[Ansteorra] Lawsuit, Children, Liability

[Paul E. Kiefer, Jr.]

M'lady, you don't know me.  You never even heard of me.  I'm a member.  You painted me and the entire Society with a very broad brush.  I was nowhere near that incident or any other similar incident.  I knew nothing of the incident until it was brought to my attention last Saturday.  I never even heard of these people.  Yet you were quite willing to paint me in the same color as a child molester.  That's my good name.  You were quite willing to drag my good name through the mud even though I had nothing to do with it.
 
When you accuse the Society, you're not just accusing this group.  You are accusing every member, every individual who was involved in the operations, every individual who went to an event, regardless of whether or not they were there or if they had any ability to do anything at all.  That includes me because I'm a member.  I care about my good name.
 
You know who else cares about my good name?  Uncle Sam.  I work for Him.  He cares very much about my good name; so much so that He's willing to bring about an internal investigation if there's so much as a hint of impropriety.  It could get me fired...or worse...
 
....and you just sullied my good name without even knowing who I was, where I was, what I knew or what I was doing....
 
...up to now.
 
I do care about children.  Really, I do.  However, I really didn't need or deserve this.  Thanks for nothing.  :-P  I don't expect any favors.  However, I do expect some respect, regardless of what you might think of me, even though you never met me.
 
Lord Johann Kiefer Haydon (Paul E. Kiefer, Jr.)
Plain ol' herald (and tax man.)
 
From: Rose <rose_welch at yahoo.com>
>To: Ansteorra <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org> 
>Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 5:35 PM
>Subject: [Ansteorra] Lawsuit, Children, Liability
>
>Let's be clear about this:
>
>This case does not revolve around an isolated incident.
>
>This case does not revolve around a single perpetrator.
>
>This case was not brought by a single plaintiff.
>
>This case was brought by a group of plaintiffs, with their parents, who discovered that the SCA has a long history of abusers in leadership roles. We're not alone; this problem is familiar to every organization that deals with a vulnerable populace.
>
>Unlike those organizations, we chose to do nothing. We didn't run background checks, we didn't require a two-deep rule, we rarely revoked memberships until a conviction was secure. We didn't even bother to send out Society announcements when these revocations occurred, a measure that may have served to keep us on our toes and would have cost us NOTHING. Long after the Boy Scouts and similar organization developed best practices to safeguard their children, we did nothing.
>
>Even after the Schragger case, where twelve children came forward to report abuse, we made NO changes. We didn't update our policies until AFTER we were sued by six of children that Lord Ben the Steward, AKA the 'Innocent Oak', had molested. That was the point of the suit.
>
>Do you still think that this lawsuit is about money?
>
>This lawsuit was about forcing the SCA to adopt standard best practices, which we have done. Now that we have done so, we no longer carry the same amount of liability that we did before 2007. (And our liability insurance already went up. Some of you folks are really behind the times.)
>
>The Innocent Oak. That is what the local populace called him and the symbol that they crafted onto items that they sold to raise funds for his defense. Even after his conviction, a reported thirty Scadians showed up to his 'Going To Prison' party to wish him farewell. Since then, there have been twenty-nine revocation and denial of membership decisions rendered by the Board of Directors for conviction of predatory crimes. Twenty-four of these have been with regard to abuse of minors.
>
>Again, let me ask. Are you still thinking about the money?
>
>I'm not. I'm thinking about a culture of abuse that we allowed to fester in our Society, that contributed to the molestation of at least a dozen children. Eighteen percent doesn't seem like a very large payment to rid ourselves of that particular ailment, and it is worth noting that it would have been significantly cheaper - in gold and in blood - had we simply seen to the issue when the first symptoms erupted.
>
>Blaming the children for a lawsuit that centered around the non-actions of adults is stupid. Working to punish children in the future for an issue that was corrected in the past is even more stupid.
>
>And that's my tuppence.
>
> 
>
>Lady Rose the Obnoxious
> 
>
>
>*              *              *              *              *              *              *              *              *              *              *              *              *
>
>Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile. ~Hippocrates
>_______________________________________________
>Ansteorra mailing list
>Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
>http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>
>
>