Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [West Constables] Clarification of policy

Expand Messages
  • Liane Kennedy
    I ask the Seneschal to quote the relevant section of Corpora. When did this come into effect? Failing that- I quote Kingdom Law- The Word of the Crown is
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 4 1:03 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I ask the Seneschal to quote the relevant section of
      Corpora. When did this come into effect?

      Failing that- I quote Kingdom Law- "The Word of the Crown is
      law." Not the "Word of the Seneschal", the Word of the
      Crown. Only the BoD can amend Corpora. Only the Crown can
      make Law.

      If it is not from either the Crown, the Coronet, or the BoD,
      it has no direct contol over myself and my Office. I quote
      again ..."but the direct obedience of Pricipality Officers
      shall be given to the representive of the Crown in the
      Person of the Coronet"- and in the Law of theMists: "These
      Great Officers shall serve... except that they shall
      directly obey the Coronet, subject to the ultimate obedience
      of all subject to the Crown of the West". In other words- I
      report to, and follow the order of the Prince & Princess of
      the Mists, and serve at their pleasure, and are in fealty to
      them. I am not in fealty to the Kingdom Seneschal or
      Constable. So much for our anonomous Coward who says I
      violated "fealty"- I didn't see the Prince posting here.

      Calling the Police for every violation of mundane Law-
      Federal, State, & local is foolish and wasteful. We would
      have the Police out there every five minutes. Note that
      this makes no distinction- we call the Police for EVERY
      violation of "Modern Law". First thing- we call the police
      for nearly every SCAdian with a "dirk or dagger" being
      carried "concealed". That would haul off some third of our
      populace on the spot (but of course the Police would rarely
      bother to make the arrest). Next- we also would have to
      call the Police for every person, even those over 21, who is
      "intoxicated in public"- dozens of calls on a "good"
      Saturday night. Then of course- for parking violations- we
      find those annoying, sure, and I have dearly wanted to call
      a Tow truck a few times, but here we'd have to call. Some
      one smoking a joint- even in the privacy of their tent- call
      the Police. And in many states, although thank God this
      isn't one of them, we would have to call the police if any
      of our gay members had sex- sodomy you know. In some
      states- even married heterosexual couples having oral or
      anal sex is "sodomy", and illegal. In others- adultery is-
      and don't tell me we going to call the Police for adultery
      in that State. In some areas there is a 10MPH sign out-
      call the police every time we see someone going 11MPH?
      That's the law, you know. Taillight out? Call the Police.
      Oh, and I know many SCAdians work "under the table"- and I
      happen to know that is Tax Evasion. Possession of a milk
      crate is a violation of CA Ag code. No, really. Carries a
      $500 fine, if I remember right, but Ivan might know for
      sure. Damn- don't tell anyone, but I have several thousand
      dollars of violations of "modern law" within a few feet of
      me.

      Of course- we do not condone the violation of mundane law,
      either. Just becuase I fail to call the Police for every
      single violation of "modern law" does not mean I suggest we
      flout it. The reverse is true. Do call the Police- if we
      NEED to.


      Get the point? Do I need to go on? SCOTUS (that's the
      Supreme Court if you don't know) pointed out (in a decision
      about "profiling") that an average citizen, going about his
      normal daily affairs, likely violates several/many laws
      during that day.

      This is such a foolish "policy" that words fail me. No- I
      will not follow this foolish policy. I will not call the
      Police for every violation of "Modern Law". Doing so would
      not only violate (IMHO) my Oath of Fealty to the Coronet to
      serve him wisely & well, but would violate my oath of Office
      as a Federal Agent.

      If we did follow this policy- the Police would have evey
      right to arrest you somewhere after you'd made your tenth
      call for that day- if they hadn't told you off before then.
      It is wasteful of MY Tax dollars, and of the resources of
      the folks we rely upon to protect us & our families.
      Consider that for every Squad car out answering our call,
      there is one that isn't stopping real crime. So- when some
      Liquor store clerk gets killed beacuse the local cop is out
      at an SCA event, instead of his neighborhood patrol- let's
      be sure to tell his widow & kids "we were following Policy"-
      some 19 yo had a can of beer.

      To sum up- NO!

      I serve at the pleasure of the Coronet. A copy of this is
      also being sent to them. If they wish to remove me, they
      will see me in a few hours.

      Just to make sure- this is also going to the Executive Vice
      President for Legal Affairs, in case she needs to weigh in.

      Wulfstan Darroldson- Chief Constable of the Mists.



      alberic_wolf wrote:

      > While everyone has been getting upset,I contacted the
      > Kingdom
      > Seneschal for clarification on this issue. This is his
      > response:
      >
      > Ok, here is how I see it, anyone under the age of 21 that
      > consumes
      > alcohol is in violation of Mundane California Law. The SCA
      > has stated
      > that if a violation of Modern Law occurs at an event the
      > local law
      > enforcement authorities shall be contacted. It will be the
      >
      > determination of the law enforcement agency as to what to
      > do from
      > that point.
      >
      > Ian the Fariner
      > Kingdom Seneschal
      >
      > As per the Seneschal, anyone under 21 who is drinking will
      > be handed
      > over to the local authorities. They will make the
      > determination!
      >
      > I would also shut down the party and/or find the person
      > responsible
      > and turn them over as well. It is a crime in this state
      > to give or
      > provide alcohol to a person under the age of 21. Again
      > leaving their
      > fate up to the local authorities, who ARE Police.
      >
      > Alberic Wolf
      > West Kingdom Constable
      >
    • Liane Kennedy
      Thus, it is not Corpora, nor the Law. Correct? Similar policies were in effect when I was Kingdom Constable- but we would call the Police only when the facts
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 4 10:01 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Thus, it is not Corpora, nor the Law. Correct? Similar policies were in
        effect when I was Kingdom Constable- but we would call the Police only when the
        facts & circumstance, and good judgement said we should. "Good Judgement" is
        not part of "Always call the police whenever any modern law is violated". We
        need to use good judgement when making such a decision. And yes, such "good
        judgement" and the "facts & circumstances" may say that we call the Police for
        a 19yo found drinking. Or, it may indicate us using our own internal
        sanctions.

        Next our "lame duck" Seneschal is putting words in my mouth- he says I
        "condone" underaged drinking. In fact I do not, my words below make that
        clear. I do not condone, in general, violations of "Modern Law", except those
        that your conscience demands you make (for instance, I do "condone" violating
        the discriminatory anti-gay "sodomy Law" in Texas. That law is wrong, thus I
        will support your "civil disobedience" of it.) I certainly do not condone
        those under 18 drinking. I do not condone those under 21 drinking either, but
        that is in my mind- and in the law- a lesser offence.

        Failure to call the Police, and instead using our own internal sanctions- is
        not "condoning", and Ian knows that. It is simply that for some violations I
        would rely on our own internal sanctions rather than mindlessly dialling 911
        every time. We must weigh the impact on the Police dept too, we should not be
        selfish. Some Dept's have been incurring millions of dollars of overtime
        during this War- not to mention many Police Officers are Reservists. I choose
        not to add to this burden unless it is necessary. But, when good judgement,
        and the "facts & circumstances" say that it is necessary, we should not
        hesitate to call the Police either.

        Wulfstan Darroldson, Chief Constable



        Lew Newby wrote:

        > This policy was made in concert with the Crown and with the Crowns
        > agreement. This started with Jade and Megan, then Thorfinn and Cynswith and
        > though I haven't spoken directly with the current crown and heirs on this
        > subject but I am sure they feel similarly.
        >
        >
        > Wulfstan, you are condoning the violation of Modern law and acting as a
        > rules lawyer to justify it. One
        > thing is for sure, one of my parting memories will be that on the day after
        > the City of Pleasanton cracks down on under-age drinking with new laws a
        > former Kingdom officer and current Principality Officer announces to a list
        > of folks in two venues that he condones the violation of said under-age
        > drinking laws.
        >
        > Master Ian the Fariner - OP
        > Kingdom Seneschal - West
        >
        > At 01:03 AM 4/4/2003 -0800, Liane Kennedy wrote:
        > >I ask the Seneschal to quote the relevant section of
        > >Corpora. When did this come into effect?
        >
        > >Of course- we do not condone the violation of mundane law,
        > >either. Just becuase I fail to call the Police for every
        > >single violation of "modern law" does not mean I suggest we
        > >flout it. The reverse is true. Do call the Police- if we
        > >NEED to.
        >
        > >Wulfstan Darroldson- Chief Constable of the Mists.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >alberic_wolf wrote:
        > >
        > > > While everyone has been getting upset,I contacted the
        > > > Kingdom
        > > > Seneschal for clarification on this issue. This is his
        > > > response:
        > > >
        > > > Ok, here is how I see it, anyone under the age of 21 that
        > > > consumes
        > > > alcohol is in violation of Mundane California Law. The SCA
        > > > has stated
        > > > that if a violation of Modern Law occurs at an event the
        > > > local law
        > > > enforcement authorities shall be contacted. It will be the
        > > >
        > > > determination of the law enforcement agency as to what to
        > > > do from
        > > > that point.
        > > >
        > > > Ian the Fariner
        > > > Kingdom Seneschal
        > > >
        > > > As per the Seneschal, anyone under 21 who is drinking will
        > > > be handed
        > > > over to the local authorities. They will make the
        > > > determination!
        > > >
        > > > I would also shut down the party and/or find the person
        > > > responsible
        > > > and turn them over as well. It is a crime in this state
        > > > to give or
        > > > provide alcohol to a person under the age of 21. Again
        > > > leaving their
        > > > fate up to the local authorities, who ARE Police.
        > > >
        > > > Alberic Wolf
        > > > West Kingdom Constable
        > > >
      • Lady Kateryn de Ver
        Unfortunately, the Corpora, etc. is currently off-line, and my copy is at home. When it is available, I would like to respond to some questions Wulfstan has
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 4 10:23 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Unfortunately, the Corpora, etc. is currently off-line, and my copy
          is at home. When it is available, I would like to respond to some
          questions Wulfstan has addressed. In the meantime.

          (snip)
          > If it is not from either the Crown, the Coronet, or the BoD,
          > it has no direct contol over myself and my Office. I quote
          > again ..."but the direct obedience of Pricipality Officers
          > shall be given to the representive of the Crown in the
          > Person of the Coronet"- and in the Law of theMists: "These
          > Great Officers shall serve... except that they shall
          > directly obey the Coronet, subject to the ultimate obedience
          > of all subject to the Crown of the West".

          That last line - subject to the ultimate obedience of all subjects to
          the Crown of the West. The current King has approved the proceedures
          that Al and Ian have made . - they are acting on his approval. Yet,
          Wulfstan, with your tacit approval of drinking for those between the
          ages of 18-20 would seem to be working against the wishes of the
          Crown. Ok, you are a Principality officer, but this statement
          says "ultimate obedience of all subject to the Crown of the West.
          This just strikes me as odd.

          In other words- I
          > report to, and follow the order of the Prince & Princess of
          > the Mists, and serve at their pleasure, and are in fealty to
          > them. I am not in fealty to the Kingdom Seneschal or
          > Constable. So much for our anonomous Coward who says I
          > violated "fealty"- I didn't see the Prince posting here.

          Since I am not in Fealty to anyone...I have no intention of arguing
          it here. Perhaps someone with more experience could clarify it.


          >
          > Calling the Police for every violation of mundane Law-
          > Federal, State, & local is foolish and wasteful. We would
          > have the Police out there every five minutes. Note that
          > this makes no distinction- we call the Police for EVERY
          > violation of "Modern Law".

          Now that would be stupid. Hmmm. Seems I agree here.

          First thing- we call the police
          > for nearly every SCAdian with a "dirk or dagger" being
          > carried "concealed". That would haul off some third of our
          > populace on the spot (but of course the Police would rarely
          > bother to make the arrest). Next- we also would have to
          > call the Police for every person, even those over 21, who is
          > "intoxicated in public"- dozens of calls on a "good"
          > Saturday night. Then of course- for parking violations- we
          > find those annoying, sure, and I have dearly wanted to call
          > a Tow truck a few times, but here we'd have to call. Some
          > one smoking a joint- even in the privacy of their tent- call
          > the Police. And in many states, although thank God this
          > isn't one of them, we would have to call the police if any
          > of our gay members had sex- sodomy you know. In some
          > states- even married heterosexual couples having oral or
          > anal sex is "sodomy", and illegal. In others- adultery is-
          > and don't tell me we going to call the Police for adultery
          > in that State. In some areas there is a 10MPH sign out-
          > call the police every time we see someone going 11MPH?
          > That's the law, you know. Taillight out? Call the Police.
          > Oh, and I know many SCAdians work "under the table"- and I
          > happen to know that is Tax Evasion. Possession of a milk
          > crate is a violation of CA Ag code. No, really. Carries a
          > $500 fine, if I remember right, but Ivan might know for
          > sure. Damn- don't tell anyone, but I have several thousand
          > dollars of violations of "modern law" within a few feet of
          > me.

          This whole last passage just leaves me stunned!.....Are you kidding?
          Are you saying that if we decide to call the police when we find an
          underage drinker...that we also have to call them for nonsense stuff
          too? This sounds like a little kid "Well, if you won't let me play
          with you, I'm just gonna take my ball and NOBODY will be able to play!
          This is just TOO ridiculous....now if your milk crates decide to get
          drunk, leave the PRIVATE party with their daggers on, get behind the
          wheel of a car and drive drunk....well then maybe we should call the
          police! But until that happens, this is all just nonsense that you
          are spouting in my honest opinion!
          >
          > Of course- we do not condone the violation of mundane law,
          > either. Just becuase I fail to call the Police for every
          > single violation of "modern law" does not mean I suggest we
          > flout it. The reverse is true. Do call the Police- if we
          > NEED to.

          The point is don't call it for the nonsense....but you are advocating
          not calling it for something that is VERY important. That is where
          we so vehenemently disagree! To me, underage drinking is a serious
          issue, no matter what the age (and even more so for
          underage "adults" - who are more likely to go joyriding at 3 am and
          kill someone). Apparently underage drinking - at least for those
          over 18 doesn't seem to be a problem for you. I can't understand
          this.
          >
          >
          > Get the point? Do I need to go on? SCOTUS (that's the
          > Supreme Court if you don't know) pointed out (in a decision
          > about "profiling") that an average citizen, going about his
          > normal daily affairs, likely violates several/many laws
          > during that day.
          >
          > This is such a foolish "policy" that words fail me.

          The policy is clear to me and very responsible - what seems foolish
          to me is what you are reading into it and adding to it.

          No- I
          > will not follow this foolish policy.

          Then why are you a constable?

          I will not call the
          > Police for every violation of "Modern Law".

          No one has asked you to. You have inferred this.

          Doing so would
          > not only violate (IMHO) my Oath of Fealty to the Coronet to
          > serve him wisely & well, but would violate my oath of Office
          > as a Federal Agent.

          UH....I believe that encouraging people to violate underage drinking
          laws should do that....oh, yeah, that is a state law. oops....and
          you're a Fed..... I don't understand your viewpoint on this. (and
          yes, before you get on that tack....by refusing to follow this "zero
          tolerance policy" you are giving tacit approval to violation of the
          law - over time this becomes encouragement of more violations)


          >
          > If we did follow this policy- the Police would have evey
          > right to arrest you somewhere after you'd made your tenth
          > call for that day- if they hadn't told you off before then.
          > It is wasteful of MY Tax dollars, and of the resources of
          > the folks we rely upon to protect us & our families.
          > Consider that for every Squad car out answering our call,
          > there is one that isn't stopping real crime. So- when some
          > Liquor store clerk gets killed beacuse the local cop is out
          > at an SCA event, instead of his neighborhood patrol- let's
          > be sure to tell his widow & kids "we were following Policy"-
          > some 19 yo had a can of beer.
          >
          > To sum up- NO!

          If you are making 10 calls a day.....you have WAY too much underage
          drinking going on in the Mists! and believe it or not, underage
          drinking is "real crime". If they have an emergency alert, or a
          robbery, or an accident, they simply won't come - they do know how to
          prioritize.


          >
          > I serve at the pleasure of the Coronet. A copy of this is
          > also being sent to them. If they wish to remove me, they
          > will see me in a few hours.

          Of course they will not know about all the junk that led up to this.
          Besides, I though you were going to step down this weekend anyway?


          >
          > Just to make sure- this is also going to the Executive Vice
          > President for Legal Affairs, in case she needs to weigh in.

          Yeah, OK, whatever.

          Kate - just a constable who does not see any reason to allow 19 year
          olds to get drunk at SCA events.


          >
          > Wulfstan Darroldson- Chief Constable of the Mists.
          >
          >
          >
          > alberic_wolf wrote:
          >
          > > While everyone has been getting upset,I contacted the
          > > Kingdom
          > > Seneschal for clarification on this issue. This is his
          > > response:
          > >
          > > Ok, here is how I see it, anyone under the age of 21 that
          > > consumes
          > > alcohol is in violation of Mundane California Law. The SCA
          > > has stated
          > > that if a violation of Modern Law occurs at an event the
          > > local law
          > > enforcement authorities shall be contacted. It will be the
          > >
          > > determination of the law enforcement agency as to what to
          > > do from
          > > that point.
          > >
          > > Ian the Fariner
          > > Kingdom Seneschal
          > >
          > > As per the Seneschal, anyone under 21 who is drinking will
          > > be handed
          > > over to the local authorities. They will make the
          > > determination!
          > >
          > > I would also shut down the party and/or find the person
          > > responsible
          > > and turn them over as well. It is a crime in this state
          > > to give or
          > > provide alcohol to a person under the age of 21. Again
          > > leaving their
          > > fate up to the local authorities, who ARE Police.
          > >
          > > Alberic Wolf
          > > West Kingdom Constable
          > >
        • Lady Kateryn de Ver
          ... were in ... only when the ... Judgement is ... violated . No one, other than you has ever said always call the police whenever any modern law is
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 4 10:53 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In wkconstabulary@yahoogroups.com, Liane Kennedy <ladydove@p...>
            wrote:
            > Thus, it is not Corpora, nor the Law. Correct? Similar policies
            were in
            > effect when I was Kingdom Constable- but we would call the Police
            only when the
            > facts & circumstance, and good judgement said we should. "Good
            Judgement" is
            > not part of "Always call the police whenever any modern law is
            violated".

            No one, other than you has ever said "always call the police whenever
            any modern law is violated" yet you quote it as if someone has. All
            that has been said is that when a person is found, under the age of
            21 to have been drinking or in possession of alcohol, we will call
            the police and defer to their judgement in that instance. This is
            not ANY law, it is specific and clear.

            > Next our "lame duck" Seneschal is putting words in my mouth- he
            says I
            > "condone" underaged drinking.

            I see no quotes on what Ian wrote. In fact your words have made it
            abundantly clear that you approve no action in the case of 18-20 year
            olds other than simple things like putting them to bed, stern talking
            to, or making them leave site. In other words, and my opinion, the
            kids learn real soon that they can party hearty and that if they fall
            down drunk the nice little constable will tuck them in and give them
            a little talking to in the morning, maybe. That is called "tacit"
            approval of their behavior - in otherwords, condoning their actions
            by your inaction!

            In fact I do not, my words below make that
            > clear. I do not condone, in general, violations of "Modern Law",
            except those
            > that your conscience demands you make (for instance, I do "condone"
            violating
            > the discriminatory anti-gay "sodomy Law" in Texas. That law is
            wrong, thus I
            > will support your "civil disobedience" of it.) I certainly do not
            condone
            > those under 18 drinking. I do not condone those under 21 drinking
            either, but
            > that is in my mind- and in the law- a lesser offence.

            This "lesser offence" has been the cause of a lot of deaths.....they
            had to get drunk, before they drove - how nice it would have been if
            someone had turned the 20 year old and tucked him nicely into jail
            before he got behind the wheel.


            >
            > Failure to call the Police, and instead using our own internal
            sanctions- is
            > not "condoning", and Ian knows that.

            Ian may know that as you are stating he does....I do not!

            It is simply that for some violations I
            > would rely on our own internal sanctions rather than mindlessly
            dialling 911
            > every time. We must weigh the impact on the Police dept too, we
            should not be
            > selfish. Some Dept's have been incurring millions of dollars of
            overtime
            > during this War- not to mention many Police Officers are
            Reservists. I choose
            > not to add to this burden unless it is necessary. But, when good
            judgement,
            > and the "facts & circumstances" say that it is necessary, we should
            not
            > hesitate to call the Police either.

            I think our "facts and circumstances" differ too widely. I have
            talked to my cops and they say that underage drinking is a huge issue
            to them and they have no problem being called.

            Kate


            >
            > Wulfstan Darroldson, Chief Constable
            >
            >
            >
            > Lew Newby wrote:
            >
            > > This policy was made in concert with the Crown and with the Crowns
            > > agreement. This started with Jade and Megan, then Thorfinn and
            Cynswith and
            > > though I haven't spoken directly with the current crown and heirs
            on this
            > > subject but I am sure they feel similarly.
            > >
            > >
            > > Wulfstan, you are condoning the violation of Modern law and
            acting as a
            > > rules lawyer to justify it. One
            > > thing is for sure, one of my parting memories will be that on the
            day after
            > > the City of Pleasanton cracks down on under-age drinking with new
            laws a
            > > former Kingdom officer and current Principality Officer announces
            to a list
            > > of folks in two venues that he condones the violation of said
            under-age
            > > drinking laws.
            > >
            > > Master Ian the Fariner - OP
            > > Kingdom Seneschal - West
            > >
            > > At 01:03 AM 4/4/2003 -0800, Liane Kennedy wrote:
            > > >I ask the Seneschal to quote the relevant section of
            > > >Corpora. When did this come into effect?
            > >
            > > >Of course- we do not condone the violation of mundane law,
            > > >either. Just becuase I fail to call the Police for every
            > > >single violation of "modern law" does not mean I suggest we
            > > >flout it. The reverse is true. Do call the Police- if we
            > > >NEED to.
            > >
            > > >Wulfstan Darroldson- Chief Constable of the Mists.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >alberic_wolf wrote:
            > > >
            > > > > While everyone has been getting upset,I contacted the
            > > > > Kingdom
            > > > > Seneschal for clarification on this issue. This is his
            > > > > response:
            > > > >
            > > > > Ok, here is how I see it, anyone under the age of 21 that
            > > > > consumes
            > > > > alcohol is in violation of Mundane California Law. The SCA
            > > > > has stated
            > > > > that if a violation of Modern Law occurs at an event the
            > > > > local law
            > > > > enforcement authorities shall be contacted. It will be the
            > > > >
            > > > > determination of the law enforcement agency as to what to
            > > > > do from
            > > > > that point.
            > > > >
            > > > > Ian the Fariner
            > > > > Kingdom Seneschal
            > > > >
            > > > > As per the Seneschal, anyone under 21 who is drinking will
            > > > > be handed
            > > > > over to the local authorities. They will make the
            > > > > determination!
            > > > >
            > > > > I would also shut down the party and/or find the person
            > > > > responsible
            > > > > and turn them over as well. It is a crime in this state
            > > > > to give or
            > > > > provide alcohol to a person under the age of 21. Again
            > > > > leaving their
            > > > > fate up to the local authorities, who ARE Police.
            > > > >
            > > > > Alberic Wolf
            > > > > West Kingdom Constable
            > > > >
          • Liane Kennedy
            This is the response from Ian that I refered to--, that Kateryn asked about. I will not debate this point further. Wulfstan ... ADVERTISEMENT
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 6 1:27 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              This is the response from Ian that I refered to--, that
              Kateryn asked about.

              I will not debate this point further.
              Wulfstan

              alberic_wolf wrote:

              > While everyone has been getting upset,I contacted the
              > Kingdom
              > Seneschal for clarification on this issue. This is his
              > response:
              >
              > Ok, here is how I see it, anyone under the age of 21 that
              > consumes
              > alcohol is in violation of Mundane California Law. The SCA
              > has stated
              > that if a violation of Modern Law occurs at an event the
              > local law
              > enforcement authorities shall be contacted. It will be the
              >
              > determination of the law enforcement agency as to what to
              > do from
              > that point.
              >
              > Ian the Fariner
              > Kingdom Seneschal
              >
              > As per the Seneschal, anyone under 21 who is drinking will
              > be handed
              > over to the local authorities. They will make the
              > determination!
              >
              > I would also shut down the party and/or find the person
              > responsible
              > and turn them over as well. It is a crime in this state
              > to give or
              > provide alcohol to a person under the age of 21. Again
              > leaving their
              > fate up to the local authorities, who ARE Police. Anyone
              > who feels
              > they cannot do this in good conscience should contact me
              > directly and
              > privately.
              >
              > Alberic Wolf
              > West Kingdom Constable
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT



              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > wkconstabulary-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com or go to
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wkconstabulary
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
              > of Service.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.