In order to make trawling through these pages a little easier, I have now introduced continuation remarks between them. The following is a comprehensive set of letters between administrative officers of GL and John Kellas over the last 5 years or so. Listed chronologically it will show how the conspiracy begun against me by John Woodhouse was continued by Michael Cooper and then, most unfortunately carried on after a fashion by the present Grand Master. I have the originals of all of this correspondance unless it was passed on to me by a confidential source, and in such cases I cannot legally vouch for the accuracy of such documernts.
The above letter was written because I had begun to observe how Past Grand Ranks were being "doled out" to those who blindly followed the leadership of Grand Lodge. It was my opinion then and is common knowledge nowadays by it's blatancy, that this is the basic criteria for receiving Past Grand Rank.
Then I wrote to John Woodhouse who had offered me Past Junior grand warden explaning why I was turning it down. It is fair to say that he was livid about me doing this but unfortunately because of my reason his subsequent actions have proven that I had been right to say no.
When the scandal of the 5,000 Euros which was misappropriated from the GL Benevolence Fund came to light, many brethren voiced their disgust at how this had been effected and required the GM to repay the money from the Charity Fund. He refused. Thereafter Michael Cooper became the GM and he too was asked by the Boards to repay this money and he also refused. The money was allegedly for Freemasons(this was an afterthought) who had suffered in the Dresden flooding. The Federal Government had made 1.6 billion Euro available for relief and afterwards more than 600 million was returned unused. It is highly questionable that the 5.000 Euro from John Woodhouse had made any significant difference and although promised at the Grand Lodge Meeting where he "rammed" it through GL, names and addresses of the Freemasons helped were never forthcoming, in spite of John Woodhouse's undertaking given to all present in GL
The following is a transcript of a hand written letter faxed to John Woodhouse by MWBro Ron Davies PGM
Because of all the involvment I had in this matter as the Vice President of the Boards, John Woodhouse accused be of a conflict of interests and sacked me as Junior Grand Warden. This is the letter from the Grand Secretary; It has to be said however that the vote at GL which this letter refers to was one of those things akin to the Election for GM in 2005 or more recently the changes to GL regulations which were not agreed by the brethren. It just didn't matter, they went ahead with it anyway........
I think I summed up my feeling quite clearly in the following letter:
Michael Cooper had then asked me to be his Senior Grand Warden and I had accepted. There were a variety of matters happening at the Boards, where I was still the Vice President. Michael Cooper had insisted I resign as VP prior to him giving me SGW but I refused stating that I had been elected to that position and would not ignore my responsibility to the GL just because he saw a conflict of interests in my duties. It was in this letter withdrawing the offer of SGW he wrote the universally misguided interpretation of what he thought the Boards of General Purposes was and to whom it was answerable. To this day he has been wrong. The Boards are answerable to the members of GL and they indeed elect the members to act on their behalf for the good of GL. The Boards are not an executive committee of the Grand Masters.
My last words on the subject were contained in this letter to John Woodhouse. The year after the 5.000 Euro had been misappropriated from the benevolence, there was a very noticable drop in monies donated from lodges to the Grand Lodge Charity Appeal Fund and a hugely noticable increase in lodge donations to Benevolence. The brethren got their way in the end but this was a hollow victory. The fact that both MW Brn Woodhouse and Cooper saw nothing wrong in their action led me to be on my toes from then on about just how our monies in GL were being managed.
Because of his failure to gain control the Boards, Michael Cooper fixed it so that a review of the make up and authority of the Boards was carried out by MW Bro David Gale. He utilised the willingness of the then President of the Boards, Bill Beardmore to set the ball rolling. I felt obliged to write the following letter to David about the matter;
At this time I was also a member of the finance sub committee appointed by the Boards to review our finances and work on the budget. Below is aletter I had to circulate after discovering that John Hebel had sent out minutes of one of our meetings that did not reflect what actually took place. Sound familiar? This was happening 4 years ago.
This is a letter from Southern Star Lodge to the then President of the Boards, MWBro David Gale. It is fairly obvious that the lodge had grave concerns about many issues concerning the method of running Grand Lodge Meetings, manipulattion of the order of proceedings to prevent certain matters from taking place etc. This was representative of the general feeling amongst the lodges at that time.
WBro Jeremy Stevens
MW Bro David Gale PGM WM, Southern Star Lodge No. 1025
President, Bds Gen P & Ben Falkenhortsweg 22b
Schmitterstrasse 14 81476 Munich
41836 Hückelhoven
25. October 2005
Re: Your letter dated 24th September 2005
Dear MW Bro David,
firstly, please allow me apologise for our late response to your letter but after both Committee and Open Lodge meeting, we have discussed this very important issue and would like to respond as follows. After consideration of the points presented to this lodge by way of your letter of the above instance, the Southern Star Lodge wishes to make the following points:
Regarding Item 3 in your letter:
This lodge cannot accept that in order to prevent Grand Lodge having a vote on whether to give both GM Nominees a period of up to 10 minutes to address GL prior to the election, the GM has brought the election forward on the agenda. This removes the right of the brethren to decide on the recommendations put forward by the Boards and as such is unacceptable. This lodge insists that the brethren of Grand Lodge be allowed to make their decision based on the recommendation of the Boards PRIOR to the election.
Regarding Items 6 & 7 in your letter:
There is no recommended “procedure” for opening and closing Grand Lodge other than the fact that Regulation 153 states that Emulation Ritual will be used in lodges. In the back of the Emulation Book there is an opening and closing for Provincial Grand and Grand Lodges but it is stated to be “not emulation”. We feel that if all the private lodges wish to recommend to Grand Lodge that a certain style and standard of ceremonial shall be used in opening and closing then the Grand Master should respect the unanimous wishes of the membership of Grand Lodge. As for the Salutations the Grand Master wishes to use, we feel these to be totally misplaced and do not recall them being discussed by the Boards in any way whatsoever. The continued use of these salutations is not supported by this lodge.
Finally, we would as a lodge would like to add that we are not happy with the current situation. The Boards are appointed for a purpose and if then these recommendations are thrown out, then the authority and purpose are undermined.
Together with the unjust pressure, which I personally have received because of our nomination of a candidate for the position of GM, we strongly feel that our right to a democratic voice within GL is being unjustly and unacceptably challenged.
Best fraternal greetings,
Jeremy Stevens
THIS WAS MY LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARDS AFTER THE DECEPTIVE AND CORRUPTED "ELECTION" FOR GRAND MASTER TOOK PLACE IN NOVEMBER 2005
VW Bro John T. Kellas PJGW
Auf der Breite 2
MW Bro David F. Gale PGM
President of the Boards of GP & Ben 59505 Bad Sassendorf
Schmitterstrasse 14
41836 Hückelhoven
21st November 2005
Re: Grand Lodge Half Annual-Election of a Grand Master
Dear MW Bro David,
I have waited a couple of weeks before writing this letter in order to give the subject matter a great deal of thought and to ensure that I wasn’t misunderstanding or misinterpreting any aspect of what was deemed to be the election for a Grand Master, held at the Half Annual Communication in Bad Iburg on November the 5th.
The lodges were made aware of Regulation 9 and asked to put alternative nominations to that of the Grand Master, to you in writing before the 31st of July. This was done and my name was nominated by Southern Star Lodge. A short time thereafter I confirmed to you that I was prepared to accept this nomination.
It was then communicated to the Boards Members on the 3rd of September in Münster that there were two candidates for the office of Grand Master.
What happened at Bad Iburg was not a legal election. The minimum requirement was that the names of both candidates should have been on a printed voting slip with a box alongside. The brethren would then place their cross in the appropriate box and the candidate with the most crosses would become the next Grand Master. I am certain that this could not be misunderstood and that it actually is the world wide basis for an election where there are two candidates.
On the 5th of Novemver 2005 however, only one name was on the voting slip. It is obvious that there should have been two and therefore the election was void and must be re-taken.
I would like this matter discussed by the boards as I feel that the whole matter has been one of manipulation and downright deception by the Grand Master.
There will be those who will ask why this was not brought up at Bad Iburg. Like myself, most of the brethren were waiting for something else to happen and nobody could actually believe that the first vote was in fact the legal election. Not until the Grand Master made his incorrect pronouncement that the DGM had been elected as Grand Master was it clear that what had just taken place was an elaborate piece of deception.
I have received many messages from brethren echoing my views and not one who could say that the process called an election actually took place. My name was not mention once, so how could this have been an election between two candidates?
I would very much like to hear from you on this matter. I can’t believe that, as President of the Boards, you agree with how the election proceeded on that day.
It is obvious that we cannot accept that the DGM, RW Bro Fred Colbran, was elected as our future Grand Master by legal means.
I shall await your valued views before deciding my next move.
Best fraternal regards
John Kellas
Past Junior Grand Warden
I ALSO WROTE DIRECTLY TO FREDERICK COLBRAN WHO ACCEPTED THE RESULT OF WHAT COULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED A "FIXED" ELECTION OR INDEED, "AN ELECTION THAT WASN'T"
After receiving no reply, a method of avoiding complicated and unwelcomed issues which thereafter became standard practice in the Grand Lodge, I wrote to the Grand Secretary:
VW Bro John T. Kellas PJGW
Auf der Breite 2
VW Bro Peter Murgatroyd
Grand Secretary
Altenburgerstr. 331a 59505 Bad Sassendorf
50968 Köln
29th November 2005
Ref: Notice of Motion
Dear Brother Grand Secretary
Dear VW Brother Peter,
I hereby request that the following Notice of Motion be placed on the list of proceedings for resolving at the Annual Communication of Grand Lodge in May 2006:
“That the election between two candidates for the office of Grand Master held at the Half-Annual Communication in Bad Iburg on the 5th of November 2005 be declared null and void and that the said election be retaken with the names of both Nominees included on the Ballot Slip as, at the aforesaid Half Annual Communication, one of the names was missed off and therefore the brethren of Grand Lodge were not able to make their choice in a regular and legal manner between both Nominees”.
I would appreciate confirmation that you have received this Notice of Motion.
Your sincerely and fraternally,
VW Bro John T. Kellas PJGW
Nominee for the Office of Grand Master
After a meeting was arranged between Frederick Colbran and myself by MWBro David Gale, an agreement was entered into resulting in me writing the following letter to Frederick Colbran;
VW Bro John T. Kellas PJGW
Auf der Breite 2
59505 Bad Sassendorf
RW Bro Fred Colbran DGM
Münzstrasse 18
29223 Celle
13th December 2005
Dear RWBro Deputy Grand Master,
Dear Fred,
I am pleased to inform you that I have withdrawn my Notice of Motion sent to the Grand Secretary regarding the legality of the election at Bad Iburg in November.
I now acknowledged you as the Grand Master Elect.
I shall be pleased to support you in your endeavours as Grand Master and will be happy to continue as Grand Historian.
Yours sincerely and fraternally,
John Kellas
Past Junior Grand Warden
I THEN WROTE MY INFAMOUS LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS
Which resulted in the Grand Secretary writing the following factually incorrdct letter to me advising me of my suspension from Grand Lodge and private lodges.
As his letter was factually incorrect and I had not done what he said I had done, I replied thus:
John Kellas
Auf der Breite 2
MWBro Frederick Colbran GM
Münzstrasse 18 59505 Bad Sassendorf
29223 Celle
15th of May 2006
Dear Grand Master,
Dear MW Bro Fred,
May I first congratulate you on being made Grand Master on Saturday the 6th in Bad Iburg and I am only sorry that I couldn’t be there to see it.
My reason for writing this letter should be obvious. I have kept quiet over the last few months in light of the damaging situation regarding suspensions etc. and now I feel it is time to put my feelings to you without restrictions of the former rand Master hanging over me.
From the outset I must say that I have always had the good of our Grand Lodge at heart and I feel you already know this.
Over the last 6 months I have been victimised and unjustly punished in a most vindictive manner, all under the guise of adhering to existing Grand Lodge Regulations. I have been told that my title and rank in Masonry has been taken away from me in spite of the fact that I have them both by right.
There are many things wrong with our Grand Lodge and it would be a very naïve person who thought we could eradicate all of our problems once and for all. Wherever men organise themselves into bodies such as ours it will always bring with it a fair share of problems. What must never happen however, is that our membership are discouraged from voicing their opinions on what is happening within what is, after all, their organisation. Feedback from all members of our Grand Lodge is surely to be encouraged not discouraged.
In a way I feel that I have been victimised for deciding to speak my mind on certain subjects. This is only after I had spoken of them in my capacity as Vice President of the Boards of General Purposes And Benevolence and as Representative for Southern Star Lodge to the Boards. As you know, over recent years almost all suggestions and recommendations coming from the Boards have been summarily rejected by your predecessors, so I certainly have not used confrontation as a tool to voice my opinions, quite the opposite in fact as I firmly believe that the independence of the Boards of General Purposes is necessary for the future success and harmony of Grand Lodge.
I am now in a kind of limbo. I am banned from all Grand Lodge activities for 6 months which is up to mid September 2006 and apparently stripped of all Grand Rank. Because of this uncertainty I cannot presently attend any Masonic meetings.
I not want to go on about what has happened over these last 6 months Fred, I believe I have said enough and do not see that going on about it will be advantageous to our Grand Lodge.
I would respectfully ask you to consider the matter of my present situation with some urgency.
It will be my intention to continue to support my lodges and Grand Lodge in the manner I always have done and I can assure you of my continued support of you as Grand Master.
Fraternal and personal regards
John Kellas
For Attention: The President of the Board of General Purposes and Benevolence
Most Worshipful Brother David Gale,
It has come to our attention that a member of our lodge, namely Bro John Kellas, has been informed that his Grand Rank of Past Junior Grand Warden has been revoked.
Based on the PJGW certificate issued to John Kellas on the 21st January 2003 which states that the honour given is based on the recognition of loyal and faithful services to the craft, one has to assume this is given on the premise that a person is awarded this honour due to what a person has given to Masonry. It follows that this cannot be revoked as such services are still pertinent as they are based on what has been given to Masonry up to the date stated on the awarded certificate.
We think that GL Regulation 16 § 1 (The Grand Master is authorized to withdraw at his discretion the present Grand rank of any Officer.) is not applicable in the case of Past Grand Rank, especially as this would be contradictory to what is stated on the certificate and to GL Regulation 19 § 3 (A holder of Past Grand Rank shall continue to hold that rank for as long as he shall continue to be a member of a constituent Lodge of Grand Lodge).
Therefore Lodge Bridge of Fellowship No 929 puts forward the request that the Board of General Purposes should review the present situation as outlined and if coming to the same conclusion as we do, to recommend to the Grand Master to reverse the withdrawal of Bro John Kellas' rank of PJGW.
Sincerely and Fraternally Yours
W.Bro. Udo Vongehr
WM Lodge Bridge of Fellowship N° 929 27.July 2006
John Kellas
Auf der Breite 2
Peter Murgatroyd
Alteburgestrasse 331 a 59505 Bad Sassendorf
50968 Köln 24.11.2006
Re: Report by the Auditor of Grand Lodge Accounts
Dear Peter,
I hope you are well.
From the outset I must make it perfectly clear that as far as I am concerned, Michael Neary had no business whatsoever circulating any so-called official accounts of Beaver Lodge No.885 to non-related third parties for any reason without first getting permission from the general members meeting, which he didn’t. I have not seen the auditors report from Beaver Lodge myself until now, so I am slightly at a disadvantage and I have not been given any opportunity to discuss this matter at lodge level.
I cannot acknowledge that the President of the Boards of General Purposes and Benevolence is authorised to commission any kind of inquiry into the accounts of Beaver Lodge unless the lodge had held a members meeting and voted in favour of asking him to do it and wouldn’t actually know any reason as to why anybody would think that he could. Were there grave problems with the accounts of Beaver Lodge, it is incumbent on the lodge to instigate legal proceedings against any party deemed guilty of any unlawful action. This is one of the many reasons why the lodge became a German registered association almost 14 years ago. By not taking this course of action it would appear that there is little, if any, justification in any of the allegations and after reading the enclosed report I am now able to identify it as a concerted effort by various persons to have me expelled from Freemasonry. There is no other reason I can imagine that so much effort has been put into trying to make this report seem like some kind of final pronouncement of guilt, when at best it has turned out to be less investigative and conclusive than an episode of PC Plod. I am really quite pleased that I have now finally received this “report” as it will show the vast majority of the brethren that I am actually guilty of little more than choosing my friends unwisely.
After reading it I would have normally just have taken it to my lawyer but as I am very keen to resolve this matter as soon as possible, due to it starting to have a detrimental effect on both the Grand Lodge in general and the Grand Masters ability to carry out his duties, in particular, I feel I am bound to do you the courtesy of responding to this “report”.
Before I begin however, the comments you have made in your accompanying letter regarding repayment of money is more than a little premature and in fact, absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with you in any capacity with perhaps the exception of giving your personal opinion.. The assumption that this one sided “auditors report” is some kind of proof is pure conjecture and your blasé remarks are unbecoming of your position as Grand Secretary. However, I am well aware of the fact that you are just doing what you have been told Peter. I would have resigned by now!
To get to my comments on the “report” then; In his preamble John Hebel makes a couple of incorrect assumptions. He assumes that I had the lodge bank account frozen due to irregularities in the signatories of the account, which did not conform to the statutes of Beaver Lodge. This is not true. In my capacity at that time as President of Beaver Lodge, I discovered that the then current arrangements with the bank allowed Michael Neary pretty much a free reign over who was entered in the bank’s signatory list and that there was seemingly no control over his ability to do this. It was purely to safeguard the finances of the lodge that I(as President of Beaver Lodge) instructed the bank to freeze the account. I actually made the point quite clear to the bank that nobody, including Michael Neary, was to have access to any monies until such time as I had called an extraordinary members meeting.
-2-
My reasoning was quite simple. After sensing that Michael Neary was, for whatever reason, trying to make certain unjust and libellous allegations against me, I had to ensure that he had no access to lodge funds without approval, whereby any kind of cash removal by him might be attributed to me. I myself was also unable to access the account after I had instructed the bank to freeze it. John Hebel now appears to be saying that the “situation is now remedied…….” as if it had been irresponsible or wrong of me to freeze the account in the first place. This could not be further from the truth. After freezing the account it was me who called the extraordinary meeting of Beaver Lodge to resolve the situation. This is not made clear in his “report”, due possibly to his not being made aware of all the facts in this matter..
He also mistakenly assumes that I was either responsible for a time for the lodges accounts or functioned as a kind of stand-in Treasurer. This is not true and was never the case.
David Smith, the then Treasurer, refused to attend the lodge after Michael Neary took the chair in October 2005 as he was unhappy that Michael Neary had taken the chair of the lodge after his part in the matter regarding Graham Flint(Graham Flint, by the way, resigned because of certain very offensive emails sent to him by Michael Neary. I tried to mediate, as did others, but there was no way that Graham Flint wanted to be part of a Beaver Lodge with Michael Neary in it.) I personally spent around three months during the middle of 2005 trying to get David Smith to change his mind and to attend, but he would only offer his services behind the scenes as Treasurer, not physically attend. I tried to impress on Michael Neary the folly of not accepting David Smiths offer and that I would certainly support the suggestion he made. Michael Neary would not accept it however, and asked me to get the accounts from David, which I eventually did in the form of a thin file with a few sheets of paper in it.. At no time as I have stated, was I acting as Treasurer or responsible for lodge accounts.
It was Michael Neary’s idea to put down Stewart Mutch’s name for election to the Treasurer’s office for the period October 2005 to October 2006. Michael Neary was intending to carry out the Treasurer’s duties himself. I said this was a mistake as it would involve too much work and asked him again to reconsider David’s offer, but he refused. David Smith continues to keep away from Beaver Lodge due to Michael Neary continuing as Worshipful Master for a further year.
My only reason to have adopted the running of a spreadsheet on lodge expenditure was that Michael Neary had asked me if I would organise the Installation Meeting in 2005, which I did in an extremely efficient and professional manner. It was a great day for Beaver Lodge as all those in attendance will testify to.
Now we come to the four brethren who allegedly paid me money. Of course I accounted for monies received. Ian Campbell gave me 300 € and there is no question of it not being recorded. If, after his three years subscriptions were deducted from the 300 €, the remaining 30 € was not accounted for then it must be down to a mistake made by me. I was not the Treasurer of the lodge or the Charity Steward and my personal circumstances probably prevented me from taking as much time on this matter as I would have liked. Bear in mind that I have been confronted with these details for the first time when I received John Hebels report from you on the 14th of November 2006, otherwise some matters might already have been resolved. Some of the brethren of Beaver Lodge urged Michael Neary to resolve the matter and enter into dialogue with me, but he refused and has been extremely reluctant to make any moves which might have led to the matter being resolved. I have since received a letter from his lawyer telling me that he wants nothing to do with me and I am to stay away from him and his business premises. How this will be possible when I attend Beaver lodge remains to be seen.
Mel Charlton sent me some money which I acknowledged and accounted for. The contents of emails held by John Hebel are really of no consequence here. Whether it was 80 € or 100 € doesn’t detract from the fact that I acknowledged and recorded receipt of his money. What is remarkable however, is that Mel Charlton sent me an email in July 2006 stating that he had it on good authority that the money he sent me had not been paid into the lodge’s bank account and why was this. I replied that it had been correctly accounted for and could he let me know who he had been given this misinformation from. There was no reply. I then sent him another email asking him where he had got his information from and what prompted him to write to me like that and this too was completely ignored. Then I actually sent a third email enquiring about this matter but this was also completely ignored.
-3-
This substantiated my fear of some kind of organised conspiracy against me. Why else would someone have contacted Mel Charlton with such stories? There was just so much going on in my personal circumstances at this time I obviously put the wrong figure down, and it was subsequently corrected, there is nothing untoward about this at all. I had always had a very good personal relationship with Mel Charlton.
Bros.Gus Ferguson and John Haslam can sign as many affidavits as they want, but these can only be seen in the context that they maintain they sent money in the post. There is no possible way of proving that these monies were ever received by me. They were not. Anybody who says they were has to be able and prepared to go to court and prove this or else they shouldn’t say anything further about it. Remarkably, Beaver Lodge summons now gives written information that if you send money in the post to the lodge and it doesn’t arrive then you will be asked for it again! This certainly seems to suggest that sending money in the post, besides being an act of irresponsibility, is a bit of a hit and miss affair and it is the fault of those who send it if it goes astray. That is my opinion too, in fact I had mentioned this in correspondence to members in the past..
It is remarkable that affidavits were obtained from Mel Charlton and Ian Campbell. What for? It is also remarkable that the attachments to the report by John Hebel are marked “exhibit”. This is an attempt to try and give the whole report some kind of credibility as a serious investigation against a hardened criminal. It was surely written like that in order to impress and influence members of Grand Lodge who are not very experienced in things Masonic. Please find enclosed 4 Affidavits(sic) signed by me.
Regarding the income and expenditure account:
The Mics. Costs visitors is not my responsibility. On the evening of the Installation Meeting I had to leave the venue with certain members of other lodges whose cars had been locked in a multi-storey car park. Luckily the owner of the venue had a key and I went off with, amongst others WBro Terry Dryden to let the cars out. When I came back the beer mat I had started at the bar which had at most a couple of entries on it, was suddenly full. When I asked the bar staff they gestured over to a crowd of brethren. Michael Neary and other brethren then all held up their glasses and said “Cheers John”. A large number of drinks had been put on my beer mast in my absence. The bar staff are more than prepared to confirm this although it would only be verbal, I shouldn’t think we could expect affidavits from them. I refused to pay this bill myself. Afterwards I suggested that Michael Neary pay it or the Junior Wardens Fund be used to pay it as there had obviously been a great number of guests who had received drinks in this round. It would be silly to take this further as it would only lead to discussing the childish behaviour of certain brethren at festive boards and thereafter. The explanation given by Michael Neary is exactly the opposite of what happened. I am loathe to believe that after what happened he has not been truthful with his version of events. Michael Neary actually did afterwards say to me that he would “split it with me 50-50”. I declined. I also believe that this is most certainly a matter for Beaver Lodge only.
A battery is a private purchase is it, not for the lodge then? Here again the assumption by John Hebel is incorrect. The battery was for a dictation machine initially to be used by me to record greetings given in open lodge. As we are talking here about an expenditure of 1,75 €, some might call it nit-picking of the highest degree, but as I said there is a hidden agenda behind this “report”.
A small amount of “Bar Stock” was purchased by me and consumed by the brethren. The “evidence” that I was requested to purchase it is in the request by Michael Neary that I organise the Installation Meeting. At the time in question Michael Neary was responsible for the collection of monies for drinks. Who drank them then? There are plenty of witnesses who saw me bring them for the Installation in 2005. We are talking here about 8,32 € !!
-4-
The Amtsgericht charge of 3,50 € was to obtain the up to date Satzung as was lodged with the Amtsgericht in Werl. It is laughable to try and say that this should be considered a private matter when the President of Beaver Lodge requests a copy of the latest Satzung held by the Amtsgericht. I honestly cannot understand how John Hebel can possibly deem this to be “purely a private matter of Bro John Kellas”, unless of course he was told to do so.
Similarly, the legal costs were incurred by the President of Beaver Lodge taking justifiable action against outside third parties who were trying to prevent a member of Beaver Lodge from legally attending meetings of the lodge. John Hebels statement that it “is in no way chargeable to Beaver Lodge No 885 e.V.” is completely incorrect and purely a personal view held by him and based on an obvious lack of understanding of the situation. At a committee meeting in January 2005 Michael Neary stated that “the lodge would even pay the legal costs” of anybody so prevented from attending the lodge. He may deny having said this of course but there were others present at the time.
An explanation is necessary here: A German registered association is autonomous and it’s independence is guaranteed by law. Such organisations have a President, VP, Secretary and Treasurer making up it’s management Board. The President is the legal representative of the organisation. A third party, not a member of Beaver Lodge, attempted to prevent a member of the lodge from attending meetings by employing intimidation and threats against a large number of members. It is the responsibility of the President to defend the right of all the members to attend meetings. No third party has any authority to try to take control or exercise any kind of power over the organisation, with the exception of official civil authorities. It was perfectly correct to have a lawyers letter sent to those individuals who would harm the independence of the lodge, warning them that further transgressions would result in court injunctions against them. I am able to furnish letters from other lawyers confirming that this action and these legal costs were right and proper.
John Hebels remark that this is “in no way chargeable to Beaver Lodge No.885 GC e.V. is incorrect and is only made to try and give the impression that a wrongdoing has taken place when in fact the money paid for legal services was only incurred due to wrongdoing being perpetrated against members of Beaver Lodge in the first place. In actual fact Beaver Lodge should claim the money back from the perpetrators, who were Michael Cooper and Peter Murgatroyd as individuals, or if this is not the case, the Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany!
Regarding postage costs. During the period from May 2005 to February 2006 I was responsible for issuing 7 Lodge Summons and 1 Installation Summons. It was for the most of this period the norm that almost all brethren received a summons by post and this was the case. Just ask them! There were 8 summons sent to 73 Germany and UK recipients at a cost of 40,15 € monthly, making a total of 321,20 € and 8 summons sent to 16 Canada/USA/Bahamas etc. at a cost of 23,04 € monthly making a total of 184,32 €. The total postage costs on normal summons during the period was therefore 505,52 € . To this must be added the extra costs of the Installation Meeting which were 41 recipients making 50,79 €(15 lodge Secretaries(difference accounted for 1,44 € less 0,55 € = 0,89 €) and 26 Grand Officers in an A5.). The figures are taken from the address lists handed to me by the previous Secretary, Graham Flint. The Grand total is therefore 556,31 € over an 8 month period. The actual total postage costs put through the lodge during this period was 312,94 € There were extra postage costs asides those for summons which are not listed here and even without this taken into consideration it is fairly obvious to anyone that a lower amount was charged against the lodge than was actually spent. I agree that Beaver Lodge should have a post book, but this is a matter for Beaver Lodge to decide on. I have put through an amount of costs from all post receipts I have incurred and not made specific submissions directly related to particular mail-outs. The end result is that the lodge actually paid out less for postage than was actually used. A comparison on postage charges from past years is possible, however many past secretaries were illegally using BFPO postal services and the true cost of postage was never properly reflected in the accounts. The only anomaly in the postage charges is that they are less than they should be.
-5-
Any activities involving post charges after February 2006 are to be attributed to my legal responsibilities as President of Beaver Lodge and include, amongst other matters, writing letters to members circulating information and convening meetings. These amounted to at least 50,00 €. John Hebel seems to have overlooked that I held the Presidency of Beaver Lodge until June 2006 and that with this elected office come certain accepted expenses.
I totally disagree with his comment regarding the spreadsheet’s opening balance. It was 127,08 € and not 197,08 €. This is reflected in the closing balance on the previous Secretary spreadsheet which the lodge has in it’s possession. I have no idea why he should think any differently. I can only suggest that he has made a simple mistake.
In spite of the fact that John Hebel states that any amount of over DM 200 has to be approved by a members meeting the amount was raised in 2005. This was changed in the by-laws and although not yet changed in the Satzung, does not mean it is not valid. It says any amount OVER 200 € by the way. The reasoning for keeping a 200 € float separately to what was already on the spreadsheet was purely to allow me to keep petty cash items separate from larger expenditure, particularly the Installation costs which were already entered on the spreadsheet which I had intended to hand over to whoever was supposed to be the Treasurer as soon as possible, leaving a Secretaries Float of 200 €, nothing else. As this amount was immediately and clearly recorded anyway, further comment is unnecessary.
The conclusion has been written by somebody who obviously had another agenda other than writing an impartial auditors report. There are no examples of paying out monies to myself, this is pure fabrication. The accusation that appropriate care had not been taken in handling the funds is also refuted.
All monies received are accounted for. I have not been given the opportunity to discuss anything with the Auditor of Beaver Lodge, Dennis Russell. My last communication from him stated that he had been instructed by Michael Neary to “disregard” anything I sent him and Dennis was good enough to confirm this to me by email. The remark that I have retained funds illegally is not true. If it were true then it surely could be proven in a court action, which is not the case.
It is true that the balance on the submitted spreadsheet amounts to 471,29 €. This has never been denied. If Michael Neary had not instructed Dennis Russell to disregard the paperwork I submitted to him where this amount is quite clearly accounted for, I am certain that everything could have already been sorted.
Since this sad and totally unnecessary episode began against me I have suffered both psychologically and financially. My legal advisors have recommended that until such time that this matter is settled to my satisfaction, and this includes the acceptance of the spreadsheet I submitted, I should hold on to the money above, which as already stated I have never denied having in my possession. I have been advised that if there is a case to answer, then the accusers should go through the proper legal system. If there is not, and there is not, then it is obvious that a court case for damages due to libellous actions of certain individuals should be my course of action.
I am presently awaiting further information from the Staatsanwaltschaft in Arnsberg through whom I have already lodged my charges of fraud and libel, to see whether they will be taking criminal action or that I should proceed with a civil suit. I am taking this very seriously indeed.
The style in which this auditors “report” has been written leaves the reader no doubt whatsoever that every possible method of trying to discredit me has been employed here. I can only once again remark that if it’s all so terrible, why hasn’t the lodge taken any legal action against me? Why was the Grand Master involved with breakneck speed in a matter which seen in the context of Beaver Lodge, was purely a matter which concerned Beaver Lodge? It is furthermore blatantly obvious that this is all part and parcel of the underlying attempts to have me removed from the Craft completely, due perhaps, to my sometimes uncomfortable criticisms of the methods employed by certain leading members of Grand Lodge. These methods being to the detriment of the vast majority of the membership of Grand Lodge, and I am one of those members.
-6-
When I first became a Mason there were no members of the fraternity who would have entertained the idea of such unjust and unsubstantiated libellous actions against a brother. Nowadays it certainly appears that any brotherly love we might have been able to expect as a matter of course, is no longer immediately forthcoming. The choice of spending an overly amount of time and effort in trying to destroy the character of a brother now seems to have taken precedence over brotherly love and tolerance as well as the universally accepted adage of “innocent until proven guilty”. In those days Masons believed in dialogue and to talk through problems face to face if necessary. Sadly both the quality and intellect of many members nowadays should give us great cause for concern and we can only hope that matters such as these never happen again.
I have taken the liberty to post a copy of all this correspondence to Frederick Colbran in the hope that he will use it wisely, for any further prolongation of this matter which has gone far, far beyond farcical proportions, will only succeed in further damaging the Grand Lodge. This is something that obviously neither the Grand Lodge as a whole or Frederick Colbran as the present Grand Master can afford and yet by the total intransigence shown, the false decisions that have been made and the very obvious lack of any kind of brotherly love as mentioned above, things do not bode well for the future unless there is change. The future is something which I have every intention of being a part of and preventing further damage being done to what I consider to be my Freemasonry.
It has been a rather bad year for British Freemasons in Germany, beginning with the “Election” in November 2005 and made worse throughout the year by the inability of some of us to practise what we preach!
As Grand Secretary you have an obvious allegiance and responsibility towards Grand Lodge which is only right and proper. I am no different Peter, but I will not just sit back and do nothing against all the injustices in general and the devious methods employed against me in particular. As long as this goes on I will fight it and never give in. However, I can honestly say that I am very worried about the state of our Grand Lodge, particularly the immediate future and I am more than prepared to help those brethren who would do me harm, to re-build the Grand Lodge to what it used to be and what all members deserve it to be.
Yours sincerely and fraternally,
Original Signed
John Kellas
Past Junior Grand Warden
John Kellas
Auf der Breite 2
Frederick Colbran
Münzstrasse 18 59505 Bad Sassendorf
29223 Celle
BY EMAIL 13.01.2007
Dear Fred,
I hope you are well and had a happy and peaceful festive season.
It is an ideal time for me to write this personal letter to you in order to try for the final time, to avoid causing great and long-lasting damage to the Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany.
The present situation is neither sensible nor productive. It is not my intention to willingly cause any harm to the Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany but due to the present impasse there would, in the first instance, appear to be little alternative.
Presently I am still tainted with the false accusations included in documentation circulated by Michael Neary, John Hebel and yourself. I am still awaiting the decision from the Staatsanwaltschaft Arnsberg as to whether they deem it to be in the public interest to prosecute on my behalf. Should they decide that it is not in the public interest then I have the obvious option of taking out private prosecutions. I have still received no answer to my response to said “auditors report” My feelings regarding how this Grand Lodge and more particularly the Immediate Past Grand Master has treated me are still running very high. As for the business regarding John Woodhouse and the subsequent situation in Beaver Lodge, I must say that I really take this in a more laid back manner. If nobody else can actually see what is really going on in Beaver Lodge then I cannot help them. The time will come when the proverbial “I told you so” will roll off my lips but until then the lodge definitely needs me more than I need them. The systematic destruction of everything Masonic in Beaver Lodge seems to be the main priority of certain brethren. Their influence on younger Freemasons and what it has resulted in, should really be made common knowledge within this Grand Lodge, if only to warn others just how easily things can go wrong if you take your eyes off the ball.
I can repeat with all confidence that there has been no misappropriation of lodge finances by me. If there had been then I for one, would have been in favour of legal action against the perpetrator. I will never stop stating my innocence for as long as this business is hanging in the air. Due to the misrepresentations of Michael Neary, written confirmation of the lodge auditor that he was instructed to disregard the paperwork I had submitted to him in spite of the lodge voting unanimously that this was to be accepted, the further continuance of these untrue allegations by John Hebel and your letter to lodges which appeared to believe everything that had been written, I am certainly in a fighting mood. Who wouldn’t want to clear their name against such obvious injustices?
-2-
Balanced against this feeling is the fact that any such action by me would, as I have already stated, cause long lasting damage to the Grand Lodge. If the Grand Lodge doesn’t actually want me any more then I really do have no alternative to prolonged legal action(legal aid has been granted) to clear my name.
How is it possible to resolve this matter?
I believe it is quite simple. These accusations against me have to be dropped. There is no proof whatsoever that there was any misappropriation of funds. In this case the accusations should immediately be withdrawn. Once this has happened I will be more than happy to resign from Beaver Lodge.(The alleged exclusion is not correct either by German law or Grand Lodge Regulations). I would furthermore stop all legal actions regarding this matter. (in the post to you is as copy of the charges I have brought before the Staatsanwaltschaft)
The certificate I hold which confirms my position as a Past Junior Grand Warden has to be upheld. It was signed by John Woodhouse and Bruno Schultze, issued officially by them acting in the name of the Grand Lodge and is a legal confirmation that, having held that office I am now a Past Junior Grand Warden. Lodges should be advised of this immediately in order for me to attend meetings. It is ludicrous that I can attend lodges all over the world with this certificate and yet I am told that I may not attend lodges within my own Grand Lodge! There are already lodges that have no problems whatsoever in accepting my Grand Lodge Certificate and receiving me as a PJGW. It would certainly cause a large split in Grand Lodge if these lodges were threatened with having their warrant removed. Do we really want this to happen? I don’t.
Once these two, relatively simple actions have been taken, the world revolving around our Grand Lodge will get back to normal again.
You have, as Grand Master, the golden opportunity, perhaps the last time in this long drawn out affair, to show your understanding of what Freemasonry is all about and forever cast off the suspicions that you might not exactly be your own man whilst you are our Grand Master.
I do hope you might think about this Fred. You have a meeting of your senior officers coming up soon. This would be an ideal opportunity to say to them all that the whole matter is resolved satisfactorily.
The alternative is not in anybodies interests.
Best fraternal regards
Original signed and in the post
John Kellas
