THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING THE "EVIDENCE" WHICH THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FELT WAS WORTHY OF RECOMMENDING MY EXPULSION FROM GRAND LODGE. WHY NOT HAVE A GOOD READ OF IT AND AFTERWARDS READ BOTH THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT WAS SAID AT THE APPEALS COMMISSION ON THE 21ST OF SEPTEMBER 2008 IN BIELEFELD AND THE LETTER I WROTE TO EACH MEMBER OF THAT COMMISSION ON THE 3RD OF OCTOBER 2008-
PRIOR TO READING THIS HOWEVER-HERE IS A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT TOOK PLACE AT THE APPEALS COMMISSION, IT IS 100% ACCURATE.:
Transcript of the Meeting of the Judicial Liaison and Appeals Commission of the Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany, held in Bielefeld on the 21st of September 2008
Starting Time: 14:00Hrs
Present: WBro Roger Fairfield PAGDC(Chairman), W Bro Hans-Christian Hermanni PM 890(member), WBro Joseph Maison GSwdB(member), VWBro John Kellas PJGW
The Meeting was opened at 14:00 Hrs by Roger Fairfield(RF)
RF: If we can kick off then you know we have actually opened up on time on the actual commission meeting itself, You know us all don't you? Do I need to introduce you to Hans-Christian or Joe I'm sure you know or my little self you've seen on occasions before in the lodge? Yes? Good. Before I start on this commission I would just like to reiterate on one point that I made clear I think in one of my letters, this is not going to be a new investigation whatsoever, this is going to be a meeting purely examining the facts that were sent out by the disciplinary committee and deciding upon with your views added to them, deciding upon whether or not that which was deemed out by the GM is the correct punishment for what's been going on. Anything further above from that is not within our capability, within our scope. OK, good.
So would you like to say anything before we start?
JK: No
RF: So the first point that we brought up is that you are using the title of PJGW when indeed you were not supposed to, to put it in very layman terms, yes? And the evidence of that, I believe you've got copies of that now?
JK: No, no copies at all
RF: Then they are sat at your solicitors office
JK: OK, he's on holiday unfortunately.
RF: Well, I can assure you they are sat with him but so you are not at a total disadvantage as to what we are doing here here are copies for you to work from up to this stage.
JK: Thank you
RF: So the first one is the evidence of an email from the 25th of October, before we go any further have you anything to say to that particular allegation?
JK: Well yes, I was the JGW of this Grand Lodge and as such it is an historical fact that I am a Past Junior Grand Warden, It is not a rank that I have been appointed to, it is an historical fact and therefore I feel that I am entitled to use PJGW as I am a PJGW. The difference between somebody who has been appointed a PJGW is that they have probably never sat in the seat. If you are the PM of a lodge you are always a PM, they cannot take it away. The Certificate that I have, signed by the GM and the GSec, states quite clearly that the title and privileges and all rights now and in all time coming are mine by right. It states that in the certificate and that's what I am going from and there are no Grand Lodge Regulations which say anything different.
RF: Er and that's where you're coming from...?
JK: well no that'....
RF: Well that's what you're saying then?
JK: I don't know whether there's a copy of my Grand Lodge Certificate but I can assure you that I've sent it out enough times, but it's quite clear, the wording is unmistakable.
RF: We've actually seen it.
JK: Yes, so therefore I am at a loss to see how I'm not allowed to use the title of Past Junior Grand Warden and likewise I find there are no criteria whatsoever in the GL Regulations for taking away an historically earned Past Grand Rank, only an „Appointed“ Past Grand Rank.
RF: You'll excuse me for just making notes.....
JK: No problem.
RF: When we finish here we've got a great deal to........we're just listening to you first of all and hearing your side of everything and then of course there's going to be a great deal of discussion between us all, but that's afterwards, right now we are just making notes so that we can go through them, ok...er..
JK: I mean I would obviously like to hear whether you guys agree that a certificate signed by a Grand Master and a Grand Secretary which states that a Past Grand Rank is mine „now and in all time coming“ by RIGHT, if that can be taken away from me and if so, on what basis
RF: I'm afraid we are not actually in a position to be able to comment on that...
JK: Fair enough...
RF:...because of the nature of what we are doing right now., erm personal views don't come into it and we try to remain as middle of the road as we can.
JK: I wasn't asking for your personal views....
RF: No. We've got to be a bit careful about how we erm , we are here to do a job, the commissions job is to the facts...
JK: We could have done away with all this if I had been asked to appear in front of the disciplinary committee.
RF: That's a point which I have also noted but er, that will be for discussion afterwards. Another thing about this is of course that you attended a Masonic event in full Grand Lodge regalia.
JK: Yes
RF: When you were told not to attend.
JK: No that's not actually true Roger.
RF: OK, how did you then not erm.....
JK: I was suspended from the GL of British Freemasons in Germany
RF: who work under what power ...?
JK: It's a fully autonomous jurisdiction within the United Grand Lodges of Germany. The meeting that we attended was a demonstration meeting, there was no lodge opened, there were members there from a variety of constitutions, English, American, Canadian, German and I helped to organise the function There were 79 brethren there and it was held in a Gasthaus in a forest on the outskirts of Essen and I have a letter here from the WM of Schiller Lodge in which he thanks me very much indeed for the very genuine and brotherly Masonic work that I did. The Grand Secretary did write to me telling me that I had broken a Grand Lodge Regulation by wearing GL Regalia in a lodge of a different constitution without asking first for the GM's permission. Are you aware of that?
RF: Yes
JK: And are you aware of the answer I sent to him?
RF:...er yes.
JK: because he made a slight error, because of course even if it were a lodge meeting of Schiller Lodge that I visited on that date it is still not a lodge of another constitution, so therefore it did not contravene the GL Regulation that he quoted.
RF: erm you will of course understand that we've done some background on this case first of all before we came here.....
JK:...so you will agree with the statement I am making
HCH: We never said that
RF: Well we didn't say that at all we are actually taking into consideration points that we made further that's all. May we keep this ?
JK: Certainly yes of course and I have no problems with you contacting the lodge Secretary or WM.
HCH: I didn't get the answer, did you wear regalia or not?
JK: Yes I did it was a demonstration meeting......
HCH: ok
JK:..everybody wore regalia
JM: In the time of this that you were invited to take part in this demonstration.........aaaah, the dates between your invitation to take part in this demonstration aaaah, you were suspended by the Grand Master
JK: No I was suspended by the GM....I had been suspended from Grand Lodge since January 2006
JM: Ok so the date of you being invited to take part in that demonstration was after that date?
JK: Yes
JM:Have you might have thought to say to them the brethren of the lodge who have offered you a chance to be part of the demonstration team that you might be breaking the rules of your present Grand Master, might you have thought to mention that to them?
JK: But I wasn't, so therefore there was no reason to aside from the fact that the majority of the brethren who were there from the English constitution knew about the situation.
JM: errr, what situation?
JK: The fact that I had been suspended from the Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany.
JM: At the end of the day John, with all due respects I am only saying that it might have been in your interests to say to the lodge that you were part of the demonstration that you might not be able to participate in that because of things thats going on within the Masonic circle concerning you
JK: That discussion took place and they wanted me to.
JM: They wanted you to?
JK: Yes they did, I organised the whole function. I organised the whole function,
they knew about the situation with the GLBFG.
JM: So that discussion did take place, you mentioned that to them?
JK: Yes of course
JM: And they said they wanted you to do it?
JK: Yes of course they did otherwise I wouldn't have done it, if they hadn't have wanted me to I wouldn't have done it. I have to say that this was not an official lodge meeting and the charge that has been levied against me in a letter by the Grand Secretary was that I attended a lodge meeting of Schiller Lodge in Essen and that is not true because I did not attend a meeting of Schiller Lodge. Schiller Lodge was never opened, no lodge was opened, it was a pure demonstration to let the German brethren see how we do an Initiation in Emulation Ritual.
RF: Right, without wanting to get pulled into anything going too deeply back I would, reading from this and listening to what you're saying, I would suggest that probably anywhere where a group of people are wearing Masonic regalia amounts to a Masonic meeting. If it wasn't a Masonic meeting then they are breaking a rule by wearing Masonic regalia in any case
JK: No, what rule? What rule are they breaking?
RF: Alright, that's why I didn't want to have this conversation because I am just talking about it with you.
JK: Well I am just talking back, but what rule are they breaking?
RF: Where would you wear Masonic regalia?
JK: Where would I wear Masonic regalia?
RF: Yes
JK: Any situation that allowed me to wear it.
RF: There is a rule and I don't know where it is but there is a rule somewhere which says you can only wear Masonic regalia on bespoke occasions which has then got to be..erm...
JK: No the rule actually says....the rule is about wearing Regalia in public.
RF: Yes
JK: ..and this was not in public this was a private meeting.
RF: I thought this was in a public building?
JK: Well, define public building, it was a private meeting held behind closed doors. It was a private meeting. The PGM of the state of New Jersey was there.
RF: Yes, I have noted down the points that you are making here for sure because I think it's only right that we discuss them amongst ourselves.
JK: I mean I just have to make a point here Roger; by quoting all of these things at you I am not trying to be clever, I'm not trying to say look I know all this, but as you can imagine I have had my nose into this now for quite a long time.
RF: Nobody is saying anything of the sort OK. We are desperately trying to remain right down the centre, it's the only way we can be.
JM: There are certain questions we need to ask to clarify certain things before we could make a decision anyway it's basically trying to hear what your so called defence is and er....
JK: ...but I'd like to say that I have a copy here of the 4 points that were handed in as conclusions by the disciplinary and complaints committee and we've already jumped on to the third one
RF: No we are actually working through, this might not be the way we are working through them all these points, but we are working through all of the points.
JK: Ok
RF: We have taken particular care you might find more points than there are...
JK: Because you'll see of course that the only one that is specific in any manner is c) and that's the one we have just discussed. Points a) b) and d) are very....er...
RF: ....no we haven't quite got to c) yet, we may have probably round the edges but we haven't actually got through c) yet, there's parts there which will be discussed there a little later on.
JK: Sorry I thought we were just discussing the business about Schiller
RF: at the moment we are just discussing your wearing of regalia at the moment John, we haven't got round to the other parts yet. We'd like to take our time if you don't mind.
JK: I don't mind
RF: Rather than go through this in a hasty manner and then come out of it unsatisfied with what we've found out from you and you dissatisfied with what you've heard and we've been saying.
JK: Alright.
RF: We are moving a little bit through and I'm not going to say this is 1, 2, 3 and 4 but we are trying to move through it in the same order as we've given you there in this documentation.
JK: Ok
RF: JK did attend a constituent lodge on a Masonic occasion, aaam, this was reported in a conversation with the WM of Schiller No. 649, er is that the guy you've just given us a letter from?
JK: Yes
RF: This is part and parcel of what you've just been explaining to us?
JK: Yes
RF: It was a demonstration working of the brothers of the Forget Me Not Association, it does indeed say here that John Kellas was there in the east in full dark blue regalia and did most of the translation for the German brethren.
JK: No that's not true I only translated the odd little bits that they didn't know..
RF: I think they were just trying to pat you on the back now that's all. I don't think there's anything in there at all, not from me.
JK: It was a fantastic evening, a fantastic Masonic evening even though it was held in private circumstances.
RF: There's one letter here in German which although my German is pretty good some of it I wouldn't like to try and translate, I don't feel confident enough..is there anything in there like John...
HCH: No it was confirmed and mentions the other point about joining.
RF: is that the joining one?
HCH: It says he was present and part of the thing and so facts are not disputed.
RF: Yes
HCH: So I think we don't need further translation
RF: No
RF: The next point we are going on to was trying to join the Schiller Lodge which I'm not sure and I've got this letter in German which I have to push across as far as I can gather, you did try and join the Schiller Lodge whilst you were actually not an active member of the blue lodge.
JK: No, that's not the case.
RF: Expand please
JK: Well that's not the case. Please expand on how I was not an active member of the blue lodges.
RF: Well because at that stage it was after you'd actually been stopped hadn't you? You could not provide at that stage as far as I read into this, please correct me if I'm wrong, a letter of good standing.
JK: Yes I had a certificate of good standing from Lodge Bridge of Fellowship, I had a certificate of good standing from the Keys of Münster Lodge, both of which I sent down to Schiller lodge and I would like to make it quite clear at this juncture, that I was asked by Schiller Lodge if I would like to join, because for the last 2 years I have organised this Masonic do with the people who come over with the Forget Me Not Association and I got to know them very well and they asked me if I would like to join and I said certainly, if it's possible, sure. I also gave them an indication that there might be some flak and indeed there were some phone calls made and the District Master was told to phone up the WM of Schiller Lodge and „warn him“ against accepting John Kellas as a joining member. He wasn't given any other reasons, he was just warned against it.
And because of this the WM of Schiller Lodge has in fact invited me to go to an information evening and give them a full low down on what the actual situation is and how can it be that they, ie. The GLBFG, are trying to stop me from joining Schiller Lodge.
RF:Er yes, what I read into this is that you were actually under suspension at that time when you tried to get into Schiller Lodge
JK: But I don't understand the relevance of that.
RF: Well reading into this, as you were under suspension you can not possibly er...should not have applied to join another lodge.
JK: Why not? Where does it say that?
HCH: Well did you receive the letter of 13th of January 2008?
JK: What does it say?
HCH: It is signed by the Grand Secretary and is written on behalf of the Grand Master and is titled „Contravention of GL Regulations in 2008“
JK: Yes I did receive it
HCH: There was a discussion because you didn't receive it properly or...
JK: No I received it from a third party before I received it from the Grand Secretary, but I do have that, yes
HCH: Ok
JK: and I have replied, you have my reply
HCH: Yes sorry
JK: But the one in particular to do with that letter.
HCH: dated the 6th of February?
JK: I assume but I don't have everything with me I only have recent things with me.
HCH: In it you, your letter written to Peter Murgatroyd dated 30th of January 2008 to the Grand Master...
JK: Yes, that's the reply.
HCH: OK but then we have your arguments in the file
JK: And I covered every point of his letter
HCH: Ok so we have got the necessary information on that.
JK: As things stand at this very moment if somebody is suspended by the GM from the GLBFG it does not mean that he is suspended from other Grand Lodges.
HCH: That's just your argument
JK: No that's a point, that's not an argument, that's a fact. The only difference is that if a brother is expelled from his Grand Lodge then he is also expelled from the other 4 partner Grand Lodges within the United Grand Lodges of Germany, but there's nothing if somebody is suspended from one Grand Lodge that he cannot attend another, so to my knowledge I did not contravene any GL Regulations by attending.
RF: We certainly shall discuss this.
HCH: We are just trying to clear the facts up, the facts are clear I think.
RF: OK the next point that I have got in front of me is „Maintained contact with a quasi-Masonic organisation“ Masonic High Council?
JK: Who are they?
HCH: They intervened on your behalf
RF: With a CV which I was really surprised they got hold of unless given to them by yourself to be perfectly honest.
JK: I don't know anything about this you see I haven't been given any of these documents
HCH: It's called „The truth behind the disgraceful affair against VWBro John T. Kellas PJGW of the GL of BFG........
JK: I'm sorry but I cannot be held responsible for letters other people have written.
HCH: ..that point is clear but.....
RF: We just want to know what did you know about this
JK: Yes but there are plenty of quasi-Masonic organisations who would relish the fact of finding something out about a regular GL and wish to make trouble so I'm afraid that I can't make any comment about that.
HCH: So you do not know...
JK: I didn't know anything about that, that has not been given to me.
RF: You've got a copy of it now in those papers.
JK: Ok
RF: 1,2,3,4..........
JK: Can I take this?
RF: There's 5 pages of a CV and it's been circulated and it's signed „The John Kellas supporters“
JK: (Laughs!!)
RF: Well you can read this again....
JK: I mean that actually, as far as I'm concerned, I don't know whether you agree with me, has no meaning. I mean who is it from?
HCH: We have got an email address
JK: Yes ok wonderful but I mean anybody could send anything
HCH: Yes, that's true.
RF: It's a non recognised organisation
JK: But I don't understand how the words „I have had contact with a quasi-Masonic organisation“ can come into the conversation.
JM: It's a question that's been asked John because they quoted you in here-we need to ask the question
JK: But it says, it's just been said that I had contact with them and that's a great assumption based on that.
RF: No no no, I didn't say you'd had contact with them
JK: Ok
RF: No I wanted to know what you knew about these people because the CV that they got is that detailed that really only you would know about it so maybe you should look back in your organisation to see whereabouts this leak came from if that's the case-this is so detailled I didn't know half the stuff that was in there I definitely do now you might say, but at the same time it's a very personal vitae.
JK: But there are plenty of people within the GLBFG who know me very well and know what I've done.
JM: John it's just a simple question that I think Rogers asked you because that letter appeared in..
JK: But I didn't quite get that as a question, it wasn't a question.
RF: I just said what do you know about this
JK: No, where you used the words quasi Masonic organisation, you used the words „contact with“.
RF: Yes but contact with a quasi-Masonic organisation you knew nothing
JK: Ok yes I certainly did say that.
RF Yes it just needs establishing whether or not you've had contact with them.
JK: I must say at this juncture that I find it absolutely mind-blowing that I am only being shown or told about any of these things today.
HCH: We are just working through the annex of the minutes of the disciplinary commission and that was sent to you.
JK: No, they were not sent to me, this is all I have ever received, that letter is all I have ever received. I have asked for the complete package of documents that this committee used when coming to their conclusion that I should be expelled and I have never received anything, so quite a few of the things that you are probably going to bring up today, I can assure you I have not seen before and I do not know on what basis the disciplinary and complaints committee came to these conclusions.
RF: er certainly the package which you've got now which indeed was sent to your lawyer, Mr Sommerfeld's office.
JK: But when?
RF: They were sent at a late date you know why.
JK: I don't know why, I should have had these prior to there even being a date for an appeals commission. I mean what we have, what we had up until today, was me being accused of 4 points in one letter by the disciplinary and complaints committee without actually anything concrete being shown to me or being told to me. Nothing at all.
RF: We'll make a note of that.
JK: Thank you
RF: We have as a point your visiting lodges or intervening in lodge business whilst under suspension. That's a point brought up by the disciplinary committee. On the evidence that's produced here confirmed by a letter of the 24th of April by yourself. Organising a meeting of Lodge Bridge of Fellowship on the 7th of March 2008.
JK: It was a private meeting. The GM has since, via the GSec, apologised to brethren of LBOF and has acknowledged the fact that private meetings are not Masonic meetings.
HCH: but you sent out this summons?
JK: Yes. What does it say?
RF: It's a summons, that's the thing. It does say on there however, you are invited to attend a purely non-Masonic meeting.
JK: Yes
HCH: but the paper you sent it out with this text...
RF: ..all the Past Masters and the rest of it....
JK: I did send it out
RF: The whole thing looks like a summons if I didn't read the first sentence it could have been a summons.
JK: But it's not a summons, it's purposely not a summons. It states that the lodge is under suspension, it states that it's a private meeting and I have to contest that anyone can prevent, even if it's only Freemasons taking part, grown men in a democratic society from having a private meeting and it was a private meeting and I don't acknowledge the fact that at a private meeting anybody, other than a court of law, can prevent adult men from discussing points to do with Freemasonry. You know that's getting down to somebodies personal liberties as to what he can talk about
RF: Point 5 on the Agenda was to hear a lecture on the future of the GL of BFG by yourself.
JK: Yes
RF: And you've actually listed yourself as the Charity Steward
JK: I was. I was Charity Steward. You know I didn't put anything down there that I wasn't. I was Charity Steward of the Lodge. It was fairly evident that the members of LBOF had to sit down and discuss the situation. It was also evident that if I had have sent out just a normal letter, they might not have looked twice at it, obviously I admit that I used the Lodge heading but I made it perfectly clear that this was not an official Masonic meeting. It was a private meeting which we desperately needed to have to discuss the situation about the things that were going on in the lodge, with a view to trying to sort them out.
RF: So it was really to make them take notice that the meeting was going on?
JK: Yes and obviously it was being held in the lodge premises that had been cleared with the chap who runs the building but it was also made perfectly clear to everyone that it was a jeans and jumpers meeting, there was no ceremony, nothing was going to happen, we weren't going to open up a lodge, we were going to sit round, have a few drinks and discuss what was going on with our lodge, as adult men in private and therefore I fail to see how that can contravene anything. Maybe, in retrospect it perhaps was a mistake perhaps using the LBOF logo on the top of the letter I sent out, but that's been done now.
RF: Yes I mean when this was looked at, examined there are things in there, wording and I know as we are all Masons we probably use those words but „I enclose a summons“? It's a summons is what you said, „I enclose a summons“.
It's things like that that people will climb on to
JK: Taking that as an individual point Roger I mean what are we talking about? We're not talking about anything really are we?
RF: Well it's breaking rules I am not there or not there, I am there
JK: It's not breaking rules because that's not a Masonic summons, it states quite clearly, you can be summoned to other things, you can be summoned to this or summoned to that or anything, you don't have to be summonsed to a Masonic Lodge-this is not something that we use exclusively in Masonry.
RF: The next point is all about causing disharmony in Grand Lodge and it's constituent lodges there is evidence given here and we are not discussing anything that has happened after this, what's happened since, er it's an email in May from Malcolm Parnham
JK: What an email to me? From him?
RF: It's actually from him but it concerns... if you want to go to point 6, just behind point 6 you'll see the following email from Malcolm Parnham „I will not attend this meeting on the 30th as your so called leader is suspended“ blah blah blah, err, you can read that as well all of this seemed to be...
JK: But that is something that you have to address to Malcolm Parnham, surely I mean what relevance does that have to this point?
RF: Ok I think that where they're coming from is the fact that actions that you've taken, written or otherwise, had the knock on effect of making people feel extremely uncomfortable and...to the extent of resignations and stuff like that and that's where the beginning of this point starts to come in.
JK: Ok but by the same token actions taken by the GL could have easily been the reason for Malcolm resigning. I don't know whether you have all the emails that Malcolm sent but I'll certainly be happy to provide you with some emails that Malcolm sent where he was most disingenuous to the GL and the way that it's been running the LBOF fiasco, as I believe he called it. So what we can't and shouldn't really do is pick out individual emails that people sent on a bad day and disregard other ones otherwise we get a false picture.
RF: Mmmm unfortunately that's the sort of thing that everybody does, the disciplinary courts be it a committee or a court of law, that's the way they work at it isn't it? They always pick out the bits that are conducive to them
JK: But under normal circumstances the person who is being accused by the disciplinary committee would have the opportunity to sit in front of them and show his cards
RF: Yes true but we on this table here have got to remain on this piece of earth and you're not without fault on that yourself in that you will pick out the juicy bits for yourself and push them forward as being the forms, likewise the disciplinary committee have done the same, so that's the way human nature works. What we are trying to achieve is that fine balance between the two. So although it may sound that they picked out their juicy bits from their particular parts there, we need to decide whether or not there has been anything else that you want to tell us as a kind of influence against that and against what they're saying here
JK: Well I've forgotten what the point is that we're talking about now....
RF: ..causing... yes well Malcolm Parnham well he's the first one in there
JK: Well unfortunately I don't have the documents with me but I can assure you that I have plenty of documents from Malcolm Parnham of a very supportive nature, emails that he's sent me from France.
RF There's quite a few emails about and they haven't used them all, which means you can look at as being positive or negative whichever way you are coming from but they are quoting 6 emails here which state that people are being brought into a state of disarray because of things that you've done or said.
JK: Well I have obviously to contest that. As I said if we are just for one minute going to concentrate on LBOF then I think it's only fair that you allow me to say that in November 2007, LBOF had a Master Elect, a full array of officers for the coming year, it had a candidate, it had somebody lined up to go through a second degree and it had at least 12 members who were going to attend regularly and the future looked great and we all felt great. By January, the lodge had been basically desimated by the fact that it was under threat of being suspended, that the auditors report that was done which the lodge had passed GL said that wasn't good enough and the DGM came up and wanted an audit report changing, putting peoples personal names into the audit report and our auditor refused to do so saying that this is the way we have always done the audit report and the reason why LBOF situation got the way it is was not down to me. I made a perfectly clear and understandable statement before the lodge elected a Master Elect, I said to them and I also wrote to all members and said look, you know that I am suspended from the GL, so if I become your Master I can't go to represent the lodge at GL Communications because I'm suspended and that it would certainly cause a bit of friction somewhere down the line and I reiterated and I've written at least twice and I've said in open lodge, only if there is nobody else, only if there's not one other person who'll put his name up, will I go forward otherwise the lodge isn't going to have a Master because our present Master had resigned and that was the only reason why I took that position, why they elected me and why I accepted it. The only reason. And afterwards out comes all this stuff comes out about how I had tried to use the lodge to fight my battles against Grand Lodge. That's rubbish. If anybody reads, I said to them all, time and time again, there will be aggravation if I become Master of this lodge and I will only do it if there is nobody else. And then they elected me.
JM: John I just got a question
RF: Please......
JM: John you're quite a senior Mason, a very senior Mason I suggest and eerr on those points which we are actually discussing now about you saying to the lodge „only if there's nobody else then will I accept“, in my opinion, don't you think that that is being disloyal to the Grand Master as a Grand Officer as a senior Grand Officer by accepting that from a private lodge and not sticking to what I would consider the rules and loyalties of the Grand Lodge where regards to you being suspended. Knowing very well as you have stated, that if you accepted the nomination of becoming Master of the lodge, there would then...it was likely to create some form of disturbance within the system, you've said that to them but as a senior Grand Officer there must be somebody else that they could find to take the position, don't you think that you should have stepped back from that and says.....
JK: Well Joe, I spoke to Steve Pipes, Malcolm Parnham, Colin Elam, Uwe Riches, all the other past Masters I wrote to some of them personally and implored them to take the chair of the lodge and they wouldn't. As to your point about me being a senior Grand Officer, at that time according to the Grand Lodge, not according to my interpretation but according to the Grand Lodge, I was not a Grand Officer. Also at that time I agree I was suspended from GL and therefore had I been the Master of 929 could not have attended the GL Meeting, but that would have kept the status quo, because nobody from LBOF was attending Grand Lodge.
JM: I hear what you says. All these people that you written to about taking the office, why didn't they want to take the office?
JK: I don't know, ask them! Because they didn't want to do it! Steve Pipes, I said to him please, I'll support you and he said no if you do it I'll support you, I've got a letter. Then I asked him if he would be D of C and he wrote saying he didn't want to take any office in the lodge at the moment but he will support me.
JM: Yes but there must....John....
JK: Colin Elam didn't want the job
JM: John, we all know....
JK: Peter Rubinstein didn't want the job
JM: John, just a minute John. We all know each other and you and I have been around for a long time, I'm sure you've known Roger for quite a long time but certainly you and I have been around for a long time and just bear in mind that we are trying to establish certain things here so that we can go away and come to a decision. A fair decision, if you like. There must have been somewhere along the line where you said to somebody, cause if I said to you John, I don't want to take the chair of the Keys of Münster you would have come up to me and said Joe, why don't you want to take the chair of the Keys of Münster and I would have said to you John, because of this because of that, because of that and because of that and in some cases you would have said Joe but that's not the point, you must do it, or you'd have said Peter you must do it or George you must do it, so I find it strange that you haven't asked them for a reason because the situation which.....
JK: Well no, they all gave reasons, I mean Steve Pipes said he didn't have the time to do it, Colin Elam says he didn't want to, he was too old and can't do the ritual, Uwe Riches said I've done it twice, Peter Frenes and Udo Vongehr had resigned their positions so obviously they weren't keen to do it, you know how many people, Peter Rubinstein was the SW and he didn't definitely didn't want to do it and at that Meeting where I sent out summons to that private meeting, I suggested to those that were there, about 9 of us there, I suggested that I would step back and leave the lodge and they said no, we support you, you are our Master Elect and we support you. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it, I was not fighting a battle on my behalf.
JM: Yes but I'm talking about before the Master Elect, there was obviously some discussion before the Master Elect
JK: But Joe you'll have to ask the others they all gave answers which I have just related to you, I don't know why Steve Pipes said he hasn't got time.
JM: But John why didn't you yourself say look this is going to cause a major problem, I don't want it, find somebody else and walk backwards. A man of your experience John normally does things like that, why didn't you do that?
JK: Quite simple Joe, otherwise the lodge would have been nowhere.
JM: Yes but John, that's why we're sitting here today, you would have found someone. If John Kellas had said look, you know the situation, you know what's going on in my Masonic life, I don't want to get involved because I am going through my own system and if you'd stepped back and said sorry guys ......
JK: I have to ask a question. What is the relevance of this? The lodge asked me if I would stand as Master Elect, which even according to the suspension from GL which at the time was in force, I was perfectly entitled to, because at that time there were no suspensions from any of the private lodges. „Please John will you do it“? When you look around you have got Marcel Sixtus who is nearly 80, you've got Günter Lax who's 70-odd, you've got Peter Rubinstein who's nearly 70 in fact over 70, then you've got Ray Spearey who's over 70, Bill Hayler who wasn't sure if he was a member or not, well over 70, you know you've got Uwe Riches who doesn't want to do it, he's got his own private problems and you've got to look at the other potential guys who could do it, Past Masters, because we didn't have anyone „in the line!“ who could do it. The only two people in the line with any kind of experience were Gunter Lax and he didn't want to do it and Peter Rubinstein who definitely didn't want to do it, so I went and I looked and I thought right, Colin Elam and Steve Pipes, stand up and be counted, you know you've got to come and help us out, but they didn't want to know. They both gave believable reasons, but the whole point that I am making is what was so wrong about that? We had a perfectly orderly election, it was all within the rules and I can back this up by quoting you people to talk to that I was very reluctant to accept it, but I weighed up the decision in my mind and after going through all the possibilities and it's alright for us to sit here now Joe, almost a year after the day and say „oh, we'd have found somebody“ but the fact was, we didn't find anybody, nobody wanted to do it and I made it quite clear to the lodge that I would only do it after we had exhausted every other possible channel and the last thing I wanted to do was to run away and leave them to it. Why would I want to do that? I am one of the longest serving resident members of that lodge.
JM: Thank you John. Thanks for that.
JK: We wanted to keep the lodge going.
RF: The lodge is now open again?
JK: I do not know, I do not receive summons.
RF: As far as I am aware it is, as far as I am aware it is.
JM: OK, thank you John.
RF: Well I know for a fact that this is going to take some discussion because I have made enough points and I have heard enough accounts of your arguments and what you're saying.
JK: I don't like to call them arguments
RF: Arguments not as in arguing, arguments as in information
JK: I don't want to be counterproductive in anything I am engaged in within this GL and I am now in my 25th year as a member of this GL and I have given those 25 years gleefully happily wilfully and I have done a lot for this GL and I cannot believe that I am in this situation. I cannot believe that sometime in the last 5 or 6 years somebody was not prepared to sit down and discuss the issues that I had. I had tried to bring them up in the Boards of General Purposes, but we all know what happened there, magically a „Veto“ appeared and things that the Boards were recommending were going to GL and being bounced back and there are a great many things which need sorting out in this GL and I would very much like to be part of that team which sorts things out because we are kidding ourselves if we think that this GL is going up and up and up, because it's not and yet the things that we need to do, the changes, are so clear, they're so easy and nobody is prepared to do it.
RF: OK I'm not going to comment on that do you.............
JK: ...............That was just me
RF: ...you wouldn't expect it would you? John, thank you very much for coming here today. If you have got anything else you want to ask...
JK: Well I just want to, myself now, just go through the 4 points in this letter, not at great length, the conclusions made by Norman McDermott, Paul Medhurst and Ian Livermore. First of all „It was established that VW Bro Kellas had shown a willful disregard for the restrictions placed on his Masonic activities“. Now I completely refute that because I was suspended from the GL BFG thereafter I was suspended from the constituent lodges of the Grand Lodge BFG. So I don't attend the GLBFG and I don't attend the constituent lodges of the GLBFG, so how have I shown a willful disregard for the restrictions placed on my Masonic activities? Because if by that they mean my Masonic activities outside of the GL, well that has nothing to do with this GL surely. Second point „It was established that he conduct unbecoming of a senior Mason“ Now there's nothing specific been mentioned there but I would just like to say that does that mean that the conduct I had allegedly displayed would have been acceptable if a junior Mason had have done it, in which case what makes it so bad, whatever it is, that I am considered a senior Mason? Item c) I have already answered Peter Murgatroyd's letter to me in some detail and I have also given you enough information today about what happened when we had this demonstration meeting plus the letter from the WM of Schiller Lodge and I don't think I need comment on that other than to say that this business about Schiller lodge is exactly the opposite of what I am being accused of. It was a momentous occasion, there were Masons from everywhere there, everybody had a fantastic time and it was a wonderful Masonic occasion. Nobody thought anything bad about it at all and that resulted in that letter from Gerd, from the Master.
And finally „The continued behaviour of VWBro Kellas contributed nothing towards the harmony which at all times should prevail within Freemasonry“ Well I couldn't agree more with that last bit and I am always prepared to look for the Masonic way. I am always prepared to sit down. I know you don't want to talk about the past but I can assure you that ever since Fred Colbran has been in the chair I have written to him on numerous occasions saying why can't we sit down, you and I, because that's what it's all about and discuss this? Why can't we sort these things out? Why do we have to have 2cms high of forms and papers from people trying to make a case against me for throwing me out of something that for 25 years of my life I have been a member of? I mean something is desperately wrong here, believe me, desperately wrong. I have been forced out of friendships because of this.
RF: er we won't make written comments about the last bit...
JK: ....no that was just me!
RF: Well this isn't going to come out tomorrow, any results on this are going to take some considerable time. We couldn't make any kind of pre-decision on the stuff we've got here, we needed to speak to you and that's why we needed to get together
JK: If you wish to speak to me on any occasion to do with this case you only have to ask and I will turn up anywhere you want and supply any paperwork that you need. And discuss any points with you that matter
RF: We need to look at this and it's going to take some time
JK: The final point is that it does seem to me that there has been this opinion amongst various people in GL that I have been on a one man crusade to do GL as much damage as possible and that, the GM wrote as much in his letter dated September 2006, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I have always only wanted the GL to be what it used to be and isn't anymore and if the final decision is that I am expelled from GL, there's no way that the following day, GL is going to suddenly become magically wonderful again, because that is not down to me, maybe certain senior members of the GL will tell you it is but it is not.
RF: You will be told John but it will take some time. Thank you
JK: Thank you
Meeting closed and hands shaken at 15.20 Hrs
NOW HERE'S THE EVIDENCE:-
POINT 1
POINT 2
POINT 3
POINT 4
POINT 5
POINT 6
THESE 6 POINTS ARE WHAT I WAS CONFRONTED WITH FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THE 21ST OF SEPTEMBER AT THE APPEALS COMMISSION. AFTER A GOOD FEW DAYS PERUSING THEM I SENT THE FOLLOWING LETTER TO ROGER FAIRFIELD, WITH COPIES TO JOSEPH MAISON AND HANS-CHRISTIAN HERMANNI, THOSE THREE BEING THE APPEALS COMMISSION: IT READ THUS:-
John T. Kellas
Auf der Breite 2
Roger Fairfield 59505 Bad Sassendorf
Osningstrasse 23
33824 Werther 03. October 2008
Re: Disciplinary and Complaints Committee Report
Dear Roger,
I hope you are well.
The report of the above mentioned committee which was first handed to me on the day of the Appeals Commission meeting in Bielefeld on the 21st of September 2008, contains a variety of points which, if taken into consideration by your Commission during it's deliberations, have no form of legal credence whatsoever.
The report states quite clearly that „The recommendation of the Disciplinary and Complaints Committee was based on the six points of the „Summary of Grounds for Expulsion from the Craft(sic)“ that were sent to the GS by the Chairman of the CDC“ and it is therefore obvious to all that these six points given are the only reasons for that committee reaching their announced recommendation.
Firstly I would like to bring your attention to the following wording used in this report.
a) Alleged Facts
This term has been mistakenly used to attempt to make accusations sound like they really did happen. Something which is alleged cannot possibly be a fact. It is indicative of the workings of the disciplinary committee that they followed a guilty until proved innocent policy whilst making their somewhat overly biased deliberations resulting in their published conclusions.
b) Evidence
This word is then used to describe a reason given to justify the above mentioned „alleged facts“. A fact is something that is proved to be true and therefore an alleged fact cannot exist. and as such just cannot be accepted by any legal court in the nation in which we reside. Most of this so called evidence is based on hearsay.
Now I would like to examine closely what each point says and give you my answer. You will no doubt realise that after being confronted for the first time with these allegations on the 21st of September 2008, I tried to give you and your Commission my best answers but without being afforded the luxury of having read these before. I feel you should not be against listening to my more expansive answers in writing, to the six points mentioned.
Point 1: As I said at the meeting, I was the Junior Grand Warden of the Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany. Unlike a brother who has been appointed to the rank of Past Junior Grand Warden by the Grand Master according to regulation no.19, a brother who has served as a Grand Office retains the title „Past“ whatever he was upon leaving that office. Should he be appointed by the Grand Master to a Past Grand Rank which is higher than the one he held then he accepts an appointment as such. In my case I left the office of Junior Grand Warden and keep the title Past Junior Grand Warden by right. The evidence to prove this could not be any clearer than the wording on the Certificate I received from the then Grand Master, which I am sure you will have to agree is non refutable. I cannot accept therefore that point 1 has any relevance in this matter.
Point 2: As has already been proved clearly to your Commission , the meeting cited in the documents was not a meeting of a „Constituent Lodge“ as described in the „alleged fact“ under point 2 of the CDC findings. I feel this matter is now no longer pertinent.
Point 3: As discussed at some length on the 21st of September, there are no restrictions applying to a brother, whether suspended by his Grand Lodge or not, applying to join a Partner Grand Lodge within the United Grand Lodges of Germany. As this is the case, the matter of my applying to join a lodge of the Grand Lodge AF & AM of Germany is perfectly acceptable. I cannot therefore view this matter as being any form of transgression on my part. You can get further confirmation directly from Bro Axel Pohlmann, although he actually wrote as much in a letter of which a copy is included in the document package from the CDC-I am surprised this wasn't discovered by your Commission as it should have closed the matter satisfactorily. It is not possible therefore, for the CDC to give any reasons whatsoever for including this matter as one of the points which influenced their decision. It seems to me that in this particular matter, they were not fully aware of regulations, either of our own Grand Lodge or indeed, those of the United Grand Lodges of Germany as stated in the Magna Charta.
Point 4: You actually stated at the Commission meeting on the 21st of September that I had maintained contact with a quasi Masonic organisation. My only possible answer to this was to challenge you to prove that this „alleged fact“ was true. It was not possible for you to do so and neither could the CDC. As I stated to your Commission, I cannot be held responsible for letters written by others. This is a basic and flawless fact and makes this so called allegation completely irrelevant.
Point 5: This is a very interesting point. As already stated, even if suspended by the Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany, a brother can still attend lodges of other Grand Lodges. This is a fact. Please advise me if you have information regarding regulations of either our Grand Lodge or the United Grand Lodges of Germany which state otherwise as I am confident there are none. Recently Bro Savino Batinov was recently suspended by our Grand Lodge. He is a member of the ACGL too. Taking the assumption of the CDC into account, Bro Batinov should have been thereby prevented from visiting lodges of the partner Grand Lodges. This is not so. Bro Batinov was also suspended by the ACGL. Both of these suspensions do not presently prevent him from attending a lodge of one of the three other partner Grand Lodges within the United Grand Lodges of Germany. The matter with Schiller Lodge is easily explained by correspondence from both the brethren of Schiller Lodge, signed by their WM and the letter from the visitors of the Forget Me Not Association. I am therefore completely bemused by the idea that the CDC could interpret this matter as being so grave in it's nature as to warrant a recommendation of expulsion!
As for the accusation or „alleged fact“ that I organised a meeting of Lodge Bridge of Fellowship No.929, I believe that I have proven beyond doubt that it was only a private meeting and not a lodge meeting. The Grand Master has already confirmed in writing that there can be no opposition to any private meeting between anybody, whether they happen to be members of this Grand Lodge or not. Added to the above paragraph I find no substance of any credibility whatsoever in the point 5 of the CDC report.
Point 6: There can be little that I can say about this particular point as it is based on totally subjective opinions of the CDC and uses selected correspondence in an almost manipulative manner in order to attempt to give this point credence. Although I believe I said enough at the Commission meeting on the 21st of September I would like to add that by talking to the membership of Lodge Bridge of Fellowship, something which neither the CDC nor your Commission have done, will clearly show that the disharmony found to be prevalant amongst members of the lodge was almost exclusively caused by the Grand Master, the Deputy Grand Master and the Grand Secretary.
In conclusion I do have some sympathy for your position and the instructions you have been given about the outcome of your deliberations. This is of course not very Masonic. It would be an ideal situation if this matter were resolved in a Masonic manner. In spite of the extremely un-brotherly and therefore un-masonic behaviour shown towards me on a very personal and hateful level, I have always maintained that as a brother who truly understand the principles of Freemasonry, I would have no trouble whatsoever putting this matter behind me and sitting in any lodge with any of those brethren who have been involved in this conspiracy against me. In other words I would „drop a tear of sympathy over the failings of a brother“ without second thought.
Best fraternal and personal regards
John Kellas
