On 12/17/2013 8:57 PM, Stefan li Rous wrote:
> However, there are a number of very good reasons NOT to send such
> money directly to SCA Inc. To protect both the SCA and the land, you
> want it owned by a different tax-exempt organization.
There are many reasons why the West Kingdom created a separate
land trust called KHTI (Kingdom Historical Trust Incorporated).
You can check their web site for details.
> Among the reasons, we already had one almost disastrous court case,
> which the SCA lost. We don't need to encourage a lot of salivating,
> ambulance chasing lawyers out to target SCA Inc. (again?).
More importantly, the risks of OWNERSHIP of land and property
are fundamentally different, and there are complexities in
doing so under a 501(c)(3), when owning land is not one of
the exempt purposes under which we operate.
The SCA has been involved in a goodly number of court cases,
some of which it won, some of which it won decisively, one
of which it lost, one motion on which it lost, and a recent
case (which I think you are alluding to) where the SCA
settled with (I believe) no admission of wrong-doing.
(I tip my cap and bow my head to the folks that handled that
settlement - I think we got off very cheaply and that was
very well managed.)
> Tibor, I thought you were around, and involved in, the SCA BoD
> problems in 1994?
I was not involved in the problems, but I was pretty involved
in the reactions to them. :-) Opinions remain divided as to
whether those were solutions, or a second set of problems. :-)