*********** NOTICE: THIS IS A FORWARDED MESSAGE *********** 
============================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is an unofficial transcript of a hearing held last week in the 
Fezell case.  The only thing it lacks is the line numbers and the 
paragraphing may be slightly different from the official version.
This hearing was prompted by the disregard that NRA management 
showed for Judge Shainswit's original injunction against printing the 
Nominating Committee report in the magazine.  The Bylaws clearly 
state that candidates must not have the method of nomination in the
magazine.  The bylaw languished for some 16 years (including two
during which time Knox partisans controlled the Nominating 
Committee.  Those Nominating Committees named some familiar names,
including Sue King, Marion Hammer, Susan Howard and others.
If it were possible for a judge to spank an attorney, Steve Shulman
would not be able to sit down for a week.  He is said to have left
the building red-faced and swearing.  People who know him reacted
with raised eyebrows at that.  Few have heard Mr. Shulman utter 
profanity.
Chris Knox
http://www.NealKnox.com
======================================================================
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK                    1
COUNTY OF NEW YORK      -      PART 10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
HOWARD J. FEZELL, JOHN C. KRULL,
JERRY L. ALLEN, FRANK H. SAWBERGER,
LARRY R. RANKIN, JOHN GUEST, WILLIAM
DOMINGUEZ, JEFF KNOX, KIM STOLFER,               Index No.
JOHN H. TRENTES,                              600211/98
                    Plaintiffs,
     - against -
NATIONAL. RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
                    Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
                    60 Centre Street
                    New York, New York
                    March 5, 1998
BEFORE:     HONORABLE BEATRIC SHAINSWIT, Justice
Appearances:
     WHITMAN, BREED, ABBOTT, MORGAN, LLP
          Attorneys for Plaintiffs
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, New York 10166
     BY . JOHN T. SHABAN, ESQ.
     CADWALADER WICKER SHAM TAFT, ESQS.
          Attorneys for Defendant
          100 Maidenlane
          New York, New York 10038
     BY:     GRANT B.  HERING, ESQ.
               -and-
     FREEDMAN, LEVY, KROLL, SIMONDS, ESQS.
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20036
     BY: STEPHEN N. SHULMAN, ESQ.
                              MAURICE J. SCHWARTZBERG
                              OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
2
Proceedings
     THE COURT Counsel, my attention has been called to a notice that 
appeared in the NRA Magazine which I found very troubling, and since my 
attention was called to it by a non-party to the proceeding, I would 
like to have comments on it by the lawyers for the parties, please.
     MR. SHABAN: Your Honor, is this the notice in question?
     THE COURT: That is the notice in question. I'm sure you're familiar 
with it.
     MR. SHABAN: Your Honor, I'm John Shaban, for the plaintiff.
     It's the plaintiffs' position and plaintiffs were in the process of 
discussing if, what and how we should TO in dealing with this, that this 
notice essentially flies in the face of all the work we've done to date.
     We received an injunction from your Honor to level the playing field, 
force NRA to abide by its own bylaws.
3
Proceedings
     The Case Law supports your Honor's decision
     Your Honor put together a nine or ten page opinion clearly laying out 
what  the rationale of the Court is and what's fair and what was to be 
done, and what we believe the NRA has done with this notice was to 
circumvent that order surreptitiously.
     They didn't say who was nominated by petition and who was nominated by 
the nominating committee. But if your Honor will note, this notice 
appeared on page P of the ballot issue directly behind the biographical 
sketches of all the nominees
     So, essentially what they've done is blackball these ten candidates and 
say, look, here's ten troublemakers, they put a monkeywrench in the 
works.
     Until we get this thing figured out, we can't help you out here, but 
here it is right in the middle of a ballot issue
4
Proceedings
     THE COURT: There's more, Counsel, little bit more than that.
     The statement at the bottom is: A preliminary injunction was issued by 
Justice Shainswit.
     This injunction will be reviewed on appeal by the Appellate Division, 
Until it is reversed, the injunction must be obeyed.
     I find that statement bordering very closely on contempt.
     Now, are you making a motion to this effect, sir?
     MR. SHABAN: Your Honor, we will make a motion for a contempt before the 
Court.
     THE COURT: IS there anything you would like to say, counsel?
     MR. SHULMAN: First, your Honor, have not been informed until this 
moment what the subject of this proceeding was going to be.
     THE COURT: That is not true, sir. You were informed by my law secretary
5
Proceedings
that the subject was the notice that appeared in your magazine.
     MR. SHULMAN: Your Honor, I accept what your Honor says, but I 
personally have only been told that you received a letter, that your 
Honor received a letter that included a page from a magazine, and we 
would not be told what was on the page.
     THE COURT: No, sir.
     Would you like my secretary to testify that he referred you to this 
particular notice?
     And, counsel, since I would be amazed to learn that you were not the 
one who drew this notice, I find your innocence a little
disturbing, counsel.
     This is a notice drawn by lawyers, and you could not help but be aware 
of it, sir.
     Now, what is it that you have to say in defense of letting this notice 
appear in the Law Journal or drafting it, or whatever you had to do with 
it,
-=Continued in next post=-
...          ******** NOTE: THIS IS A FORWARDED MESSAGE ********
--- FMail 1.22
---------------