BoD Ruling

[J'lynn Yeates]

On 17 Jul 97 at 23:26, James Crouchet wrote:

> Uhm...actually, this deals with some VERY sensitive legal issues 
> that REALLY should not be discussed in a public forum. I suspect 
> Ansteorra has not acted on this largely because to do so would put 
> them right in the middle of a very nasty legal & liability 
> ssituation.

please explain why you feel that these matters should be left in the 
dark.   

by keeping these "very sensitive legal issues" in the dark, 
it makes it easier for *us* to know if we are breaking the law, or 
what the stand of our parent and regional organizations is?  by that 
logic, you are setting yourself up 100% for any and liabbility for 
inadvertant breaking of the law via ignorance of that law.  

we are not children to be shielded from the realities of the world 
by those who know what is best for us.  the officers in question 
actually work for *us* and owe us explanation and feedback on these 
issues.  

as resonable and responsible adults we should be expected 
to publically question and discuss important issues such as these, 
especially the ones that affect us directly

> As it stands now, be aware that if you violate the law in some way 
> (and there are many possibilities), YOU as an individual take all the 
> heat.

if YOU as a "individual" are part of an ORGANIZATION that sanctions 
an illegal action, that organization is liable for your actions as 
well ... and in the reality of this world, which makes a more 
tempting financial target for the lawyers - you resources  or that of 
the large-scale  organization?

'wolf

a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, lack of knowledge is 
a often a deadly thing