Grand Secretary’s Office
Grand Lodge of Ireland
Freemasons’ Hall
17 Molesworth Street
Dublin 2
27 September 2013
Dear Mr. Barry Lyons,
My offer to Grand Lodge to engage in external mediation or arbitration still remains.
I acknowledge receipt of ‘Official Record’ (Sub-Committee version to me) dated 20th September 2013 and would express my consideration that it would be wise for Grand Lodge to repeat previous practises in determining the current process to be flawed.
It is noted that Grand Lodge has elapsed 85 days on disclosure of an Official Record with less than 14 days receipt of same prior to the forthcoming Grand Lodge Communication. In recognition that the ‘official report’ presented to me will be different than the ‘Chairman’s Report’ presented to the Grand Lodge Board I am oblivious to detect were privilege begins and bias ends in a reputed process of natural justice. I do however detect the rhetoric in that a report from the Chairman to the Grand Lodge Board (at variance to what I received) will be introduced as the ‘official report’ on which Grand Lodge will adjudicate my penalty at sentencing.
The Official Record states under heading of Important Disclaimers, in the second paragraph:
This document is separate from and should not be confused with the report compiled by the Chairman for presentation to the Grand Lodge Board of General Purposes and ultimately to the Grand Lodge outlining the decisions and recommendations made by the Committee and the reasons for the same.
This is a clear declaration that the Grand Lodge Sub-Committee Official Record is not presented to the Grand Lodge Board of General Purposes. In fact it is a wholly different report complied singularly by the Chairman which is presented to the Grand Lodge Board. Clause 10 of Guidance on Procedures as issued with summons would rule that it is the Sub-Committees findings and proposed recommendation be presented to the full Grand Lodge Board of Purposes. No reference is given to a chairman compiling a different report of which, to date I am not in possession of.
The Guidance on Procedure sheet received with summons is as contained on page 11 within the Policy and Procedure in Respect of Charges of Un-Masonic document issued 13 September 2008. To present anything other than an Official Record is in breach of clause 4.1 and 4.2 and subsequently misdirects the Grand Lodge Board.
I hereby formally request disclosure of the Chairman’s unorthodox / irregular presentation to the Grand Lodge Board. I respectfully request the minute of the Grand Lodge Board at which the Chairman’s report was presented and the consequent deliberations of the Boards conclusions.
Notwithstanding any breach, it is noted that the Grand Lodge Board has now considered matters which are scant of any specific detail to any charge proved and probably viewed with rose tainted glasses to enamour the accusers. In consequence of which the Grand Lodge Board is misdirected, thus the correlation of same is ventured for Grand Lodge.
It is erroneous that the Official Report states that I am guilty of all Charges and that no real defence was made. The misdirection on numerous points are by the authors of the unconfirmed Official Report and on this premise instils less confidence in the Chairman’s account to the Grand Lodge Board.
The Sub-Committee have by self admission in the Official Report cited that several allegations were struck out or ruled as being not unmasonic. Guilty of all Charges is contra to what is clearly reported and several allegations are completely absent from the content of the Official Report. It is incomprehensible that snippets or a phrase are ruled as not unmasonic and yet not a single word, nor any phrase or snippet is identified or ruled to be unmasonic. To proceed, in my absence without an opportunity to rebut the verdict ranks of yet another Kangaroo Court style proceeding.
Masonry is perfect. It is not corruptible nor does it corrupt. Unfortunately not all it members are perfect. Some are already corrupt and some become corrupted. It would seem that the rot is at the top and has strangle hold on the rest. If I am to be ruled as not perfect due a balance of probability then I fail to comprehend why Masonic sex offenders receive a lesser penalty.
I understand that the report is not a minute and the inclusion of omissions, here to follow, will not alter the recorded verdict. However, the inclusion of omissions would present a more balanced and clearer understanding to my hearing. All reports should be fair and equitable to what transpired.
Page 1
It is omitted that I had attended to summons on 7 May 2013
It is omitted that a submission presented at a different hearing had caused adjournment to my hearing.
It is omitted that I had attended to another summons on 15 May 2013
It is omitted what ruling was given to the submission from a different hearing which permitted me to be summoned again.
It is omitted as to reason why my case adjourned again.
It is omitted that there are seven accusers all whom are Provincial Officers in Antrim.
It is omitted that four accusers failed to attend on any dates of any summons.
It is omitted that three Provincial Officers of Antrim, had been proved guilty of unmasonic conduct due to their behaviour against me.
It is noted that the Committee Secretary has not verified any record of the proceedings with my assistant.
It is omitted that submission 9.1 which verifies that my assistant had been the subject of ‘unwarranted action’ by some of the self same accusers and that Grand Lodge had given an apology.
Page 2
It is noted that period of suspension is not defined and exceeds prior penalty imposed which questions the integrity of those proceedings and subsequent sentencing.
Page 3
It is noted that contemporaneous notes are only those of the Secretary which clarifies why other panel members had not taken notes.
It is noted that the Chairman has compiled a different report for presentation to GL BoGP and GL and has not been disclosed to me.
It is noted that my charge arose in context of a broader dispute, which I had not introduced.
Page 4
It is omitted that proceedings exhausted five hours.
It is omitted that the Chairman was the third chairman to be appointed.
It was omitted that allegations are nearly 5 years on duration of process.
It is repeatedly omitted that my submissions are irrelevant to the hearing, or, are for another forum which was never disclosed. This included submission 5.1 regarding a GL document to the proven guilt of three Antrim Officers as being also irrelevant.
It is noted that accusers standard of proof was on balance of probably to be offended, or disparaged etc which is subjective.
It is noted that breach of Grand Lodge or Provincial By Law is subjective to same proof.
It is noted that proceedings are ‘de novo’. This was a new hearing but all correlating documentation from Grand Lodge was to a rehearing.
Page 5
It is noted, that of thirty four submissions only submissions 1.5 and 6.1 are commented on within this Official Report.
1.5 affirms that this is new hearing and not a rehearing.
6.1 affirms that attendees at GL meetings do not know what they are voting on, and I adduce that their contribution to justice and governance is apathetic.
It is omitted that the ruling by the Chairman, had a contribution by the secretary to submission 5.4.but is not commented on.
It is noted that the secretary aired his legal profession on this submission.
It is omitted that my submission, of the PGL Antrim Complaint Commission document (which was denied under disclosure request 3.1) is not commented on.
It is omitted that the Antrim Complaint Commission findings had established that no charge had been laid on me. I informed the Sub-Committee that I was pleased that at least 3 more members are now enlightened as to the calibre of my accusers and of those who are leading the Order. It is omitted that the Chairman had commented that it was ‘sharp reading’ and for another forum.
It is omitted that 13 disclosures were sought to aid a fair trail and that none were provided by Grand Lodge or the Sub-Committee panel.
It is noted that only disclosure 1.2 was ruled upon. The ruling appears to be contradictory to the context of previously self expressed broader dispute. (page 3)
It is omitted that the framed document was the pre determined outcome voting slip used at a Kangaroo Court organised and held on 18 March 2009 by PGL Antrim.
It is omitted that Grand Lodge had failed to return the exhibit retained from 2009 trial.
Page 6
It is omitted that I was one of three trustees in relation to matters of Freemasons’ Hall Arthur Square and all issues are equally the concern of all three trustees.
Re letter 1 March 2007
It is omitted as to what is specifically proven, if anything.
It is attributed that all charges are proved which misdirects.
Re letter 24 March 2007
It is omitted as to what is specifically proven, if anything.
It is attributed that all charges are proved which misdirects.
Re email 6 May 2008
It is omitted as to what is specifically proven, if anything.
It is attributed that all charges are proved which misdirects.
Re email 23 May 2008
It is noted that the elephant in the room is not unmasonic comment.
It is omitted as to what is specifically proven, if anything.
It is attributed that all charges are proved which misdirects.
Re email 25 May 2008
It is noted that Official Record has nothing recorded.
It is omitted as to what is specifically proven, if anything.
It is attributed that all charges are proved which misdirects.
Re memo 9 October 2010
It is admitted that this allegation should not have been attributed against me.
It is attributed that all charges are proved which misdirects.
Re email 31 October 2008
It is omitted as to what is specifically proven, if anything.
It is attributed that all charges are proved which misdirects.
Re letter 19 November 2008
It is admitted that this allegation should not have been attributed against me.
It is attributed that all charges are proved which misdirects.
Re address 1 April 2009
It is omitted as to what is specifically proven, if anything.
It is attributed that all charges are proved which misdirects.
Re letter 27 April 2009
It is noted that Official Record has nothing recorded though allegation refuted.
It is omitted as to what is specifically proven, if anything.
It is attributed that all charges are proved which misdirects.
Re email 2 May 2009
It is noted that Official Record has nothing recorded though allegation refuted and that the chairman was bemused by the accusation presented on behalf of a deceased member.
It is omitted as to what is specifically proven, if anything.
It is attributed that all charges are proved which misdirects
It is omitted that no allegation of defamation was upheld or adjudicated, nor upheld.
Page 10
I had forwarded an apology regarding Ben Beaumont but I did not reference him as my legal advisor or to his occupation.
It is omitted the apologies of 5 others whom I specifically referred.
It is omitted that Sub-Committee recessed for three minutes to adjudicate.
It was the Chairman who gave mitigation as I did not prosper any nor was asked to present mitigating circumstances.
Comments referenced to punishment were not articulated in my presence.
This concludes my comment to unconfirmed Official Report.
I would accept the Chairman’s generalisation that my business acumen, integrity, diligence and open and transparent manner probably does not suit the governance of Irish Freemasonry. That said, Freemasonry has not corrupted me.
The precedent is now established within Grand Lodge Boards that accusers are required to retire from proceedings while deliberations are underatken. Please advise that this prudent step also applies to Grand Lodge Communications which would equally extend to all members previously and currently involved in matters on me. Refer to Ruling 6.1 on page 5 to ensure no bias on voting.
As this was a new hearing (de novo) I may make application under GL 16 for a rehearing. I remain available to attend the rehearing of the 2009 hearing which evidently was ruled by Sub-Committee as not of their remit.
What is the provision for my attendance or having representation to sentencing on 5 October 2013 if the intention of Grand Lodge is to disregard natural justice procedure and continue whilst aware that the Grand Lodge Board has been misdirected.
Is the new Registrar, the same J. Hunter who was a member of the 2009 Grand Lodge flawed hearings?
Yours sincerely,
Ronnie Wilson.
Email : Grand Secretary
cc email : PGLs, ML 51, Ben Beaumont.
V I T A V E R I T A S V I C T O R I A