# Felony Record



## bwcornett50

If someone has a felony from 13 years ago, and has sincerely changed his life, changed his views, and has accepted Christ in his life, can he become a mason in Texas?


----------



## California Master

My vote is no. Masonry takes "Good Men" into our fraternity. We are not a rehab facility. Unfortunately, the person made decisions that affected his entire life. I'm happy that he has repented and has accepted Christ. But, I don't think that we compromise our fraternity.... ever. Masons have always been men of outstanding character. How would you feel if you allowed this person to join your lodge and then he commits another felony?

A couple of years ago, at the California annual communications, a lodge had petitioned Grand Lodge to allow an expelled member back into the fraternity. It came out that the reason for the initial explusion was due to selling drugs to school children. The lodge members contended that he would come to lodge breakfasts and work in the kitchen etc.. Let me tell you, it was voted down 99%.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter

It should be noted that Masonry is not an entitlement.  It is not something everyone who has made a positive change is entitled to.

I would vote no on convicted felons.  Although that same man would have my love and support in his community, I might hire him to do work, etc.  But there are consequences in life and sometimes that consequences are life long.  No felons in the Fraternity for me.


----------



## cutter2001

No.


----------



## Michael Hatley

You have to draw the line somewhere.


----------



## Spring TX MM

bwcornett50 said:


> If someone has a felony from 13 years ago, and has sincerely changed his life, changed his views, and has accepted Christ in his life, can he become a mason in Texas?


 
Pursuant to Article 393, as read, the answer would be no. It doesn't  elaborate much. Just states the candidate shall be deemed disqualified  if a felony conviction exists. Pm me and I will happily send you a full  copy of the Article in the Laws. 

S&F,
Kyle


----------



## M.Prejean

We had this discussion in Lodge recently. A brother who is an attorney brought up a felony dealing with handicapped parking tags (I assumed that was a state concern, but he knows more than me). Apparently if a mason who's vehicle has those tags lends his vehicle to his grandson who is pulled over, both are guilty of a felony.

As I said, I don't know anything about that law, but surely there are many other scenarios where a felony is committed without marring a man's character.

Shoot, while I'm on this train of thought, what about our revolutionary fathers? What high crimes and treason did they commit? Should we deny them as brothers too?


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter

> As I said, I don't know anything about that law, but surely there are many other scenarios where a felony is committed without marring a man's character.



I have heard a lot of what if scenarios.  But a felony is a big deal, not a little one.

If someone can not make it their whole life without a felony offense, even a little itty bitty when...well then they can't be a Mason in my book.  They might be my friend, they might go to my church, they might a lot of things...but they will never get through the door of my lodge.


----------



## calee

I have to agree with Brother Porter. Well said.


----------



## Spring TX MM

M.Prejean said:


> As As I said, I don't know anything about that law, but surely there are many other scenarios where a felony is committed without marring a man's character.



The GLoT petition asks specifically if a candidate has been CHARGED(not even convinced but just CHARGED) with a felony or misdemeanor INVOLVING moral turpitude. 

Moral Turpitude - A phrase used in Criminal Law to describe conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals.

Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general. Examples include rape, forgery, Robbery, and solicitation by prostitutes.

Many jurisdictions impose penalties, such as deportation of Aliens and disbarment of attorneys, following convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=moral+turpitude

Now, to add to the above, this isn't meant for a Brother, after being made a Mason, the Laws states other to cover that as in the reference about the Brother who loaned his car to his grandson. This is different.

S&F,
Kyle


----------



## cog41

No.

Avoid the what ifs and which felony is worse than the other. How long ago it was etc. etc..
I agree some attention should be given to arrest versus conviction, but that could be determined by a thorough investigation of the candidate. 

No.

Proverbs 17:14 "The beginning of strife is like releasing water: Therefore stop contention before a quarrel starts."


----------



## dhouseholder

bwcornett50 said:


> If someone has a felony from 13 years ago, and has sincerely changed his life, changed his views, and has accepted Christ in his life, can he become a mason in Texas?



Here is my honest and unpopular opinion. It would depend on the Felony for me. If it involved moral turpitude, then absolutely not. If it does not involve (my definition) of moral turpitude then I'd consider it.

Here is my reasoning....

1) The Grand Lodge of Texas uses the nebulous term "moral turpitude" when talking about felons and crime, but does not define it.
2) The State of Texas does not define it either, from a purely legal stand-point. 
3) THUS, it is at the lodge's, and by extension each brother's discretion.

That being said, I could imagine a few instances in which I would put a white ball in a box for a man that was convicted of a felony but it would by on a case-by-case scenario. We live in a litigious and sometimes unfair society. Justice and be blind and innocent people get convicted sometimes. I know plenty of good Masons who, if at certain times in their lives, the law showed up a moments, they'd be banned from the fraternity. I'd be willing to bet every brother here knows another brother like that as well. 

*However, our laws state in Art. 393, that "if a candidate has been finally convicted of a felony offense, he shall be deemed disqualified to receive the degrees.", and his petition would be void upon delivery. I don't agree with this article, but I will honor it.*


----------



## Benton

Did Grand Lodge not vote at the last session regarding this issue? I couldn't attend, so I could be completely making this up, but I could have swore that there was a resolution proposed that would bar felons from entering the fraternity, no matter what the felony was or how long ago it was committed and how clean their record has been since then. 

Can anyone clarify this? Am I going crazy?


----------



## Benton

Spring TX MM said:


> Pursuant to Article 393, as read, the answer would be no. It doesn't  elaborate much. Just states the candidate shall be deemed disqualified  if a felony conviction exists. Pm me and I will happily send you a full  copy of the Article in the Laws.
> 
> S&F,
> Kyle


 

Missed this when I glanced through the thread. I suppose it answers my question.


----------



## Bill Lins

Benton said:


> Did Grand Lodge not vote at the last session regarding this issue? I couldn't attend, so I could be completely making this up, but I could have swore that there was a resolution proposed that would bar felons from entering the fraternity, no matter what the felony was or how long ago it was committed and how clean their record has been since then.
> 
> Can anyone clarify this? Am I going crazy?


 
Yes, that issue was presented and voted upon at Grand Lodge last year. It is now part of Art. 393 as quoted above. All that being said, I cannot speak as to your mental state. :lol:


----------



## Michael Hatley

Regarding the minor felonies - if a man hires an attorney and they are a first offender then the chances of them getting off with a misdemeanor are extremely high.  Trust me, I know - I used to race motorcycles illegally back in the service and got into a bit of hot water after finally gettin caught runnin from the cops.  When I say I was a wild kid, it is an understatement.

But I had sense enough to get an attorney and to never stand in a court accused again in my life.  Attorney fees for most of these borderline misdemeanor/felony cases are very low, the attorney shows up to court, it is reduced, bam.  It is the snap to go take care of it the proper way and to never cross the line again so that they never appear in court accused as anything but a first offender.  Even at 19 I understood the difference that makes on those borderline crimes.


----------



## jvarnell

This Thread is driving me crazy. I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case bases. If the US founding fathers had not prevailed they would have been Felons. If any place makes a statment that no felons allowed without doing due diligence are not helping the high standards and want to just blame a rule book for that. There are fedral felony for such things as "vandalism of parks" which has been deamed such things as cutting low hanging limb over a pickanic table and others. With tree hugers and people like that in this countery we can never tell what a felony will be.


CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE 
http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/cmt04.pdf


----------



## Spring TX MM

jvarnell said:


> This Thread is driving me crazy. I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case bases. If the US founding fathers had not prevailed they would have been Felons. If any place makes a statment that no felons allowed without doing due diligence are not helping the high standards and want to just blame a rule book for that. There are fedral felony for such things as "vandalism of parks" which has been deamed such things as cutting low hanging limb over a pickanic table and others. With tree hugers and people like that in this countery we can never tell what a felony will be.



I understand what you are saying, Brother. I believe the OP was seeking guidance as to whether it is legal or not. You make some valid points. The only problem is, our current Laws state that its disqualifying to have been convicted of a felony. This doesn't change whether the person is a good person or not. Sorry if this was too redundant.

S&F,
Kyle


----------



## jvarnell

I guess I need not respond to this thread.  I thought even if it is the rule of today, the question was ask to gain understanding and maybe change it or not.  But to gain knowledge from others.


----------



## Spring TX MM

jvarnell said:


> I guess I need not respond to this thread.  I thought even if it is the rule of today, the question was ask to gain understanding and maybe change it or not.  But to gain knowledge from others.



Well, maybe I misinterpreted the OP intent. Its possible but if not for posts of Brethren like yourself and others, if the intent was to gain understanding and opinions, the resulting argument might be one sided. This is a discussion forum and thus, your opinions and insight count, at least to me they do. I'm sure to others as well. 

S&F,
Kyle


----------



## Bill Lins

jvarnell said:


> I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case bases. If the US founding fathers had not prevailed they would have been Felons. If any place makes a statment that no felons allowed without doing due diligence are not helping the high standards and want to just blame a rule book for that. There are fedral felony for such things as "vandalism of parks" which has been deamed such things as cutting low hanging limb over a pickanic table and others. With tree hugers and people like that in this countery we can never tell what a felony will be.


 
Your exact argument was made at Grand Lodge last year, but the Brethren voted otherwise. It is what it is.


----------



## California Master

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

As I stated early on in this thread, the man made a choice and got a felony. I never met a criminal who wasn't misunderstood. There's always an excuse. 

I'm 60 years old and have been a Master Mason for 34 years. Prior to becoming a Mason at the age of 26, and after, I have never been arrested or convicted of a felony. 

I know that the responses are mostly one sided. But, this is very near and dear to all Masons. Not every man can be a Mason. Obviously there are those who don't want anything to do with our fraternity. So be it. Me personally, I don't want to lower our standards. If we do,where do we draw the line? Just say no to felons.


----------



## BryanMaloney

California Master said:


> I know that the responses are mostly one sided. But, this is very near and dear to all Masons. Not every man can be a Mason. Obviously there are those who don't want anything to do with our fraternity. So be it. Me personally, I don't want to lower our standards. If we do,where do we draw the line? Just say no to felons.


 
If one wants redemption and forgiveness, one has Christ for that, but not Masonry, right?


----------



## jvarnell

California Master said:


> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> 
> As I stated early on in this thread, the man made a choice and got a felony. I never met a criminal who wasn't misunderstood. There's always an excuse.
> 
> I'm 60 years old and have been a Master Mason for 34 years. Prior to becoming a Mason at the age of 26, and after, I have never been arrested or convicted of a felony.
> 
> I know that the responses are mostly one sided. But, this is very near and dear to all Masons. Not every man can be a Mason. Obviously there are those who don't want anything to do with our fraternity. So be it. Me personally, I don't want to lower our standards. If we do,where do we draw the line? Just say no to felons.



All of what you say is true but I think of my self as more the Ben Franklin type and have to always have to work within mans rules I amy not be able to obay God's rulees.  If someone has a felony in islamabod for being a Mason is that a felony here.  I beleive the GL rules just use the word felony?  Any rule can be changed and automaticly make us felons.  Take the thing Hilary is going to sign at the UN in September if not stoped.  Are you going to tell the Gov. you have a gun?  Doing something that is a felony is and knowing it is the same as being convicted in your hart.  The airplane is loading now and I will finish my thought later in Austin.


----------



## HKTidwell

Did he receive deferred adjudication for this or not?  If it is deferred adjudication then the answer is yes he can petition based on edict.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter

> I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case bases. If the US founding fathers had not prevailed they would have been Felons. If any place makes a statment that no felons allowed without doing due diligence are not helping the high standards and want to just blame a rule book for that. There are fedral felony for such things as "vandalism of parks" which has been deamed such things as cutting low hanging limb over a pickanic table and others. With tree hugers and people like that in this countery we can never tell what a felony will be.



Brother this information is the kind that causes a bit of a Red Herring when we have these talks, but is an honest mistake made by many.

The real problem with a term like felony is that a lot of people don't understand what that means and there are a ton of urban legends and an even bigger pile of misunderstandings.

Federal law relating to vandalism in parks do ban damage and destruction to park buildings, fences, signs, gates, guide posts, trees, vegetation and mineral deposits. The crime is a only a misdemeanor and the guilty part can face $500 fines and six months in jail.

We had heated debate in Colorado last year at Grand Lodge over this issue where convicted felons can be allowed in. People were not sure what felony meant when they tried to ban it and some of wildest hypothetical were thrown around and 99.9 percent of the information was just blatantly false.

I understand if a Brother is uninformed; but in Colorado for instance, I think the debate would have benefited from men saying, "I am not sure what a felony is, so this makes me uncomfortable" rather than..."I heard if you take more than one newspaper out of a machine its a felony"...."Oh God!  I've done that, I think I'm still a good Mason!"....and so on and so forth.  

I think its okay to admit we don't know something and research it, but before we provide, if even by accident, a falsehood, we should as Dionysius of Halicarnassus said, "Let thy speech be better than silence, or be silent."


----------



## Michael Hatley

It might be worth reminding folks of some of the things that are unambiguously felonies:



*Rape* 
*Robbery* 
*Arson* 
*Murder* 
*Kidnapping* 
*Grand larceny* 
*Aggravated assault/battery* 
*Treason* 
 
Like I mentioned before, I stood accused as a young man of one of the borderline ones - fleeing the police in a motor vehicle.  I will restate, it is elementary and relatively inexpensive for a first time offender to have one of those offenses reduced to a misdemeanor.  And those borderline cases make up the extreme margins. 

Look again at the meat of the list.  It requires no hypotheticals.  Tick off each one of them in your mind and give it some thought, I know I wrestled with it at the last GL when the issue came up.


----------



## M.Prejean

But the list is more exhaustive & hypotheticals are indispensable tools for projecting the results of a decision. I understand that to allow a felon in to the Fraternity would be to gamble with our reputation, so I see why the bright line. In my opinion though, a case-by-case analysis is the right way. Then, any challenge to our reputation could be backed up by the findings.

Even though we all probably can't imagine a felony being an issue for ourselves, I'm glad we're having this discussion.

 Who wants the bat next? :001_smile:


----------



## jvarnell

Frater Cliff Porter said:


> Brother this information is the kind that causes a bit of a Red Herring when we have these talks, but is an honest mistake made by many.
> 
> The real problem with a term like felony is that a lot of people don't understand what that means and there are a ton of urban legends and an even bigger pile of misunderstandings.
> 
> Federal law relating to vandalism in parks do ban damage and destruction to park buildings, fences, signs, gates, guide posts, trees, vegetation and mineral deposits. The crime is a only a misdemeanor and the guilty part can face $500 fines and six months in jail.
> 
> We had heated debate in Colorado last year at Grand Lodge over this issue where convicted felons can be allowed in. People were not sure what felony meant when they tried to ban it and some of wildest hypothetical were thrown around and 99.9 percent of the information was just blatantly false.
> 
> I understand if a Brother is uninformed; but in Colorado for instance, I think the debate would have benefited from men saying, "I am not sure what a felony is, so this makes me uncomfortable" rather than..."I heard if you take more than one newspaper out of a machine its a felony"...."Oh God!  I've done that, I think I'm still a good Mason!"....and so on and so forth.
> 
> I think its okay to admit we don't know something and research it, but before we provide, if even by accident, a falsehood, we should as Dionysius of Halicarnassus said, "Let thy speech be better than silence, or be silent."


 
Vandlisam of fedral lands is a Felony and if I were you I would do a lexisnexis search and see how much case law has been acumulated on it since 1972.  I don't want to argue with you so it would be good if you did your own research and that is my last post on this.


----------



## Bro_Vick

I would agree with all, the answer is no.  While even the government will allow you to have a security clearance with a felony, we cannot allow it.  I understand that circumstances happen, and that good things do happen to good people.  But once a precedence is set, it is hard to close the door.  My mother lodge has had PMs expelled for felony white collar crimes, so the law is the law.

S&F,
-Bro Vick


----------



## daviddenboer1

From my travels throughout Texas and other states there already are felons in the craft.  Not sure how arrest records or even convictions are checked.  Brothers who've been charged or convicted could just use false documents to gain access to the degrees.

Unless we have a fingerprint scanner or DNA testing then I'm going to take any brother at his word until I find out otherwise.   Also, I heard there were people using false Id cards to gain access to degrees in the past.

If a brother has a felony, been charged, or even been caught for using false ids whats really stopping them from gaining access?   The work is all online and there are multiple associations of masons so who's who is in question.

Take this app for instance, the user could be anybody...a kid, a female, or even a felon.   There's no stopping this issue from occurring so hopefully all of us brethren could think of a better system to verify members if it's a big issue.

Great topic to discuss!  

Dave den Boer
1417 - Texas - FC


----------



## rmcgehee

In California,starting in 2012,part of the application fee goes to pay for a background check.
The fee is $15,non-refundable,and goes to Grand Lodge who has a contract with some company to handle.
That being said,should NOT get in the way of a good committee of investigation
from the Lodge.
In my opinion,No Felons Period!


----------



## tpilgrim

*I am a felon*

I was unfortunately represented by a cheap attorney, not to mention had no true guidance.. I am pleased to say that I am one of the most active brothers in my district.. I am also a traditionalist and direct a curriculum for esoteric studies.. Ive seen brothers act like children and totally violate obligations..  some people are victims of unfortunate events in life..  Grand lodge will water down masonry with chance to advance shake n bake masons that will further dilute our fraternity but you would rather call them a brother than me? I say shame on you. What happened to tolerance and weighing both sides of all situations?


----------



## tpilgrim

*Sure is alot of discussion*

There is alot of religious tones here... do I need to remind all of our oaths and obligations?  Most of the craft thinks all there is to masonry is ritual and memorization..   I suggest some research.. Us younger brethren don't want something for nothing.


----------



## jvarnell

*Re: Sure is alot of discussion*



tpilgrim said:


> There is alot of religious tones here... do I need to remind all of our oaths and obligations? Most of the craft thinks all there is to masonry is ritual and memorization.. I suggest some research.. Us younger brethren don't want something for nothing.



I don't understand this post.  Please help me understand what you just said?


----------



## Spring TX MM

tpilgrim said:


> I was unfortunately represented by a cheap attorney, not to mention had no true guidance.. I am pleased to say that I am one of the most active brothers in my district.. I am also a traditionalist and direct a curriculum for esoteric studies.. Ive seen brothers act like children and totally violate obligations..  some people are victims of unfortunate events in life..  Grand lodge will water down masonry with chance to advance shake n bake masons that will further dilute our fraternity but you would rather call them a brother than me? I say shame on you. What happened to tolerance and weighing both sides of all situations?



Brother, based on the question in the OP(original post), the Brother specifically asked if it was allowed(summarized) based on Texas GL Laws. Based on TX GL Laws, the answer is NO. 

This isn't to say that the person isn't a good man or that some unfortunate set of circumstances befell him in his life at some point. I honestly don't think any response here was meant to judge someone with a felony conviction. The OP asked the question if it was alowed. Many responses are just discussion of personal opinion which all are entitled to. Some supportive and some opposition to the argument but I believe none were meant as a negative judgment towards anyone specifically. 

S&F,
Kyle


----------



## Spring TX MM

tpilgrim said:


> There is alot of religious tones here... do I need to remind all of our oaths and obligations?  Most of the craft thinks all there is to masonry is ritual and memorization..   I suggest some research.. Us younger brethren don't want something for nothing.



To this post, I say in my opinion, we shouldn't expect anything in return. We should have the satisfaction of giving to something greater without the thought of receiving anything in return. The process of becoming "better men" is entangled with the act of living and sharing our principle tenets.

S&F,
Kyle


----------



## dhouseholder

Bro_Vick said:


> so the law is the law.
> -Bro Vick



But is this a rational thing? We both know there are plenty of unjust laws.

Now, I know that Michael Hatley brings up the valuable fact that most minor felonies get reduced, and that makes up for a little bit. 

To change the subject slightly, what if you were convicted of a felony in another country? Would that make someone ineligible to be made a Mason in Texas?


----------



## tpilgrim

*Nothing expected*



Spring TX MM said:


> tpilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is alot of religious tones here... do I need to remind all of our oaths and obligations?  Most of the craft thinks all there is to masonry is ritual and memorization..   I suggest some research.. Us younger brethren don't want something for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To this post, I say in my opinion, we shouldn't expect anything in return. We should have the satisfaction of giving to something greater without the thought of receiving anything in return. The process of becoming "better men" is entangled with the act of living and sharing our principle tenets.
> 
> S&F,
> Kyle
Click to expand...


again, I am a traditionalist who feels it an honor to be called a brother.. My point is.. I believe circumstances tell a story too.  I knows I give 110% in and out of lodge and it is disheartening to see a brother want to wear the Jersey but not play on the team.


----------



## Spring TX MM

[/QUOTE]
again, I am a traditionalist who feels it an honor to be called a brother.. My point is.. I believe circumstances tell a story too.  I knows I give 110% in and out of lodge and it is disheartening to see a brother want to wear the Jersey but not play on the team.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, I am confused. Who and what are you referencing about wearing the Jersey and not playing on the team? I understand the analogy. I'm confused as to what prompted you bringing it up. I understand traditionalists and other types. In several of your posts you mentioned how dedicated you are. Did someone question your dedication?  Again, my apology if I missed something or made an error in some way. 

S&F,
Kyle

Please excuse me if I've strayed too far off topic.


----------



## dhouseholder

Kyle, i think you bit on a post that had no business being here. Religion has not entered this conversation, nor does it have any bearing here. The brother above posted that he is a felon and he is a very active Mason that does good things.


----------



## rmcgehee

This thread seems to have taken on a life of it's own.
If an applicicant lies on his application says he has no felony and does,he should be gone.
If he does not lie,says he is a felon,application should be withdrawn.
If he was made a MM and then became a felon he should demit and leave.


----------



## Bill Lins

rmcgehee said:


> If an applicicant lies on his application says he has no felony and does,he should be gone.
> 
> If he was made a MM and then became a felon he should demit and leave.


 
In either case suspension/expulsion is automatic. (Art. 506)


----------



## rmcgehee

This ballot box should be used if need be however it should never get that far.
This came up in my Lodge last year.A real mess.
The man did not lieon app.was voted in anyway.A few years later affiliated with another Lodge and it was found out.
See where this is going.
This is why our GL got involved and now does background checks.
If the do not pass,it never goes further.


----------



## Bill Lins

rmcgehee said:


> The man did not lieon app.was voted in anyway.A few years later affiliated with another Lodge and it was found out.



Not sure what you're trying to tell us, Brother.


----------



## rmcgehee

Just explaining how letting a felon in can blow up in your face and cause problems
between Lodges if due diligence is not taken.
It is better if you do not have to deal with it.
Neff said.


----------



## Michael Neumann

Spring TX MM said:


> The GLoT petition asks specifically if a candidate has been CHARGED(not even convinced but just CHARGED) with a felony or misdemeanor INVOLVING *moral turpitude*.
> 
> *Moral Turpitude *- A phrase used in Criminal Law to describe conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals.
> 
> Crimes involving *moral turpitude *have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general. Examples include rape, forgery, Robbery, and solicitation by prostitutes.


  Moral Turpitude is the essence of determining a man's right to the lights and benefits of our craft. There are too many senseless convictions to draw a line at the word felony, it must be investigated. Anyone who relies on a single word to determine the value of a man is short sighted and missing the point of our craft. 

Michael Neumann
Killeen, TX 1125
South Carolina Commandery No.1, K.T.


----------



## BryanMaloney

As someone who has had to work in places that used a "metric" to evaluate performance, I know very much that the "metric" will get trimmed down to the simplest possible interpretation and then used very mechanistically. That's just how people are.


----------



## K.S.

If a 2 time murderer "accepts Christ into his life", is he not still a murderer?

I don't know why "accepting Christ" seems to be the big eraser of bad deeds. I've seen a few people accept Christ in their life after a life of crime and mayhem, to suit them as needed, and go back to being a social black mark on society, just to "accept Christ" again later and it's all ok.

One black cube...coming up!


----------



## BryanMaloney

Given that I'm about as far from being Evangelical in my practices as can be imagined for a Christian, that whole "accepting Christ" thing doesn't wash with my Church. It's a process for us. But "felony" is not identical to "murder". Indeed, the difference between "misdemeanor" or "infraction" vs. "felony" can be a mere dollar amount.


----------



## Traveling Man

dhouseholder said:


> We both know there are plenty of unjust laws.
> To change the subject slightly, what if you were convicted of a felony in another country? Would that make someone ineligible to be made a Mason in Texas?


 
Would you care to cite some "unjust laws" involving felonies that include "moral turpitude"?

If the conviction involved a felony of moral turpitude it would certainly be examined.


----------



## Bill Lins

Brethren- just to keep things straight, the phrase "involving moral turpitude" applies only to misdemeanor offenses. A conviction for ANY felony, whether it involves moral turpitude or not, is an automatic disqualifier.


----------



## Bill Lins

M.Prejean said:


> A brother who is an attorney brought up a felony dealing with handicapped parking tags . Apparently if a mason who's vehicle has those tags lends his vehicle to his grandson who is pulled over, both are guilty of a felony.


 
Bro. Prejean, could you please ask that Brother to provide the cite for that statement for me? Thanks in advance.


----------



## jwhoff

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Yes, that issue was presented and voted upon at Grand Lodge last year. It is now part of Art. 393 as quoted above. All that being said, I cannot speak as to your mental state. :lol:




Bro. Benton ... I'd say that's fairly close to breaking the skin.

:39:


----------



## jwhoff

dhouseholder said:


> But is this a rational thing? We both know there are plenty of unjust laws.
> 
> Now, I know that Michael Hatley brings up the valuable fact that most minor felonies get reduced, and that makes up for a little bit.
> 
> To change the subject slightly, what if you were convicted of a felony in another country? Would that make someone ineligible to be made a Mason in Texas?



Yes!  Texas, UK, South America, any place where international laws hold.


----------



## Bill Lins

jwhoff said:


> Bro. Benton ... I'd say that's fairly close to breaking the skin.
> 
> :39:


 
Bro. Hoff- he & I are both mods. Different rules apply.  :30: 

Besides, he _did _ask!  :wink:   :lol:


----------



## dhouseholder

jwhoff said:


> Yes!  Texas, UK, South America, any place where international laws hold.



Are you sure? Wiki says, "International law differs from national legal systems in that it primarily concerns nations rather than private citizens."


----------



## Brent Heilman

From legal dictionary:
felony
					        n. 1) a crime sufficiently serious to be  punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as  distinguished from a misdemeanor which is only punishable by confinement  to county or local jail and/or a fine. 2) a crime carrying a minimum  term of one year or more in state prison, since a year or less can be  served in county jail. However, a sentence upon conviction for a felony  may sometimes be less than one year at the discretion of the judge and  within limits set by statute. Felonies are sometimes referred to as  "high crimes" as described in the U.S. Constitution.

moral turpitude

n. gross violation of standards of moral  conduct, vileness. An act involving moral turpitude is considered  intentionally evil, making the act a crime. The existence of moral  turpitude can bring a more severe criminal charge or penalty for a  criminal defendant.



From my reading of 6 pages of this thread the crux of the argument seems to be what is a felony? There is the definition above and from what I read I would have to say no. Our laws state that no felon will be permitted to receive the degrees. No matter what I may feel is right or wrong I am bound as a Mason to uphold those laws of our Grand Lodge and as such cannot vote for a convicted felon or allow a petition given out to one. Just my thoughts.


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> From legal dictionary:
> felony
> n. 1) a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor which is only punishable by confinement to county or local jail and/or a fine. 2) a crime carrying a minimum term of one year or more in state prison, since a year or less can be served in county jail. However, a sentence upon conviction for a felony may sometimes be less than one year at the discretion of the judge and within limits set by statute. Felonies are sometimes referred to as "high crimes" as described in the U.S. Constitution.


I hate to jump back into this but the above points one thing out about a felony. The part "term in state or federal prison" is in the definition and any thing that you are convicted of that takes place in a Fedral building or Fedral park can send you to a fedral prison for as little as a week.  If you are a CHL holder and go into the earl campbell federal building downtown dallas and forget you have your gun in your briefcase you have a chance depending on the judge and jury of going to a minimum security prision for a week and it is called a Felony.  And don't try to minimize what I have said by your disbelief go and do a lexisnexis search (will cost you money).  The prosecutor will have to prove intent by the CHL holder to get a conviction but I beleive your search will come up with some hits.


----------



## rmcgehee

What ever state I live in and I knew an applicate was a Felon(whatever definition you what to use) I would object and or "black ball" him.


----------



## Brent Heilman

jvarnell said:


> I hate to jump back into this but the above points one thing out about a felony. The part "term in state or federal prison" is in the definition and any thing that you are convicted of that takes place in a Fedral building or Fedral park can send you to a fedral prison for as little as a week.  If you are a CHL holder and go into the earl campbell federal building downtown dallas and forget you have your gun in your briefcase you have a chance depending on the judge and jury of going to a minimum security prision for a week and it is called a Felony.  And don't try to minimize what I have said by your disbelief go and do a lexisnexis search (will cost you money).  The prosecutor will have to prove intent by the CHL holder to get a conviction but I beleive your search will come up with some hits.



I am not saying I don't believe you and I also know that sometimes people do make honest mistakes, like in your scenario. I know that as a concealed carry license holder I have left my gun in the car when I have come into work (I work on a military installation). Luckily my guns are all registered with the Provost Marshall and I can bring them on post though, but I try to remember to leave my handgun at home. Again my feelings on this all go back to what the Grand Lodge says and that is no felons. I know that there are people out there that would be a great addition to any Lodge, but the rules are the rules and I have to uphold them.

I also feel that once we start letting people in (read felons) we are opening a can of worms that we don't want. Once we let in a felon what will come next? We will start letting in atheists because they are good people? What about women? Once you make the exception for one group you have set a precedent for allowing another. Once again I say we, as Masons, are bound to uphold the laws, rules, regulations, and edicts of our respective Grand Lodges and to the best of my knowledge there is no "wiggle room" to make exceptions. I know that there are people that would benefit from our Fraternity and it from them that don't meet the requisite qualifications and as such I cannot let them in. I know of people that I would love to have sit beside me in Lodge but knowing about their past would keep me from even giving them a petition. In the end what it all boils down to is what the Grand Lodge says about felons. If at some point in the future something is amended to where in the case of felons it will be looked at on a case-by-case basis then I will support it, but until that happens I can't. I can also tell you about people that were never convicted of a felony and only a misdemeanor that also can show you why some that have had a run-in or two with the law should have extra scrutiny.

JMHO and YMMV


----------



## Brent Heilman

I will ask my cousin sometime about the whole felony thing and how it plays out in a court of law. What can constitute a felony and so on and so forth. He is a lawyer somewhere there in Texas (Austin I think).


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> I will ask my cousin sometime about the whole felony thing and how it plays out in a court of law. What can constitute a felony and so on and so forth. He is a lawyer somewhere there in Texas (Austin I think).




I welcome you asking these questions of you cousin.  The main thing I (personaly) was hoping to get out of this discussion is why does anyone let a single defined term make a judgment for them.  If a person is not of the right stuff to be apart of masonary it will showup in more places than a single term. I am very woried about the "UN Small Arms Treaty" and how it will be implemented.  It will be Federal it is just about registering guns but it smacks of matching those laws that become a felony.  Every one needs to resurch how misdemeanor are treated by the Federal Gov. and who charges misdemeanor. State vs Fed. It looks 

Look at this Wikipedia information.  So far I have not found anyother un-copyrighted source to post. Copyright is can be a Fed. felony.
Misdemeanor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, the federal government generally considers a crime punishable with incarceration for one year or less to be a misdemeanor.[SUP][1][/SUP] All other crimes are considered felonies[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]. Many states also employ this distinction[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP].
A misdemeanor is considered a crime of low seriousness, and a felony one of high seriousness[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]. A principal of the rationale for the degree punishment meted out is that the punishment should fit the crime.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] One standard for measurement is the degree to which a crime affects others or society. Measurements of the degree of seriousness of a crime have been developed.[SUP][5][/SUP]
The distinction between felonies and misdemeanors has been abolished by several common law jurisdictions[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] (e.g. Australia[SUP][6][/SUP]). These jurisdictions have generally adopted some other classification: in the Commonwealth nations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, the crimes are divided into summary offences and indictable offences[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]. The Republic of Ireland, a former member of the Commonwealth, also uses these divisions[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP].


Things are so blured to me it is still makes since to me we need to use our minds and not a word to judge.  And I know it is the rule but the discustion should continue.


----------



## M.Prejean

In my opinion, to live up to our obligations, we must follow the Law. But that's not enough. We are here to build a magnificent edifice. We should pursue perfection through improvement. Follow the law, but never stop questioning it.

I think we're on the right track, brothers!


----------



## California Master

rmcgehee said:


> What ever state I live in and I knew an applicate was a Felon(whatever definition you what to use) I would object and or "black ball" him.



I agree with you, my brother. I know that we are both residing in California, but, I was raised in South Houston, Texas. It would not matter to me if I lived anywhere else. *No felons in Masonry.....period*. I agree with California's application containing the background check. We're not hiding anything from the applicant. He knows that we are going to look into his history. If he has skeletins, maybe he won't complete the application.


----------



## jvarnell

California Master said:


> I agree with you, my brother. I know that we are both residing in California, but, I was raised in South Houston, Texas. It would not matter to me if I lived anywhere else. *No felons in Masonry.....period*. I agree with California's application containing the background check. We're not hiding anything from the applicant. He knows that we are going to look into his history. If he has skeletins, maybe he won't complete the application.



I agree that what you have said is what should happen now because it is the rule.  If you read Morals and Dogma and replace your thinking of the word felony with a symbol and symbol as an idea.  What does the felony really mean?  You have to look at the meaning that you have for felony not the word.  What does the word lucifer mean to you.  It ment the morning star (venous) or linlitenment to Pike.  So because Pike used that word in his work is it your meaning.  Me I would like to understand what the goverment that put the stamp of felony on someone really meant by that word. 

I have been trying to tell someone for 6 months since asked to be made a Mason what the word lucifer in Pikes work meant.  I also have had the discustion about the translation of the word Love from the four words in Greek.  Every word we use has a meaning to us and a different meaning to others.  

If you look at the Penal code of Colorado and Texas the deffition of Felony just a tiny bit different.  I think some one with a class A misdemeanor in California for possession should be black balled but that is not a felony there and it is here.

In conclustion it is the offence and not the word that should cause the black ball.


----------



## Michaelstedman81

jvarnell said:


> In conclustion it is the offence and not the word that should cause the black ball.



I have been watching this thread for a little bit now, and even tried to chime in once, but internet lost signal and wasn't able to post.  What you said here was right along the lines of what I was thinking and trying to post the other day, so I figure I can try to paraphrase what I had on the screen before I lost it all.  As a "disclaimer" of sorts, what I am about to say is not what I believe, promote, nor is it a suggestion.  I seeing both sides of the fence and figured I would put something out as "food for thought".  So, me saying this is just for stimulus of conversation, and not my stance on the felony issue.  Lol, might take a min, but bear with me lol.

*What if* there was a committee appointed by the GLoT to research civilian laws and come up with something in particular to add to our Masonic laws regarding not just felonies, but crimes in general when it comes to admission and membership?  *If* our laws stated specific crimes instead of using the term "felony" or the whole "moral turptitude", how would everyone feel about that?  The reason I thought about this, is because there have been several posts from Brothers who know someone that cannot become a member because he has been CONVICTED of a felony in their past.  I fall into the same category of some that know a man or two that Masonry would benefit from, but our Fraternity will not ever benefit from what they have to offer because of the canvassing term "felony".

There have even been a couple of Brothers that have readily admitted on here that they have committed felony crimes and either didn't get caught, or because of legal counsel or some other factor, they were not convicted of the felony crime that they were charged with orginally.  Charges get dismissed.  Charges get lowered.  While I do go with the current law that does not allow fellons into Texas Masonry, I do feel a bit bad for someone that maybe have been in the wrong place at the wrong time years and years ago, and is now totally prohibited from joining the Fraternity.  And I do not mean the typical "wrong place at the wrong time" cry of being innocent that a lot of guilty parties tend to use, but I mean the fact that they did make a bad decision/choice and unfortunately were caught doing it.  I do believe that the majority of us on here have broken laws, and I do imagine that there are a lot of Brothers on here that have actually committed a felony crime.  Getting caught and charged for them is the difference.  

The point to my thought is possibly having the GL laws state that _specific_ felony crimes prohibit membership into Masonry.  Alongside that, _specific_ misdemeanors....  The Masonic laws can set a standard format of what is acceptable and not acceptable.  Instead of just the word felony, and people looking for the word "conviction", and could eliminate a lot of confusion or disgruntledness from people that really believe their buddy would be great for Masonry AND "yea, it was a felony but it wasn't anything bad".  For example, guy that is convicted of Manslaughter ten years ago cannot be admitted, but someone that was convicted twenty five years ago for Possession of a Controlled Substance can.  Obviously, in the formation of the laws regarding all this, they can set certain criteria regarding the length of time after the conviction/debt to society was paid, and any other kind of factors.  Basically, this could maybe prevent denying Masonry the good that can be contributed by the guy that happened to be 18 years old going to a party with friends and had some dope on him twenty-five years ago, while at the same time keeping one of those _real_ "high crimes" out.  

The same can be done with misdemeanors.  I mean, you have to admit that there are misdemeanor crimes that are just traumatizing or bad to the community or the victims.  So, for an example of this, a man convicted a couple times of Assualt Causing Serious Bodily Injury cannot get in, but someone that plead no contest ten years ago to Theft By Check < $50 can.  Sure, everyone has thier circumstances and what they believe happened.  But having a set standard instead of a vague and all encompassing terminology could prevent some hard feelings down the road for some.  Sure, it may take up an extra page or two in our law books, and it may take a committee a while to investigate things and get all the "legalise" worked out, but there are only a specific number of laws in the Texas Penal Code and it could get worked out.  

Now, as for my stance...  I think that guarding our gates and upholding the GL laws is important.  At this time, I do think that it is better to prevent convicted felons from being admitted.  Whether it is to protect the "image", security, or physical safety of the Fraternity and its members.  Like I said, my above statements are just merely for discussion and it does not reflect my stance on this.  I do feel bad for some men that did make a mistake in their past that prevents them from getting in (because I love this organization and what it has done for me, and I am a sally like that lol), but nobody in Masonry put them in the position to be charged, and subsequently, convicted of a felony.  

So, I guess my question is this:  If the GLoT (or any other GL for you Brothers that are lost and haven't found your way back to the best state in the Union yet lol) started working something like this to put into the law books, or it was finalized and done, how would you feel about it?  Some of you speak pretty gung-ho on not letting in ANY felons. Would something like this help build a bridge between you and the Brothers that believe some men make mistakes and learn from their lessons?  Like I said, just for conversation and not what I believe to be the right choice.


----------



## scialytic

:35:


----------



## rmcgehee

I do not mean this to sound cold or harsh but we are NOT meant to rehabilitate.
History is important,it does not ALWAYS repeat itself but it does often.
Do we take that chance?
IBO we do not.


----------



## Bill Lins

I think that part of the issue is how we are viewed by the profane. For us to accept, say, a minor hot-check writer who is known as such in the community cannot elevate our reputation as a fraternity. For us to accept convicted felons known to be such would be even worse. I think protecting the reputation of Freemasonry should be one of our primary concerns. But that's just me.  :wink:


----------



## scialytic

This is a very interesting discussion. Bro. Steadman, you mentioned timeframes as part of the determining factor. Is that written into the Texas Masonic Law?

I would be interested to know if there are any exceptions. It would be neat if there was a way that if the WM of the petitioned Lodge could put forward an exception to a GL committee to review extremely rare exceptions based on the charge, length of time and whether the individual was truly reformed.

Imagine if Chuck Colson petitioned your Lodge. He is a felon. Would you really deny him the honor of joining the Fraternity? (That's if he wasn't a Brother...I have no idea.) I'm assuming the answer is going to be "yes we would deny him...the Law is the Law," but I thought I'd throw out this far-fetched hypothetical situation anyway.


----------



## T.N. Sampson

On the outside looking in:  If the primary focus is on the candidate's internal qualifications, shouldn't his run-ins with the law be evaluated on that basis?  Put another way, how does the crime testify to those qualifications?  It's a more subjective basis than black-letter GL law, but not without merit.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## jvarnell

I have been arguing this thread for a selfish reasion.  This has been practice for me and to make me learn and sstretch.  I am in a regulatory postion with my company now after being in an IT and technical roll for 29 years.  The roll I am in has me signing to attest that my people are following all the rules and regs. even if they hid it form me, I should have sean it.   This is worrisome because it is my head and not theirs in this world where everyone is out to beat down large companies.

Also after doing all the reasurch on this that I did I do believe that State, Federal and International very so much the GL should have guidelines and not a strict rule.  I hope everyone understands I think that Masons should have the highest moral stance on all subjects.


----------



## jvarnell

scialytic said:


> Imagine if Chuck Colson petitioned your Lodge. He is a felon. Would you really deny him the honor of joining the Fraternity? (That's if he wasn't a Brother...I have no idea.) I'm assuming the answer is going to be "yes we would deny him...the Law is the Law," but I thought I'd throw out this far-fetched hypothetical situation anyway.



Your to young to know who Chuck Colson is or is that an old picture.  I also agree with you and words do have meanings and they are deferent for everyone.


----------



## scialytic

jvarnell said:


> Your to young to know who Chuck Colson is or is that an old picture.  I also agree with you and words do have meanings and they are deferent for everyone.


 
You flatter me! He was an amazing man. What a story. And that is a pretty recent photo.

Skip, the law is the law until it is changed. Those are rules that I will soon be abiding by in my Masonic pursuits. As a Christian I agree with you regarding internal qualifications of a man, but this organization is not the same as a Church that preaches Salvation. "Making good men better" requires a definition of "good" and that is a portion of how it has been defined.

The problem is that man's decision can be too strict in one Lodge and at another Lodge it could be too lenient. Thus, the broad stoke of the law which blots out the few exceptions. It's unfortunate, and rigid, but it's uniform..


----------



## Plustax

I understand all that has been covered in this thread, but here is my dilema(sp?).  IF say around 13yrs ago I had been caught with a few joints of Marijuana, that would have been a felony and I would have never been able to become a Mason.... PERIOD (according to GLoT today anyway).  However, IF my son (30+yrs old) were to have been caught with Marijuana a year or 2 ago, then he would have no problem becoming a Mason as it's no longer considered a Felon.  Why or how is that fair or right with elegibility requirements for becoming a Mason? Why aren't issues such as that checked on a "case by case" basis? According to GLoT, there is no "case by case" basis check, it's all treated the same.... NO.  I was there last year when this resolution was passed at GLoT and although of course we must all abide by it, I personally don't agree with it. Another brother and I personally talked afterwards with the GM and he wouldn't budge and stood by it 100% (even after we presented the particular scenario above).  I do feel that it is unfair in that particular instance that I just mentioned and I'm sure that has been the case or IS the case for many wanting to become Masons and because of that particular scenario, that person will NEVER be a Mason.  The reason we came up with that scenario is that my brother in my lodge is a Criminal Investigator by profession (also retired Police Officer) and does background investigations for our (and a couple of other) districts. It makes perfect sense to me and is a very hard pill to swallow, but one that we all must do at this present time. So........ the good thing is that the example I gave is just that... an example, because my son and I are both Masons and had no problems becoming Masons.  LOL


----------



## Cgrobin

The law stands that no convicted felon can be made a Mason. However, discussion has turned toward whether this law should be modified. 

I agree with the law as it is our goal to make good men better. Regardless of circumstances, a felony is not typically something to be taken lightly in any case. Any felony conviction can cause the loss of a variety of freedoms for life to that individual, since unless the conviction is somehow overturned, they will always carry the title "convicted felon." This is not to say that mistakes made at one period of life cannot teach lessons that can change that individual for the better. This is why I feel that we should always be willing to forgive those who are deserving, and not judge people based on mistakes that we could just have easily made. However, this in on a personal level as many of our decisions cause a lifetime of repercussions. 

Freemasonry should never be "watered down" for any reason! While I am not discounting the fact a felon could very well make an outstanding Mason, to allow it would need to be done with the utmost caution. The standards needing to be in place would be highly complicated at best, otherwise abuse would be likely. While it may not be a popular statement, there are Masons who do not adhere to the morals we try so hard to teach. While it is certainly not the norm, I still read of Lodges who have turned Freemasonry into a way to benefit themselves, financially and otherwise. If a Lodge decides they are more interested in having people pay dues than the man that pays them, a wealth of problems would ensue. 

If standards are not in place at the GL level, those standards will certainly change from one Lodge to another. A man could be made a Mason in a Lodge with very loose standards, and then move to an area that has a more strict interpretation. Not only could those members feel animosity to a man they may not believe should be a Mason, but that brother could face a lifetime of explaining himself and defending his place. Neither situation would be very conducive to Peace and Harmony.

I believe the law is in place as the simplest response to the question. Any changes that may allow otherwise will not only take time, but careful consideration. 

Respectfully,
-Chris


----------



## jvarnell

You wrote the word "fair" and this is what I say to that "fair is always unfair to someone"  now if it is about facts then I will say THC acts deferent on the brain than alcohol and I would still think I don't want to be areound any one that is on THC because they are slothful in my mind and if they are a part of my lodge.  I wll choose not be around them ever and this has nothing to do with a felony it has to do with judgment and what I have sean in my 53 years on this earth.


----------



## scialytic

Back to an earlier point: Should the "felony" be in the current frame-of-reference (i.e. I got busted with 2 joints 20 years ago which was a felony then, but current law deems it as a misdermeanor), or historical (i.e. you had a felony regardless)?

That is a great point that was brought up and very valid in my opinion. Thoughts?


----------



## T.N. Sampson

scialytic said:


> Skip, the law is the law until it is changed. Those are rules that I will soon be abiding by in my Masonic pursuits. As a Christian I agree with you regarding internal qualifications of a man, but this organization is not the same as a Church that preaches Salvation. "Making good men better" requires a definition of "good" and that is a portion of how it has been defined.


I did a bit of research on the topic of internal qualifications.  The Masonic Dictionary quotes Mackey in defining the internal and external qualifications of a candidate:



> Every candidate for initiation into the mysteries of Freemasonry must be qualified by certain essential conditions. These qualifications are of two kinds, Internal and External. The internal qualifications are those which lie within his own bosom, the external are those which refer to his outward and apparent fitness. The external qualifications are again divided into Moral, Religious, Physical, Mental, and Political.
> First. The Internal Qualifications are:
> 
> The applicant must come of his own free will and Accord. His application must be purely voluntary, to which he has not been induced by persuasion of friends.
> He must not be influenced by mercenary motives.
> He must be prompted to make the application in Consequence of a favorable opinion that he entertains of the Institutions.
> He must be resolved to conform with cheerfulness to the established usages and customs of the Fraternity.
> 
> Second- The External Qualifications are, as has already been said, divided into five kinds:
> 
> Moral. That candidate only is qualified for initiation who faithfully observes the precepts of the moral law, and leads a virtuous life, so conducting himself as to receive the reward of his own conscience as well as the respect and approbation of the world.
> Religious. Freemasonry is exceedingly tolerant in respect to creeds, but it does require that every candidate for initiation shall believe in the existence of God as a superintending and protecting power, and in a future life. No inquiry will be made into modifications of religious belief, provided it includes these two tenets.
> Physicals These refer to sex, age, and bodily conformation. The candidate must be a man, not a woman; of mature age, that is, having arrived at his majority, and not so old as to have sunk into dotage; and he must be in possession of all his limbs, not maimed or dismembered, but, to use the language of one of the old Charges, "have his right limbs as a man ought to have."
> Mental. This division excludes all men who are not intellectually qualified to comprehend the character of the Institution, and to partake of its responsibilities. Hence fools or idiots and madmen are excluded. Although the landmarks do not make illiteracy a disqualification, and although it is undeniable that a large portion of the Craft in olden times was uneducated, yet there seems to be a general opinion that an incapacity to read and write will, in this day, disqualify a candidate.
> Political. These relate to the condition of the candidate in society. The old rule required that none but those who were free born could be initiated, which, of course, excluded slaves and those born in servitude; and although the Grand Lodge of England substituted free man for free born, it is undeniable that that action was the change of a landmark- and the old rule still exists at least in the United States.


Most of point 5 is no longer valid, of course, but if the rest indeed reflects today's Masonry, then there is little objectivity to the internal qualifications.  As the Freemason's Compendium states it:





> The knowledge of these can only be obtained from his own statements, and hence they are included in the preliminary questions which are proposed before initiation.


 My thinking in raising the point about internal qualifications was dependent upon them being a subjective determination, with the local lodge being best able to make that determination; however, that is apparently not the case.  It seems that the internal rests upon the candidate's word, while the external looks into his previous actions.  It is in the latter area that the various GL's have passed certain judgments on what constitutes a 'virtuous life,' or, as you have indicated, how 'good' is defined.  Uniformity, while generally a good thing, can also become a straight-jacket, but that is perhaps a price worth paying.

By way of topic expansion, it would be an interesting to examine how the various GL's treat alcohol sales by candidates and members, as such matters fit directly into this discussion.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## JTM

i've never really thought of internal vs external in that way, T.N.  thanks.


----------



## jvarnell

Skip,  The word Felony is what I thought was bing discused and I think it needs to more a judgment call than a word.  It doesn't take a felony for someone to stop someone else from becoming a member just a single black ball.   The word felony is a easy way to tell someone they are not going to join.   It is like job postings which say that a bachlors degree is required but when you get the job there is no well defined reasion it is.  That degree does not mean you are any smarter but most people that have it are.


----------



## T.N. Sampson

JTM said:


> i've never really thought of internal vs external in that way, T.N.  thanks.


You are welcome.  I had a totally different view of both until I actually did the research.  The benefit of sites such as this is the research topics it brings my way, plus the commentary of Masons.




			
				jvarnell said:
			
		

> The word Felony is what I thought was bing discused and I think it needs to more a judgment call than a word.


I think you are correct, as Scialytic so well highlighted in his comment on Chuck Colson.  Seems to me that there should be more involved than just the fact of a felony on the man's record.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## scialytic

T.N. Sampson said:


> as Scialytic so well highlighted in his comment on Chuck Colson.  Seems to me that there should be more involved than just the fact of a felony on the man's record.  Cordially, Skip.


 
Glad to be of assistance ;-)

As I see it now, the law is the law (not much we can do unless those vested with that authority are compelled or impelled to change it). Depending on the language of the law (which I don't know), either the interpretation could be "what is currently viewed as a felony offense" or could be amended as such.

I agree that a felon should not be accepted. If the definition of a felony changes with time--I would prefer that the point-of-reference be the current statutes, not the old.


----------



## Brother Joe

With all this being said, I have a friend that is curious about joining the fraternity and I am unsure as to how to direct him. When he was 19, he was arrested and charged with felony assault. The circumstances are interesting to say the least. When he was convicted, he was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of assault. I understand that ultimately it is up the voting brethren, but should I help him on his journey and introduce him to members of my lodge? He has had no trouble since then and it was purely a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.


----------



## jvarnell

Brother Joe said:


> With all this being said, I have a friend that is curious about joining the fraternity and I am unsure as to how to direct him. When he was 19, he was arrested and charged with felony assault. The circumstances are interesting to say the least. When he was convicted, he was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of assault. I understand that ultimately it is up the voting brethren, but should I help him on his journey and introduce him to members of my lodge? He has had no trouble since then and it was purely a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.



I think your friend should go ahead and patition.  He was not convicted of a felony so none of the strict code of conduct guy can stop him.


----------



## dhouseholder

Brother Joe said:


> With all this being said, I have a friend that is curious about joining the fraternity and I am unsure as to how to direct him. When he was 19, he was arrested and charged with felony assault. The circumstances are interesting to say the least. When he was convicted, he was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of assault. I understand that ultimately it is up the voting brethren, but should I help him on his journey and introduce him to members of my lodge? He has had no trouble since then and it was purely a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.



I guarantee that the DDGM (and possibly higher) will have to get involved.


----------



## CajunTinMan

I am just wondering whats going to happen if the day ever comes when being a Mason is a crime?


----------



## Brother Joe

Just out of curiousity...why would the DDGM have to get involved?


----------



## rpbrown

I'm gonna throw a couple of scenario's out there.
1) Look at all of the people that are now being released and convictions overturned because DNA exonerates them. They were convicted because of an eye witness that was mistaken.

2) What about a person that was in the area of a crime and had on similar (not exact but similar) clothes as the actual suspect. He is arrested, and charged. He does not have the money to hire an attorney so gets a court appointed attorney that tells him his only option is a plea to a lessor felony. This man is innocent, in jail and scared so he accepts the plea because his attorney told him he couldn't win in court.

3) This happened to my brother. There was a maintenance man at his appartment that was stealing units and selling for scrap. My brother worked for an a/c company and as such drove a company vehicle home. This maintenance man cut a unit loose on the opposite side of the building from my brothers truck, a neighbor looked out and saw the gas being released and called police. When the police got there, the maintenance man was standing at the unit but told the officer it was my brother that had cut it loose. Even though he had been with me at the time, they arreasted him the next day and charged him with a felony. It cost my brother $3,000.00 in bond and $15,000.00 in attorney fees to get this dismissed. 1st offense and no plea offered as the DA wanted to set a standard. After all was said and done the only reason the charges were dropped is because they caught the maintenance man stealing another unit before my brothers court date.

Although our justice system is not perfect, it is the best we have but mistakes are made. That is why I say leave it to the individual lodge to decide.


----------



## Michael Hatley

Lay it all completely on the table.  Have him be 100% honest and put it out there immediately.

If he wasn't convicted the DDGM won't be required.  But with the word "assault", it is likely folks will do a fair bit of covering their butts, so you never can tell.

He'll want to be explaining the situation himself, from his own mouth, to anyone who will listen and will have a vote.  Like I say, "assault" is a word that will raise eyebrows if they hear it 2nd or 3rd hand.  

Don't rush the petition.  Make sure as many men in the room know him, over months, know his story, have felt a good firm handshake and are voting on a person they know, not a name and a shady story.


----------



## Brother Joe

Thats a very good idea. I'm sure the brethren would be more apt to accept him, if they knew him and his unusual story.


----------



## rpbrown

My son in law who is an ICE agent, just informed me of another instance that could cause someone to be convicted of a felony. 

Have you ever, even as a youth, told someone that you were going to whip their ***, give them a beating, beat the snot ot of them, etc? 

Now, you can be charged with felony "terroristic threat". I guess I have committed felonies several times when I was a lot younger under this area of law.


----------



## CajunTinMan

I have been a LEO for 25 years. I can tell you that the difference between being a felon and a non-felon can be a very thin line. The first thing told to us when criminal law was taught at the a academy was that we were ALL felons because filatio was a felony in our state at the time. And yes there were people convicted for that. There are now even more laws that can condemn a good man. Our founding fathers could have easily been convicted of treason but instead they are heroes. I think each case should be examined on its own merit.


----------



## jvarnell

CajunTinMan said:


> I have been a LEO for 25 years. I can tell you that the difference between being a felon and a non-felon can be a very thin line. The first thing told to us when criminal law was taught at the a academy was that we were ALL felons because filatio was a felony in our state at the time. And yes there were people convicted for that. There are now even more laws that can condemn a good man. Our founding fathers could have easily been convicted of treason but instead they are heroes. I think each case should be examined on its own merit.







Thanks brother for comenting.  This is exactly right and I am glad that a LEO (it took me a while to figure this on out) said what I have been trying to say earler.  Next the others will quote what the GLoT by-laws say so be prepared.


----------



## CajunTinMan

Thank you. The term is just quicker to type when I'm on the cell phone. I agree with what your saying, and i know what they are going to say too.  I am not trying to encourage anyone to disobey the Grand Lodges edict.  And I understand that we must follow those edicts. But edicts can be changed and I'm hoping that I can give a good argument to help that.


----------



## Bill Lins

jvarnell said:


> the others will quote what the GLoT by-laws say so be prepared.



No, Brother Varnell- I, for one, will not waste more time repeating what has already been explained to you more than once on these forums. I am fully in agreement with Bro. Cajun Tin Man's sentiments and voted against the resolution when presented last year. When I was a rookie cop in Houston back in '76, the mere possession of ANY amount of marijuana, even nothing more than "stems & seeds", was a felony. Now it is the lowest form of misdemeanor and I expect that someday soon it won't be considered a crime at all. As I have posted previously, the arguments you advance were made during the debate last year and rejected by the majority of the Brethren present then. It is what it is.

I intend no condescension when I state that you are extremely young and inexperienced in Masonry and have yet to earn the privilege of even attending Grand Lodge, much less speaking before the Brethren. Rather than fulminate against the things you perceive to be wrong with Masonry, you would be well advised to concentrate on your studies. As you progress you will learn much about why things are the way they are and what the proper procedure is to modify or change them. Someday, if found worthy by the Brethren of your Lodge, you may be given the opportunity to work to change things more to your liking. Until then your efforts would be more productive if applied to improving your knowledge in Masonry.


----------



## CajunTinMan

Brother Bill is absolutely correct.  The Grand Lodge in your area is the final Masonic Law for which you must follow.  As you are on the path to becoming a Master Mason it is a time for reflection and learning.  Masonry is not for everyone.  Even if you are found worth to be a brother, Masonry its self might not be what you want and that is something that you need to reflect on.  But Masonry is progressive and as you advance in the craft you will have an opportunity to help mold it.  My arguments are made with full respect to Grand Lodge of Texas and to my fellow brethren.   Like anyone I hope they give insight and are persuasive.  Not to say that yours aren’t. As a Mason I do stand by my opinions but I submit to the authority of my Grand Lodge.


----------



## jvarnell

CajunTinMan said:


> Brother Bill is absolutely correct.  The Grand Lodge in your area is the final Masonic Law for which you must follow.  As you are on the path to becoming a Master Mason it is a time for reflection and learning.  Masonry is not for everyone.  Even if you are found worth to be a brother, Masonry its self might not be what you want and that is something that you need to reflect on.  But Masonry is progressive and as you advance in the craft you will have an opportunity to help mold it.  My arguments are made with full respect to Grand Lodge of Texas and to my fellow brethren.   Like anyone I hope they give insight and are persuasive.  Not to say that yours aren’t. As a Mason I do stand by my opinions but I submit to the authority of my Grand Lodge.



I beleive that puting the word felnoy in to a regulation has un intended consequences.  Unintended consequences are usely bad.  when "people" defines words they have in there head something that may or not be what you think it should be. To me it should be on an indivual bases and the judgment of men.  If you lean on a word you can makew it mean anything.  we have brains we need to use them.


----------



## Bill Lins

jvarnell said:


> I beleive that puting the word felnoy in to a regulation has un intended consequences.  Unintended consequences are usely bad.  when "people" defines words they have in there head something that may or not be what you think it should be. To me it should be on an indivual bases and the judgment of men.  If you lean on a word you can makew it mean anything.  we have brains we need to use them.



That argument was also made & rejected by the Grand West.


----------



## T.N. Sampson

After reading through the posts on this thread, here's my conclusion:  GL specific restrictions in law beyond the general ones on candidate qualifications are in direct opposition to the tenet that the focus should be on the internal qualifications of the man.  Certainly a felony on his record might point to real problem with a man, but is that 100% accurate on his current internal qualifications?  It's my guess that such restrictions were caused by Lodges failing to exercise due diligence in making such decisions.  A man selected by the Lodge is not only granted access to the Lodge, but to Freemasonry worldwide, a fact the GL would expect each Lodge to consider.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## Traveling Man

T.N. Sampson said:


> After reading through the posts on this thread, here's my conclusion:  GL specific restrictions in law beyond the general ones on candidate qualifications are in direct opposition to the tenet that the focus should be on the internal qualifications of the man.  Certainly a felony on his record might point to real problem with a man, but is that 100% accurate on his current internal qualifications?  It's my guess that such restrictions were caused by Lodges failing to exercise due diligence in making such decisions.  A man selected by the Lodge is not only granted access to the Lodge, but to Freemasonry worldwide, a fact the GL would expect each Lodge to consider.  Cordially, Skip.



As you are not a Freemason your conclusion means nothing.  Again, you've out smarted yourself.


----------



## T.N. Sampson

Traveling Man said:


> As you are not a Freemason your conclusion means nothing.


So, those agreeing with the thought are similarly wrong?  My conclusions are accurate in such matters only to the degree that they rest upon Masonic doctrine.  I think this one rests very solidly on such doctrine.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## Traveling Man

Again, Masonic doctrine. You'd be wrong again... What someone wishes (people in Disneyland, wish) verses what they desire and fact are three different things.
You try to keep applying your "Doctrine" methodolgy" to something that is NOT monolithic. Again, you've out smarted yourself!


----------



## T.N. Sampson

Traveling Man said:


> You try to keep applying your "Doctrine" methodolgy" to something that is NOT monolithic.


Actually, each GL has some monolithic attributes.  For example, all U.S. GL's must trace their lineage to the UGLE, somewhat suggestive of a monolithic organization.

In the main, though, your error is the apparent assumption that 'doctrine' is limited to monolithic groups when, in fact, it's not.  Doctrine is "a particular principle, position or policy taught or advocated; a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject."  I'd say Freemasonry has much in the way of doctrine, as defined.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## Traveling Man

T.N. Sampson said:


> Actually, each GL has some monolithic attributes. For example, all U.S. GL's must trace their lineage to the UGLE, somewhat suggestive of a monolithic organization.
> 
> In the main, though, your error is the apparent assumption that 'doctrine' is limited to monolithic groups when, in fact, it's not. Doctrine is "a particular principle, position or policy taught or advocated; a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject." I'd say Freemasonry has much in the way of doctrine, as defined. Cordially, Skip.



And a zebra looks like a horse too! Each Grand Lodge is unto itself a separate entity. But you knew that. You can't make sweeping generalisations, compartmentalise them and make then into sweeping statements and not come off as a sounding ridiculous.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter

I hope you guys see what he is doing and how all conversations are going to go when you let an anti-Mason on the boards.


----------



## jvarnell

Frater Cliff Porter said:


> I hope you guys see what he is doing and how all conversations are going to go when you let an anti-Mason on the boards.




Ok how will you keep non-Masons off the board?  If a real Mason has a deferent opinion than yours will you know they are real and not kick them off.  Who and how will someone decide if they are Masons you can't do it on-line.  Will we need the GLoT handout Cert's with a 2048 encription (privet key).  1024 has been cracked.  Do we setup with Verisign or what.  Then the guys in France could not contrubute encription is agenst the law if the government does'nt have a key.

It looks to me that it is best to be open as posable and skip may learn.


----------



## scialytic

Brother Porter has brought up an interesting point. Similar to the Sanctum Sanctorum channel on this forum, could there be a channel for verified Masons? Sounds tedious as hell, but once the first (huge) wave of masons it would be minimal to maintain. I'd be willing to assist in verifying for Texas if needed.

I'm sure there are many reasons as to why this would be too complicated (which as I write, it does), but how about a board where there is less scrutiny that has limiting access to the channel based on affiliation? Maybe even a Master Mason's channel? Just a thought.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter

I honestly think we don't need to make it as difficult as TSS is.  MOT has its own flare and I like it...but I say hit the ol' ban button on Skip and any other self proclaimed anti...let them go find a different soap box.


----------



## widows son

Skip you are wrong once again. Bad life choices are the consequences one has to live by. Freemasonry expects its members to be of a pure moral fiber. A man who has committed a crime shouldn't be penalized for the rest of his life but, his actions shouldn't penalize and tarnish the name of freemasonry. Unfortunately for your doctrine statement, it also isn't true. As many of the brethren have stated, The UGLE has stated tenets that each GL is to follow. Exclusion of felons is one of them. But your idea of doctrine being disseminated like a pope disseminating to his bishops is inaccurate.  Again each jurisdiction is governed with their own sovereignty under a charter from UGLE.  The UGLE is no different than any other GL except that it's the first recognized, and embodies the spirit of freemasonry, which then charters that spirit so to speak to other GL's


----------



## widows son

But then again your word doesn't mean anything, you falsely obtained things that aren't for you.


----------



## widows son

And once again nobody here cares for your opinion,  the question was asked to masons, not a Cowan like yourself


----------



## T.N. Sampson

widows son said:


> The UGLE has stated tenets that each GL is to follow. Exclusion of felons is one of them. But your idea of doctrine being disseminated like a pope disseminating to his bishops is inaccurate.


Well, I've never likened Freemasonry to the Catholic Church, but it seems to me that your first thoughts are contradicted by the last sentence.  If the UGLE has the authority to mandate doctrine to other GL's, it certainly does sound a lot like the Pope speaking _ex cathedra_.  Cordially, Skip.


----------



## jwhoff

So .. Mister Skip, are you a Catholic?  I wouldn't begin to attest to the Pope's motives on anything ... save the salvation of souls.  I think I could probably safely assume that to be among his motives.


----------



## Benton

jwhoff said:


> So .. Mister Skip, are you a Catholic?  I wouldn't begin to attest to the Pope's motives on anything ... save the salvation of souls.  I think I could probably safely assume that to be among his motives.



Skip has been banned, fyi. So you probably won't be receiving a response...


----------



## jwhoff

Banned or not, I really didn't expect much of a response.
:bored:

Thanks Brother Benton.


----------



## jermy Bell

i have a lodge brother that lied on his petition about having a felony, at the time he was a member from another lodge in a difrent state, and im guessing that his home lodge did'nt look into it, and my members of the investigation committee didnt do a good job of doing a back ground check, 2 years later the brother got mason of the year, then 2 days later it came out in the paper that he beat up his girlfriend, and earned himself a domestic felony, the WM at the time did nothing to turn this into the GL. and the new WM, refuses to do anything either, several us went to our grand lodge and spoke with the new grand master, and found out that the GL, doesnt want anything to do with it, so i guess its alright to have a felony as long as everyone in your lodge and grand lodge is cool with it. Or doesnt know about it.The only thing i dont get anymore,is how does this make good men better ?????r


----------



## jermy Bell

what if he has a reputation for beating up his girlfriend, then ending up getting it in your towns paper ? then gets mason of the year afterwards ? i mean seriously ? what part of masonry does this fall under ????


----------



## Plustax

Bro Jeremy...why didn't you personally press Masonic charges on the brother? Had you done that it would have required to be acted on by your lodge no matter who agreed or not.  It would take time due to the process & protocols involved, but nonetheless would officially make it to GLoT to be entered & dealt with. Unfortunately, this is one of the prime examples for the need to have "qualified" persons on investigation teams & to conduct periodic training within our lodges. Too many times I believe this happens because so&so knows this persons dad, uncle or whomever.  Many lodges have professional investigators, but now they cannot be used because the fear of lawsuits.  Sad & difficult & P. C.times were are living in. I'm sure this happens more than we think especially in the smaller lodges throughout Texas.


----------



## jermy Bell

Plustax said:


> Bro Jeremy.playing y didn't you personally press Masonic charges on the brother? Had you done that it would have required to be acted on by your lodge no matter who agreed or not.  It would take time due to the process & protocols involved, but nonetheless would officially make it to GLoT to be entered & dealt with. Unfortunately, this is one of the prime examples for the need to have "qualified" persons on investigation teams & to conduct periodic training within our lodges. Too many times I believe this happens because so&so knows this persons dad, uncle or whomever.  Many lodges have professional investigators, but now they cannot be used because the fear of lawsuits.  Sad & difficult & P. C.times were are living in. I'm sure this happens more than we think especially in the smaller lodges throughout Texas.


A few of us have pressured the past master who was also playing Secretary, and is Secretary this year refused to get us the paperwork to get things started, now the new WM.refuses to do anything either. So a couple of us went to our grand lodge, and now the grand lodge says its our problem,  that they wouldn't step in to help. So we were told by the past and current masters , to just let it go


----------



## dfreybur

jermy Bell said:


> A few of us have pressured the past master who was also playing Secretary, and is Secretary this year refused to get us the paperwork to get things started, now the new WM.refuses to do anything either. So a couple of us went to our grand lodge, and now the grand lodge says its our problem,  that they wouldn't step in to help. So we were told by the past and current masters , to just let it go



Paperwork or not you have the right to insist.  You SHOULD insist.  Shame on those who stonewall you but they can NOT stop you.

In my jurisdictions if you produce the felony conviction records the sitting GM *MUST* expel the less-than-man.

Notice a temporary disconnect here.  The case was in the newspaper.  You have not (YET) retrieved a copy of the public record of the court cases.  Go to the county recorder and ask for a copy.  If it's not yet available ask when to come back.  When you have the document in your hands send a copy to GL and DEMAND your right as a Mason to press Masonic trial.


----------



## Warrior1256

dfreybur said:


> Paperwork or not you have the right to insist.  You SHOULD insist.  Shame on those who stonewall you but they can NOT stop you.
> 
> In my jurisdictions if you produce the felony conviction records the sitting GM *MUST* expel the less-than-man.
> 
> Notice a temporary disconnect here.  The case was in the newspaper.  You have not (YET) retrieved a copy of the public record of the court cases.  Go to the county recorder and ask for a copy.  If it's not yet available ask when to come back.  When you have the document in your hands send a copy to GL and DEMAND your right as a Mason to press Masonic trial.


Absolutely!!!!!


----------



## CLewey44

bwcornett50 said:


> If someone has a felony from 13 years ago, and has sincerely changed his life, changed his views, and has accepted Christ in his life, can he become a mason in Texas?



I think you simply have to go by what the bylaws are in that regard as others have mentioned. Finding Christ or Finding Nemo doesn't allow to override the rules.


----------



## jermy Bell

i would like to thank you for the advice, i have looked into how this trial thing works, we see that he will be tried by the members of the lodge, which will not favor anyone but himself. because most of our members that do show up for meetings are under the influence of the past master whom is also district deputy, and is good friend of the accused . and none will go against the MAJORITY . and we cant get enough people in lodge that would see this threw.so, we will have to find around this, it is sad that we have people in our lodge who took their obligation on a bible, only to benefit themselves and others that are corrupt .................and finding a new lodge to attend is not the answer.


----------



## Glen Cook

jermy Bell said:


> A few of us have pressured the past master who was also playing Secretary, and is Secretary this year refused to get us the paperwork to get things started, now the new WM.refuses to do anything either. So a couple of us went to our grand lodge, and now the grand lodge says its our problem,  that they wouldn't step in to help. So we were told by the past and current masters , to just let it go


While we don't know all the details, why are you relying on your secretary or GL to file charges?  It's your duty if you believe them justified.


----------



## Bill Lins

jermy Bell said:


> i have a lodge brother that lied on his petition about having a felony, at the time he was a member from another lodge in a difrent state, and im guessing that his home lodge did'nt look into it, and my members of the investigation committee didnt do a good job of doing a back ground check, 2 years later the brother got mason of the year, then 2 days later it came out in the paper that he beat up his girlfriend, and earned himself a domestic felony, the WM at the time did nothing to turn this into the GL. and the new WM, refuses to do anything either, several us went to our grand lodge and spoke with the new grand master, and found out that the GL, doesnt want anything to do with it, so i guess its alright to have a felony as long as everyone in your lodge and grand lodge is cool with it. Or doesnt know about it.The only thing i dont get anymore,is how does this make good men better ?????r


Under GLoTX, as soon as he was finally convicted of any felony, he would be automatically expelled. Your Grand Lodge Law may vary.


----------



## Bill Lins

Plustax said:


> Bro Jeremy...why didn't you personally press Masonic charges on the brother? Had you done that it would have required to be acted on by your lodge no matter who agreed or not.  It would take time due to the process & protocols involved, but nonetheless would officially make it to GLoT to be entered & dealt with. Unfortunately, this is one of the prime examples for the need to have "qualified" persons on investigation teams & to conduct periodic training within our lodges. Too many times I believe this happens because so&so knows this persons dad, uncle or whomever.  Many lodges have professional investigators, but now they cannot be used because the fear of lawsuits.  Sad & difficult & P. C.times were are living in. I'm sure this happens more than we think especially in the smaller lodges throughout Texas.


Bro. Jerry- Bro. Jeremy is under the Grand Lodge of Illinois. Bro. Doug, also being a member of GLoIL, is probably better qualified to advise him in accordance with IL Law than are we. Their laws may be entirely different than are ours.


----------



## Warrior1256

Glen Cook said:


> While we don't know all the details, why are you relying on your secretary or GL to file charges?  It's your duty if you believe them justified.


Agreed!


----------



## dfreybur

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Bro. Jerry- Bro. Jeremy is under the Grand Lodge of Illinois. Bro. Doug, also being a member of GLoIL, is probably better qualified to advise him in accordance with IL Law than are we. Their laws may be entirely different than are ours.



Under Illinois rules the GM *MUST* either expel a felon on notice of conviction or place on suspension pending appeals.  There is no digression by the GM.  I can cite the article in the book if folks want - I have a paper copy at home.

This is why I suggested pulling a copy of the official court case from the county recorder - A newspaper article does not count for this purpose.  A copy of the court case, submitted to the GL offices in Springfield, gives the GM zero choice in the matter.  There will never even be a Masonic trial and local support will not matter at all.  He'll be sent a letter of expulsion as soon at the correct paperwork arrives at the GL offices.  Having the correct paperwork matters.

Requests by felons for reinstatement are voted on at every GL I've ever attended.  The pattern of how it goes is consistent.  His own lodge must recommend him, which would not be a surprise given the events described.  A majority of the delegates present must vote in favor.  I don't recall the percentage needed but no vote I've ever participated in has ever been close in either direction.  Violent offenders get very few votes.  There may be lodges that don't believe a member is a wife beater but convicted wife beaters don't get readmitted.

Please don't let the locals ignore this.  Please get the court record from the county recorder and send to the Gr Sec.


----------



## Warrior1256

dfreybur said:


> Please don't let the locals ignore this. Please get the court record from the county recorder and send to the Gr Sec.


Especially this!


----------

