"The Sword in Two Hands by Brian Price" review wan

[Hrolfr]

I can say that I'm President of the Universe, and it has similar legal bearing at the moment.

You mean you are NOT??????????

[Aerimus13]

You have Price's own admission that he has not paid royalties for years. That is both a party admission and a statement against interest.

Presuming, of course, that the 13year old hacker at the other end of the telephone cord is Brian Price.

This is not a legal forum, and no legal evidence has been presented. I can say that I'm President of the Universe, and it has similar legal bearing at the moment.

Galleron there is no need to continue to argue the points of this with the good Baron. It is obvious he is well versed in sophistry and no amount of evidence will stop him from being an apologist for BP. I must ask you to now remove your stick from that horse.

[Astaroth]

If the SCA does nothing and lets this happen (either slandering Brian Price or letting Brian Price getting away with theft) can the SCA Inc be sued successfully? I see the SCA in a non-win situation here.

1. Sanction Mr. Price -- denial of livelyhood, legal issues ensure.

2. Do not saction Mr. Price -- now part of a theft and royalty scheme.

Catch 22 in a way.

I would go with #1 personally, but either method has it's own risk. Which is probably why nothing has been done all these years.

It won't be fun either way we go IMO.

If the SCA had a clear policy or code of behavior which outlined what could and could not be done then there would not be a catch 22.

[bjarashow]

Any Seneschal who would ban someone based on the current statements would be a fool. If Brian were to win his case with these authors he would then get rich emptying the SCA coffers on his counter suit.

From my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the law, the SCA as a private entity may invite or ban whomever it pleases as long as it does not do so while itself BREAKING a law. Basically, as long as the organization is not being illegally prejudiced and banning an individual on the basis of their particular protected class (i.e. Race, Religion - those rights and freedoms guaranteed by the US Consitution). A merchant does not have an inaliable right to sell his goods wherever he pleases - An organization has the right to tell him he may not do so at their 'playground'.

Moreover, in this case, there is in fact testimony - and yes, the first person accounts in this thread are exactly that http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testimony - even if not under oath it still fits the definition. That testimony may lead individuals who govern the SCA organiztion to conclude that the individual is sanctionable under the Corpora, or that his actions may endanger the SCA (http://www.sca.org/docs/pdf/govdocs.pdf). Under those conditions, governing officers may decide to ask the Board of Directors to revoke his membership and/or ban him from events.

Having read those documents myself, I personally would find it hard to sit on a board and condemn Brian Price UNDER THE RULES OF THE ORGANIZATION, as required. They are purposefully written, in my opinion, to make it very hard to deny access to an individual, and this is a good thing for the organization. It makes capricious or impulsive decisions to toss people very hard for the BoD to follow-through.

BUT - for any here who are suggesting that this is not a serious enough situation to be at least brought up to and discussed at the top of the organization, I would disagree strenuously. Even if it is decided to wait until modern/mundane authority has taken its due course, to not have discourse on the possible/alleged actions which are both incredibly un-ethical and which have such far-reaching impact on the organization as a whole would in fact be a let-down of the moral responibility of those leaders whom the membership trusts to run things. The testimony as it exists so far should be analyzed, and even if the only action of the leadership is to issue a statement about why no formal action will be (or can be?) taken, it is the responibility of the organization to be aware of situations like this and show the membership that they can respond if needed in an appropriate fashion.

[James B.]

You have Price's own admission that he has not paid royalties for years. That is both a party admission and a statement against interest.

Presuming, of course, that the 13year old hacker at the other end of the telephone cord is Brian Price.

This is not a legal forum, and no legal evidence has been presented. I can say that I'm President of the Universe, and it has similar legal bearing at the moment.

Ummm the SCA can kick people out for any reason it feels like, it does not have to go though the American legal system to do so, the BoD just need to vote on it. Is local king could banish him just because he wants too. My king could banish him meaning he cannot come to an event in my kingdom. It is in our bylaws.

[Christian H. Tobler]

You have Price's own admission that he has not paid royalties for years. That is both a party admission and a statement against interest.

Presuming, of course, that the 13year old hacker at the other end of the telephone cord is Brian Price.

The post has considerably more weight than you might believe, as our attorney has said.

Beyond that, its contents are confirmed in further email communications with the Prices, and the royalties' delinquency is acknowledged also on my answering machine by Mrs. Price...unless you also think this 13 year old is capable of doing a pitch-perfect Ann Price impression.

There's a reason why the term "reasonable doubt" exists.

Best regards,

Christian

[Baron Eirik]

And, if I'm not mistaken, the standard in civil cases is a preponderence of evidence, not reasonable doubt.

[Christian H. Tobler]

And, if I'm not mistaken, the standard in civil cases is a preponderence of evidence, not reasonable doubt.

Oh, you're certainly correct. I was speaking in more general terms regarding the unlikelihood of absurd claims harming our case.

Cheers,

Christian

[Alexander of Lancaster]

You have Price's own admission that he has not paid royalties for years. That is both a party admission and a statement against interest.

Presuming, of course, that the 13year old hacker at the other end of the telephone cord is Brian Price.

The post has considerably more weight than you might believe, as our attorney has said.

Beyond that, its contents are confirmed in further email communications with the Prices, and the royalties' delinquency is acknowledged also on my answering machine by Mrs. Price...unless you also think this 13 year old is capable of doing a pitch-perfect Ann Price impression.

There's a reason why the term "reasonable doubt" exists.

Best regards,

Christian

I am not doubting your legitimate case. What I am saying is that your evidence has not been presented nor examined in a court of law. It is not fact but opinion.

Yes anyone royals and the board can ban Brian for any reason they feel endangers the society. If they cite this case and he wins then there could be recourse.

2. Greater Royal Sanctions
A Greater Sanction may be imposed only in response to serious transgressions against Society rules, serious
violations of standards of behavior at a Society event, or other actions that negatively affect or endanger the
Society. These Sanctions continue for the stated duration of the Sanction or until the end of the reign,
whichever comes first.
Greater Sanctions imposed by the Royalty of a Principality require prior written approval by the Crown, and
may be lifted by the Crown. Greater Sanctions are:
• Withdrawal of the Privileges of Rank precludes the sanctioned individual from exercising
any privileges of rank in the realm of the issuing Royalty. This includes, but is not limited to,
peerage polling privileges, as well as the use of associated titles and regalia.
• Banishment from the Realm bars the sanctioned individual from active participation in
Society events in that realm. Banishment from the realm specifically does not preclude
attendance at events, as long as the banished person makes no effort to engage in activities
subject to the jurisdiction of any officer except as required for event attendance, or otherwise
disrupt the peace of the event. Additionally, such a banishment carries with it the
restrictions of a Banishment from the Royal Presence.
• Exile from the Realm precludes the sanctioned individual from attending any SCA
function in that realm.
• Absolute Banishment precludes the sanctioned individual from attending any SCA
function in any realm. In addition to the general requirements for Greater Sanctions, an
Absolute Banishment may only be imposed when grounds for a Revocation and Denial of
Membership exist. An Absolute Banishment automatically carries with it a request to the
Board for Revocation and Denial of Membership for the sanctioned individual.
a. Notification:
The sanctioned individual, Kingdom Seneschal, Society Seneschal, and appropriate Board Ombudsman must
be informed in writing within ten business days of the specific cause and occasion of the sanction.
All reasonable attempts to contact the sanctioned individual must be made before imposing the sanction.
Written communication must be sent via postal service to the individual's last known address, with proof of
delivery required. If a valid address is unavailable, then an attempt to deliver the notification to the
sanctioned individual in person, either at an event or otherwise, must be made. Failing that, if a current, valid
email address is available, the notification shall be sent electronically, with some sort of delivery confirmation
if possible. Every attempt to deliver notification to the sanctioned individual shall be thoroughly
documented. After all available methods of contact have been exhausted, the sanction shall be announced as
required.
If the Royalty of a Principality imposes a Greater Sanction, they shall also notify the Crown and the
Principality Seneschal.
b. Review:
The Board will automatically review any Greater Sanction. If the Board determines that a sanction is without
merit or has been unfairly imposed, the Sanction will be lifted and the Royalty that imposed it may be subject
to sanctions.

[Lady Charlotte]

Hello, Johnathan,

That said, there is also considerable potential liability to an organization that fails to take action against a "bad actor" if any of its officers knows of misbehavior that may harm others and fails to act to protect those placed at risk.

That is only if the corporate entity is aware and does nothing.

The corporate entity is a legal fiction, so its "awareness" of facts is deemed to arise from its officers and/or employees having actual or "constructive knowledge" of those facts.

Documentation of them addressing and then dismissing the issue would need to be presented and I am guessing that would be much easier said than done.

You are mistaken in this belief (and I suppose I should disclose here for those who haven't yet guessed that I am qualified as a law librarian; lawyers and librarians will understand what that means). All that is necessary for liability is (i) for officers and/or employees to have actual or "constructive knowledge" of the relevant facts and (ii) for the corporate entity to fail to take the appropriate action.

Also it would seem more likely that it would be the individual who would be at fault and facing potential legal problems.

Not if the legal duty to the person(s) harmed was the corporation's.

Misprision would be the charge I believe. If it came to that.

Misprision, to the extent that it survives in modern criminal law, constitutes (i) maladministration of a governmental office; (ii) failure to notify the proper authorities of the commission of an act of treason; and (iii) the deliberate concealment of the commission of a felony.

Given the copious research done by SCA members and their commitment to accurate historical detail -- not to mention the significant body of academic scholars to be found among its ranks -- I had considered the SCA to be composed of "participa[nts] in the community of inquiry, as amateurs or as professionals."

Inquiry about medieval stuff only I am afraid.

That's the kind of "community of inquiry" I was referring to.

If this situation requires a court of law then so be it. That should happen but the SCA really has absolutely nothing to do with the guys business practices.

Neither had the Schola Saint George, but they separated themselves from Mr. Price, if you recall, due to his "questionable business practices" within only 48 hours of learning of this thread.

It is an interesting circumstance that I am sure will be discussed by the BOD and the SCA legal team in the future.

Perhaps the SCA peers and BoD should carefully read the statements posted here by Robert Holland and Colin Hatcher, Esq. Again, the Schola Saint George Board did not feel the need to await a court decision.

And by the way, we Girl Scouts don't either: we take prompt action against unethical practices by our associates. If I were a member of the KSCA I'd hang my head in utter shame that the Girl Scouts exhibit more intestinal fortitude on ethical breaches than a group composed predominantly of big, strong, well-armed men purporting to uphold chivalry.

Of course, that's just *my* opinion (as a member of the ass-kicking Girl Scouts).

And what should the guilty knight do to Mr. Price eh? Chop off his head?

Tempting, very tempting, to be sure, but, alas, illegal.

Say bad things about him? Just what do you expect anybody is supposed to to to the man?

Well, one could line up behind Cuan:

As a knight and a royal peer, I take my role and that of my brothers and sisters very seriously. Nor do I believe (unless one actually is a sociopath) that one can separate who he is in one setting from who he is in another. A knight is always a knight (even, and sometimes especially, when he is merhcanting in a white belt). Therefore I charge that Brian has shown himself to be a false knight. I here offer him the chance to disprove this claim upon my body with weapons of SCA combat and per SCA rules at the earliest opportunity. I suggest bouts of 25 counted blows with longsword to start. I will be attending Gulf Wars and Pennsic.

(If that bout takes place, I certainly hope someone films it, uploads the video and posts a link to this thread)

Or, one could do what Sir Roland Ansbacher, OL, suggested, above.

Our ability to dispense justice only goes as far as modern mundane law allows.

Hardly. This is what Girl Scouts do: http://www.gsnc.org/about/ethic_dc.asp

Read it and weep.


Lady Charlotte

[Thorsteinn Raudskeggr]

We're at over 50,000 views now Ivan. If I ever do get copies of Fighting back, and you don't already have one by then, I'll personally send you a signed one for free.

Wow! Thank you!

That would be well received have no doubt.

For those interested, I ended up spending the B&N gift card on a copy of 'Spada 2' & 'The Ellinium Trilogy by David Eddings', they both shipped today.

EDIT: With all this legal talk I forgot to add that there is a reason I'm always out of town when my dad needs to move or sort his law library or backup files.

-Ivan Ivanovitch Serebrenikov

[Aerimus13]

Hello, Johnathan,

That said, there is also considerable potential liability to an organization that fails to take action against a "bad actor" if any of its officers knows of misbehavior that may harm others and fails to act to protect those placed at risk.

That is only if the corporate entity is aware and does nothing.

The corporate entity is a legal fiction, so its "awareness" of facts is deemed to arise from its officers and/or employees having actual or "constructive knowledge" of those facts.

Documentation of them addressing and then dismissing the issue would need to be presented and I am guessing that would be much easier said than done.

You are mistaken in this belief (and I suppose I should disclose here for those who haven't yet guessed that I am qualified as a law librarian; lawyers and librarians will understand what that means). All that is necessary for liability is (i) for officers and/or employees to have actual or "constructive knowledge" of the relevant facts and (ii) for the corporate entity to fail to take the appropriate action.

Also it would seem more likely that it would be the individual who would be at fault and facing potential legal problems.

Not if the legal duty to the person(s) harmed was the corporation's.

Misprision would be the charge I believe. If it came to that.

Misprision, to the extent that it survives in modern criminal law, constitutes (i) maladministration of a governmental office; (ii) failure to notify the proper authorities of the commission of an act of treason; and (iii) the deliberate concealment of the commission of a felony.

Given the copious research done by SCA members and their commitment to accurate historical detail -- not to mention the significant body of academic scholars to be found among its ranks -- I had considered the SCA to be composed of "participa[nts] in the community of inquiry, as amateurs or as professionals."

Inquiry about medieval stuff only I am afraid.

That's the kind of "community of inquiry" I was referring to.

If this situation requires a court of law then so be it. That should happen but the SCA really has absolutely nothing to do with the guys business practices.

Neither had the Schola Saint George, but they separated themselves from Mr. Price, if you recall, due to his "questionable business practices" within only 48 hours of learning of this thread.

It is an interesting circumstance that I am sure will be discussed by the BOD and the SCA legal team in the future.

Perhaps the SCA peers and BoD should carefully read the statements posted here by Robert Holland and Colin Hatcher, Esq. Again, the Schola Saint George Board did not feel the need to await a court decision.

And by the way, we Girl Scouts don't either: we take prompt action against unethical practices by our associates. If I were a member of the KSCA I'd hang my head in utter shame that the Girl Scouts exhibit more intestinal fortitude on ethical breaches than a group composed predominantly of big, strong, well-armed men purporting to uphold chivalry.

Of course, that's just *my* opinion (as a member of the ass-kicking Girl Scouts).

And what should the guilty knight do to Mr. Price eh? Chop off his head?

Tempting, very tempting, to be sure, but, alas, illegal.

Say bad things about him? Just what do you expect anybody is supposed to to to the man?

Well, one could line up behind Cuan:

As a knight and a royal peer, I take my role and that of my brothers and sisters very seriously. Nor do I believe (unless one actually is a sociopath) that one can separate who he is in one setting from who he is in another. A knight is always a knight (even, and sometimes especially, when he is merhcanting in a white belt). Therefore I charge that Brian has shown himself to be a false knight. I here offer him the chance to disprove this claim upon my body with weapons of SCA combat and per SCA rules at the earliest opportunity. I suggest bouts of 25 counted blows with longsword to start. I will be attending Gulf Wars and Pennsic.

(If that bout takes place, I certainly hope someone films it, uploads the video and posts a link to this thread)

Or, one could do what Sir Roland Ansbacher, OL, suggested, above.

Our ability to dispense justice only goes as far as modern mundane law allows.

Hardly. This is what Girl Scouts do: http://www.gsnc.org/about/ethic_dc.asp

Read it and weep.


Lady Charlotte

Damn Damn Damn.

You are a woman to be reckoned with. I salute you.

[DukeAvery]

So I have "Fighting with the German Longsword" by CHT copyright 2004 and "Fiore dei Liberi's Sword in Two Hands" by BRP copyright 2007 where would you like a check sent?

Regards

Avery

[Rodney]

So I have "Fighting with the German Longsword" by CHT copyright 2004 and "Fiore dei Liberi's Sword in Two Hands" by BRP copyright 2007 where would you like a check sent?

Regards

Avery

Gideon,

I own several of the books in question. I will be contacting the authors and sending them at least a token payment for my enjoyment of their work. I will contact those so I can to get paypal or physical addresses. I feel they deserve to be rewarded for their work even if I am not able to do that through the publisher.

You are one of several generous souls who have made such an offer. As Christian and I said, no such compensation is required or sought for.

However, if you or any other CB customers truly feel compelled to do *something* monetarily, could I ask you instead to donate to the Wounded Warriors program:

https://support.woundedwarriorproject.o ... x?tsid=139

I can think of few causes more chivalric than helping seriously wounded soldiers reclaim their lives, and we - the authors -have already agreed that should we reclaim our property a substantial portion of the proceeds will go to the Warriors program.

Thanks!

Greg

[Kilkenny]

You have Price's own admission that he has not paid royalties for years. That is both a party admission and a statement against interest.

Presuming, of course, that the 13year old hacker at the other end of the telephone cord is Brian Price.

This is not a legal forum, and no legal evidence has been presented. I can say that I'm President of the Universe, and it has similar legal bearing at the moment.

Ummm the SCA can kick people out for any reason it feels like, it does not have to go though the American legal system to do so, the BoD just need to vote on it. Is local king could banish him just because he wants too. My king could banish him meaning he cannot come to an event in my kingdom. It is in our bylaws.

It is also factually correct that nothing in the SCA's by-laws protects either the Crowns or the Corporation from action in the civil courts over such decisions.

In other words, sure, you can do it but that doesn't make it without consequences. Many choices at the corporate level are directly related to that simple concept.

[James B.]

Ummm the SCA can kick people out for any reason it feels like, it does not have to go though the American legal system to do so, the BoD just need to vote on it. Is local king could banish him just because he wants too. My king could banish him meaning he cannot come to an event in my kingdom. It is in our bylaws.

It is also factually correct that nothing in the SCA's by-laws protects either the Crowns or the Corporation from action in the civil courts over such decisions.

In other words, sure, you can do it but that doesn't make it without consequences. Many choices at the corporate level are directly related to that simple concept.

This is true and such civil suits have been tried and have failed over and over again because the law is clearly in favor of private clubs being able to control membership. I can think of one specific recent example that tried this route and failed hard in recent history.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

Of course, that's just *my* opinion (as a member of the ass-kicking Girl Scouts).

Lady Charlotte

Move to Drachenwald, there is an archiver well loved for his writings on chivalry here that says a GS could win crown there.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

You have Price's own admission that he has not paid royalties for years. That is both a party admission and a statement against interest.

Presuming, of course, that the 13year old hacker at the other end of the telephone cord is Brian Price.

The post has considerably more weight than you might believe, as our attorney has said.

Beyond that, its contents are confirmed in further email communications with the Prices, and the royalties' delinquency is acknowledged also on my answering machine by Mrs. Price...unless you also think this 13 year old is capable of doing a pitch-perfect Ann Price impression.

There's a reason why the term "reasonable doubt" exists.

Best regards,

Christian

I have no reason to doubt that they have been the writers, just that the SCA has grounds for action based simply on postings on a bulletin board.

[Baron Eirik]

I have no reason to doubt that they have been the writers, just that the SCA has grounds for action based simply on postings on a bulletin board.

But they do have grounds to check into it.

It sounds like that wheel has started turning in Ansteorra. And not all that much later to the party than the aggrieved themselves banded together for action.

[Morgan]

I've made inquiries to ask if the wheel is turning elsewhere as well.


As I don't have a personal stake, I just feel that it's necessary that the questions get asked.

[Kilkenny]

Ummm the SCA can kick people out for any reason it feels like, it does not have to go though the American legal system to do so, the BoD just need to vote on it. Is local king could banish him just because he wants too. My king could banish him meaning he cannot come to an event in my kingdom. It is in our bylaws.

It is also factually correct that nothing in the SCA's by-laws protects either the Crowns or the Corporation from action in the civil courts over such decisions.

In other words, sure, you can do it but that doesn't make it without consequences. Many choices at the corporate level are directly related to that simple concept.

This is true and such civil suits have been tried and have failed over and over again because the law is clearly in favor of private clubs being able to control membership. I can think of one specific recent example that tried this route and failed hard in recent history.

James, an action brought that fails is still expensive to defend against.
Relying on the idea that one can win in court is much more expensive than relying on a path that avoids going there.

[Morgan]

Relying on the idea that one can win in court is much more expensive than relying on a path that avoids going there.

Exactly.

[Payn]

I have no reason to doubt that they have been the writers, just that the SCA has grounds for action based simply on postings on a bulletin board.

People have been R&D'd with less evidence than this.

[Greg Mele]

Is his admission signed and notorized? If he is willfully doing these things he is accused of he can certainly get around a forum post. Besides, he thinks he is right and if he proves that then that Senschal is next on his list ... Just not a prudent move for an Officer of the SCA.

I doubt that the post can be gotten around easily. It seems to me that he would need to prove not only that the post was made by someone else, was untrue, and that the seneschal could reasonably have known both facts

Especially as there are also emails to the authors from Mrs. Price acknowledging the same.

[Astaroth]

Hello, Johnathan,

That said, there is also considerable potential liability to an organization that fails to take action against a "bad actor" if any of its officers knows of misbehavior that may harm others and fails to act to protect those placed at risk.

That is only if the corporate entity is aware and does nothing.

The corporate entity is a legal fiction, so its "awareness" of facts is deemed to arise from its officers and/or employees having actual or "constructive knowledge" of those facts.


Lady Charlotte

I believe this is the exact legal situation that has allowed those in the unfortunate pedophile case to bring legal action against the SCA. Specifically the charge that officers had heard rumors and knew of possible allegations of misconduct and did nothing or even actively ignored the allegations.

[Greg Mele]

Morgan,

I've made inquiries to ask if the wheel is turning elsewhere as well.


As I don't have a personal stake, I just feel that it's necessary that the questions get asked.

Thank you. I appreciate the due diligence.

Greg

[Greg Mele]

Avery,

So I have "Fighting with the German Longsword" by CHT copyright 2004 and "Fiore dei Liberi's Sword in Two Hands" by BRP copyright 2007 where would you like a check sent?

Regards

Avery

Well, we have no claim to "Sword in Two Hands", but as I mentioned above, if you wish to send a check, please just make a donation to the Wounded Warrior Project:


https://support.woundedwarriorproject.o ... x?tsid=139

Take some time to peruse the site - I suspect that you will find it a very noble cause.

Best,

Greg

[Count Johnathan]

Lady Charlotte, you seem to be venting on me a bit which I understand since this situation appears to be frustrating beyond reason. I'm not defending the guy and I am not a lawyer. What I have suggested is that the KSCA who do not know him and have no association with him have little that we can do about it personally. Much like the girls scouts...

Handling of Reported Violations

The Finance/Audit Committee shall address all reported Concerns. The Chair of the committee shall immediately notify the committee, the President, the Executive Director/CEO, and Chief Operating Officer and any other appropriate individual of any such report. The Chair of the committee will notify the sender and acknowledge receipt of the Concern within five business days if possible.

All reports will be promptly investigated by the Finance/Audit committee, and appropriate corrective action will be recommended to the Board of Directors, if warranted by the investigation. In addition, action taken must include a conclusion or follow-up with the complainant for complete closure of the Concern.

The Finance/Audit committee has the authority to retain outside legal counsel, accountants, private investigators, or any other resource deemed necessary to conduct a full and complete investigation of the allegations.

The situation here would be handled in similar fashion. Lot's of paperwork, review, meetings etc before any action is taken. Girls scouts who learn of a violation of their code of ethics don't throw rocks at those who commit the offense. There is a process that is followed. The girls scouts only make me weep because their cookies are so delicious that I crave them day and kn...night

You have the ability to go beyond this chat board and contact the SCA BOD directly with all of this information. That would take care of the SCA officers and/or employees having actual or "constructive knowledge" of these "facts". You can then proceed with a demand for his elimination from the organization and his removal from the order if that is what you seek.

My honor is my own and I shall not hang my head in shame because of the actions of another that I have never met.

If you are taking legal action, good luck. I wish for the best outcome for all parties involved. I may be KSCA but I am not involved in the situation, only learned of it here and have no involvement in it's resolution.

[Armand d'Alsace]

Of course, that's just *my* opinion (as a member of the ass-kicking Girl Scouts).

Lady Charlotte

Move to Drachenwald, there is an archiver well loved for his writings on chivalry here that says a GS could win crown there.

A GS?

[Phelippe du Peiregore]

Of course, that's just *my* opinion (as a member of the ass-kicking Girl Scouts).

Lady Charlotte

Move to Drachenwald, there is an archiver well loved for his writings on chivalry here that says a GS could win crown there.

A GS?

Girl scout.

[Aerimus13]

Hello, Johnathan,

That said, there is also considerable potential liability to an organization that fails to take action against a "bad actor" if any of its officers knows of misbehavior that may harm others and fails to act to protect those placed at risk.

That is only if the corporate entity is aware and does nothing.

The corporate entity is a legal fiction, so its "awareness" of facts is deemed to arise from its officers and/or employees having actual or "constructive knowledge" of those facts.


Lady Charlotte

I believe this is the exact legal situation that has allowed those in the unfortunate pedophile case to bring legal action against the SCA. Specifically the charge that officers had heard rumors and knew of possible allegations of misconduct and did nothing or even actively ignored the allegations.

And this is why the SCA should move as swiftly as possible because if they do not they are open to a lawsuit form the aggrieved authors for allowing the continued theft of their intellectual property if BP is allowed to sale at events and uses his rank within the SCA to further his business. If you want to talk law that is. Personally I don't care about law. I care about what it right. Call it throwing stones if you like dear Count but this thread shows a "preponderance of evidence" to the contrary. If you are a KSCA like you say then you have a duty to denounce BP just as others have. Your office compels you to do so.

[Count Johnathan]

You think it would be prudent for me to suddenly denounce and slander or attempt to take action against someone based on the writings of some angry individuals on an internet chat board?

Wrong.

[Aerimus13]

You think it would be prudent for me to suddenly denounce and slander or attempt to take action against someone based on the writings of some angry individuals on an internet chat board?

Wrong.

Then I will remove my stick from this horse. You may go about your business.

[Count Johnathan]

Gee thanks.

[Cuan]

The SCA is not liable for damages suffered by artisans or authors resulting from Mr. Price's alleged contractual breaches. Nor does the SCA control who merchants at Pennsic (unless that person is otherwise excluded from the SCA). The BoD could R&D Mr. Price but the precedent is not to do so in circumstances that do not directly address the game side of the organization or constitute acts or ommissions that jeopardize the SCA, Inc. That said, we are a private club and can exclude someone for any reason that does not violate public policy (race, religion, etc.). You can take that from a Duke who plays a lawyer about 60-70 hours per week.

I, as a knight familiar with the reputations of many involved, and able to discern for myself the truth when sufficient evidence is placed before me, have decided that Brian is a false knight. I do not say this because he has made mistakes, but because he has not made amends when given the opportunity. And to call them "mistakes" at this point seems generous. The pattern of his dealings evidences intent. I do not have to wait for a court or a king to make this determination for myself. I will not give him rank or title, I will only await him on the field to give him the chance I would any man to defy me with a weapon in his hands.

IF . . . Brian does all in his power to make those he has injured whole, I will reevaluate him and perhaps even consider his place in the pantheon of those who have advanced the study of European martial traditions (where I once held him in great esteem).

I do not know what a king or the BoD may do with this case, but I hope that I have made the positon of one member of the chivalry very clear.