Duke Angus's trial - result
Michael Rollins
Susan J. Grant <sjgg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>00039...@mcimail.COM (Marla Lecin) writes:
>>Greetings to the Rialto, from Jessa d'Avondale,
>>I'm surprised that this hasn't been posted already...
>>The jury returned with guilty verdicts for both Paul Serio (Angus) and the
>>victim's husband, on the charges of first degree murder of the wife. They
>>were found not guilty of the death of the infant. Sentencing is to be
>>sometime in April.
>>I heard this news from two separate sources, one of which traces back to
>>Angus' ex-wife; the other lives in Florida (where the trial took place).
>>Jessa
>
>From the AP, Friday 3/25/94.
>"A man who prosecutors say didn't want to pay a $180,000 divorce
>settlement was convicted of hiring hit men to kill his ex-wife,
>leaving the couple's daughter to die in her crib of dehydration.
> Paul Hamwi, 47, remained free for nearly a decade because a neighbor-
>hood schizophrenic was wrongly convicted of murdering Susan Hawmi in
>1983.
> One of the hitmen, Paul Serio, 47, was also convicted Wednesday. The
>second gunman, who admitted his role because he believes he's dying, was
>granted immunity in exchange for his testimony.
> Hamwi and Serio were acquitted in the child's death.
> Hamwi, a wealthy devleoper from Aspen, Colo., maintains his innocence
>and said he would appeal. He showed no emotion as the jury returned its
>verdict.
> The penalty phase begins April 25 to determine whether the two should
>get life in prison or be executed. Broward Circuit Judge Howard Zeidwig
>will decide the sentence, based on the jury's recommendations.
> Susan Hamwi, 38, was found dead with a kitchen knife broken off
>in her chest and a telephone cord around her neck. She had been dead
>a week. Her 18-month-old daughter, Shane, died of dehydration."
>Published in the _Daily Illini_, p. 3, Friday 3/25/94. Typos and all
>faithfully reproduced to the best of my ability.
>
>A pretty gruesome tale. I am glad the SCA wasn't in the story.
<------------------------------------>
>--
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+ Susan Grant sjgg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu +
>+ University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign +
>+ Alwynne of Rivenstar, Middle Kingdom +
But in some ways we are.
Let me first state that I have been an acquaintence of Duke Angus from the
time of the Great Desert Wars and that I did not like him from the moment I was
introduced to him. Those that read this post should read it with this in mind.
He has always been to my way of thinking a rude, boorish, unchivalrous lout of
a man who does not deserve the accolade of Knight. Now the state of Florida
has proved to me that my judgement of the character of this person was
correct.
While I do hope that the common press does not involve us in this matter,
we must also realize that Angus is (was) one of us. I can honestly say that
I an deeply offended that this person shares with me the same white belt that
I also wear. I feel that my belt is in some way tainted as a result of the
heinous actions of a member of the chivalry. I have reserved judgement on
Angus until such time as the State of Florida decided on this manner. Well,
now they have and I feel that we as a group should also pass judgement
on one who is (was) one of us. I would wish to see Angus stripped of any and
all titles, awards, etc. that were earned by him so that those outside our
organization would hopefully realize that we do not in any way accept his
actions. While this would be a small thing it is perhaps the only thing we
as a group can do to show our disapproval of his actions. No, it will not
bring back the dead, and it will not bring comfort to the relatives of the
slain, but it is one small thing that we could do.
Some may ask why should we care ? The murders were done by Paul Serio, not by
Angus. To this I would say I have always believed that there are certain things
in the game we play that cannot be inseperable from our mundane lives. Either
you are chivalrous or you are not. Either you are courteous or you are not.
Either you are as good as your word or you are not. etc. I do not see how one
could take things like these and turn them on and of at the drop of a hat.
The idea that "Oh, I am at an SCA event so I must behave in a chivalrous
manner" and then "Oh , I am not at an event so I can act like an asshole" has
never washed with me. To me those that behave in this fashion are living a lie
to my way of thinking. I would further say, would we wish to make a peer of
someone who acts well in our game but is a murderer out side it ? I think not.
I intend to write to those who are in power to ask if they agree and if so, to
follow through with just punishment. If any in this forum agree with me I would
ask them to do likewise. If this does come to pass I would further wish it to
be communicated to Paul Serio. While I am sure this is small potatoes to the
mundane penalties he is facing, I feel it important that he knows that we
also refute him.
Mundanely speaking as the father of a 10 month old girl, I hope that Paul Serio
gets the chair. Noting that Florida is the buckle of the death belt (2nd only
to Texas in the number of times that capital punishment has been dealt out since
the reinstatement ot the death penalty) it is likely that he will........
Sir Llyweln ap Llywd sp Iorwerth, OoP, LoA, etc.
West Kingdom, Shire of Wolfscairn
aka Mike Rollins,
Member of Technical Staff Digital Switch Corporation
My opinions, not DSC's
SGMarshall
Rollins) writes: I intend to write to those who are in power to ask if they
agree and if so, to
follow through with just punishment. If any in this forum agree with me I would
ask them to do likewise. If this does come to pass I would further wish it to
be communicated to Paul Serio. While I am sure this is small potatoes to the
mundane penalties he is facing, I feel it important that he knows that we
also refute him.
I must strongly disagree. It is not our place to involve ourselves in this
situation. Once we begin to cross the line of policing the mundane activities
of our members, where would it end? Who gets to judge? Do we decide whether
someone is a good parent? Too many speeding tickets?
Sean Marshall (SCA -- Peredur -- West -- OP)
The Dark Mage
>agree and if so, to
>follow through with just punishment. If any in this forum agree with me I would
>ask them to do likewise. If this does come to pass I would further wish it to
>be communicated to Paul Serio. While I am sure this is small potatoes to the
>mundane penalties he is facing, I feel it important that he knows that we
>also refute him.
>------------
>I must strongly disagree. It is not our place to involve ourselves in this
>situation. Once we begin to cross the line of policing the mundane activities
>of our members, where would it end? Who gets to judge? Do we decide whether
>someone is a good parent? Too many speeding tickets?
I dunno... Is there any precedent for basically kicking someone out of
the Society and taking away his awards/titles/knighthood? We're not
talking about someone who mundanely has too many speeding tickets, or
mundanely acts like an asshole... We're talking about someone who
killed another person, and left a child to die... Like the original
Gentle said, is this person deserving of his knighthood? Had his victim
been a SCAdian, and had the murder taken place at an SCA event, say at
Pennsic, while they were both in persona, then obviously he would be
stripped of his titles etc and thrown out of the Society, both because
his persona acted in a totally unacceptable manner, and because we'd
have to do _something_ about the inevitable bad publicity. "Disowning"
him now is not really about damage control, but I don't think it's
innappropriate. Some things can't be seperated from your mundane life,
and cold blooded murder is one of them.
-Gabrielle the Clueless
----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
"When he became not I but I^2, Dodgson found he | net.name: DarkMage
had an ally, a Holy Guardian Angel, a Secret Self | IRC handle: Morpheus
as it were. This person, like Ped Xing or Anon of | SCA persona: Gabrielle
Ibid, lived in the interstices of the code rather | mka: Dvora Silberman
than being a signal as such, and he called himself | silb...@acf4.nyu.edu
Lewis..." -Wilson, _Schrodinger's Cat II | any questions...?
----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
I've got a mouse and he hasn't got a house I dunno why I call him Gerald.
----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
meg
his awards and titles.
Good sir, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I realize that
as a parent you feel shock at the cruelty of allowing a baby to die like
that, not to mention the horror of the murder itself. We all feel that.
As to stripping someone of their rank,etc within the Society for crimes
committed outside the Society...well. Those honors, however tarnished
they might appear today in light of the verdict, were given without
hinderance or let by the Crown and with the acclaim of his peers at a
time when they certainly were deserved. Otherwise they wouldn't have been
given. Much though I agree that some sort of statement from the Powers
that Be to the effect that he no longer plays with us might be in order,
nevertheless OUR laws do not provide for such a stripping of rank in this
instance. Pompous and boorish he may have been at times, nevertheless he
did not break the laws of the Society, which would be the basis for such
a demotion. My personal experiences with him were agreeable, for the most
part. I assumed that a person of his exalted rank just _might_ be
pompous. Within period, I mean. We have many a duke who is quiet,
self-effacing and modest, and I am sure that there were such in period,
but it seemed to me that Angus played the part of the k
kind of juke who would have 5 inch strawberry leaves on his coronet, and
thrones bigger than the King's. The pompousity was part of the act, to a
large degree. Perhaps I saw a side of him which you did not.
Which is not to say, of course, that I condone his mundane crime, of
which he has now been duly convicted in a court of law. I grieve that he
was party to such a horrible thing. But, horrible though it is, it does
not negate the Reigns he had as King, or change the fact, that once upon
a time, the assembled Chivalry saw him worthy of the accolade. There is
no provision within SCA law to withdraw honors for crimes committed which
do not have to do directly with the Corporation or the fantasy of the
Knowne Worlde. Lapses from sanity, moral depravities outside the SCA,
infirmity, old age, gafiating, none of these have been found as cause to
strip others of their rank. Paul Serio, not Anghais, is the murderer.
Case in point. A certain gentle was found guilty of child abuse and
sexual assault in a mundane court. We could not banish him without just
cause. Just because he had done these crimes did not mean necessarily
thaat he would do them again. They were not committed within the society.
We do not have a police file check as a requirement for membership. But
when he was caught committing such a crime at an event...well, then we
had just cause to banish him.
Perhaps we should have somesort of law concerning such things as
stripping rank from those who no longer deserve it. I personally don't
think so. There are Kings and Queens who have gaffiated so far that no
one knows where they live anymore. But they are still Peers. We still
recite their names at each Coronation.
There are people who no longer practice their art, due to non==non
interest or old age. I know several old duke/old knights who no longer
fight due to infirmity and age. They are still knights.
If you truly think he should be stripped of his ranks and awards, give
cause within the framework of the Society. Rudeness? Behaviour
unbecoming a peer? In which circumstance at what time? I believe that at
the time of the mundane murder, he was pretty much gaffiated from the
society. I could be mistaken on this. I know he had moved to TezaTexas,
so it could be i just didn't see him much.
Anyway, those are some of my thought on the subject.
We are an international society. The US law sez we are innocent until
proven guilty. Now he is guilty. BUt not of a crime within the Sco
Society.
Megan
==
In 1994: Linda Anfuso
In the Current Middle Ages: Megan ni Laine de Belle Rive
In the SCA, Inc: sustaining member # 33644
YYY YYY
m...@tinhat.stonemarche.org | YYYYY |
|____n____|
Mark Schuldenfrei
want to correct a point of SCA law.
m...@tinhat.stonemarche.org (meg) writes:
Case in point. A certain gentle was found guilty of child abuse and
sexual assault in a mundane court. We could not banish him without just
cause. Just because he had done these crimes did not mean necessarily
thaat he would do them again. They were not committed within the society.
We do not have a police file check as a requirement for membership. But
when he was caught committing such a crime at an event...well, then we
had just cause to banish him.
See below, V.C.3.1, under criminal law...
V. MEMBERS
C. GENERAL CONDITIONS AND PRIVILEGES OF MEMBERSHIP
3. Revocation/Denial of Membership. Membership in the Society may be revoked
as provided in Paragraph C.1 of this Article for the following reasons:
(1) conviction of violation of civil or criminal law
(2) actions that endanger the Society;
(3) violation of the By-Laws or Corpora of the Society;
(4) formal recommendation arising out of procedures for the purpose
defined in Corpora for the medieval structure of the Society. (See
also Governing and Policy Decisions #3 and #10.) Membership in the
Society may be denied for the same reasons as revocation. Membership
may also be denied if the reasons for a previous revocation of
membership are still considered by the Board to be valid.
Tibor
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (sch...@math.harvard.edu)
Pleas excuse spelling errors or terseness: I am typing one-handed while my
left wrist heals.
NCHanger
Eney) responded to:
>>I dunno... Is there any precedent for basically kicking someone out of
>>the Society and taking away his awards/titles/knighthood? We're not
>>talking about someone who mundanely has too many speeding tickets, or
>>mundanely acts like an asshole... We're talking about someone who
>>killed another person, and left a child to die...
>> <text left out for brevity's sake>
>I am even more horrified at the death of the child -- although the
>verdict indicates that the defense must have established that the
>murderers didn't know the child was there -- than the direct killing, but
>there's something we shouldn't overlook here, too. The intervention of
>the State preempts private punitive action. I remember during a nasty
>mess in SF fandom over a child molester some people were claiming that we
>(i.e., SF fans) could "do something" only if the molester were hauled
>into court and found guilty. It had to be gently pointed out to them
>that in such a case the court would take care of punishing the crime, and
>might take a dim view of our doing so independently: punishment by the
>law officially ends the matter. It not only displaces private revenge,
>but is explicitly meant to do so. Doesn't always work that way, of
>course, but it's supposed to. Some legal historian might have a few
>clarifying points to make about this.
Well, there's also precedence for taking away Angus' awards and knighthood. It
was done previously for another legal "inpropriety" (someone else can recount
it--I'm tired of the whole business, frankly). I'm sure that the BoD will get
around to permanently revoking his membership and stripping his awards when
they have the spare time to think of such things, not so much as "punishment,"
but rather as a means of assuring that he can never participate in the Society
again.
Mistress Branwyn Mwrheyd
thomas wrentmore barnes
already been stripped of his knighthood and has had his membership
revoked.
This is probably urban legend, but I have heard that Aonghais
was knighted in one kingdom, lost his belt in a court of chivalry, moved
to another kingdom, got another belt and then lost it again in another
court of chivalry.
I have also heard that the SCA has revoked his membership,
though there was, of course, no way that they could keep him from
attending at SCA events.
I do not know if he has been stripped of his Ducal coronet or
any other awards.
IMO, it is merely a matter of damage control for the SCA to
strip him of all his awards and formally kick him out of the SCA. We
don't need Aonghais.
Don't give me any jive about a 20th c. person being somehow
different when they are playing at being a medieval persona. Our SCA
personas are reflections of our real personalities, no matter what we
might say.
I wouldn't trust a person who was, mundanely, a convicted child
molester to run the child care at an event any more than I would trust
a convicted embezzler to be an exchequer no matter what their persona
story is.
Likewise, I wouldn't trust Aonghais any further than I could
throw a super-carrier because Paul Serio is a murderer. Aonghais has had
a lot more experience being Paul Serio than he has being Aonghais.
We shouldn't let convicted felons have our peerages for the same
reason that we don't let convicted felons have weapons. Our society
makes no claim to have rehabilitated criminals to the point where they
can be ever be full members of Society again. Because of this they
aren't allowed all the priveleges of citizenship. They can't vote, they
can't bear arms, and they can't serve in sensitive government and
private positions. No argument. No appeal.
In the SCA, our peerages reflect moral and social achievement as
well as mere mastery of an art. Being a decent person is even more basic
to being a peer than mastery. Murders are, by definition, not decent
people. Whether we like it or not, peerages can and should be revoked
for gross moral turpitude. People SHOULD be banished from the SCA and
from Kingdoms for violent crimes.
If people want to cherish a memory of Aonghais as somebody nice
and wonderful, then they should cherish the memories of what he was at
his best. What Aonghais/Paul Serio is now is the man at his worst. Do
the pro-Aonghais folk really want their nostalgia tainted by such an
obviously tarnished hero?
Lothar
(Is it Atlantia where it is part of the litany for the
investiture of the new King and Queen for them to ritually ban Aonghais
from the kingdom?)
David Friedman
tba...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes) wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Aonghais has
> already been stripped of his knighthood and has had his membership
> revoked.
>
> This is probably urban legend, but I have heard that Aonghais
> was knighted in one kingdom, lost his belt in a court of chivalry, moved
> to another kingdom, got another belt and then lost it again in another
> court of chivalry.
A seriously garbled account. Aonghais was convicted in a Court of Chivalry
in the East kingdom ( of having lied in a public statement while king and
of having violated kingdom law by spending kingdom money for long distance
phone calls, which was at the time not permitted); he was not stripped of
his belt. The verdict of that court was subsequently cancelled by the Board
of Directors; so far as I know they never informed the East Kingdom why.
Many years later he was convicted of a different set of offenses in Caid,
stripped of his belt, and banished. He was then reknighted, I believe in An
Tir.
--
David/Cariadoc
DD...@Cornell.Edu
Derek Lyons
>I must strongly disagree. It is not our place to involve ourselves in this
>situation. Once we begin to cross the line of policing the mundane activities
>of our members, where would it end? Who gets to judge? Do we decide whether
>someone is a good parent? Too many speeding tickets?
I must agree with you. It's not the place of the Society to take action ban
something that happened within the confines of the Mundane World... (Whether
for Weal or Woe).
Theodoric the Scholar
gisby
> In article <CnLnD...@optilink.com>, rol...@optilink.dsccc.com (Michael
> Rollins) writes: I intend to write to those who are in power to ask if they
> agree and if so, to
> follow through with just punishment. If any in this forum agree with me I wou
> ask them to do likewise. If this does come to pass I would further wish it to
> be communicated to Paul Serio. While I am sure this is small potatoes to the
> mundane penalties he is facing, I feel it important that he knows that we
> also refute him.
> ------------
>
> I must strongly disagree. It is not our place to involve ourselves in this
> situation. Once we begin to cross the line of policing the mundane activities
> of our members, where would it end? Who gets to judge? Do we decide whether
> someone is a good parent? Too many speeding tickets?
>
>
> Sean Marshall (SCA -- Peredur -- West -- OP)
-------------
I feel I must jump in here with my two cents worth... Whereas it may not
be our place to monitor behaviour outside the SCA in most cases, I have
to say that I find this last arguement spurious, and a little offensive.
"Too many parking tickets?" We're talking murder for hire here, with an
18 month old child left to die of dehydration, NOT a set of parking
misdemeanours.
I may be wrong, but nowhere in my 17+ years in the SCA was I taught that
this behaviour was that which was considered chivalrous, and appropriate
to a Knight. If one is only supposed to PLAY at Chivalry, I guess it's OK
and I'm wrong. But I thought we were supposed to believe in Honour,
Chivalry, etc. I know I do.
If Duke Angus' behaviour is appropriate to a Knight, so be it. It's not
my place to say, I'm not one. But if his behaviour is appropriate to a
Knight, I wouldn't be one if asked.
I am the last one to spout off the "Swallow the Dream" triteness, the
"Dream" has apparently been dead quite a while. But I can only say that I
am constantly amazed at what is considered acceptable behaviour.
Sorry if I'm ranting, but I'm disgusted, as usual.
Baron Thrym Oddomssonr
Barony of Castel Rouge
PS I would however wish to send my sympathy out to Angus' friends in the
SCA. This must be an unpleasant and difficult time for you. Thank you for
standing with him, I only hope to have friends as loyal should I ever
need them.
Steve Hick
tba...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes) wrote:
>
> (Is it Atlantia where it is part of the litany for the
> investiture of the new King and Queen for them to ritually ban Aonghais
> from the kingdom?)
>
No, not at all, he never lived here, I believe it is Caid.
ST
Phillip Glen Hirschel
this.
Can the SCA rely upon the due process of the state of florida
to reach decisions internally.
There are good reasons for this. The SCA has to have due
process before doing something as drastic to 'Angus' as has
been put forth. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, in fact
I really am saying that it is probably right. The question is
more a point on law rather than content. The SCA has to
provide due process, some sort of trial, before doing something
like the proposals. Can the SCA use real world court
information to settle internal due process to participants. If
the SCA must conduct a court of chivalry, than that means all
of the evidence must be presented. Certainly in this case
conducting a proper court is impractical, thus if internal due
process has to be conducted, Angus could easily triumph. If
the SCA can rely upon mundane decisions to fulfill due process, a
short resolution can be conducted. Quite honestly, Serio is
going to be in jail, for a long time, or a short time(BZZZZZZ)
depending.
Dick Eney
thomas wrentmore barnes <tba...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>(Is it Atlantia where it is part of the litany for the
>investiture of the new King and Queen for them to ritually ban Aonghais
>from the kingdom?)
>
-- Vuong Manh (senior Pelican of Atlantia, and here resident since the
foundation of the Kingdom)
Conrad Claus
[a great deal about the need of the SCA to provide due process clipped.]
I could be wrong but I think you are mistaken. I dont think a private
organization like the SCA needs to provide any form of due process
(whether substantive or procedural) to its members. I am not aware of
the effect of being a not-for-proffit organization, however, and could be
off base here.
Conrad
--
Bettina Helms
[re: ongoing discussion over whether to strip Duke Angus of his rank and
honors]
>>>Rollins) writes: I intend to write to those who are in power to ask
>>>if they agree and if so, to follow through with just punishment. If
>>>any in this forum agree with me I would ask them to do likewise. If
>>>this does come to pass I would further [wish] it to be communicated
>>>to Paul Serio. While I am sure this is small potatoes to the mundane
>>>penalties he is facing, I feel it important that he knows that we
>>>also refute him.
>>I must strongly disagree. It is not our place to involve ourselves in
>>this situation. Once we begin to cross the line of policing the
>>mundane activities of our members, where would it end? Who gets to
>>judge? Do we decide whether someone is a good parent? Too many
>>speeding tickets?
Interesting point. The question here is, what sort of behavior should a
member of the SCA, and especially a member of the Order of Chivalry, be
expected to show in the mundane world? Should he or should he not make
at least *some* effort to live up to these standards *even mundanely*?
And if he does something *grossly* contrary to these standards
mundanely, does he still deserve to be a member of the Order?
>I dunno... Is there any precedent for basically kicking someone out of
>the Society and taking away his awards/titles/knighthood? We're not
>talking about someone who mundanely has too many speeding tickets, or
>mundanely acts like an asshole... We're talking about someone who
>killed another person, and left a child to die... Like the original
>Gentle said, is this person deserving of his knighthood? Had his victim
>been a SCAdian, and had the murder taken place at an SCA event, say at
>Pennsic, while they were both in persona, then obviously he would be
>stripped of his titles etc and thrown out of the Society, both because
>his persona acted in a totally unacceptable manner, and because we'd
>have to do _something_ about the inevitable bad publicity. "Disowning"
>him now is not really about damage control, but I don't think it's
>innappropriate. Some things can't be seperated from your mundane life,
>and cold blooded murder is one of them.
Even being an accessory before, during and after the fact while someone
else committed the crime (which from what I gather was the most Mr.
Serio would admit to) is pretty bad stuff. If, as certain sources
indicate that he claimed, he was conned into participating under the
impression that he was "merely" supposed to help give a no-good b!tch a
bad scare/a well-deserved beating, this in and of itself reflects
extremely poorly on his judgment, his attitudes, and his behavior.
DE> I am even more horrified at the death of the child -- although the
DE> verdict indicates that the defense must have established that the
DE> murderers didn't know the child was there -- than the direct killing,
DE> but there's something we shouldn't overlook here, too. The
DE> intervention of the State preempts private punitive action....
DE> Doesn't always work that way, of course, but it's supposed to. Some
DE> legal historian might have a few clarifying points to make about this.
Question: is a Court of Chivalry "punitive action" in this instance, or
is it a recognition that this individual has behaved in ways that we
find completely unacceptable, quite apart from the legal considerations?
Demanding Angus's belt and spurs in vindictive anger is one thing.
Requesting examination of the question of whether he deserves to retain
them is quite another. And yes, I think we *do* need to decide whether
the SCA should require minimum standards of conduct *mundanely*.
... --T-A+G-L-I+N-E--+M-E-A+S-U-R+I-N-G+--G-A+U-G-E--
* Origin: The Writer's Block, Jacksonville FL * 904/399-8854 (1:112/38.0)
Bettina Helms
me> As to stripping someone of their rank,etc within the Society for
me> crimes committed outside the Society...well. Those honors, however
me> tarnished they might appear today in light of the verdict, were given
me> without hinderance or let by the Crown and with the acclaim of his
me> peers at a time when they certainly were deserved. Otherwise they
me> wouldn't have been given.
I am willing to reserve comment on Angus's Award of Arms, his Dukedom,
his patent of arms, and any other once and final awards he has earned.
The question of his membership in the Order of Chivalry is very
different. The Society sets forth certain written and unwritten
expectations of what a member in this Order shall be, and shall
*continue to be*. Behavior that falls too far below this standard can be
and has been grounds for revoking this honor - and Angus has already
*had* it revoked at least once for behavior that could have been
actionable in a mundane court of law had the participants been so
minded: specifically, slander, assault, and battery. (Calling someone
nasty names in public is slander; hoisting her over your shoulder
without her consent and inviting other to spank her is assault and
battery. The mundane law is very clear on this.)
me> Much though I agree that some sort of
me> statement from the Powers that Be to the effect that he no longer
me> plays with us might be in order, nevertheless OUR laws do not provide
me> for such a stripping of rank in this instance. Pompous and boorish
me> he may have been at times, nevertheless he did not break the
me> laws of the Society, which would be the basis for such a demotion.
In regard to everything *but* his Knighthood, you are probably correct.
As noted above, however, the accolade is not a one-time thing: the
recipient must *continue to deserve it* by living up to the standards of
the Order or at least not falling too far below them. This ought to be
true *mundanely* as well as Societally.
me> Which is not to say, of course, that I condone his mundane crime,
me> of which he has now been duly convicted in a court of law. I
me> grieve that he was party to such a horrible thing. But, horrible
me> though it is, it does not negate the Reigns he had as King,
This is true. Like it or not, he is a part of East Kingdom history - as
is Rakkurai, who gafiated one jump ahead of the mundane police under
accusations of theft and fraud.
me> or change the fact, that once upon a time, the assembled Chivalry
me> saw him worthy of the accolade.
Not quite accurate. When Angus was first Knighted, the accolade
automatically went with winning Crown Tourney. In those days, everyone
innocently assumed that anyone who took the game seriously enough to
enter and win Crown would take it seriously enough to live up to
Chivalric standards - this even *after* Rakkurai's reign. It was not
until long afterwards, when Fernando Salazar y Perez won the crown and
*refused* the white belt until his successor's reign, that the honors
were clearly and permanently separated.
Upon another time, the King and assembled Chivalry of the West found
Angus *no longer* worthy of the accolade, and yanked his spurs.
Upon a third time, the Prince of An Tir demanded a boon of the King of
the West, who promised the Prince anything within his power - and the
boon was to knight Angus.
We are now upon a fourth and probably final time, when the mundane
misdeeds of this man call in question his worthiness to continue to
live, to say nothing of his worthiness to participate in our game at all
and even less of his worthiness to participate *as a member of the Order
of Chivalry*.
me> There is no provision within SCA law to withdraw honors for crimes
me> committed which do not have to do directly with the Corporation or
me> the fantasy of the Knowne Worlde.
Another poster has already listed the sections of Corpora that indicate
that you are not correct. I shan't repeat them.
Believe me, it pains me also to consider these things (I have posted
some personal memories of Angus in another message). But there are some
mundane matters that *do* affect the Society, and this is one of them.
... Thank you for not discussing the outside world.
David Friedman
> From Baron Elric of Erehwon, OL, to the gentles of the Rialto, Greetings!
(referring to Angus)
> He has previously
> been tried twice (in the East and in Caid) within the SCA (by Courts of
> Chivalry) for offenses against members of the organization. On the first
> occasion he was found guilty, but given what was essentially a deferred
> sentence.
That is not correct. He was sentenced to an abatement of arms, and bore it.
He was asked to repay the kingdom money that he had spent in violation of
kingdom law. I think one of his friends eventually did that for him, but am
not certain. Eventually the Board of directors announced that they were
cancelling the verdict. So far as I know, they never explained why.
Bettina Helms writes (about Angus):
"This is true. Like it or not, he is a part of East Kingdom history - as
is Rakkurai, who gafiated one jump ahead of the mundane police under
accusations of theft and fraud."
I am not quite sure I understand this. Dropping out of the SCA is not a
protection against criminal charges, so what is the connection between the
charges and his dropping out--indeed, why do you think there is one?
Rakkurai and Shlomo traded lots of accusations of mutual misdeeds, but
accusations are not the same thing as guilt. So far as I know, neither
Shlomo nor Rakkurai was convicted of anything associated with their
quarrel.
--
David/Cariadoc
DD...@Cornell.Edu
Jeanne Stapleton
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
In article <2nsvae$a...@access2.digex.net> dick...@access.digex.net
that part of the coronation oath was "...and I swear to uphold
the banishment of Aonghais Dubh MacTarbh". Can someone clarify
this?
--
Jeanne C. Stapleton ber...@eskimo.com (voice) (206)232-5593
SCA: Berengaria de Montfort of Carcassonne (message)(206)236-2065
"As soon as I've gathered enough information for the Almighty Zontar,
I'm outta here."
Bettina Helms
DF> "This is true. Like it or not, he is a part of East Kingdom history -
DF> as is Rakkurai, who gafiated one jump ahead of the mundane police under
DF> accusations of theft and fraud."
DF> I am not quite sure I understand this. Dropping out of the SCA is not
DF> a protection against criminal charges, so what is the connection
DF> between the charges and his dropping out--indeed, why do you think
DF> there is one?
There probably isn't much of a one. I think the person who told me the
story believed that Rakkurai did a disappearing act in order that he not
be found by the mundane authorities (or anyone else?). But what I was
trying to say was that 1) Rakkurai has an evil reputation (deserved or
otherwise) and 2) he's part of East Kingdom history regardless of what
anybody thinks of him or says about him - he's still listed on the Roll
of Monarchs which is read at every Eastern Coronation.
I don't think that Angus can be scratched off the Roll of Monarchs
either, regardless of anything he has done since - but other
possibilities remain open.
... The game is rigged, but it's the only one in town.
blac...@news.delphi.com
>A seriously garbled account. Aonghais was convicted in a Court of Chivalry
>in the East kingdom ( of having lied in a public statement while king and
>of having violated kingdom law by spending kingdom money for long distance
>phone calls, which was at the time not permitted); he was not stripped of
>his belt. The verdict of that court was subsequently cancelled by the Board
>of Directors; so far as I know they never informed the East Kingdom why.
It was cancelled by Laurel because a) the sentence of abatement of arms
was not one of the list of options specifically named in the Corpora
(which left nothing between slap-on-the-wrist and "nuclear weapons" so
dread no one dared invoke them) and b) we did not wait for deeear
Karina's two-year processing time before the sentence itself ran out.
As far as "mundane crimes" ago, what about the precedent of King
Terrence, where the Directors apparently ruled that we can't do anything?
blac...@news.delphi.com
The Dark Mage
> As far as "mundane crimes" ago, what about the precedent of King
>Terrence, where the Directors apparently ruled that we can't do anything?
Who's King Terrence, and what couldn't we do anything about?
-Gabrielle the Clueless
David Friedman
> But what I was
> trying to say was that 1) Rakkurai has an evil reputation (deserved or
> otherwise) and 2) he's part of East Kingdom history regardless of what
> anybody thinks of him or says about him
I wonder if 1 is true, or if it reflects the particular people you happen
to have talked with. Rakkurai got involved in a very messy feud with his
ex-friend (I think ex-squire) Shlomo ben Shlomo, which was very unfortunate
for the kingdom, since people tended to take sides. But I would not have
said that he was a spectacularly bad king, and am curious as to whether he
has really attained that status in EK folklore.
Incidentally, I encountered Barry Green (Rakkurai) within the last year or
so--he seemed to be fine, and not obviously hiding from anyone.
--
David/Cariadoc
DD...@Cornell.Edu
AuntieS
writes:
I've been told (more urban legend)
that part of the coronation oath was "...and I swear to uphold
the banishment of Aonghais Dubh MacTarbh". Can someone clarify
this?
The banishment is (or was, certainly) written into Kingdom law, so that the
Monarchs, in that they swear to uphold all Kingdom law, swear to uphold the
banishment. It was written into Kingdom law so that it could not accidentally
lapse, but would require positive action to remove it. *No one* in Caid would
have given the jerk the sick satisfaction of having his name mentioned in a
coronation ceremony, much less one he was forbidden to attend.
As far as Atlantia, the guy was merely got out of town ahead of the posse, for
all practical purposes.
-- Auntie Signy (who was There, and who wishes folks would get it straight --
it was Aonghais who was banished from Caid, and Paul Michael Serio who was
convicted of murder.)
AuntieS
writes:
>Who's King Terrence, and what couldn't we do anything about?
Wow! Terrence of Halliday, what a blast from the past! If you *really* want to
know what the Terrence affair was about, e-mail me -- I really don't think it's
appropriate to discuss on a public board. I don't remember that the BoD
"couldn't do anything" but rather that there wasn't much tpoint in doing
anything since the guy disappeared from the SCA immediately after he got off
the throne, reportedly moving to another country, and there were no mundane
charges (at least not while he was in the SCA). Was there reason for a Court
of Chivalry? Apparently the Kingdom of the West did not pursue that option.
Were there complaints to the Board? Possibly, but probably not until the very
end of his reign. What could be done? Banishment? He "banished" himself.
Degradation from Knighthood? His Kingdom needed to see to that. Frankly, I
think everybody was so glad to see him gone that they breathed a collective
sigh of relief and went on with their business. -- Auntie Signy (This is not a
dream; I'm wide awake.)
Kenneth Allen Stoner
There are three points I wish to present concerning Duke Anghous and
the Crimes he has committed, and whether or not his titles, et all
should be stripped from him.
1. Duke Anghous is already Banished in perpetuity from every realm in
the Known World. Even before the BoDs level 3 banishment of him, he
was Banished from almost every Kingdom by Kingdom law. In Atenveldt,
it is a matter that upon each and every Coronation, he is banished as
one of the first acts of the reigning monarche.
2. Duke Anghouses Crimes Were commited outside of the SCA's pervue.
Subsequently he should not be tried whithin the SCA for these crimes.
This is double jeopardy. Hence we should not strip him of his Titles
and Awards.
3. Duke Anghous has not played in quite some time. I have not heard or
seen him at an event in years. He is no longer a member, and any
issues that pertain to him whithin the society are, in my opinion,
pointless.
My memories of Duke Anghous are all bad. I once had occaision oto
fight one of his squires at a war a number of years ago. The squire
faught very valiently and bravely, but do to the number of fights he
had been in already that day, lost to me, a rank newbie at best. As
the squire was taking off his helmet and shaking my hand, Anghous spun
him around and slapped him accross the face. The squire fell down. I
bent down to help him up, being unsure of the situation in which I was
in. Anghous pushed me aside and yelled at his squire for "F*cking
around" whilst fighting and lossing to such an amature. This in full
view of the populace.
However, in fairness, I must relate a storie I heard recently from my
Knight. At a war a few years ago, apparently just after Anghous had
murdered the Woman, Anghous came to my knight and wished to talk to
him. Anghous had been drinking quite heavily. They spent most of the
night talking about his misdeeds. At one point Anghous broke down and
started to cry. My knight felt that Anghous had something he wished to
tell him, but that he couldnt say it. My knight believes that Anghous
wanted to confess the murder of the Woman at that point.
I relate these two stories to you in hopes that you can see how my
view of Anghous relates to my view of what action WE in the SCA should
take against him. I believe that Anghous should be left in peace to
contemplate his fate. Let us not dance upon his grave by taking back
that which we gave him so many years ago. Let us not also forget that
whatever Anghous' crimes, there is still Worth and Dignity whithin him
as there is whithin anyone. He will pay for his crimes, and anything
we do to him, will seem petty and inconsequential when the time comes
for him to answer for his deeds.
I remain, yours in service,
Cystennin Ap Gareth of Drafn
Kenneth Allen Stoner
sto...@netcom.com, k...@pcsi.com
Standard Disclaimer: My views are my own and do not reflect the
opinions of myself, my war band, or any other person. Dont Flame me, I
for one am putting this issue to rest.
Mike.Andrews
sto...@netcom.com (Kenneth Allen Stoner) writes:
>2. Duke Anghouses Crimes Were commited outside of the SCA's pervue.
>Subsequently he should not be tried whithin the SCA for these crimes.
>This is double jeopardy. Hence we should not strip him of his Titles
>and Awards.
> Cystennin Ap Gareth of Drafn
> Kenneth Allen Stoner
> sto...@netcom.com, k...@pcsi.com
Various others have made the point that he is not being
tried within the SCA for his crimes. They maintain that his
actions are not those which befit a Peer of the Realm. They
further hold that those actions are sufficiently opposed to
the ideals of Peerage that at least some other Peers are
unwilling to have him retain any association with them as
Peers.
I, for one, speaking as a Peer of the Realm, though not as a
Member of the Order of Chivalry, find myself exceedingly
unwilling to claim that Sir Angus has distinguished himself
in his actions as having a courtly demeanor and bearing
second to none in the Kingdom(s) in which he was knighted.
The Order of Chivalry will take such action as they see fit.
Everyone has to draw a line _somewhere_. Mine is here.
--
Pray for the repose of the soul of Katherine Conway Godfrey
Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews)
Barony of Namron, Kingdom of Ansteorra
Arval d'Espas Nord
completely incorrect statements. Sir, I suggest the habit of verifying your
facts before posting.
> 1. Duke Anghous is already Banished in perpetuity from every realm in
> the Known World. Even before the BoDs level 3 banishment of him, he
> was Banished from almost every Kingdom by Kingdom law. In Atenveldt,
> it is a matter that upon each and every Coronation, he is banished as
> one of the first acts of the reigning monarche.
All these statement are simply wrong. The Board has not banished Aonghais.
It did restrict his membership rights for a while, but that was a temporary
measure. The kingdom which banished him in law was Caid, not Atenveldt; I
do not know if that banishment is still written into law. No other
kingdom, to my knowledge, has an outstanding banishment against Aonghais,
and no other kingdom, to my knowledge, has ever written a banishment into
law.
> 2. Duke Anghouses Crimes Were commited outside of the SCA's pervue.
> Subsequently he should not be tried whithin the SCA for these crimes.
> This is double jeopardy. Hence we should not strip him of his Titles
> and Awards.
We are not talking of a trial, but of sentencing. He has been found
guilty; we are discussing whether that judgement is valid basis for a
punishment in the Society in addition to whatever punishment he receives
from the state of Florida. Even if we were discussing a court of chivalry,
the SCA, Inc. is not a government and is not bound to follow the same legal
procedures as a government.
> 3. Duke Anghous has not played in quite some time. I have not heard or
> seen him at an event in years. He is no longer a member, and any
> issues that pertain to him whithin the society are, in my opinion,
> pointless.
Again, simply wrong. Aonghais was active in the Society up until his
arrest. I don't know if his membership is current, but if not, I suspect
that is only because he's been rather too busy to renew it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The relationship between a peer and his vassals is entire personal;
Aonghais' relationships with his squires are and were between him and his
squires. You have no idea what agreements they made, and thus have no
basis for judging them.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@watson.ibm.com
blac...@news.delphi.com
>[snip, snip]
> -Gabrielle the Clueless
"Three words--Statu-tory rape"
Old used baron
meg
>
>
> In article <45i0Jc...@tinhat.stonemarche.org> m...@tinhat.stonemarche.org (
> >Megan here, in reply to Sir Llyweln's post concerning stripping Angus of
> >his awards and titles.
> >
>
> >Case in point. A certain gentle was found guilty of child abuse and
> >sexual assault in a mundane court. We could not banish him without just
> >cause. Just because he had done these crimes did not mean necessarily
> >thaat he would do them again. They were not committed within the society.
> >We do not have a police file check as a requirement for membership.
>
> If I understand your post correctly: The criminal was found
> guilty of the charge. He was not in prison and was attending SCA events.
> People at the SCA events were aware of his conviction of child abuse and
> sexual assault.
>
> It is very alarming that a person found guilty was not watched
> very carefully and discreetly by the constable and indeed that others
> were not aware of his presence and watching. While he must unfortunately
> be allowed on site, knowledge of him and observation of his actions and
> whereabouts seem in the least prudent.
Agreed, it would have been good if he could have been monitored while at
the event. Unfortunately, it was at Pennsic, and the people who knew him
didn't monitor him all the time. A difficult situation all around, and
tragic for the kids involved, especially. I can't think of anyway to
enforce this type of monitoring system at Pennsic. Even if individual
local groups camped with such known pediphiles, could they be expected to
spend all their time doing such monitoring? for a week or more? And what
if such people chose to camp alone in single's camping?
Prevention is worth a pound of cure. Educating children, making it easy
for them to report dangerous situations, encouraging kids to stay
together in accountable groups, teaching a kid safety course at Pennsic
with special attention to the unique situations that the SCA environment
presents, insisting on accountability via participant referrals for
single campers (that is, campers who camp alone and not in groups, not
campers who are maritally unattached) these are all possible and probably
should be implemented.
>
I strongly agree with you about the problem of child abuse. We must take
more strong action against this and prevent it from happening.
Megan
==
In 1994: Linda Anfuso
In the Current Middle Ages: Megan ni Laine de Belle Rive
In the SCA, Inc: sustaining member # 33644
YYY YYY
m...@tinhat.stonemarche.org | YYYYY |
|____n____|
Bettina Helms
DF> Bettina Helms writes
> But what I was
> trying to say was that 1) Rakkurai has an evil reputation (deserved or
> otherwise) and 2) he's part of East Kingdom history regardless of what
> anybody thinks of him or says about him
DF> I wonder if 1 is true, or if it reflects the particular people you
DF> happen to have talked with....
It is definitely true that Rakkurai has an evil reputation among people
who get their history at second and third hand (as everyone does who
wasn't there at the time). It is not necessarily true that he *deserves*
it - only his close acquaintances know that for sure. And it is quite
true that he is and always will be part of East Kingdom history -
although the slant applied may not be accurate or deserved either.
DF> But I would not have said that he was a spectacularly bad king, and
DF> am curious as to whether he has really attained that status in EK
DF> folklore.
Yes, Your Grace, he has. You of all people should know how the "folk
processing" of history works, since you are widely remembered as "the
king who declared war on himself - and lost". This even though you had
left the throne of the Middle by the time you moved to the East, and did
not win Crown in the East until after you had presented the war arrow
(to Rakkurai, as a matter of fact). It makes a better story the other
way, so that's the way it gets told.
Rakkurai is remembered as having by far the longest reign of any king of
the East (although I believe the records show that Murad's was slightly
longer), and as having tried to avoid handing over the crown by refusing
to hold a Crown Tourney and/or repeatedly postponing it (which may not
be true in the least, since early Crowns were held at *highly* irregular
intervals). It makes a more dramatic story that way.
... 100