Dennis Lamberth
Registered User
Curious if anyone here is interested in discussing the nuts and bolts of Texas Freemasonry?
My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Nuts and bolts of Texas Freemasonry
- Thread starter Dennis Lamberth
- Start date
Dennis Lamberth
Registered User
No, I have an answer.
The problem is the current leadership, from top to bottom, is so concerned with not making waves that nothing gets fixed and the men that make up this fraternity are continuing to suffering when they and their descendants don’t have to.
Said a different way, along time ago the fraternity was created and it was complete, like a complete car. Some years ago the motor was removed and now the discussion isn’t , where’s the motor, it is , is it supposed to have a motor?
The problem is the current leadership, from top to bottom, is so concerned with not making waves that nothing gets fixed and the men that make up this fraternity are continuing to suffering when they and their descendants don’t have to.
Said a different way, along time ago the fraternity was created and it was complete, like a complete car. Some years ago the motor was removed and now the discussion isn’t , where’s the motor, it is , is it supposed to have a motor?
Dennis Lamberth
Registered User
Thought so…
Just remember, a man only has the rights he’s willing to fight for.
Just remember, a man only has the rights he’s willing to fight for.
Dennis Lamberth
Registered User
I disagree. The answer to the problems plaguing the lodges in Texas today is written and in the public domain. Always have been for that matter. I think a real discussion about the fundamentals (legally speaking) of Masonry needs to be had so it can be all it was intended to be.
So, tell us what you believe the legal fundamentals of freemasonry to be.
Dennis Lamberth
Registered User
Sure. But as my desire is to unite the fraternity around a common goal, I will do so in pieces. As we come to a consensus on each point then move to the next and in this way build an overall picture that we can confidently stand on and support.
Rules…the US Supreme Court has the last word. What ever they have said regarding what the constitution or the law says is not to be strayed from.
first point. A corporation CAN NOT move from one sovereignty to another without giving up its old charter and getting another from the new sovereign. Yes no?
Rules…the US Supreme Court has the last word. What ever they have said regarding what the constitution or the law says is not to be strayed from.
first point. A corporation CAN NOT move from one sovereignty to another without giving up its old charter and getting another from the new sovereign. Yes no?
No, a corporation CAN move from one country (sovereignty) to another without giving up its old charter through a process called re-domiciliation.
Maybe just make your point and we will discuss it instead of trying to lead us down this path you have planned out.
Dennis Lamberth
Registered User
It is very true that a corporation can have no legal existence out of the boundaries of the sovereignty by which it is created. It exists only in contemplation of law and by force of the law, and where that law ceases to operate and is no longer obligatory, the corporation can have no existence. It must dwell in the place of its creation, and cannot migrate to another sovereignty.
Bank of Augusta v Earle. 1839
exactly why I want to do it this way.
Bank of Augusta v Earle. 1839
exactly why I want to do it this way.
What does a 19th century Supreme Court ruling on the comity clause have to with your issue with Texas Freemasonry? Please just make your case. I'm much more a student of the Aristotelian method over the Socrates. Make your case with supporting evidence and we'll go from there. Much better than playing twenty questions.
Dennis Lamberth
Registered User
We’re obviously talking about two different things.
Can we move forward?
Can we move forward?
Probably not, since you haven't explained your point well enough so that we are talking about the same thing. But go ahead anyway.
Dennis Lamberth
Registered User
Why the rush? Don’t we all benefit from a healthy discussion? Can I be wrong? Sure, but we are going to talk about it.
I’m not trying to lead anyone astray or waste time. Building a case one fact at a time.
Winter, can we agree we are both right regarding the above point?
I’m not trying to lead anyone astray or waste time. Building a case one fact at a time.
Winter, can we agree we are both right regarding the above point?
Healthy discussion is great. That's not what this thread is, sorry. You're making vague statements with no context and ignoring the replies if it isn't the answer you want. You're broaching a delicate topic where you obviously want to disparage the leadership of your grand lodge and I really wish you'd just make your point so I can decide if it's a discussion I even want to be in. I'm not hanging around for a dozen posts while you dribble out your points and I have to guess where you're going. Maybe try Reddit.
Dennis Lamberth
Registered User
You come across as offended, why?
regarding the subject at hand. Your right. When sovereign A , sovereign B and the corporate entity all agree it can move from one to another. Certainly the corporate entity has submitted itself to the new sovereign. However ( example of what I mean) if the Mexican, through their government decided to create and corporate entity that was acting whtin the Mexican embassy in Houston Texas. The State of Texas would not and could not exercise jurisdiction over said corporate entity dispute the fact that it was within the boundaries of Texas.
as for the dribble, this is for the 1000’s of men who need to know for their sake and their families, not just you. The country is screwed up, the lodges are empty and currently on life support, why? I think I have the answer but it requires some details ( knowledge) and deprogramming…FACTS
It’s the fact pattern that builds the consensus we need. If one fact falls it all falls. So why not discuss it.
regarding the subject at hand. Your right. When sovereign A , sovereign B and the corporate entity all agree it can move from one to another. Certainly the corporate entity has submitted itself to the new sovereign. However ( example of what I mean) if the Mexican, through their government decided to create and corporate entity that was acting whtin the Mexican embassy in Houston Texas. The State of Texas would not and could not exercise jurisdiction over said corporate entity dispute the fact that it was within the boundaries of Texas.
as for the dribble, this is for the 1000’s of men who need to know for their sake and their families, not just you. The country is screwed up, the lodges are empty and currently on life support, why? I think I have the answer but it requires some details ( knowledge) and deprogramming…FACTS
It’s the fact pattern that builds the consensus we need. If one fact falls it all falls. So why not discuss it.
Dennis Lamberth
Registered User
Ok, the meat on this particular bone
GL of Texas was established in 1837, right?
This is prior to the formation of the “State of Texas” established in 1845 and the joining to the US
It certainly does exist evidenced by the charter of my lodge.
Where is its legal domicile?
What body politic does it claim as its home?
GL of Texas was established in 1837, right?
This is prior to the formation of the “State of Texas” established in 1845 and the joining to the US
It certainly does exist evidenced by the charter of my lodge.
Where is its legal domicile?
What body politic does it claim as its home?
Not offended. Merely annoyed at how you are presenting your argument. I might be interested in the discussion, but since you won't actually state your argument, I can't know and I'm not willing to play your game.
I am not an expert on international law by any means, but if I understand things correctly, embassies are sovereign territorial jurisdictions. So your hypothetical corporation in the embassy is not in Texas, it is in Mexico. So, no, Texas wouldn't have any jurisdiction over it. But what happens to anything left behind if the embassy leaves?
And whose lodges are empty and on life support? The jurisdictions I am a member of in both Wisconsin and Maine are doing great with an active and healthy membership. And I recently spent a decade living in Florida that also appears to be quite healthy as well. There are issues we can all address. Just read things like Laudable Pursuit. But dying? Hardly not.
And I will thank you to not try and deprogram me. It implies I am wrong and you know better. Make your case, and if I find your argument reasonable, I will adjust my thinking. But I don't know that you'll have any luck with your current method.
I am not an expert on international law by any means, but if I understand things correctly, embassies are sovereign territorial jurisdictions. So your hypothetical corporation in the embassy is not in Texas, it is in Mexico. So, no, Texas wouldn't have any jurisdiction over it. But what happens to anything left behind if the embassy leaves?
And whose lodges are empty and on life support? The jurisdictions I am a member of in both Wisconsin and Maine are doing great with an active and healthy membership. And I recently spent a decade living in Florida that also appears to be quite healthy as well. There are issues we can all address. Just read things like Laudable Pursuit. But dying? Hardly not.
And I will thank you to not try and deprogram me. It implies I am wrong and you know better. Make your case, and if I find your argument reasonable, I will adjust my thinking. But I don't know that you'll have any luck with your current method.
I guarantee with almost 100% certainty that if you addressed this question to your Grand Secretary or a specialist in Masonic Jurisprudence IN TEXAS they would be able to answer this question far better than brothers on an untyled internet forum from various other grand lodges who likely have no knowledge of the history of the GL of Texas. Have you put this question to them?
Dennis Lamberth
Registered User
Attitude dialed back a bit, Thank you.
I’m 63, been in the East 3x in my lodge. While there I ask several questions, and got 0 feed back each time. The last time I got a call from the GM himself, had a discussion and was assured a response. Nothing….
Not trying to seduce you or lead you anywhere. I had a reason to do a deep dive into history several years ago, what I found compelled me to seek masonry and now my goal is to share. Congrats on the health of your lodges. Not the case here and I am deeply troubled by it. Does this conversation need to be tyled? Again we are talking about things in the public record in the public domain. I would say no.
“So your hypothetical corporation in the embassy is not in Texas” exactly……
Nor is it within the “body politic “ known as “the State of Texas”
Will you concede that it’s possible that the domicile of the GL of Texas is outside the “State of Texas”?
Some other facts to consider when pondering this question.
Art 12 sec 7 of the 1845 constitution (as ratified)
Letter offer to the constitutional convention on the last day in which it is pointed out that the body politic then existing ROT was NOT to be abolished. ( much to the dissatisfaction of the signers of the letter aka delegates.
Current flag of Texas is actually the ROT flag
Our beloved Anson Jones (president at the time) stated in a private letter that the 1845 convention was NOT given and did not have the right to abolish the ROT…..
most of this available at Tarlton law
I’m 63, been in the East 3x in my lodge. While there I ask several questions, and got 0 feed back each time. The last time I got a call from the GM himself, had a discussion and was assured a response. Nothing….
Not trying to seduce you or lead you anywhere. I had a reason to do a deep dive into history several years ago, what I found compelled me to seek masonry and now my goal is to share. Congrats on the health of your lodges. Not the case here and I am deeply troubled by it. Does this conversation need to be tyled? Again we are talking about things in the public record in the public domain. I would say no.
“So your hypothetical corporation in the embassy is not in Texas” exactly……
Nor is it within the “body politic “ known as “the State of Texas”
Will you concede that it’s possible that the domicile of the GL of Texas is outside the “State of Texas”?
Some other facts to consider when pondering this question.
Art 12 sec 7 of the 1845 constitution (as ratified)
Letter offer to the constitutional convention on the last day in which it is pointed out that the body politic then existing ROT was NOT to be abolished. ( much to the dissatisfaction of the signers of the letter aka delegates.
Current flag of Texas is actually the ROT flag
Our beloved Anson Jones (president at the time) stated in a private letter that the 1845 convention was NOT given and did not have the right to abolish the ROT…..
most of this available at Tarlton law
I'll not concede anything, because as stated, I'm not an expert in international law. Simply state why you think this is relevant and cite examples. Because, honestly, this sounds like some of that "Texas is its own country" kind of nonsense.
Do I think this question came up when the state of Texas was formed? Probably. The GL of Texas must maintain a copy of its proceedings. Have you checked those? I had occasion to spend time in my GL library researching the proceedings from before Wisconsin became a state. It was a fun rabbit hole to go down. That will likely get you better information than here.
And the reason I mentioned tyled is because it is never good business to air dirty laundry in public. But since I have no idea where you're going that can be taken with a grain of salt.
Do I think this question came up when the state of Texas was formed? Probably. The GL of Texas must maintain a copy of its proceedings. Have you checked those? I had occasion to spend time in my GL library researching the proceedings from before Wisconsin became a state. It was a fun rabbit hole to go down. That will likely get you better information than here.
And the reason I mentioned tyled is because it is never good business to air dirty laundry in public. But since I have no idea where you're going that can be taken with a grain of salt.