Just in time for Christmas there's a reason for the brothers of Halcyon Lodge in Cleveland, Ohio to celebrate. Earlier today the following was posted on the Clerk of Courts website for Cuyahoga County.
DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN FULL AS TO NON-OFFICERS MICHAEL HOWARD, JOEL MICHALEK, CHRISTOPHER MICHALEK, TOME COSTE, HALCYON CHARITIES. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS CHRIS SNOW, TODD WARMINGTON, LYNN ERIC CHIPPS, SCOTT KELLY. ONLY ISSUE THAT REMAINS FOR TRIAL IS RETURN OF "PERSONAL PROPERTY MASONIC IN NATURE AND UNPAID DUES." ALL OTHER CLAIMS FAIL. DEFENDANTS OWED NO FIDUCIARY DUTY TO GRAND LODGE AND DEFENDANTS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH TO PRESERVE ASSETS OF LODGE. THE COURT FINDS THAT THE VOTE TO TRANSFER ASSETS WAS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH BYLAWS. IN REGARDS TO NOTICE, ALL HAD NOTICE OF THE STATED (NOT SPECIAL) MEETING AND NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED THAT ANYONE COMPLAINED. THE COURT ALSO DETERMINES THAT WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED BEFORE THE VOTE ACCORDING TO BYLAW 21.04, WHICH REQUIRES NOTICE ONLY FOR SPECIAL MEETINGS NOT STATED MEETINGS. FINALLY, THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT BYLAW 9.01 IS NOT APPLICABLE AS "ANY OTHER SUCH POLICY OF TEMPLE OWNERSHIP *** SUBMITTED TO TEMPLE COMMITTEE" AS THE ACTION WAS NOT FINANCING OR CREATING INDEBTEDNESS. PRE-TRIAL SET FOR 01/12/2010 AT 02:45 PM. PRETRIAL SET TO SCHEDULE ADDITONAL COURT DATES INCLUDING TRIAL DATE. CLPAL 12/22/2009 NOTICE ISSUED
According to the court's ruling, the brothers of Halcyon Lodge acted in accordance with the Masonic bylaws and in good faith.
I find Legal Judgements somewhat difficult to follow especially USA ones and particularly when I do not not know the Plaintiffs and the Defendents. It is also difficult to read postings which are in mostly in UPPER CASE.
So what is the outcome of the findings of this Court? Who are the "victors", the Brethren who left the original Halcyon Lodge in Ohio, or those who remained affiliated to the GL of Ohio?
"Victors" of course is a hollow expression in this instance as I do not feel that Brethren of a Lodge having to go to a Court of Law is any victory.
Also how does this affect the GOUSA? I assume that their Halcyon Lodge is still in being?
Post by teddyballgame on Dec 24, 2009 21:24:44 GMT
It means the men of halcyon didnot break GLoO codes with their actions, nor State Laws, so all charges levied against them are no good.
The effects, maybe that other Lodges now see they have freedom to choose their Masonic paths and do not have to bend knee to tyrannical Grand Lodges.
as far as Halcyon No 2 of the GOUSA, it is alive and well. This ruling kind of proves that the original Halcyon men shut down their Lodge and the Grand Lodge of Ohio propped up a fake Lodge(498) to attempt this lawsuit.
from what I decipher in this post is that the men of Halcyon have zero liabilities and can now move on.