1H1

 

N1H1
I am not sure what you mean by the above post. I was figuring you showed up to do one of four things. You might be here to explain why someone that brags about knowing something about the by-laws would receive an expensive gun that the AG said was against the bylaws!

You could be here to announce that you were stepping up to the plate and returning that gun.

Or I would have thought you were here to explain what the libel and slander stuff was you were mumbling about.

Or you could be announcing your are paying the $50 bet you lost to FG.

--------

All the above dreams of course. Glad you are here. But your credibility isn't worth a $50 welcher's butt.

 

Two year of political fake news --Dave shoeffers story beat like a dirty rug --Lets hear the story Merlo !! --One club has closed up for the season -- only shooting two days a week --What else do use old wantabes have to do but sit at the computer and spread roomers'

 

I don't have any "roomers" living in my house. The ata and that place in IL. could use a some more roomers for that shoot they are calling the grand. The numbers they get now are pathetic compared to when we "wantabes" shot the GAH.

If you meant rumors? You mean like pull2012LLC? The 30,000 people that were supposed to be there? The state of IL. owning the HOF building? The cost of that horse barn? The fantastic direction? AND, n1h1 paying off a bet?

 

I hope Seitz9010 your info is correct, but I'd still like some Merlo sighting pictures.

 

I would like to see a "picture" of ol'N1H1 getting his "gun gift" ..... So his alter ego "Bat" could say the "picture" negates his culpability of this wrongdoing .....

 

OK I'll bite. What's a wannabe? Who is a wannabe? And where to we find the roomers?

 

rrisum
What was the fake news in the Shaeffer post? It looked well documented to me. Do yo have dif info? I must be a wannabe. Wannabe informed. You got news?

 

Eights,

Remember the old saying:

"Annual ( Wannabes) members will be notified on a NEED TO KNOW BASIS"

That probably applies to most everything involving the ATA

I believe Annual probably includes the LIFE members also in this case.

Hell they stripped most LIFE members of any special things awarded them for putting up their money.

About all I see they can do now is run for a Delegate position.

 

Hey N1H1

No answer yet? Your anger with Merlo is obvious. He was the person that broke the gun issue right? Exposed you as being the person you are. You "profess" to know all there is about the bylaws. And I believe you do. Now doesn't that make you look silly. Receiving an expensive gun from your cronies when you must have known it was against the bylaws.

How could you not have known? You tell us. Tell us how you justify not paying the ATA back.

Or was the Assistant Attorney General wrong in his findings?

Let us know how you feel. Sad, remorseful, or just darn angry?

 

Brad's frienf, I think they mis spelled a word. They meant to say ANAL, not annual. Roger C.

 

Since this thread has slid off course just a bit already I have a couple questions: Whatever happened to the Flyer-like shoot that N1H1 referenced in his post? I was looking forward to shooting in that event. Does anyone know who the first outgoing ATA President was that received a 1099 along with his gun gift (I believe the answer may surprise some of the posters here)?

 

Mr. Cogan
It doesn't matter at all if N1H1 got a 1099. He should have got one. He knew it. And I believe he knew it was against the bylaws. The AG did not say to the ATA " you guys have to give out 1099's." Reports are he said it is against the bylaws to give the guns away.

So it is of no surprise N1H1 wanted a 1099. He got a 1099 and a gun. Which item was against the bylaws? 1099 or gun?

 

Nothing has been cancelled. Stay tuned.
On the other issue ----stay tuned.

I report. You decide.
Merlo out

 

Don Cogan
1099 justification? Curious as to that logic?

 

Thanks Merlo! Since I have retired from the political side of registered trapshooting I find that I enjoy shooting much more than I did before. I must confess that I am not a points shooter or trinket shooter but I do enjoy the sensation and pressure that comes with shooting for money. I can only dream of what it must it must be like to have one pigeon left for a 25 straight and a solo win at a big flyer calcutta! I have never had the kind of money that it takes to enter real flyer events so the flyer-like event has my attention.

Other than being against the bylaws, it never bothered me that the ATA awards a gun to the outgoing President. Most of the ATA Presidents have given 15 to 20 years of service to the ATA in order to get to that position. What did bother me was 5 figure yearly expense accounts that never seemed to get any attention from the rank and file ATA members or the ATA Delegates. I know that those expense accounts have been vastly curtailed in recent years and I am happy about that. I also know for sure that we have a couple of very good men on the EC right now. Yes we still have a few of the "good ole boys club" on the EC too. It is just a fact that the sport of registered trapshooting is not what it was. I don't have the answers to turn it around, although I am on record for what I feel some of the causes of the decline are. At this point I am happy to shoot whenever and wherever I can and enjoy the friendships that I have made in my shooting career. No matter what happens to ATA registered shooting, I know that my dogs appreciate me practicing my shooting skills so that their efforts to find me birds are not wasted. At this point in my life that means more to me than any shooting organization ever could.

 

Rog,

Sort of like they FORGOT to insert "2012" in the minutes of the Sparta sale...

I am enjoying this Saturday morning and going out for some PRACTICE rounds..

I won't get going on my pet peev...LOL

 

Don, if the guns were against the bylaws they are stolen property right? And that is OK by you? 1099 makes it legit? Please tell us what other items should be given to self appointed elitists. Where do you draw the line? Did you?

If I put you in charge of my gun while I left to the porta-pot would it still be there? Would you give it away? If you did would give them a 1099? You were OSTA or not? How much leaves them? I find it incredulous that anyone would say they had no problem with someone removing $16,500 from the organization without the permission of the members.

 

If the Bod was against it, that would be a problem. Fact is members have nothing to do with it, just like members don't vote on what the office staff salaries are. Also, failing to follow the bylaws is not a criminal matter in and of itself. Yep, stealing is, but it's pretty awkward to argue something is stealing when the transaction is what the board has shown was acceptable to them by a decades long policy.

HB, how far back are you aware of this occurring. As I stated, I know it was in T&F as far back as early nineties, and assume it started well before that.

 

Bat, It was illegal until they change the bylaws, at the request of the Ill. AG. I,m not sure it is legal as of now. The rules for volunteers on a non profit are not governed by the organizational bylaws. An attorney not paid for by the offending party should be asked. Roger C.

 

Roger, what I am telling you is that not following the bylaws is not a crime, thus not "illegal" as far as criminal law is concerned. If the action actually violates a law, it would be illegal. It was in conflict with the bylaws, yes, but it was not necessarily illegal.

 

Bat, It was illegal according to the laws governing the use of finances of the non profit status of a 503 C corp. No one sitting on the board can profit from their volunteer actions. I,m not sure changing the bylaws made it legal, as I stated. Roger C.

 

Bat, You seem to have a very, very, very low moral standard ..... No jail time equals no wrongdoing .....

Have you ever heard of ..... a PROUD member of something ??????

What causes your attitude that "members" are lower than dirt ?????? Were the "mean kids" cruel to you when you were young, doing things like dunking your little head in the toilet then flushing it ?????? Causing you now to feel now like any position of "power" should be worn like a crown .....

It is not "illegal" for me to call you a dumb-ass, so I think you are a pathetic dumb-ass that needs to adjust your moral compass, if you have one .....

 

WRONG BAT!!! It was against the bylaws. The BOD are members. They represent other members. It was against the bylaws until the bylaws were changed. My union put a leader in jail for less.

Definition of embezzling....steal or misappropriate (money placed in one's trust or belonging to the organization for which one works)

Bat, you sir are a creep, and some of your pals need to go to jail or return the guns. jmho

 

Here "Bat" ...... http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/publications/pdf/charity.pdf ...... read 760 ILCS 55/16 and ILCS 55/17 ..... for starters ......

 

What say you "Bat" the dumb-ass ..... Could ..... "It was in conflict with the bylaws" be "Misuse of Charitable Assets" as in 760 ILCS 55/16 ..... and/or "Penalties for Personal Use of Charitable Assets" as in 760 ILCS 55/17 ???????????

 

Bat, Read article 760 ILCS 55/16 of the Ill. A G's report user 1, has posted on the above post. Try real hard to comprehend what it says. Roger C.

 

Jim/Canton,
The presidential guns are not stolen property and your assertion of that is really just sad. And now because I've said something you don't agree with you think it's fair game to question my integrity and insinuate that I would steal your gun while you are using the restroom? Is this really what this website has devolved into?

 

That would depend on your perception of "stolen" .....

"Theft by Deception Law and Legal Definition" ..... https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-by-deception/

"(3) Fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced, or which the deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom he stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship"

 

Maybe on the edge of over the top but the question not insinuation was whether you would have a problem with someone else thinking they are more deserving. I too want to know what the site has come to. Are we defending those that have walked away with $16,000 guns without the permission of the membership. We defend the perps that did saying we didn't have a problem with it. Is that what the forum is about?

 

So, what's the new story? Surely a week is enough time for anticipation building.

 

Roger, nobody is misusing charitable assets in this situation. There is no law that prohibits an officer or director of a charity or other nonprofit from being paid reasonable compensation.

And I am not demeaning members - just pointing out to you guys that the BOD decides what the organization does, not the members. If the BoD (the guys that write the bylaws) consider the gun a fair compensation to the retiring president for years of work, you are going to have a hard time with a position that the guy is stealing assets from the organization. Of course, the AG office already looked at it and apparently could tell that it was all something the BoD had intended to do for many decades, and that nobody was stealing funds.

Union Strong - the bylaws are written by the BoD. When this all started I think it is clear they were looking at it as an outgoing gift for a long period of service, not realizing it was technically compensation. Then there was a period of burying their heads in the sand over the technicality, and now they have corrected it. They were not part of some widespread fraud scheme dating back decades.

 

Hey Bat ...... Was it just one more "technicality", when "Gipson" said he was "instructed" to look for a new office building in BFE/Sparta, and then some seemed to feel the need to run the purchase through "PULL 2012" ??????????????

"“One of the first things the executive committee told me is ‘We’re going to move our office from Vandalia to Sparta, Illinois. So, go find a place,’” he said. “I was somewhat familiar (with Sparta), but not entirely. I started looking around and found a few properties. This building here was just perfect."

https://thesouthern.com/lifestyles/...cle_910c7807-cdb0-515f-869c-ba3b7cc78f6c.html

Just because no one from the ATA went to jail over some "technicality", doesn't mean ass-kissers like you should try to justify it ......

 

Years of WORK ,how in the hell is one year worth $16,000+ Gun+ hotels, + Meals,+ TRAVEL EXPENSES, + FREE BOOZE, Free Shells,+ Sattelite Grands, other un-named PERKS. I know I missed some others.

GB...................................DLS

 

Earth to Bat.....what a statement

Correct, but it was the ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL that demanded the change be made. It was not the members. The members were surprised to hear about this crap.

And the vote by the BOD was kept secret. There was no roll call vote.

Bottom line BAT....the gun giveaway was illegal until the BOD vote last year. So tell your buddies to send the guns back, or send the money. And the interest on the funds. Got graph? Got gun?

 

Bat, Bylaws B.S. The federal guide lines for 501-C corp. state no volunteer member of a board can receive compensation for services rendered to the corp. or profit from any actions taken by the board. What the hell do you not understand about those words. Bylaws do not trump federal guide lines. Roger C.

 

Roger, I am trying to politely point out that you are incorrect in your understanding of the law as it relates to compensation of officers, directors etc. of a charity, or any nonprofit for that matter. They are certainly entitled to compensation.

As to the volunteer issue, once you pay them more than a nominal amount, they are no longer volunteers, since you have paid them. You then have to issue a 1099 to the retired president. You can't pay them and continue to treat them as volunteers,

 

Smithy, the point is the board had a policy, a very long-standing policy, to give the gun to the retired President. The AG's office did not make the decision, the board did . . . long ago. The AG's office had them change the bylaws to correspond to what they had been doing all along.

Now, if you could show that the board did not want the gun given to the retired president, and a couple guys secretly used ATA funds to buy the gun, that would be a different case. But it is clear that is not the situation here.

 

As ALWAYS this thread, like many others, devolve into PURE "Bat" BULL-SHIT ......

Who are you "Bat" that you should be believed as an EXPERT on Tax Law, and Charity Law ??????

Who are you, that you do not feel the need to provide ANYTHING other than your lip-service by cyber typing ??????

Come on "Bat" ..... What level, in numbers, does something become "pay them more than a nominal amount" ??????

Can a non-compliant "technicality" be linked to something "illegal" ??????????????

Who in the Hell are you "Bat" ?????? And why should your Bull-Shit posts be believed with nothing more than lip-service from you ??????

Post something to give yourself some credibility, or, just be known as another cyber-dumb-ass-know-it-all ......

 

NO....the board had a policy to give themselves expensive guns. They were all in line to receive one. In my opinion and I am sure others this borders on conspiracy. A plan to defraud members of a non-charity. jmho

Many thanks to the Assistant Attorney General for at least intervening. It aint over.

I say book'em Dano.

 

User, why are my posts on this subject "Bull Shit" any more than your's? Why should I believe anything you say, especially when you quote statutes wthout understanding them.

I don't have issue with you not liking the idea of the gun giveaway, that's a matter of opinion. But why are your continuing attempts to grasp at something that makes it sound illegal not "Bull Shit" as you call my posts? Especially when this issue has already been reviewed by the state AG's office? If something was as criminal as you make it sound, don't you think the AG's office would have had a field day bringing charges against the criminals??? The fact that did not happen pretty much convinces me your posts about it being criminal are BS.

Should I really believe you over the AG's office?

 

They all should have gotten a brand new motor home to go along with the gun.
The numbnuts Kool-Aid drinkers would have thought that was just fine too.
Hell, they should have gotten someone to drive it and clean out the sewage tank for them,
IQ44 would have been my first choice then the other stooge lapdogs could all take a turn.
One big happy we love the ata circle jerk.

 

Well Bat, Your posts are PURE Bull-Shit because you continue to tell people, "you are incorrect in your understanding of the law", without telling who you are to know this as FACT ......

You can provide who you are to be able to tell others they are "incorrect", or your going to like me even less .....

 

Aren't you breaking the rules of this forum by insisting he/she divulge their identity???

ATC strongly advises that members not use their real names. Please do not use real names.

Do not use or disclose personal information of members.

Do not use or disclose personal names of members unless they are in the public eye.

 

"Who are you", "identity", and "What is your REAL NAME" are different questions .....

Or, a person could just post in a manner like, you MAY NOT be "correct", that would imply an opinion ..... NOT, "you ARE incorrect" that states it as FACT ......

 

Flyers

Good God man, DON'T give them any ideas...

They just may like these, and pass these options through another PULL person.

Remember we would not find out until we hear about it on the street.

Remember, we are entitled to information, ONLY on a "Need To Know Basis"

 

Bat,
What you are telling us, is we are to keep on supplying the EC and BOD with money, but it is none of our business how they disburse it. Maybe in your world that sounds good, but not in the world of the people doing the supplying. It is past time to get rid of the useless BOD and give direction back to the members. The organization is failing to retain members and ignoring the existing members desires.
It is time for the BOD to either start working for the membership or be disbanded. The ideal thing would be for a vote of all members to disband all of the EC and BOD for a total replacement. There are some very good employees of the ATA that could step up and take over. Roger C.

 

Once upon a time they had great people. Unfortunately when they began exploring those hidden dark corners they were sent packing. Dr. Frank Rively's name often pops up.

 

Dedpair
Tell us how the PA delegates fought to make the EC obey the bylaws. I cant find where your friends did that. Makes them complicit doesn't it?

 

Who told you this is closed? 20 years of this will take a while to investigate. From what I hear that Pasquale Assistant is at the bottom. I think much more to come.

If it were me I would walk the gun back to the ATA and write that apology letter.

 

You'll never get to the top of the food chain bucking the system.

 

Lima
Where r u getting your info..I would like to hear more

 

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/governance_practices.pdf

Follow the link. If I understand it correctly it clearly states that directors of charitable boards can be compensated. Now did the ATA follow all the rules? I suspect probably not.

 

Read ..... "B. Conflicts of interest." ..... from your link .....

"B. Conflicts of interest."

"The directors of a charity owe it a duty of loyalty. The duty of loyalty requires a director to act in the interest of the charity rather than in the personal interest of the director or some other person or organization."

Then ask yourself a couple of questions .....

Was/is the "gun gift" an "act in the interest of the charity rather than in the personal interest of the director or some other person or organization." ?????????????

Was the "PULL 2012" transaction an "act in the interest of the charity rather than in the personal interest of the director or some other person or organization." ??????????????

Then take a close look at this, "In particular, the duty of loyalty requires a director to avoid conflicts of interest that are detrimental to the charity."

Then ask yourself ..... Can someone with "other" business interests,and moving their personal/business home to BFE, then ignoring the failed grand attendance numbers, meet this, "In particular, the duty of loyalty requires a director to avoid conflicts of interest that are detrimental to the charity." ??????????

My personal opinion, that I have put in other posts, there is not a way to "save the ATA", because the "conflicts of interest" have attracted enough self-serving people to ride the ATA cash-cow to it's end .....

 

Perhaps you should ask them? Frank and Skip are still very active, and in Glenn's defense, he died trying to make the ATA better!! As for breaking laws, why have there been no charges or lawsuits brought against anyone involved? I enjoy reading this site, as there's no shortfall of knowledge! But as I've said multiple times, outside of a handful, whom has stepped up to the plate to try and make a difference? Based on the posters here, you have to have 50 liked minded people from every state, so next year get voted in as delegate, go to your respective Zone Meetings and vote in a whole new EC!! Typing here is like an Op-Ed on CNN, lots of information, but let someone else do it!!! JMHO

 

"As for breaking laws, why have there been no charges or lawsuits brought against anyone involved?"

This question always reminds me of someone doing a little over 60mph in a 55mph "zone", and NOT being pulled over and get a "speeding ticket" by an Officer who may be observing traffic to issue "tickets" for speeding violations ..... It DOES NOT change the "legal status" of your speed, it MAY be they are looking for the "worst violations" .....

 

Well I can tell you Mr. Rively was fed good information so he could deal with it, girls in the office gave some of the illeagal ACTIVITIES THAT WENT ON .He was not invited to the CLOSED SESSION, when some one RATTED what he was told, he hid to listen what was being said, too bad the room was not WIRED for him. He was going to DRAIN the ATA swamp. I only wish he could have succeeded SOME GOOD MEMBERS tried to have him RE-installed HE and President Crausaby from Texas were 2 of the finest men in the ATA, ask who knifed him in the back it happened, with LOW DOWN DIRTY POLITICS, Mr. Crausaby wrote about it, I read the ARTICLE, HB may have it in his ARCHIVES.

GB..........................DLS

 

Great DEDPAIR! Except for the part where you have missed the parts where the 15 shooters in Rhode Island has the same number of votes as Ohio. And Mississippi has the same number of votes as PA. The Rhode Island VP got a gun. The shooters are out voted.

DEDPAIR...before this forum existed there was no way to get the information out. This is it. Don't imply the forum should shut up. They wont. Trapshooting is not just about the ATA. The ATA is a miniscule part of the the big picture. Don't like facts?

DEDPAIR....you might not want to tell too many here to run to be a delegate on a thread where the EC ignored the bylaws. It appears the only hope here was the Attorney General. The Attorney General is still there. So are embezzling and fraud statutes. The shooters can use any one of many legal ways to make change. I gave up. I helped create a forum. Now the shooters can talk.

DEDPAIR...the record speaks for itself. OH and PA delegates were in power when the K80's were handed out like aspirin. The record also shows there have been no roll call votes in recent history.

We don't have to ask if PA asked for a roll call vote. It is in the record.

If voting is anonymous it doesn't matter who is voted in.

 

This should be easy then.

Dedpair if you could be as kind as to point out the 50 people and 50 states that should run it would save a lot of time
Tell us the 50 usernames and their states. I am calling BS.

 

Dang Family Guy, Take it easy on "DEDPAIR", he has an "antagonistic" image to portray for those who prefer to stay in the Land of Kool Aid .....

This post to appease the mental midgets after being "reinstated" in Kool Aid Land about posting on this forum ..... "It's a free world and was being sarcastic, as I knew they would find it amusing. Especially since I did nothing wrong and was eventually reinstated when the error was finally realised. As for showing my colors, I actually prefer this site and if you've read any of my posts over there, you'll find I'm the antagonist!"

 

The neat part of this site is we don't ban people for negativity or a mention of the mini-grand in Sparta.

 

come on USER1, acknowledge that BAT was correct and you were full of shit. I posted the link you were wanting to see as proof of BAT's claim that directors of non profits can be compensated.

your list of questions to me is meaningless. I acknowledged that the ATA probably didn't follow the rules.

 

Iowa guy,
Read governance and management policies. It also states that the EC and BOD can not vote on their own compensation.That decision must be made by people unaffiliated with the Corp. I have sat on several boards and at no time were the compensation awards ever voted on by the people that were to receive it.
You took one item from a large written statement and then told a man he was full of shit They can receive compensation, but they can not vote on it. Why would the members in line for the gun vote against it? Only honorable men would do that.
Roger C.

 

Are you off your meds today "iowa guy" ??????

Are they to be "compensated" FOR not "following the rules", or BY not "following the rules" ????????

How in the Hell can MILLIONS of people be in the United States "illegally", if they are NOT all in jail ??????????

They should all move to Sparta and join the ATA to participate in the "no jail equals nothing illegal party" ......

 

Roger, My only point was that it is legal for directors of non profits to be compensated. That is what User 1 called BAT out about. And you even made the comment that it wasn't legal.


Going down the road of what should the ATA have done or not was not part of my point.

 

User says "Well Bat, Your posts are PURE Bull-Shit because you continue to tell people, "you are incorrect in your understanding of the law", without telling who you are to know this as FACT ......"

Gee User, you don't have to be an attorney to know that officers and directors of a nonprofit are allowed to be compensated. I would have said anyone that has any experience dealing with anything but very small nonprofits would know this. Heck, look at a 990 under the section on compensation of officers, directors etc. You really think they have a section on compensation paid to these persons if it was banned??? Yep, there is scrutiny of their compensation, that is why they require their compensation to be disclosed, but the fact is they are allowed to be compensated, and it is doing a disservice to this site to not make that clear. If you want to make your case that the ATA violated laws for some other reason, have at it, just don't perpetuate the myth that officers cannot be compensated.

Why is my post BS, when my point is clearly correct with any minimal effort to look into it. Why aren't your posts BS, who are you that I have to believe your legal theories?

 

Nice try to deflect Bat, I would expect more of you than try to piggy-back a post from "iowa guy", but hey, it is what it is ......

As I told you, state anything you wish as your "opinion", but, if you continue your attempt to sway opinion by posting things as FACTS, you will find me serious about giving a single warning .....

FWIW ..... Go back to post #23, "what I am telling you is that not following the bylaws is not a crime, thus not "illegal" as far as criminal law is concerned. If the action actually violates a law, it would be illegal. It was in conflict with the bylaws, yes, but it was not necessarily illegal." ...... That is about not following "bylaws" being "illegal", so, can you tell everyone how that equates to your now ..... "you don't have to be an attorney to know that officers and directors of a nonprofit are allowed to be compensated" ......

Going from "what I am telling you is that not following the bylaws is not a crime", to now "you don't have to be an attorney to know that officers and directors of a nonprofit are allowed to be compensated" ...... proves my point about you being a dumb-ass .....

 

Bat, They are not allowed to vote on their own compensation. It must be by a non aligned board. Roger C.

 

Roger, correct, you cannot vote on your own compensation.

User, I can't even follow the (in my opinion) nonsense you are posting there. What are you talking about? Its' hard to prove a negative, so how about citing a statute that says it is a crime in and of itself to not act according to a bylaws provision? (In my opinion) there aren't many clubs out there that have not violated their bylaws on occasion, without even realizing it. That does not mean the members of those boards are all criminals! It might mean that any vote at the meeting is meaningless etc. but it certainly is not a crime. If the action that conflicts with the bylaws is in and of itself a crime, than that is a crime. It isn't acting outside the bylaws that makes something a crime.

If they stole the gun, stealing is a crime. If you say that they did not act in accordance with the bylaws and you insist that automatically means it was a crime, you are (in my opinion) wrong.

To summarize, tax exempts are allowed to compensate officers. It is not a crime if you don't follow the bylaws. It is a crime if you steal something while not following the bylaws. Not following the bylaws did not make it stealing. Got it?

None of that means that the ATA's compensation policies were proper. Maybe Merlo's new project will give us something tangible.

 

"Bat,
What you are telling us, is we are to keep on supplying the EC and BOD with money, but it is none of our business how they disburse it."

Roger, I'm not telling you what anybody should do. I am just telling you that the members have no say in the operation of the organization other then in electing the directors, and repeated posts about members not approving something are meaningless. (That is a fact, but I better put in the "in my opinion" clause so I don't violate any rule here) .

 

Why would an Assistant State Attorney General demand the ATA change their bylaws? Why would the ATA have a last minute meeting to change that, with very little debate? Anyone venture to guess?

Do you think it was 'cause all was ok? Do you think he said atta boys? Do you think the whistle blowers quit?

Some of you guys need to buy a clue.

 

Earth to Planet Bat.....you don't have to be a sixth grader to understand the "fact" that the AG in his own way, protected membership by stopping the free K80's.

If you got one return it please. If your friends got 'em tell them to be honorable. You don't need a graph for this.

 

Does this mean T. Dean (described as a useful idiot by one former EC member) won't get his gun? Such a shame!

 

"Why would an Assistant State Attorney General demand the ATA change their bylaws?" Well, simply because the long-time policy conflicted with the bylaws. Either get your bylaws in order, or stop the policy. It wasn't a crime that you had a conflict with the bylaws, but you have to correct it going forward. I imagine (not stating a fact here) it came down along those lines.

 

"Long time policy" of self serving EC members serving themselves free K80's. Sound like a pattern of embezzlement?

No one reading this believes that BAT. No one believes the AG was concerned about a "policy".

And it doesn't matter about our "beliefs".

Just a heads up...…..

GIVE THE GUNS BACK OR MORE SHIT IS GOING TO HIT THE FAN

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WARNED

Don't ask me how I know, but I know.

 

"It wasn't a crime that you had a conflict with the bylaws"

Here "Bat", more information for you ......

"At most, bylaws are legally binding documents that orgs must submit to IRS and state agencies, as well as some foundations. So: "Follow the provisions religiously. You not only have a duty to understand your bylaws, you are legally accountable for following them. This is not optional. A court of law will side with your bylaws in any dispute brought by another board member, an employee, volunteer or recipient of services who may have a grievance."

https://grantspace.org/resources/blog/what-can-i-do-if-a-nonprofit-isnt-following-its-bylaws/

You always "have the opinion" that the ATA is NOT "legally accountable for following them (bylaws)", that seems not true if, "bylaws are legally binding documents that orgs must submit to IRS and state agencies" .....

 

Every announcement they make should start with

Once upon a time...

Just like all the other fairy tales do

 

Sounds like it is time for a court ordered audit, by an outside auditor. What do the rest of you posters think? Roger C.

 

There have been instances where those K-80's were picked up right at Krieghoff International and properly transferred. So much for that issue.

 

Agreed!!

 

DEDPAIR....do you want to take a guess as to whether a PA delegate will demand that all votes are roll call votes this year? Or do you think it will be business as usual?

 

Have no idea, and in all my conversations with him, it's never been brought up as a priority. Perhaps the Delegate from RI or HI should bring it up, since they have the same power as PA.

 

User, you are making things up that I never said.. I said that it was not a crime that ATA had a policy that conflicted with the bylaws, and the bylaws were corrected to reflect this. I never said anything about them in a civil context. You cannot continue to operate in violation of your bylaws, because eventually you will be forced to come into compliance, but that has nothing to do with being a crime.

Go ahead and sue to get the guns back, that's fine with me, just stop saying it is a crime if you violate a bylaw. I would guess, (meaning I don't know it as a fact) that many, many clubs have violated their bylaws on occasion.

If you don't know the difference between criminal and civil statutes, that's your problem. Violating a bylaw is not a criminal matter by itself.

 

"Violating a bylaw is not a criminal matter by itself." ...... Are you sure "Bat" ???????

You can look here ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By-law ..... and find this ...... "offenders can be charged with a criminal offence for breach of a bylaw" ..... Maybe they failed to contact you before putting that in there ..... I do not know ......

"I said that it was not a crime that ATA had a policy that conflicted with the bylaws"

You use the word "crime" ..... so look here ...... http://www.yourdictionary.com/crime .....to find ...... "crime" ... "An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition" ......

 

DEDPAIR....just so we understand you. How unimportant or low "priority" is it for your delegates and you to not care whether the votes are anonymous? So, guessing the PA delegates will continue with the status quo. No roll call votes.

As to blaming the Rhode Island delegate for outvoting PA on that issue you are wayyyy wrong. There is no vote as the whether there is a roll call vote. You only need a few jimmies and integrity. That is low priority?

 

Never blamed anyone, and as before simply suggested they have the same power to affect change as PA or OH. So why not ask them why while your on this? Perhaps I should have suggested NH as the one to ask to affect this change???

 

Now the failures of the PA delegates to ask for a roll call vote is the fault of NH? Laughable.

 

You have a lot of Stones by dishonoring the Memory of our previous delegate! In my mind he died trying to make the ATA better! #letitgo

 

I'll let nothing go. The main question was to all the PA delegates and especially to the current one. I am guess the answer is....no one from PA will be demanding roll call votes.

 

And I will go further.

According to the great statesman wannabe N1H1....."If you are sure about this, there's no reason not to put your own reputation on the line, . . ."

 

You guy's make me laugh. Over the years the EC and the BOD eliminated all membership control over the organization, they now use it as a piggy bank. There is no way the membership can regain control over the A T.A.. You should have figured that out long ago. The B.O.D. does not work for the members anymore. Their obligation is to take to the members, what info the E.C. wants them to have. The poor decisions made by the E.C. is the reason the membership is shrinking. Just keep your eyes on the money in the bank and investments it may also start to shrink. Roger C.

 

User, are you serious?? Are you intentionally quoting information that has nothing to do with the discussion and make it appear that it applies here? Well, only two possibilities - either you are intentionally trying to mislead us, or you don't have any understanding of what you are reading. One or the other. I will let others decide.

 

Glad to see you post again "Bat" ......

Without STUPID people like YOU, cyber-land would be a boring place ......

Your post ..... "Violating a bylaw is not a criminal matter by itself." ...... My post ..... "offenders can be charged with a criminal offence for breach of a bylaw" ......

So, your post using "a bylaw" is as "generic" as my post about "a bylaw" ......

My question to you "Bat" is ...... Are you really as stupid as you seem in your posts ??????

 

So you are confirming that you understood you were posting a quote referring to something far removed from applying to the ATA's bylaws, or the bylaws of any other similar organization. Therefore, you were intentionally misleading us.

I thought maybe you were just Googling to find something you could wrap quotes around, and just did not read thoroughly enough, but I guess it was intentional based on that last post.

 

Now it is time for you "Bat", to provide some kind PROOF, that an "ATA bylaw" is "far removed" from any other "bylaw" .....

Look here ...... https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bylaws ..... "the written rules for conduct of a corporation, association, partnership or any organization" ..... and find where it says "ATA bylaws" are "far removed" from this "legal definition of bylaws".....

I will remind you opinions are opinions, so time is ticking again for you to post support for "something far removed from applying to the ATA's bylaws, or the bylaws of any other similar organization." ...... or we will see you after a vacation .....

 

Again, a threat of a vacation just because you don't like what I say??? Based on that last post with the threat, maybe you really do not understand what you quoted in the earlier post of yours? You took a quote of something you found on the internet that does not refer to non-profit organizations such as the ATA, which clearly is the subject of our exchange, and instead refers to municipal bylaws, which makes no sense in this exchange. That is a fact, not opinion.

Why am I threatened with a vacation, when you post such a misleading post, and then use an excuse about using generic terms? I think any reader understands what I was referring to, only you seem to be grasping at something related to a municipalities' bylaws for some reason nobody here can figure out.

 

NOT A "THREAT" ...... I am giving you little time to support how a "ATA bylaw" is "far removed" from ANY OTHER "bylaw" ....

Or, YOU WILL get the vacation ...... Use the time how you choose ......