Nuts and bolts of Texas Freemasonry

[Dennis Lamberth]

Is Texas its own country, kinda and no…
Not unlike the original 13 states that compose the “American confederacy “( nothing to do with the civil war)
You suggest researching the archives, been there done that.
since you responded so quickly I assume you didn’t read the other facts offered. That’s a shame…
Ok, you need a reason…
Current constitution states. All property IN THIS STATE is taxable, paraphrased.
So property NOT in the state is not taxable. Right ?
I’d say that’s relevant and yet the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Winter]

I'm going to go ahead and bow out now. Good luck.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

I guess that answers the original question.

 

[Chris H]

I think Winter didn’t much fancy arguing with a troll anymore?

 

[Winter]

I think Winter didn’t much fancy arguing with a troll anymore?

I don't even thin they're a troll. More someone who doesn't know how an internet forum works.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

Really?
I guess the default respect only went one way.

 

[Winter]

Really?
I guess the default respect only went one way.

Your experience here would likely have been much different had you just stated your position and allowed the debate to happen naturally instead of you trying to force the discussion along your prepared course to force the outcome you wanted.

 

[mvantuyl]

Just wondering - are you the same Dennis Lamberth who (unsuccessfully) appealed a conviction for failure to provide proof of insurance in Walker County, Texas in 2019 on the grounds that the statute referred to the United States rather than the United States of America?

 

[Lamurudu]

At least I heard about Laudable Pursuits for the first time and I’m now reading it.
Something good came of following this weird thread. Massive stars to the bros who tried to listen and attempted to have a rational conversation here.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

Your experience here would likely have been much different had you just stated your position and allowed the debate to happen naturally instead of you trying to force the discussion along your prepared course to force the outcome you wanted.

Sir, it really bothers me to think that you or anyone reading this thread would walk away with the idea that you somehow protected all the institutions in play here. I would submit that it’s you and people like you who create the situation we find ourselves in. Let’s consider the facts
I offered a statement of fact and I knew it to be a fact because I was holding the same words from an unimpeachable source. You could have said, what’s your source or what’s the logic behind the statement….
But no, what You said was “not true” blah blah blah
You completely ignored the very real possibility that we were both right and stopped the transfer of info (both ways) considering that in today’s world the line between legal and illegal is razor thin.
This had the effect of tainting anything that followed from me.
After several of your posts trying to illicit a point I gave you one. It had the word taxes in it and you shut down the conversation.
I had no interest in leading you down any path I did want to build a consensus one fact at a time and if this thread proves nothing else it certainly demonstrates why that’s important. No Sir, you clearly have all the information and knowledge you need sorry to have wasted your time.

 

[Winter]

I had no interest in leading you down any path I did want to build a consensus one fact at a time ....

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[MarkR]

Just wondering - are you the same Dennis Lamberth who (unsuccessfully) appealed a conviction for failure to provide proof of insurance in Walker County, Texas in 2019 on the grounds that the statute referred to the United States rather than the United States of America?

Brother Lamberth, you didn't respond to this.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

I am

 

[MarkR]

I was a police officer for 25 years. I had several occasions where I dealt with "posse comitatus" types (I'm not saying that's what you are; I don't know) who had their own unusual interpretations of the Constitution and statutory law. Don't need a driver's license because they're not driving, they're traveling, a Constitutionally-protected activity. Don't have to submit to arrest by municipal police, because a sheriff is the only constitutional law-enforcement entity, so a police officer is just a private citizen committing assault and unlawful restraint. That sort of thing.

What I gather from what you have written thus far is that you contend that the Grand Lodge of Texas is not a lawfully constituted entity because they were incorporated under the Republic of Texas and never obtained a new incorporation under the State of Texas. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that's where you were heading. Or am I completely off base?

 

[Winter]

I was a police officer for 25 years. I had several occasions where I dealt with "posse comitatus" types (I'm not saying that's what you are; I don't know) who had their own unusual interpretations of the Constitution and statutory law. Don't need a driver's license because they're not driving, they're traveling, a Constitutionally-protected activity. Don't have to submit to arrest by municipal police, because a sheriff is the only constitutional law-enforcement entity, so a police officer is just a private citizen committing assault and unlawful restraint. That sort of thing.

What I gather from what you have written thus far is that you contend that the Grand Lodge of Texas is not a lawfully constituted entity because they were incorporated under the Republic of Texas and never obtained a new incorporation under the State of Texas. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that's where you were heading. Or am I completely off base?

We'll never know because he wouldn't just make his case for us to discuss.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

Yes, you are correct, I am in the no DL camp but not because of my interpretation of the law it’s because of the court interpretation.

While your head is in the right place, you're mistaken regarding my contention. 180 degrees off actually. The Grand Lodge of Texas established in 1837 is absolutely legal.
What’s important to not lose sight of is where it’s legal domicile is. This one fact is the grounds for a lot more.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

The constitution uses the word state in two ways, relevant to this conversation and I will gladly cite the cases if you like.
I find it easier to think in terms of “groups of people “ when I hear or say the word “state” again not because I just want to it’s because the courts say so.
Relevant to this discussion…
1 group, or state, was created in 1845 as a result of an offer from the US government.
1 group, is composed of the legal voters of the Republic of Texas.
The first is undeniable, the second is also undeniable IF….
If we acknowledge the legitimacy of GL we must acknowledge the existence of the thing that created it. The authority used to create it and the authority under which it operates today has to come from somewhere.
This is the simplest way I can make the point to someone unfamiliar with the details but trust me it’s supported with a mountain of evidence… not to mention just logical thinking..

 

[Winter]

The constitution uses the word state in two ways, relevant to this conversation and I will gladly cite the cases if you like.
I find it easier to think in terms of “groups of people “ when I hear or say the word “state” again not because I just want to it’s because the courts say so.
Relevant to this discussion…
1 group, or state, was created in 1845 as a result of an offer from the US government.
1 group, is composed of the legal voters of the Republic of Texas.
The first is undeniable, the second is also undeniable IF….
If we acknowledge the legitimacy of GL we must acknowledge the existence of the thing that created it. The authority used to create it and the authority under which it operates today has to come from somewhere.
This is the simplest way I can make the point to someone unfamiliar with the details but trust me it’s supported with a mountain of evidence… not to mention just logical thinking..

The authority to create a Grand Lodge lies with a regularly constituted Grand Lodge already in existence after chartering regular lodges in an area (usually) unclaimed by another regular jurisdiction once those chartered Lodges decide to form a new Grand Lodge. Three lodges were chartered in the then Republic of Texas by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. Once that happened, the Grand Lodge of the Republic of the Texas became an independent entity. A Grand Lodge, once constituted, is a sovereign, independent, and self-governing body that serves as the supreme Masonic authority within its specific jurisdiction with its authority derived from its Constitution, Charter and the Landmarks of Freemasonry. Not from any other outside entity other than the G.:A.:O.:T.:U.:.

Once the Republic of Texas became the State of Texas, the GL there went from being the Grand Lodge of the Republic of Texas to the Grand Lodge of the State of Texas. This was merely a name change, nothing more. Since a Masonic Grand Lodge does not derive its authority from the State it resides in, despite it being in the name. Any changes to that state have no bearing on the Grand Lodge itself as an entity. Baring any laws passed by that state regarding the institution of Freemasonry. But most of those I have seen are outdated with no attempt to enforce these days.

 

[MarkR]

I don't know about Texas, but the Grand Lodge of Minnesota was created by three constituent lodges that had originally been chartered by the Grand Lodges of Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin (IIRC). Minnesota was not yet a state, and the Territory of Minnesota had no part in the creation.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

Winter, I thought you were done?
Nothing you said is correct..
The creation of the Grand Lodge of the Republic of Texas is the work of men ie individuals. Example/ Fact… Gl of Lousianna chartered our Holland Lodge, then called Holland Lodge no. 3 I think. Holland and the other lodges gave back their charters to the grand Lodge of Louisiana, at that moment Holland was without a charter. The men in those lodges voted to create GL of the Republic and subsequently got charters issued to the then existing Lodges. Which is how Holland Lodge becomes Holland Lodge no1. You implied that some how the corporate entity known as GL of ROT went from the jurisdiction of the masons who created it to the people of Texas, I’ll shut up and get a drivers license if you can prove that.
The state created in 1845 did NOT abolish the then existing “state”, (here meaning a group of legal voters, land owners.) Did the government go away, sure, but the state remained..and still remains.
This right here is the whole point of the previous conversation.

Mark, I haven’t looked into the other places / jurisdictions and your state/ states are a bit tricky because of the Northwest Ordinance…
But I would encourage a review with a sharp eye on where the REAL right to vote is.