North’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to NRA’s Motion to Dismiss
This filing presents Oliver North’s legal arguments against the NRA’s motion to dismiss. Its most significant new factual allegation is that the NRA settled sexual harassment allegations against an NRA official using nonprofit funds.
- North argues for a different interpretation of the NRA’s indemnification bylaw and its application to him. (Pg. 5.) North argues that the Bylaws should be interpreted to mean that “the only limit to an NRA Director’s right to indemnification is where such indemnification is prohibited by New York law.” (Pg. 8.)
- North rejects the argument that the actions for which he seeks indemnification did not arise from his role as an NRA director. (Pg. 6.) He notes, for instance, that the request he received from the United States Senate Committee on Finance cited “North’s ‘experience as the NRA’s president’” in its request. (Pg. 6.)
- North states that LaPierre acted as if he “were a dictator and the NRA belonged to him rather than its members.” (Pg. 6.)
- North points to an Audit Committee Note stating that “the Department of Justice and congressional committees were conducting investigations, including interviewing various persons who could be potential witnesses … and that the NRA’s Bylaws … provide for indemnification of directors.” (Pg. 12 (quotation marks omitted).)
- North also cites to reporting “that the NRA even indemnified its officers for sexual harassment claims.” (Pg. 13 fn. 1.) According to that reporting, the NRA “has grappled with two separate sexual harassment allegations against Josh Powell, a senior official, including a case involving an employee.” (Pg. 13 fn. 1.) This sexual harassment allegation was apparently “settled in 2017 using the nonprofit’s funds.”