Sunday, April 5, 2020

Judge rules in favor of Phyllis's true Eagles

Bloomberg reports:
One nonprofit founded by late conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly didn’t infringe the trademarks of another after the two split over the 2016 presidential election, an Illinois federal court said.

Eagle Forum was formed by Schlafly in 1975 to “support causes related to the modern conservative political ideology.” In 2016, EF’s board of directors was divided as to whether to support Ted Cruz or Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primary. After a falling out, Schlafly and other Trump-supporting board members left to form the nonprofit Phyllis Schlafly’s American Eagles.

EF sued PSAE for allegedly misusing its trademarks, including its registered...
The rest of the article is paywalled.

That is correct. Some rogue Trump-haters took over the political arm (EFc4) of Eagle Forum in 2016, and attempted to oust Schlafly. She was dying, and they believed that her health would prevent her from stopping the takeover, and that she would be dead before any judge ruled on the lawsuit they filed. Now they have burned all the assets on failed legal actions, and are desperately seeking donations to pay legal fees.

The term "Eagles" has been primarily used for those loyal to Phyllis Schlafly. The main Eagle organizations are still firmly in the control of those Eagles. Control of EFc4 depends on a lawsuit that is still pending. The rogue faction that sued Phyllis and EFc4 has used every trick to delay the trial, and postpone a decision on their ridiculous claims.

The above lawsuit was based on the idea that the EFc4 rogue faction somehow owned Phyllis's political activities, and could dictate who she could or could not endorse for President. The whole thing was absurd. Phyllis did not even draw a salary from EFc4, and never took orders from EFc4. She gave orders to EFc4, not the other way around.

The rogue faction not only wanted to kick Phyllis out of EFc4, but also wanted to block her other political activities. The fact is that she was entirely withing her constitutional rights to express any political opinions she wanted.

No comments:

Post a Comment