Sirs,
I am in receipt of your letter 4 July 2013 advising that the Sub-Committee unanimously found that I was guilty of all the charges arising from the allegations.
The charge, as detailed on summons; That W Bro R Wilson has in written documentation made offensive, discourteous, disparaging remarks and circularised correspondence in contravention of Grand Lodge Laws and PGL bylaws.
It is adduced that the charge is constructed of five elements assuming Grand Lodge Laws and PGL bylaws is of singular notion.
(a) has in written documentation made offensive remarks
(b) has in written documentation made discourteous remarks
(c) has in written documentation made disparaging remarks
(d) circularised correspondence in contravention of Grand Lodge Laws. [singular]
(e) circularised correspondence in contravention PGL bylaws. [singular]
with grounding documentation of the charge had eleven allegations listed as:
(1) Letter 1/3/07
(2) Letter 24/3/07
(3) Email 6/5/08
(4) Email 23/5/08
(5) Email 25/5/08
(6) Email 9/10/08
(7) Email 31/10/08
(8) Email 19/11/08
(9) An address 1/4/09
(10) Letter 27/04/09
(11) Email 2/5/09
I refuted all five elements of the charge to all allegations. I neither withdrew any opinion or comment, nor was any matter ruled inaccurate.
Please indicate on each allegation and / or part thereof what was actually proved by the panel. If I am to consider remorse and forward an apology on what was apparently proved though having always refuted all matters, I would need to know the specifics. Otherwise, there is no purpose to my sentencing, less it be vindictiveness if Grand Lodge does not desire atonement from whom they adjudicate on.
The panel struck out allegations and they should be equally identified.
The panel recessed for approximately three minutes to consider five hours at hearing and returned with the recommendation that they unanimously found the charge proved. Please forward the notes from the three panel members to substantiate on how they proved the charge on any allegation and to what elements. Let alone myself, but also my Lodge and the membership in general would desire to know if the elephant in the room had contributed to my suspension.
My lodge and membership in general will be enthralled to learn that John Dickson as PGM informed the panel that he was intimated and bullied at the commencement of my hearing. Apparently he could see an exhibit to aid my defence. The exhibit was a copy of an official PGLA produced document which was used on 18 March 2009. It was the Kangaroo Court voting slip to which he bullied and intimated an Antrim Board meeting to use. At conclusion of hearing allegation number 11 was enlightening for me. I was not aware that a deceased local playwright, famous for his wit, comedy and farce was a member of the Order. It transpired that my accusers knew of him but apparently do not understand the paradox of Sam Cree. At least the hearing panel laughed.
At the request of the panel to forward submisions in advance of the hearing and I accordingly obliged. The panel ruled individually on them. The majority ruling was that the subject matters are for another forum and not for the hearing panel. Please advise what forum will rule on those submissions.
It is noted that the chairman did rule that I was attending under his summons dated 7 May 2013 which disregards the original summons dated 27 October 2009. Thereby all irregularities in relation to that original summons are also for another forum. As the original summons was disregarded (null and void) I was actually having a new hearing and not a rehearing. This I believe would permit me to appeal.
It will be a relief to Grand Lodge by not having to disclose to an original summons rehearing that Grand Lodge has ‘no idea’ on; how the original summons was served, whether five or seven Antrim Officers signed charge sheet, how did allegations dated after 30 March 2009 materialise etc etc.
Although the panel had referenced itself in documentation to me as a Committee of Enquiry, it was not. I appreciate the honesty of the panel member to admit that when he was in attendance at St Johns Day Communication 2009 he did not know any fact as to what he was voting on when my suspension was put to the floor. This ignorance on what is presented to Grand lodge must not occur again.
What is the provision for my attendance at Grand Lodge when sentencing is in hand. Surely Grand Lodge does not desire to be sentencing in my absence. To sentence in my absence is no less a Kangaroo Court judiciary process than what was delivered numerous times previous at; PGLA Board 18 March 2009, PGLA Standing Committee 7 April 2009, DGM prohibition 6 March 2009 and St Johns Day Communication 2009 etc etc,
Regards Ronnie