Nuts and bolts of Texas Freemasonry

[Winter]

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.

Happy to continue now that you've actually posted what you wanted to discuss.

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.

I have no need to explain that as I never claimed that that the Grand Lodge of the Republic of Texas went to the people of Texas. The Grand Lodge was and is an independent body that is not tied to the Republic or State of Texas other than that it resides in the same location and is peopled by its residents. My post is correct whether you chose to accept it or not. Your attempt to apply SovCit logic to Masonic jurisprudence will be as successful here as it has been in the legal realm. That is to say not at all.

I still doubt you'll get a DL.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

Now we’re getting somewhere..
I agree, Grand Lodge is independent but it does hold a charter. Who granted the Charter?
It is this group of people that constitute a “state” in the “constitutional sense” and several of these groups constitute the “American Confederacy “ as stated by Chief Justice Marshall 1806

 

[Winter]

Now we’re getting somewhere..
I agree, Grand Lodge is independent but it does hold a charter. Who granted the Charter?
It is this group of people that constitute a “state” in the “constitutional sense” and several of these groups constitute the “American Confederacy “ as stated by Chief Justice Marshall 1806

Do you even listen to yourself? You make a false accusation and when I correct you, you act as if I am agreeing with your nonsensical argument. It is no mystery who grants a charter for the formation of a new grand lodge. The three Lodges were from the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. They applied to that body to form a new Grand Lodge. You are attempting to make it unnecessarily convoluted to confuse the issue. Who granted the charter for the Grand Lodge of the Republic of Texas is not a mystery. And I guarantee that your current Grand Lodge of Texas has this information. But I am guessing you didn't like their answer either. What exactly is it you are hoping to achieve with this silliness.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

Thanks you sir..
“Peopled by its residents” you are correct and this is why things have run afoul….

Bank of U. S. v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch [9 U. S.] 61. In more recent cases, it has been determined that no express averment need be made of the citizenship of the members of a corporation suitor, but that they shall be conclusively presumed to be citizens of the state by the laws of which the corporation is averred to have been created, and in which it is located. Louisville R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. [43 U. S.] 497; Marshall v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 16 How. [57 U. S.] 314; Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. [61 U. S.] 233; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black [66 U. S.] 297; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. [75 U. S.] 108. But to warrant this presumption and so to give jurisdiction to the court, it has, in these cases been deemed essential to aver that the corporate body suing as such was distinctively a corporation, so created by law. This precision of averment was expressly required in Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 10 Wall. [77 U. S.] 553,

can you see the difference between a Free Masons and a Accepted Mason?

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

I ask you, where would the Lodges be if they were not peopled by men who bear the yoke of US citizenship.

 

[mvantuyl]

I ask you, where would the Lodges be if they were not peopled by men who bear the yoke of US citizenship.

England?

 

[Winter]

Thanks you sir..
“Peopled by its residents” you are correct and this is why things have run afoul….

Bank of U. S. v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch [9 U. S.] 61. In more recent cases, it has been determined that no express averment need be made of the citizenship of the members of a corporation suitor, but that they shall be conclusively presumed to be citizens of the state by the laws of which the corporation is averred to have been created, and in which it is located. Louisville R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. [43 U. S.] 497; Marshall v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 16 How. [57 U. S.] 314; Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. [61 U. S.] 233; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black [66 U. S.] 297; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. [75 U. S.] 108. But to warrant this presumption and so to give jurisdiction to the court, it has, in these cases been deemed essential to aver that the corporate body suing as such was distinctively a corporation, so created by law. This precision of averment was expressly required in Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 10 Wall. [77 U. S.] 553,

can you see the difference between a Free Masons and a Accepted Mason?

Nothing has run afoul. At least, you have yet to make any valid and coherent argument of anything regarding the Grand Lodge of Texas that might be construed as having run afoul. Maybe try summing it up instead of posting a dozen case laws I have no intention of reading because I have zero doubt they won't apply to any Masonic situation.

And the terms free and accepted are used interchangeably in modern Freemasonry. I refer you back to our degrees you presumably received. Or for a deeper dive on possible historical origins of the term I would suggest an excellent article by Brother Joseph Fort Newton.

 

[Bloke]

Ok, the meat on this particular bone
GL of Texas was established in 1837, right?
This is prior to the formation of the “State of Texas” established in 1845 and the joining to the US
It certainly does exist evidenced by the charter of my lodge.
Where is its legal domicile?
What body politic does it claim as its home?

I've read the whole thread... and I think wiser men than me have decided not to post..

It does not matter if your lodge predated the Grand Lodge of Texas or the State of Texas as it stand then, or today... your Lodge decided to join that Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodge decided the boundaries it would operate on, which happens to be state lines which coincided with the boundaries decided by a State or Federal Government. Dates are only interesting for the history of your lodge.

We had lodges here under England, Ireland and Scotland, and when some were formed, the State as it was later established, did not exist, simply a colony. Later a State was established (By the Crown) and even later my Grand Lodge decided to use that State Boundary as the bounds of its geographical sovereignty. It's all pretty simple to me.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

It does not matter if your lodge predated the Grand Lodge of Texas or the State of Texas as it stand then, or today

Never said or suggested it.
All I have tried to do is present here a few details about history that impact the health and well being of lodges. Since there have been no posts discussing the words found in the places I have suggested, I can assume no one has bothered to read any of it..

got it. So you ALL have a PERFECT understanding of every word and clause of the constitution… BS
You ALL have a PERFECT understanding of the Fraternity and its relationship to the US government….again BS

McCullough v Maryland
Marshall says the constitution is a “proposal” offered by the states that drafted it to “people”
You don’t know which side of this “agreement “ you fall on
You don’t know which side of this “ agreement “ the lodge falls on…
( this is logical when you also consider)..


slaughterhouse
“The United States has citizens and the states have citizens and they are distinct”
“(Paraphrase) the state citizens are NOT embraced by the 14 amendment.”

Minor v Happersett
“The United States has no voters in the states of its own creation “
( how’s this possible)

10 amendment says rights not granted are reserved to the people or states
somebody Please explain how “states” can reserve rights and at the same time grant the new government the ability to dictate who the citizens are.

Dred Scott case and others…
Paraphrased again.
The States have the right to decide for themselves who their citizens are.
( how’s it possible for the USSC to say this?)

where you are and where the lodges are absolutely does matter…

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

Consider this, if the 10th amendment reserves to the states some. rights how’s it possible for the United States government, which is devoid of some rights to create states equal to the states referred to in the 10th amendment? Is that not the created thing creating the creator?

 

[Winter]

Your attempt to pollute Masonic discussion with SovCit nonsense just isn't going to gain any traction. Try Reddit.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

Sorry Sir, your feeble attempt to label my posts as sovereign citizen nonsense, which I never said, and render them as meaningless are quite telling.
I’m just here to talk about FACTS.
As your response are clearly pointed at me personally and do not address the subject, it might suggest you would prefer the truth to stay hidden. Why?

 

[mvantuyl]

Sorry Sir, your feeble attempt to label my posts as sovereign citizen nonsense, which I never said, and render them as meaningless are quite telling.
I’m just here to talk about FACTS.
As your response are clearly pointed at me personally and do not address the subject, it might suggest you would prefer the truth to stay hidden. Why?

And on that note I am ignoring you.

 

[Winter]

I stand by characterization of his arguments as nonsensical. At no point in my decades of Masonic membership in multiple grand lodges has any discussion ever been proposed to improve the health of Freemasonry by examining the relationship between the Craft and the Federal Government. And when he begin trying to make points about citizens of the United States being distinct from citizens of the states he labeled himself a SovCit, which is a now considered a broad term encompassing many barracks lawyers with a misguided understanding of the legal code who routinely find themselves the subject of entertaining videos on YouTube.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

Wrong again…
It’s 2025 most people, you excluded, can clearly see I didn’t say it. All I did was point to where the USSC said it. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.

 

[Winter]

Your whole argument is a non starter as it relates to Freemasonry. At least you have yet to make a single valid point relating your legalistic gymnastics to the Craft.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

As there are only 2 relevant to this discussion, which of the 2 would the lodge be in.

 

[Winter]

As there are only 2 relevant to this discussion, which of the 2 would the lodge be in.

None. DeLima v. Bidwell was about whether tarrifs could be collected from annexed territories. Since lodges aren't paying any customs duties this is another swing and a miss.

 

[Dennis Lamberth]

this is the LAW. The application of the LAW to the facts of any given case are irrelevant.
If you don’t know that maybe you should talk less and listen more.

 

[Winter]

this is the LAW. The application of the LAW to the facts of any given case are irrelevant.
If you don’t know that maybe you should talk less and listen more.

Lodges don't pay tariffs. Irrelevant. And yet, you've still not made a single coherent point on how any of your ramblings relate to Freemasonry.