The United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge of Texas: And the Case of the Stolen Lineage, Part 2

Transcription

1 The United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge of Texas: And the Case of the Stolen Lineage, Part 2 Written by WB John L. Hairston, Research Consultant Blue-Lite Research Group Is it safe to say that the United Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge (1921 UMW) was set up as a rival Grand Lodge to the ORIGINAL MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas under Mitchell (1908)? The answer is YES. Now that we have already shown that the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of 1908 was the ORIGINAL and TRUE Body (although clandestine) in Part 1, and that the United MW King Solomon GL of 1921 [Now called United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge of Texas] is the body created SEPARATELY by disgruntled and expelled members of the Original body who, losing their case in 1921, and the Writ of Error being dismissed Nov. 6, 1921, went and incorporated a rival Grand Lodge to Mitchell s organization; This is where we can begin Part. 2 Now after the Incorporation of the United Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge, May 5, 1921, we find an amendment to the charter of this organization dated, September 20 th, and has Boozier, the same expelled GM and Plaintiff in the Writ of Error, who lost and was declared the illegal GM of the 1908 body, as Grand Master of the United Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge. Below is a true copy of that Amendment:

2 Notice on the document that the same name is used for both groups (UMW KSGL and MW Widow Son GL) OES Grand Chapters. The Grand Chapter name is the same for the original MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of 1908, which further validates that these two groups were factions that were expelled and left the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas under Mitchell. One UMW member attempted to say that this was a C. L. Mitchell creation, established after he lost the MW King Solomon GL of Texas to Nelson N. Boozier; However, it is evident from all documentation that C. L. Mitchell was NEVER put out or lost the organization. He was always a member of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas, and had no need to create another body; but Boozier had a reason. Here are the incorporation papers for the MW Widow s Son Grand Lodge 2, allegedly attributed to C. L. Mitchell:

3

4

5 King Solomon Universal Grand Lodge was the first name of the Widow s Son Grand Lodge before they changed their name. This Body was formed in 1915, and we know that C. L. Mitchell was the Grand Master of Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas in This dispels the attempt by UMW hardliners to make the Widow Son Grand Lodge a body created by Mitchell to validate their claim that he was expelled from, or not a member of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge (Tx) in Many of the UMW members know of the Widow s Son Grand Lodge merger with Boozier s group in 1923, but wasn t aware of the original name of the group, which would have readily put the matter to rest. C. L. Mitchell was not tied to the MW Widow s Son Grand Lodge. Below is an example of UMW member s attempt to pin C. L. Mitchell to the Widow s Son Grand Lodge 3 : Adrian Mask If you want, we can also talk about these two "regular" GLs that Mitchell formed and I will help you find out where they are. I helped you already because you didn't know the name of the first one. It was Widow's Son GL. The other was Hiram Tyrian GL. I doubt one person can keep a GL going. He didn't. July 21 at 6:53am I am now posting the documentation for the name change to show that the King Solomon Universal Grand Lodge is the one and same entity as the Widow s Son Grand Lodge. This further establishes that Widow s Son Grand Lodge was established in 1915, under the name of the King Solomon Universal Grand Lodge, and Mitchell was no part of this entity 4.

6 Why is it so important to tie Mitchell to this particular Grand Lodge (Widow s Son GL)? They believe that it proves that Mitchell was not the Grand Master in during the time of the initial turbulence in the organization, and that Boozier expelled Mitchell from the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. Their assumption is-if Mitchell started another Body, then he couldn t have been the Grand Master of the other-true concept, but it doesn t apply to

7 this case, as we have shown that C. L. Mitchell wasn t involved in the establishment of the Widow s Son Grand Lodge and his name isn t on any of the documents related to the group. In 1925, Charles L. Mitchell died and in the December 1925 Annual Session the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas elected a new GM, Ed Howard 5 : This is an important document based on the dating; it is the belief and teaching of the United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge of Texas, that N. N. Boozier was Grand Master of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas from

8 Here is a statement issued by the Chairman of the Historical Committee of UMW in the Regularity vs. Irregularity Facebook discussion group 6 : John Hairston The legal body of MWKSGL was allegedly absorbed in 1958 by St. Joseph GL. The organization wasn't perpetual but set to expire in 50 years =1958. They failed to refile their reports or make returns, and were given a notice of dissolution by the state of Texas. Rather than make Masonic vagabonds they surrendered their GL charter to St. Joseph GL. Boozier was never LEGALLY a GM...here is a question for you, when was Boozier LEGALLY elected to the East for the MWKSGL? July 20 at 4:30pm via mobile Adrian Mask 1919 July 20 at 4:44pm via mobile John Hairston How long did he serve LEGALLY? July 20 at 5:57pm Adrian Mask Until 44 July 20 at 5:58pm via mobile Here is a clear statement from one of the Worshipful Masters of the UMW claiming a continued Grand Mastership of Nelson N. Boozier over the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas (MWKSGL) from Yet, from the amendment to the Articles of Incorporation dated January 4, 1926, we find Ed Howard as Grand Master. The amendment document serves to dispel the claim of a continued Grand Mastership by Boozier over the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge from The document also serves to show evidence that the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge was still in operation independent and separate from the United Most Worshipful Grand Lodge under Boozier, who by 1926 had assumed the seat of Grand Master of the UMW predecessor, the United Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge. Now, we have established that Nelson N. Boozier was the Grand Master of the United Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge from We have established that this same Nelson Boozier was deemed an illegal Officer in the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas founded by C. L. Mitchell. All of this means that Nelson Boozier was restrained from interfering with the work and the operation of the Mitchell group; but as we will see, Boozier waited until the death of Mitchell in 1925 to continue his attempts at gaining control of the organization C. L. Mitchell founded. I know that some may say that I am voicing an opinion, and speculating the motive of Nelson Boozier, but his actions raises questions as to what was so important about C. L. Mitchell s organization that he couldn t just be content as Grand Master of his own clandestine body; Why, after becoming Grand Master of an entire separate group, he found it so compelling to be Grand Master of Mitchell s group? Here is an example of a questionable action of Boozier that begins to display a very disturbing character of this man. Below is the 1926

9 Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation for the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas after the death of C. L. Mitchell: Take due notice that this amendment originates from a majority vote at a meeting (Annual Stated Meeting) of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas on December 28 th, Then we find a documented amendment filed by Boozier in :

10 The above document was drawn up by Nelson N. Boozier and others on December 17 th, 1926, and it was attested by Notary Public on December 17 th, 1926, but was not filed with the Secretary of State until February 18 th, the Secretary of State: I want to post the cover page to this amendment to show the filing date with

11 Strangely enough Boozier would draw up an Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation in December 1926, have them notarized in the same month and year, and then wait two months to file them with the Secretary of State. This is the first sign of suspect dealings. Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to this portion of the amendment filed by Boozier 8 :

12 The amendment states that Boozier and his cohorts held a Special meeting, on December 13, If Nelson N. Boozier was the rightful Grand Master, then why hold a Special Meeting in a month where the regular Annual Communication is held? Secondly, NONE of the other names listed match any of those on the 1926 Amendment papers filed by Ed Howard, meaning this is another group that filed paperwork under the MWKSGL of Texas file. There is substantial evidence to show the existence of not just two separate bodies, but that both were rivals, and the United Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge was the antithesis of C. L. Mitchell s original Grand Body of I want to fast forward to 1934, and share an amendment the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas filed. This amendment is being presented to show that in 1934, another Grand Master is elected for the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas, J. E. Palmer 9 :

13

14 As we can see, June 20 th, 1933, the new administration was elected and the amendment filed January 9 th of 1934 (strange). We still do not see Boozier as Grand Master, and that there are two separate bodies, The Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge (1908) and the United King Solomon Grand Lodge (1921). Now, in 1936 James A. McDonald becomes Grand Master of MW King Solomon Grand Lodge, he was elected as such at a Special Meeting on December 27 th, 1935, and they change the location of the organization from Beaumont, Texas back to Houston Texas 10 :

15 Now, we get to the defining moment for the UMW group, and we can now see the extent of the corruption of their past leaders. In 1936, an amendment was filed with the

16 Secretary of State, dated March 5 th, 1936 with the signature of Boozier, and the alleged signatures of James A. McDonald, George LeBlanc, James Davis and O. H. Butler 11 :

17

18

19 I said alleged signatures because I will present two documents with those signatures, and we will let you be the judge. I want to first point out some very obvious inconsistencies with this document, and place it in its true context. The lawful paperwork filed by the officers of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge was filed on July 8, 1936, listing James A. McDonald as the Grand Master. Boozier filed his document on March 5 th, 1936 listing himself as the Director and Chairman, and James A. McDonald as Grand Master. Now, let s take a closer look at the document filed by Boozier. Let us go back to the first page of the above document and you will see a number there at the top. The number is written and then struck out, and replaced with the REAL file number (18875) for the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas 12. This was significant, because it shows that the Boozier group who filed this document didn t know the actual number of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge file, and had to correct the number before filing the document to declare themselves as the Directors and Officers of the group. I want to point out the next portion which is not an allegation or attack on Nelson N. Boozier or the UMW group; I am going to show the facts. This is the reality, despite their claims of an attack the facts will speak for themselves. I am about to present the signature page of the paperwork filed illegally by Boozier in an attempt to take the group in 1926, which was amended, and now we see this attempt in Below are the signatures of the Boozier paperwork of :

20 Take note very closely of all the signatures. Now here are the signatures of James A. McDonald, George Le Blanc, O. H. Butler and others from the 1936 Amendment for the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas 14 :

21 I want to draw you attention to the signatures of James A. McDonald and George Le Blanc. Here, you can clearly see that these are different signatures. This reveals a clear forgery in the Boozier paperwork, where he had the names of these two men forged to his paperwork. But, the most vital piece we need to take from the signature page of Boozier s paperwork is that Boozier by his own filing admits that he was not the Grand Master of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas in 1936, so the UMW belief that Boozier was Grand Master from is shattered by his own forged documents where he didn t even list himself as Grand Master. If Nelson N. Boozier didn t even claim himself as Grand Master, then where are they getting their information to make such claims? After Nelson N. Boozier filed the illegal paperwork, and took over the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas file and incorporation, we find the objective and motive in a document filed by Boozier on October 9, :

22

23 I then went to the date of the meeting in which the decision was made to dissolve the group, which the document stated, August 29 th, I want you to understand that there was no mention (in the paperwork) of an election of new officers for the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas, because we also find an entire new set of Officers totally different from the March 5, 1936 Amendment. This is a clear indication of fraudulent dealings of the leader of the UMW predecessor. Now, we can conclude from this document the real motive of Boozier in filing the March 5 th, 1936 paperwork declaring himself the Chairman; However, in October 1936, he declared himself as Grand Master, but for the purpose of dissolving the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas and creating a new group under him, thereby claiming the work of C. L. Mitchell. Now, here is my personal opinion based on what is recorded of Boozier, and the documentation before me; Boozier was bitter having lost his chance as Grand Master of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas in 1920, and eventually the Case against Mitchell in So, he set out to destroy the work of Mitchell by dissolving his work, the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas and claim it as his own. Why else would Boozier continue to keep his rival Grand Lodge (United Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge) active while he claimed to be the Director of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas? His motive wasn t to be the Grand Master of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas, but to claim the Group as his own work, as we shall soon see.

24 In 1939, Boozier made a grave mistake filing conflicting paperwork. Although the action against him was not filed until the next year (1940) due to MWKSGL of Texas negligence, the courts decided against Boozier because the evidence proved that Boozier was not a legal officer or member of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. Here is the document filed by Boozier 16 :

25

26

27 Here is the mistake. In October 9, 1936 Boozier had already dissolved the group, but here we have him changing the name of dissolved group, and attempting to file a new Charter for the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. Boozier cited the special meeting of April 28, 1939, which was for the purpose of amending the charter of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge The question that was probably asked is how can you amend the Charter of a dissolved group? Once the fraudulent actions of Boozier were discovered, this began litigation by the true members of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas against Boozier and the fraudulent group 17 : BOOZIER ET AL. v. MCDONALD ET AL. No Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Galveston 177 S.W.2d 807; 1942 Tex. App. LEXIS 776 Feb. 26, 1942, Decided CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants, a fraternal lodge and its officers (lodge two), sought review of a judgment of the District Court of Harris County (Texas), which granted appellees, a fraternal lodge and its officers (lodge one), a permanent injunction restraining lodge two from using or operating under the name used by lodge one.

28 OVERVIEW: Lodge one brought an action against lodge two, seeking a declaration that lodge one was the legally-organized local chapter of a certain fraternal organization and seeking an injunction restraining lodge two from using lodge one's name. Lodge two asserted that lodge one's action was barred by the statute of limitations and that lodge one was guilty of laches. When the trial court issued the requested injunction and awarded lodge one nominal damages, lodge two sought review. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment. The court found that the injunction had been properly granted, noting that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that lodge two had unlawfully usurped lodge one's name and authority and that the action had been brought in a timely manner. The court noted that an injunction was the proper remedy to prevent the public confusion and unfair and fraudulent competition that might have resulted from lodge two's continuing use of a name that closely approximated the name used by lodge one. OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment. Business & Corporate Law > Corporate Names > Requirements Trademark Law > Infringement Actions > Remedies > Equitable Relief > General Overview Trademark Law > Special Marks > Trade Names > General Overview [HN1] A corporation or association cannot lawfully adopt or use either the same name as that of an existing corporation or of an unincorporated association or partnership, or a name so similar to that of an existing corporation or association that its use is calculated to deceive the public and result in confusion or unfair and fraudulent competition. A corporation or association so using such a name may be enjoined from such use, whatever may be the character of the corporation and whether or not they are formed for profit, to the same extent and upon the same principles that individuals are protected in the use of trademarks and trade names. COUNSEL: [**1] Alpha & Brunson, of Houston, for appellants. J. Dixie Smith and C. W. Croom, both of Houston, for appellees. JUDGES: MONTEITH, Chief Justice. OPINION BY: MONTEITH

29 OPINION [*808] This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Harris County granting appellees, James A. McDonald et al., as officers of one colored Masonic Lodge, a permanent injunction, restraining appellants, Nelson N. Boozier et al., as officers of another colored Masonic Lodge, from further using or operating under the name "Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M., and Queen Esther Grand Chapter Order of the Eastern Star, and Daughters of the Sphinx." Appellees alleged that they were the duly elected officers of said fraternal order and that appellants had and were unlawfully and fraudulently operating under the name of said lodge and that they had adopted and were using its constitution and by-laws and its ritualistic work and degrees. They sought judgment declaring themselves to be the lawful officers of said lodge, and an injunction restraining appellants from further using or operating under such name, and for damages. Appellants answered by general demurrer and exceptions. They specially [**2] pled that the cause of action asserted by appellees was barred by the two-year statute of limitations and that appellees were guilty of unexplained laches and delay in waiting four years to file this action. In a trial before the court, without a jury, judgment was rendered enjoining and restraining appellants from further using or operating under such name and for nominal damages in the sum of $ 10. Appellants appeal from this order. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by the trial court. They were excepted to by appellants. It is the settled law in this state that [HN1] a corporation or association cannot lawfully adopt or use either the same name as that of an existing corporation or of an unincorporated association or partnership, or a name so similar to that of an existing corporation or association that its use is calculated to deceive the public and result in confusion or unfair and fraudulent competition (14 C.J. 312; 18 C.J.S., Corporations, 167, page 564) and that the corporation or association so using said name may be enjoined from such use, whatever may be the character of the corporation and whether or not they are formed for profit, to the same [**3] extent and upon the same principles that individuals are protected in the use of trademarks and tradenames (14 C.J., 326; 18 C.J.S., Corporations, 173, p. 574). Grand Temple, etc., v. Independent Order of Knights and Daughters of Tabor of America et al., Tex. Com. App., 44 S.W.2d 973. The record shows that the full name of appellees' lodge, prior to January 1, 1936, was "Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M., Queen Esther Grand Chapter Order of the Eastern Star and Daughters of the Sphinx", that the name of appellants' lodge at that time was the same except for the prefix "United". The trial court found that upon that date, appellees had entered into an agreement with appellants for the consolidation of the two lodges but that this agreement was never authorized by the lodge and was repudiated by it, that appellees were and had been, at all times relevant to the [*809] suit, the duly and legally elected officers of said lodge, that appellant Boozier had never been elected either a member or an officer of said lodge, that he and other appellants had usurped the power and authority of the officers of said lodge and that they had been and were using the fraternal [**4] name of said lodge for their own use and benefit. The court

30 further found that the officers of appellees' lodge had not been guilty of laches in not sooner instituting the suit. Under the above findings of fact, upon conflicting evidence, that appellees were the duly and legally elected officers of said lodge and that appellants had, without authority, adopted and were using the name of the lodge and that, under the facts in the instant case, appellees had not been guilty of laches in not sooner instituting the suit, the judgment of the trial court is conclusive and binding upon this court and the judgment must be, in all things, affirmed. Affirmed. The original case was filed by McDonald against Boozier as an injunction to stop Boozier and the fraudulent group from operating and using the name of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. McDonald and his group won the case, which led to several court filings which ended in the above appeal filed by Boozier. I want to point out specific points in the appeal to give you an idea of the events between the 1936 filing of the bogus documentation by Boozier to the initial court filing of the injunction by McDonald. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment. The court found that the injunction had been properly granted, noting that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that lodge two had unlawfully usurped lodge one's name and authority and that the action had been brought in a timely manner. The court noted that an injunction was the proper remedy to prevent the public confusion and unfair and fraudulent competition that might have resulted from lodge two's continuing use of a name that closely approximated the name used by lodge one According to the above excerpt, after filing the amendment of 1939 by Boozier to change the name of the very group he also filed to dissolve in 1936, McDonald, the legal Grand Master, filed an injunction against Boozier and his fraudulent group to cease operating as the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. This injunction was granted, because the courts found sufficient evidence to support that Boozier [denoted as lodge two in the appeal paper] had unlawfully filed the 1936 documents for amendment and dissolution, as well as the 1939 amendment to change the name and establish a new charter. Now, let s get a clear understanding that there were proceedings, minutes, corporate documents and supporting documentation available that the courts used to come to their ruling. This has to be understood, so that we don t get the idea that the courts ruled against Boozier based on mere testimony or hearsay; it was the paperwork present by both parties that moved the court. This tells us that Boozier did not have the sufficient supporting documentation to prove that he was the legitimate Grand Master or that any of what he claimed in the corporate documentation was accurate or factual. This also tells us that the minutes and proceedings of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas revealed that Boozier was not a member of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas, even less, the Grand Master at any time after 1919.

31 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Harris County granting appellees, James A. McDonald et al., as officers of one colored Masonic Lodge, a permanent injunction, restraining appellants, Nelson N. Boozier et al., as officers of another colored Masonic Lodge, from further using or operating under the name "Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M., and Queen Esther Grand Chapter Order of the Eastern Star, and Daughters of the Sphinx." Appellees alleged that they were the duly elected officers of said fraternal order and that appellants had and were unlawfully and fraudulently operating under the name of said lodge and that they had adopted and were using its constitution and by-laws and its ritualistic work and degrees. They sought judgment declaring themselves to be the lawful officers of said lodge, and an injunction restraining appellants from further using or operating under such name, and for damages. Appellants answered by general demurrer and exceptions. They specially [**2] pled that the cause of action asserted by appellees was barred by the two-year statute of limitations and that appellees were guilty of unexplained laches and delay in waiting four years to file this action. The next portion shows that McDonald won the original injunction, and Boozier filed an Appeal, but please note why Boozier felt the judgment of the courts was in error; not because he was the legal Grand Master or that his group was the rightful custodians of the property and the legal Officers of the group, but because McDonald had waited four years before the illegal action was caught. The record shows that the full name of appellees' lodge, prior to January 1, 1936, was "Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M., Queen Esther Grand Chapter Order of the Eastern Star and Daughters of the Sphinx", that the name of appellants' lodge at that time was the same except for the prefix "United". organization. Now, even the courts saw that they were two distinct groups and NOT the same The trial court found that upon that date, appellees had entered into an agreement with appellants for the consolidation of the two lodges but that this agreement was never authorized by the lodge and was repudiated by it, that appellees were and had been, at all times relevant to the [*809] suit, the duly and legally elected officers of said lodge, that appellant Boozier had never been elected either a member or an officer of said lodge, that he and other appellants had usurped the power and authority of the officers of said lodge and that they had been and were using the fraternal [**4] name of said lodge for their own use and benefit. The above is a piece in the appeal judgment that should end the matter that Boozier was a Grand Master or member of MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. So, we find Boozier, the Grand Master of the United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge of Texas guilty of an attempt to steal and fraudulently usurp the lineage and work of C. L. Mitchell in black and white. The paperwork in the files of the Secretary of State of Texas as well as the Courts reveals this without doubt or contradiction. I want to share another case here dated, Nov. 23, :

32 BOOZIER ET AL. v. MCDONALD ET AL. No Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Galveston 177 S.W.2d 809; 1943 Tex. App. LEXIS 748 Nov. 23, 1943, Decided

33 CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants sought review of a judgment of a trial court (Texas), which enjoined them from further infringing upon the name of appellees and ordered them to pay nominal damages to appellees. The trial court had previously entered a permanent injunction restraining appellants from operating under a name including other terms. OVERVIEW: The trial court found that the use of the name by appellants not only constituted an infringement upon the rights of appellees but had been used as a cloak for purloining their business for many years, operating as a fraud upon and directly injuring them in their reputation, business, lodgework, and finances. The court held that there was ample supporting evidence in the record. The court further found that the first case in which a permanent injunction was granted did not operate as res judicata, estopping appellees from subsequently maintaining the suit. Furthermore, another suit involving different parties was not res judicata because the parties were different, as was the subject matter. The court found that appellants' pleas of alleged laches, delay, and acquiescence upon appellees' part in having failed to assert their right to stop the infringement upon their name were not sustained by the evidence where the trial court found that appellants' enjoined acts, at all material times, constituted a continuous fraud upon the rights of appellees. OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment. COUNSEL: [**1] Alpha & Brunson, of Houston, for appellants. J. Dixie Smith and C. W. Croom, both of Houston, for appellees. JUDGES: GRAVES, Justice. OPINION BY: GRAVES OPINION

34 [*809] This is the second controversy brought here by the same appellants against the same appellees over much the same subject matter, but involving different acts and relationships between the parties with reference thereto. The former appeal under the same style as the present one, but which was No. 11,341 in this court, 177 S.W.2d 807, was from "a judgment of the district court of Harris County granting appellees, James A. McDonald et al., as officers of one colored Masonic Lodge, a permanent injunction, restraining appellants, Nelson N. Boozier et al., as officers of another colored Masonic Lodge from further using or operating under the name "Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge, A. F. & A. M., and Queen Esther Grand Chapter, Order of the Eastern Star and Daughters of the Sphinx." Whereas the present one is from the same district court (the 55th of Harris County), in favor of the appellees against the appellants, decreeing in substance: That the appellants, Nelson N. Boozier and H. B. Turner and United Most Worshipful [**2] King Solomon Grand Lodge, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, Queen Esther Grand Chapter, Order of the Eastern Star and Daughters of the Sphinx, a corporation, be, and they and each of them are, hereby enjoined and restrained from further using [*810] or operating under any imitation of that name, which shall include the words "King Solomon", or the words "Queen Esther", and that they pay the appellees nominal damages in the sum of ten dollars. It thus appears, in brief, that before the appellants were permanently enjoined from operating under the name of the appellees, "The Most Worshipful, etc., Grand Lodge", whereas this time they were likewise enjoined from further operating under the name formerly claimed by themselves, that is, "The United, etc., Lodge", which latter name was identical with the former one, except for the one word "United" prefixed thereto. Without further recitation of the facts, it is enough to recite that the learned trial court granted this second injunction against the appellants upon findings of fact, the gist of which was that this present suit between the parties was the only one in which the right of the appellant-corporation to the use of [**3] its name "United, etc.", and to operate thereunder, had been challenged; that, under the fully developed evidence on the final hearing, such name and its use not only constituted an infringement upon the rights of the appellees, but had been used as a cloak for purloining their business for many years, operating as a fraud upon and directly injuring them in their reputation, business, lodge-work, and finances. On the law, in support of this extending of the permanent injunction against the use of the appellees' name, as so camouflaged with such prefix of "United" attached thereto, the court again held that there had been no waiver nor laches on the part of the appellees in seeking such additional restraint, and that prior court proceedings in cause No. 28,242 in the district court of Jefferson County and No. 268,651 in the district court of Harris County had not constituted res adjudicata of the rights so claimed by and awarded to appellees in this controversy. After a review of the record, this court overrules appellants' assignments, and affirms the challenged judgment, upon these among other considerations, to-wit: (1) There was ample supporting evidence in the record, [**4] which included all the proceedings had before the court on a prior temporary injunction hearing that had been held herein, as well as the testimony of appellant Boozier himself over the whole range of his relationship with both named concerns; indeed, the trial court based material portions of his stated findings of fact upon that testimony, as appears from an extended examination of that witness by the court itself;

35 (2) As indicated supra, the former controversy so affirmed by this court on February 26, 1942, 177 S.W.2d 807, in which the Supreme Court refused, for want of merit, a writ of error on April 15, 1942, did not operate as res adjudicata, estopping appellees from subsequently maintaining this suit; because, whatever may have been incidentally referred to therein, no such injunctive relief was ever prayed for, or granted therein, against the "United, etc., Lodge", as was the sole subject matter of this decree, just as the trial court found. That decision is therefore cited--along with the authorities therein referred to--as being in support of this affirmance of the judgment in this instance; (3) Neither was such prior suit No. 28,242 in the 58th District Court of Jefferson [**5] County, res adjudicata in this controversy, because, undisputedly, it was an agreed-judgment between the parties thereto, who were different ones from those here; neither was the subject matter the same, nor did that court adjudicate any right of these appellees to enjoin the appellants from such simulation and infringement upon the appellees' name, as was so found to have been done by appellants in this instance; (4) Likewise, the appellants' pleas of alleged laches, delay, and acquiescence upon the appellees' part in having failed to sooner assert their right to stop this infringement upon their name, as against the trial court's finding on the facts and holding on the law that appellants' enjoined acts at all material times constituted a continuous fraud upon the rights of the appellees, were not sustained by any material evidence. Those conclusions require an affirmance of the judgment; it will be so ordered. Affirmed. Now, up until 1943, Boozier s group had been operating under the name of the United Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas, which the courts found was still operating under the fraudulent intent of maintaining the name but using United to claim difference. This was the case that led to the name change of the Boozier s group from the United Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas to the United Most Worshipful King Solomon Scottish Rite Grand Lodge of Texas 19 :

36

37

38 As we can see from the paperwork that Boozier was reluctant to give up the name King Solomon, and chose to keep it affixed to the name. But after the November 23, 1943 decision of the Appeals Court, Boozier and the UMW group had no other choice but to comply and change the name forever, which then sparked a number of documents filed and affixed to the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas file, purging the file of Boozier s antics. Here is the last name change for the Boozier group to the name they now hold presently 20 :

39 Now, this documents the reasons of the name change of the United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge of Texas, AFAM, and gives the accounts of the fraudulent and unprincipled actions of their leadership. As a result of the Court judgments and the discovery of unlawful filing of paperwork to the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas file, the Secretary of State set out to purge the file of all actions by Boozier 21 :

40 The above declaration by the Secretary of State, Sid Latham, was issued after the Court Order was handed by the Appeals Court finding Boozier and his group guilty of fraudulent practices and misrepresentation of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. The case was carried on by then Grand Master, George Taylor, who was granted an injunction against Boozier and the UMW to change their name, which occurred in The Judgment of the Courts which is attached to document # of file # has the details of the cases of both James A. McDonald and George Taylor against Boozier, Hudson B. Turner and the UMW Scottish Rite Grand Lodge of Texas, and should be referred to in getting clarity on the dispute and charges against the UMW organization. Here is an excerpt of the Judgement 22 :

41 By this time, Nelson N. Boozier, Grand Master and organizer of the United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge of Texas, AFAM, had passed, and the organization is now under the leadership of one Hudson B. Turner. This is a very important shift in the paper, because it is necessary to address a misconception of the UMW, and provide a substantial response to dispel some misleading claims by UMW hardliners. In a discussion with the UMW Chairman of the Historical Committee, I was told that the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas merged with the UMW in 1960, which gave them the property of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. The line of reasoning is that if the MW King Solomon of Texas gave them the Charters and property that this entitles them to say they are the same group as the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. This couldn t be further from the truth, and will be explained later in the paper. Here are the documents that were provided as evidence to the claim of UMW that there was a merger in : The above document was used to allege that a Release of Judgment was filed by James A. McDonald, releasing UMW from the judgment of the Court, June 25 th, 1941, that was filed by James A. McDonald against UMW. The provider of the document attempted to present the document as a legal document that had been enforced and served to affirm his position of a 1960 merger between the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas and UMW. What is readily attained in reading it carefully is that it isn t a court document at all, and holds no legal weight; neither provides sufficient evidence that the contents of the document were ever activated. In fact, it is a contract that was drawn up between the UMW organization and the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. The words that gives this away are, and agrees to join in a motion to the court which tells us that the Motion had YET to be filed. So, the document may

42 prove intent, but not actual enforcement of the content. I proceeded to ask the source of the document to provide the name of the court where the motion of Release of Judgment was filed in, and asked could he provide the ruling on the motion by a Judge proving that the Motion was granted. It is a known fact that a party to a civil suit cannot release another party from a judgment handed down by the court, unless that motion is brought before the court showing just reason the courts should vacate the judgment against the 2 nd party. If James A. McDonald filed a Motion to the Court, then there would be paperwork to that effect, and could be presented along with the Judgment on the Motion. Needless to say, the documentation was never provided, but hopefully in a possible rebuttal, we will be able to view that paperwork. So, the lack of documentation of the courts showing that a motion was actually filed and granted by the courts renders this document insufficient to prove that UMW was released from the injunction granted June 25, In addition to that, there is no mention, in the above document, of a Release from the 1944 Judgment against UMW filed by George Taylor 24 which served as an injunction against UMW to cease using the name of MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas and to no longer hold themselves out to be or represent the MW king Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. So, even if UMW could present the adequate documents to substantiate the above document, they could not count that as a release from ALL judgments against the organization. I want to also present this small strip of a document that was posted to the same debate group by a UMW source, citing that James A. McDonald was made a life member of the UMW 25 : This is obviously connected to the same contract that was published earlier from 1960, and was supposed to have been able to substantiate a merger, based on the intent of the contract that upon the execution of the other provisions of the contract the merger would ensue and these two men would become life members of the UMW Grand Lodge. This is still insufficient evidence because it is a component of the same contract that has no proof of execution. It shows INTENT, but not execution. Now, I am going to return to this particular piece later, after I publish other paperwork that contradicts the document presented by the UMW Historical Committee Chairman. Here is the last page he presented as evidence that there was a merger 26 :

43

44 The first inconsistency I noticed was point b, where it states that there was an original charter of Constitution dated June As I have thoroughly provided in Part 1, is that there was no origin for the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas in Allow me again to provide an excerpt from the founder of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas, Charles L. Mitchell s book and allow him to dictate the origin of the Grand Lodge he founded 27 : Let s speak in terms of reality. Who else would know better the origin and history of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas than the Founder? Nowhere in the entire publication written by Charles L. Mitchell do we read of an 1877 Charter for a Grand Lodge by the name of MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. Nowhere in that same booklet do we find Charles L. Mitchell stating that the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge went under another name other than the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. The 1877 charter spoken of in the contract presented by UMW could not have been a corporate charter, because that would mean that there should be paperwork in the archive of the Secretary of State of Texas, for that year, to that effect. I challenge the UMW organization to show the evidence that there was an 1877 Charter for the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. I asked the Chairman of the Historical Committee (UMW) for the date of the document he presented, and he stated 1960, which raises a whole new set of questions. Now, whenever documentation is presented, and documentation is presented that clearly refutes that documentation, it is necessary to provide additional source to support and affirm your claim. I want to provide three pieces of documentation that clearly refutes the document that UMW presented to justify claiming lineage to the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. First, I want to present the Felix Resolution 28.

45

46 The above document reveals the alleged Grand Master of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas, Felix Dixon declaring that at a Special Board Meeting held September 2, 1958, the organization decided, due to financial condition of the organization, to merge into the St. Joseph s Grand Lodge AFAM in Texas. I am not stating that this document is true or false; I am only presenting it to show that there is contrary documentation to the alleged 1960 merger document presented by UMW. This document predates the UMW document by 2 years. UMW members had no definitive explanation for this document when it was presented to them to explain how UMW could merge with MW King Solomon Grand Lodge in 1960 if they allegedly merged with St. Joseph s Grand Lodge in Secondly, I would like to present the 1959 dissolution papers filed by James A. McDonald with the Secretary of State of Texas 29 :

47 Now, if the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas dissolved its group in 1959, then what did UMW merge with in 1960? The UMW hardliners will say that the corporation dissolved, but the Grand Lodge merged with them, which might have explained it, but they didn t know that the next document existed 30 :

48 The above document was listed as document # in the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas file ( ), and was accompanied by 8 more pages of information. This document immediately casts a shadow on the alleged merger document of 1960 from the UMW, because now they will have to explain how the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas (1908) merged with UMW, but they are here filing reports in According to what we can read, the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas states that they had no knowledge that the group had been dissolved in 1959 by James A. McDonald, and that they had been operating and meeting under the name of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas since the 1908 charter was issued by the Secretary of State of Texas. I want to publish excerpts here to further allow the paperwork to state their case 31 : Please note that the Directors and members of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge state that they are requesting a revocation of the 1959 dissolution that was filed by James A. McDonald. This I found to be odd, because UMW holds a document that states that James A. McDonald merged this Grand Lodge with the UMW, but we are soon to find that it was illegal and unauthorized 32 :

49 The above excerpt states that the dissolution was not authorized by the duly elected, qualified and acting Official Board of said Corporation (MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas). What this is alleging is that the signatures on the dissolution papers of 1959 were NOT duly elected, qualified or acting Officers of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas; who were the signers? 33 James A. McDonald, the very name we see on the documentation provided by the UMW, as well as the names on this document 34 :

50 I told you that we would revisit the above document provided by UMW to substantiate a merger in Now, we have presented documentation from a very alive and independent MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas, who alleges that the 1959 papers were filled out by those who were not authorized, and neither the duly elected Officers of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas. So, this now becomes a burden to UMW to prove that McDonald was the rightful Grand Master of 1959, and was authorized to dissolve the group, or it places further doubt on the validity of the UMW document. The UMW must provide the proceedings or minutes to the elections of the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas in order to show who was duly elected in these years. This should be an easy task, as the document that the UMW presented states that the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas surrendered the property of the group to UMW. They should be able to provide the minutes for these years and clear the name of UMW, and substantiate that the document they presented is a documentation of the actual historical events. As we can see, there is a vast amount of questions, doubt and the uncovering of falsehood within the UMW organization. Due to the lack of documentation and the negligence on the part of the UMW to provide adequate documentation to support their version of their history, one is left to conclude that they are unable to defend themselves against the allegations of being a clandestine group established as a rival Grand Lodge to the MW King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas, a clandestine Masonic group itself. In Part 3 we will go into the present UMW Grand Lodge and their ties to the John G. Jones Masonic Congress. End Notes: 1. Document # , File # United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge of Texas; It should be noted that in 1923, N.N. Boozier was elected Grand Master of the UMW. If Boozier was the Grand Master of the UMW, how could he be Grand Master of Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas? Secondly, if the UMW is a direct descendant of the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge of Texas established in 1908, under C. L. Mitchell, why are they operating as an obvious SEPARATE entity? We know for a certainty that the Most Worshipful King Solomon Grand Lodge was operating in 1923 under their same name. 2. File # , (1915) MW Widow s Son Grand Lodge, Take note that C. L. Mitchell s name isn t listed anywhere on the Widow s Son Grand Lodge. This group s original name was the King Solomon Universal Grand Lodge, and later changed its name to the Widow s Son Grand Lodge. 3. Mr. Adrian Mask is a Worshipful Master of a Lodge in the UMW organization and Chairman of the Historical Committee for UMW, his comment was made in a Facebook debate forum on July 21, Yet, the documentation is contrary to what they are taught,