Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
|
Total |
0 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 2,293,487 | 3,147,874 | 6,333,370 | 9,569,984 | 6,044,122 | 27,388,837 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.... | 0 | |||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | 0 | |||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 2,293,487 | 3,147,874 | 6,333,370 | 9,569,984 | 6,044,122 | 27,388,837 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f) .. | 0 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 27,388,837 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 2,293,487 | 3,147,874 | 6,333,370 | 9,569,984 | 6,044,122 | 27,388,837 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 0 | |||||
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 679 | 679 | ||||
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 27,389,516 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513 ..... | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5 | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | 0 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included on line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 0.015 of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by 0.035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | 1 | |
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
2 | |
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | 3 | |
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | 4 | |
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required - provide details in Part VI) | 5 | |
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | 6 | |
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | 7 | |
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
8 | |
| 9 Distributable amount for 2022 from Section C, line 6 | 9 | |
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | 10 | |
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2022 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2022 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2022 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2022 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI).
See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2022: | ||||
| a From 2017....... | ||||
| b From 2018....... | ||||
| c From 2019....... | ||||
| d From 2020....... | ||||
| e From 2021....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2022 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2017 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2022 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2022 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2022, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2022. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2023. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2020..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2021..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2022..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Pt II Ln 10 | Other Income Part II, Line 10 Description: OTHER 2018: 679. |
| Software ID: | 22015534 |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Pt VI, Line 8b | THE ORGANIZATION CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE ANY COMMITTEES. THE ENTIRE BOARD SELECTS THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND REVIEWS THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. |
| Pt VI, Line 11b | THE FORM 990 IS PREPARED BY AN OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM, REVIEWED BY THE PRESIDENT, THEN SENT TO THE ENTIRE BOARD FOR REVIEW, BEFORE FILING WITH THE IRS. |
| Pt VI, Line 12c | EACH MEMBER OF THE BOARD AND/OR OFFICER ANNUALLY COMPLETES A CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT, DISCLOSING ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS. SHOULD A CONFLICT ARISE,AN INTERESTED PERSON MAY MAKE A PRESENTATION AT THE GOVERNING BOARD MEEING, BUT, AFTER THE PRESENTATION, HE/SHE LEAVES THE MEETING DURING THE DISCUSSION OF, AND VOTE ON, THE TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT INVOLVING THE POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE GOVERNING BOARD, IF APPROPIATE, APPOINTS A DISINTERESTED PERSON OR COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT. AFTER EXCERCISING DUE DILIGENCE, THE GOVERNING BOARD DETERMINES WHETHER THE ORGANIZATION CAN OBTAIN WITH REASONABLE EFFORTS A MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT FROM A PERSON OR ENTITY THAT WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IF A MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT IS NOT REASONABLY POSSIBLE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRODUCING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE GOVERNING BOARD DETERMINES BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE DISINTERESTED DIRECTORS WHETHER THE TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT IS IN THE ORGANIZATION'S BEST INTEREST, FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT, AND WHTHER IT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ABOVE DETERMINATION, IT MAKES ITS DECISION AS TO WHETHER TO ENTER INTO A TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT. |
| Pt VI, Line 15a | THE ORGANIZATION'S DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS WERE PERFORMED BY THE BOARD |
| Pt VI, Line 19 | THE ORGANIZATION MAKES IT GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC PER REQUEST. |
| Other | 2022 Advocacy Accomplishment Highlights 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Amicus Brief In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in March 2022 with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the National Police Association (NPA) argued that the Fourth Circuit should overturn the denial of summary judgment to an officer who had arrested protestors on the grounds of the Maryland State Capitol building after those protestors violated Maryland state law in the course of conducting their protest. In June 2023, the Fourth Circuit sided with the officer and reversed the lower court, granting judgment for the officer and dismissing the lawsuit against him. Sgt. Brian T. Pope with the Maryland Capitol Police was called to direct a group to move their protest off a sidewalk near the Maryland State Capitol building and onto an adjoining grassy area called Lawyers' Mall. When Sgt. Pope later returned the group had grown, but had not relocated. Sgt. Pope again ordered the protestors onto the Mall. When the protestors refused, Sgt. Pope advised them they were subject to arrest. When they still did not move, Sgt. Pope began to arrest the group's leader as others filmed. The protesters operate under the name Patriot Picket, maintaining a YouTube channel, Facebook page, and website. They wear shirts that say "We Will Not ComplyX and hold signs that say "More Patriots Than You Have Handcuffs". They describe their methodology as media-savvy activism. In this case, they made a video of their protest and of the sergeant advising them to stop blocking the sidewalk. The leader of the protest is on video stating he would be arrested on purpose. Breaking a law to create content for a YouTube channel is generally considered civil disobedience. Practitioners of civil disobedience usually portray their arrest as an exhibition of moral superiority and a demonstration that they believe so strongly in their cause they are willing to break the law and suffer the consequences. In this case, however, the protest leadership not only didn't take ownership of the arrest they manufactured but sued the arresting officer for doing his job. A job made necessary by the protesters' creation of YouTube content. Sgt. Pope with Jeffrey and Kevin Hulbert. Image from YouTube. When the lower court failed to adhere to the law and denied the sergeant's qualified immunity against frivolous lawsuits the National Police Association entered the case. It was imperative this bad decision not become the law of the land in the Fourth Circuit due to affirmation by the appellate court. The protestors' suit alleged violations of the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights. The NPA's amicus brief urged the Fourth Circuit to examine a more fundamental question: whether the protestors were acting lawfully at all, as unlawful acts tend not to incur First Amendment protection. In June 2023, the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion which reversed the District Court's order and granted qualified immunity to the officer. The Fourth Circuit closed its opinion with a lengthy explanation of the context of the dispute-a dispute which had at its center the questions of lawfulness and danger posed by protesters who engage in bad-faith acts for the purpose of filming the police's response, which the NPA's brief addressed. The NPA welcomes the Fourth Circuit's ruling as a needed acknowledgment of the dangers that law enforcement face when interacting with protestors and social media content creators, especially near government buildings. This is the fourth case where protesters have claimed a right to break the law under the umbrella of the First Amendment that the NPA has entered on the side of police officers. The National Police Association was represented by Robert S. Lafferrandre of Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, L.L.P., of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The case is Hulbert v. Pope, No. 21-1608, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Lawsuit filed in support of father of slain officer against his HOA which ordered him to remove his Thin Blue Line flag In December 2022 the National Police Association filed suit against an Ohio HOA for threatening a homeowner for flying a Thin Blue Line flag. Thomas DiSario's son, Kirkersville, OH Police Chief Steven Eric DiSario, was ambushed and killed in the line of duty in May 2017. Since then, Mr. DiSario had flown a Thin Blue Line flag at his Pataskala, OH home in honor of his son. On or about the five-year anniversary of Chief DiSario's death, Mr. DiSario was made aware that an individual complained to Cumberland Crossing Home Owners Association via their property management company, Omni Community Association Managers (the HOA) regarding Mr. DiSario's flying of the Thin Blue Line flag. Mr. DiSario subsequently received a notification from the HOA advising that: "The political sign in the form of a flag must be removed from your property. The flag on your pole is not a United States Flag. It is a political statement. Please remove the flag from your property." Mr. DiSario was threatened with being fined and sued for noncompliance. Last month, under threat of lawsuit by the HOA, Mr. DiSario took the flag down. The National Police Association (NPA) was already in court in Ohio defending a homeowner's right to fly his Thin Blue Line flag against threats from his HOA. The NPA reached out to Mr. DiSario's HOA and asked them to hold any actions until after the first suit was resolved. Mr. DiSario's HOA refused, so this suit was filed. According to James Bopp Jr. of The Bopp Law Firm of Terre Haute, Indiana, counsel for Plaintiffs, "HOA covenants that prohibit the display of the Thin Blue Line flag are in violation of the First Amendment and the threats by the HOA to enforce their prohibition in court are without merit." The case is 2:22-cv-04319-ALM-CMV National Police Association, Inc. et al v. Omni Community Association Managers, LLC et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division. SCOTUS Amicus Brief in opposition to Google In December 2022 the National Police Association ("NPA") joined the National Fallen Officers Foundation ("NFOF") in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to limit statutory protection for Google's YouTube over its harm to law enforcement officers. That case, Gonzalez v. Google, was brought by relatives of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed by ISIS terrorists shooting into a Paris, France caf. The relatives argued that YouTube provides "a unique and powerful tool of communications that enables ISIS to achieve [its] goals." They sued under federal laws banning aid to terrorism. Particularly at issue in the case are YouTube recommendations of the content of others on YouTube. Such recommendations led persons showing an interest in ISIS to ISIS's own propaganda on YouTube. That brought terrorists together, radicalized viewers, and exposed them to encouragement to make such terrorist attacks. But according to the Ninth Circuit, those recommendations were protected against such suits by a federal law ("section 230"). Section 230 protects social media when they host third-party content. The only issue before the Supreme Court issue is whether that law protects those recommendations and not just ordinary publishing decisions. The NPA & NFOF friend-of-the-court brief argued that section 230 does not protect such recommendations. The brief established that police are also suffering from social-media-fueled hostility and attacks and that a court decision against section 230 protection for such recommendations would help damp anti-police attitudes and attacks. This is an important landmark case that will change the landscape of public safety for future generations. Facebook, Google and Twitter have enjoyed broad liability protection under CDA 230, while fueling societal instability and leaving police officers and citizens vulnerable to attacks facilitated by online radicalization. It's simply time to bring the outdated 1996 legislation in line with the 21st Century rule of law. James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, PC and counsel of record for NPA & NFOF in the Supreme Court, says: "The police have been suffering increased hostility and attacks in recent years. Much of that is fueled by social media, and a favorable decision for Nohemi Gonzalez's family will also help damp anti-police attitudes and attacks." The case is Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al., Petitioners v. Google LLC in the U.S. Supreme Court. Amicus brief filed in support of family of slain police officer In September 2022 the National Police Association filed a brief amicus curiae in the Washington State Supreme Court in the case of Estate of McCartney v. Pierce County. The case arose out of the tragic shooting and death of Deputy Daniel McCartney, whom Pierce County sent alone to confront two armed home invaders without adequate support or training. According to the lawsuit, Pierce County failed to adjust funding for staffi |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | EDUCATIONAL & OUTREACH PROGRAMS 812075. 812075. 0. 0. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | GRAPHIC DESIGN 51726. 18104. 5173. 28449. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | MAIL HOUSE FEES 240939. 82241. 29463. 129235. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | MAIL LIST RENTALS 310754. 101621. 49309. 159824. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | POSTAGE 1837289. 451208. 677041. 709040. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | PRINT & TYPESET 1022355. 357824. 102235. 562296. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | SUBCONTRACTORS 226328. 0. 226328. 0. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | DIGITAL FUNDRAISING EXPENSE 2991. 0. 0. 2991. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | DATA PROCESSING 271387. 85749. 50890. 134748. |
| Form 990, Part IX, Line 24e | RDF CANADA TRANSFERS 13500. 0. 13500. 0. |
| Software ID: | 22015534 |
| Software Version: |