Re: Fairly answered. My response is a bit long..

Rosine wrote:
> Two points:
>
> The Scottish Duke used his SCA membership and status *in court* as a defence
> (offering the suggestion that he was insane and unbalanced at the time of
> his crime because of a split personality and citing his persona as
> evidence). The SCA was called upon to defend *itself* in that court. I
> believe that it is justified for the SCA to formally repudiate any ties with
> the man.

I know little about this case, except from what I've been able to gather 
reading this discussion.

My understanding of the timeline is (without dates, since I don't know 
them):

1) The gentleman in question was active in the SCA, and over time, 
sucessfully fought and won two Crown Tourneys, thus earning the title 
"Duke".

2) Unrelated to the SCA, he got involved in a murder-for-hire scheme, 
and drove the getaway car for said murder.

3) Arrested and tried for his actions at (2) above, he claimed that his 
membership in the SCA contributed to or caused a state of legal 
insanity, and therefore he shouldn't be held accountable for his crime.

4) A member of the Board of Directors was called to testify, refuting 
the claims make at (3) above.

5) The jury was unconvinced of his insanity at the time of the killing, 
and convicted him for the crime committed at (2) above.  He was 
sentenced to a long time in jail, sufficient that he will likely never 
be active in the SCA again.  He remains in jail until today.

6) Ten years later, a second gentleman is recommended for a Revocation 
and Denial of membership to the Board of Directors.  This gentleman 
argues that his actions leading to the proposed R&D are much less 
heinous, much less damaging to the SCA, as the Scottish Duke's actions. 
 Therefore, his R&D should be denied, on fairness grounds.

7) The BoD listens to this argument, sees the merit of the fairness 
argument, and R&D's both of them.

Is this basically correct?

If so....  I would really have to question the lack of an additional 
step somewhere between 3 and 6, namely:  "Because of the direct legal 
involvement of the SCA in a murder trial caused by the actions and 
defense of the Scottish Duke, the BoD R&D'd him."

Why didn't they do it 10 years ago, around the time of the trial and/or 
verdict?