Legal Memorandum - IT SURE IS NICE TO BE VINDICATED!

[Randy Shipp]

On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Doug Grove wrote:

> Unto Mistress Eilis O'Boirne (Lee Forgue) and Susan Early, come elated
> greetings from the heart of Meridies.
> 
> THANK YOU!  I just wanted to express my gratitude for your distributing that
> wonderful (but rather verbose) legal treatise on how and why the SCA is, and
> will safely remain, a tax-exempt educational organization.  

I'm not questioning the legal validity of Susan Early's opinion, as I'm 
not qualified to comment on that, but I am interested in knowing why this 
opinion is automatically more trustworthy than the opinion put forth by 
the dissenting members.  My impression from reading Early's opinion is 
that she did exactly what she said she did (read SCA publications) and 
did not do exactly what she said she did not do (attend events or talk to 
members from both sides of the argument).  I would like to know if the 
manner in which events are advertised comprises the whole of their legal 
"purpose".  

Also, if Early in fact did read the Rialto (and she did thereby raise 
some good points about education in the form of healthy debate), why did 
she not seem to notice the numerous comments of members who stated that 
history and education were minor (or nonexistant) concerns for them, and 
that Society ideals of chivalry, honor, and courtesy (all treated nicely, 
but hardly educationally or scholarly by most members) and made-up SCA 
customs were more important than the spread of information about pre-17th 
Century Europe or the active effort to interest the public or other 
members in history.  (Pardon the ridiculously run-on sentence!)  It seems 
to me that event announcements can't be taken as more convincing evidence 
of the Society's purpose than the comments of the members or the actual 
activities at events.  More inquiry into those questions seems needed 
before Ms. Early or the IRS could say what our exclusive purpose is.  

> After so many
> paranoid nay-sayers bashing the Society it is certainly a refreshing change
> to have in hand such an eloquent vindication of our efforts.  

To what have you dedicated your efforts?  Study of and spread of 
information about pre-17th C Europe (perhaps Ms. Early's opinion will 
serve to clarify the temporal and geographic extents of the SCA's legal 
purpose)?  If not, how do they fit into the legal definition of the SCA's 
purpose as put forth by Early?

> I would also
> like to state my many thanks to those fine tax lawyers who so generously
> donated their time, experience, and efforts.

I, too, appreciate the efforts of all those involved, from the original 
dissenters to the Board to Early and her firm.  Except for the original 
dissenters, however, I don't think anyone donated their legal expertise.  
As was stated at the beginning of that post, Early and her firm were 
paid for their work, perhaps $200 per hour or more.  Still, the spread of 
information will result in good debate.

In Service,

Randy Shipp
aka Antoine d'Aubernoun
rshipp at flash.net