Royal Order of Jesters Prostitution Updates (Photos)

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   

This investigation has grown from dryly describing numbers on non profit tax returns to exposing the Shriners' dirty-little-secret sub-group, the Royal Order of Jesters and their prostitution scandals.

It's been kind of shocking to discover that this American icon has been "misleading the public for years" (1), and then come to find out that some of these Shriner/Jesters have committed sex crimes under the guise of being a non profit group.

sandyfrost.newsvine.com...










[edit on 063131p://am3134 by masonwatcher]


Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 8-12-2008 by Crakeur]




posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
[edit on 8-12-2008 by Cadbury]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Masons normally say, "Jesters are not masons..., or maybe, 'There are many subgroups that are not masons..."

The fact is, the route to secretive corruption is Freemasonry. Let's be fair, the alternative to being a member of a secret society is the Costa Nostra, Columbian drug cartels or even other assortments of cult groups. Freemasons don't have a monopoly on dark deeds. They only have a monopoly on hypocrisy. You will not hear drug dealer say that he is a good man.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Masonwatcher,

No offense, but the fragrance of the Jesters' supposed "hypocrisy" is overwhelmed by the stench of your sheeplike self-righteousness.

Morality is notoriously subjective.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Masons normally say, "Jesters are not masons..., or maybe, 'There are many subgroups that are not masons..."
As I wrote in the other thread back in March

I take issue with Frost writing "Royal Order of Jesters (ROJ) AKA Shriners AKA Masons". It's true that to be a Shriner, you must be a Master Mason, and to be in the ROJ, you must be a Shriner. But AKA implies equivalence, when clearly ROJ is a subset of a subset of masonry, and in no way should be used to reflect on masonry as a whole. That's like saying because Ted Stevens AKA a Reublican AKA a Senator may have been involved in a gay sex scandal, the whole Legislative Branch of the US government must be into gay sex. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


You're saying that since Ronald Tills was a New York State Supreme Court Judge, all lawyers anywhere must support prostitution.

What, you're not saying that? But to be a judge, one must be a lawyer, and to be a Supreme Court Judge, one must be either elected or appointed (depends on the State, I think...).


The fact is, the route to secretive corruption is Freemasonry.
Or law practice. Take your pick.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus_Fallen
Masonwatcher,

No offense, but the fragrance of the Jesters' supposed "hypocrisy" is overwhelmed by the stench of your sheeplike self-righteousness.

Morality is notoriously subjective.


Rather a bizarre juxtaposition between me and Freemasons, doncha think? I am nobody to you, never set myself up as a worthy nor am I speaking for anyone but myself. So what gives?

Of course I am going to be sanctimonies about Freemasons seeing that I am a victim of Freemason fair-gaming and harassment. I explained on a previous post that until I get justice I will endeavour to take a small piece off Freemasonry. You should see what else I have been promulgating. Hopefully others will follow suit.

[edit on 093131p://am3116 by masonwatcher]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


You got a beef with the law? Take it up with the courts.

I never knew that lawyers had a secret society like you lot. So what you are saying is that the Jester prostitution racket was run by lawyers?

[edit on 093131p://am3111 by masonwatcher]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Message sent to Crakeur




from: masonwatcher
sent: 063131p://am3154 at 06:14 AM

I seriously take issue with you insinuation of plagiarism. I pasted the link with article itself! I did not claim to have invented the incident nor pass of the article as mine; the link was attached. I merely did not follow the ATS format having struggled to put the images on the post.

Plagiarism suggests that someone is passing off some else's words in there body of work. I did not produce any work but highlighted a news article. Please correct the tag of plagiarism you placed on the post.


Incidentally, all non-masons should look at the photos of the teen-aged girls and the old master masons. I did not take these photos nor am I trying to pass them off as my work. The came with article. Hopefully I will not be accused of plagiarising the photos as well.

Honestly gov, I was not there and I didn't take the photos.


[edit on 093131p://am3107 by masonwatcher]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
I seriously take issue with you insinuation of plagiarism.
Yet, somehow you left off the required copyright notice...

All copies of material reprinted or duplicated from "by Sandy Frost" must include the following credit line: From sandyfrost.newsvine.com... Copyright © 2008 by Sandy Frost. Used by permission.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
So what you are saying is that the Jester prostitution racket was run by lawyers?
Well it was, wasn't it? I mean, the guy accused was a State Supreme Court Judge, after all... Sounds like a lawyer to me.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Masonwatcher,


Rather a bizarre juxtaposition between me and Freemasons[…]


Not at all, really, especially in light of your admitted sanctimoniousness.

Look, whatever your personal history with Freemasonry (and I hope you’ll forgive me for my lack of interest with respect to the details there), your qualm should be focused on the branch that has offended you, not on the tree as a whole.

Regarding the law: when one’s “beef” extends beyond a given law to include certain aspects of the foundation on which stands the authority of “the court” that enforces it, it would be nothing short of foolish to take up the issue of that law’s ethical legitimacy with the court in question.

And always remember: if no law was meant to be broken, there would be no United States of America today.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
In principle I agree with all your points. However I feel I should point out your lack of proportionality coupled with your earlier incongruous juxtaposition;


if no law was meant to be broken, there would be no United States of America today


It is ridiculous and has no bearing on racketeering and prostitution, no? Equally attacking Freemasonry is not necessarily about attacking all of a person but a facet opted into by an individual. In contrast masonic harassment is petty, serious, sustained and incorporates other brethren I have never met in my life. Again I say it, there are many other innocent people who have been subjected to the masonic white glove treatment.

You invite me to take up my complaints with the relevant lodge but that would be like complaining to the executioner axeman for nicking my chin.

Please allow me to explain what these masons do to me on a regular basis. For example, I would have two or three tyres slashed on my car, (has happened many times over the past three years), I go through the usual reporting to the police. The police turn up a couple of days later after I have repaired the car, they take my complaints down and the conclude that I should have not repaired the tyres and they cannot help even with the photographic evidence furnished. After they leave, a couple of brethren from a local lodge turn up on the pavement outside the front of my house grinning like idiots. Keep in mind that these men have twenty or thirty years on me and yet they have dedicated themselves to harass me.

The same routine happens with the smashed windows of my house, there is the occasional stalking and the many incidents of being recognised and insulted where every I go in London.

One thing is fairly consistent in these campaigns of hounding people, there is a symbiosis between certain Freemason lodges and the London Metropolitan Police. I have spoken to quite a few other victims in London with a high percentage being women and divorced from a mason.

So I hope you find it within yourself to excuse my sanctimonious attitude over these contemptible cowards.

[edit on 123131p://pm3132 by masonwatcher]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Masonwatcher,

I’d written:

…if no law was meant to be broken, there would be no United States of America today.


You respond:

It is ridiculous and has no bearing in any small act involved, no?


Well, as a matter of fact, NO …on both counts! It’s not ridiculous to allude to one of the principles on which my beloved country was founded, particularly when it’s unquestionably relevant to the moral philosophies of those, who, not unlike the Jesters, might question the legitimacy of certain stripes of legislation that have surfaced in direct contradiction to some of the founding principles.

You continue:

Equally attacking Freemasonry is not necessarily about attacking all of a person but a facet opted into by an individual. […]


Two things: first, the alleged actions of some local rogues (tire-slashing, brick tossing, ETC.) can’t be taken as an indictment on the larger community of Masons around the globe. Secondly, the actions of a small but infamous branch (E.G. the ROJ) are of no consequence to any Masonic Order beyond itself. Therefore, your attack on Freemasonry (as a whole) is not only flawed by virtue of your motivation; it’s fallacious by means of the appeal to guilt by association.

Beyond that, your professed desire to get even -- or as you put it, to “take a small piece off Freemasonry”-- seems more indicative of the Jilted Lover’s Syndrome than a healthy-minded “endeavor” for justice. In other words, you’re coming across a bit like a fatal attraction here.

Even if there's an inkling of truth to the charges you've leveled at members of your local chapter(s), allowing yourself to be consumed by the will for vengeance can be detrimental to your own mental health.

Relax. The world isn't out to get ya', Bro.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by Icarus_Fallen]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus_Fallen
 



I would argue that I have the best motive there could be. Anything less would be mean spirited and gratuitous on my part. Further, the 'Jilted Lover's Syndrome' presupposes that I had some kind of relation with Freemasonry at one time when I never had a passing thought of that organisation in my life prior its membership trifling with me.

More pertinently the 'Jilted Lover's Syndrome' also suggests that all interaction has ceased. Unfortunately the baiting and harassment continues. So if I am being targeted by these brethren, isn't it the obvious and healthy minded thing to counter their strokes. I think it would be deeply unhealthy to accept any form of bullying. I actively publicise what is being done to me and discourage work colleagues from having to consider joining Freemasonry.

You state,


only flawed by virtue of your motivation; it’s fallacious by means of the appeal to guilt by association.


In effect you are saying that I am making a fallacious argument holding all masons accountable for the actions of a few. Really in the end I have to prove that it is more than a few brothers involved as I have discovered first hand.

My position is wholly based on both UK criminal and civil law. While criminal law will hold only the perpetrators of stalking and harassment to account, the civil courts will hold the entire membership to account in the UK. I suppose Freemasonry will hide behind the fig leaf of being a charitable organisation as protection from members mutual liability but that is a debate for another place.

[edit on 013131p://pm3148 by masonwatcher]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Of course I am going to be sanctimonies about Freemasons seeing that I am a victim of Freemason fair-gaming and harassment. I explained on a previous post that until I get justice I will endeavour to take a small piece off Freemasonry. You should see what else I have been promulgating. Hopefully others will follow suit.


Do you happen to have any evidence what so ever that Freemasons are "fair gaming" (whatever that means, please provide a definition) and "harassing" you? I'd love to see it. In fact, if you have evidence that says you are correct, I will personally help you get justice and expose the freemasons for you.

Otherwise, this is just a baseless attack using Sandy Frost's sensationalist blog. She keeps harping on this hoping it will get her some attention, but its failed to grab the fantasy of anyone except conspiracy theorists.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by LowLevelMason]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 



I'll hold you to it. As you can imagine verifying the statements and evidences provided by others takes time. When it lands in court, ATS will be the first place I will be putting the details.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 



I'll hold you to it. As you can imagine verifying the statements and evidences provided by others takes time. When it lands in court, ATS will be the first place I will be putting the details.


So does that mean you are not going to provide any evidence? There is no law that says you can't provide evidence in a internet forum before a court trial.

And if you think you are going to win a court case by making statements, you are going to be disappointed. You are going to have to produce some level of proof or the case will be dismissed. Anyone can get a court case about anything, winning is another thing entirely.

I suspect if you think you are going to be able to make pronouncements about your "harassment" and somehow win, when you do lose that will become part of the proof of the masonic conspiracy against you?



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Masonwatcher,

Note the context in which I've called into question your motivation. I've highlighted the fact that your attacks on Freemasonry "as a whole" are based on allegations involving two specific groups. Apart from the point that this amounts to an appeal to the Guilt by Association fallacy, there's also an implicit misguidedness associated with your motives. That is, going after Freemasonry because you feel that you've been wronged by a handful of Masons, is similar to condemning an entire ethnicity on the basis of the actions of a few of its constituents. In both instances, the motivation for a wholesale condemnation is clearly misguided.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Masonwatcher,


...Really in the end I have to prove that it is more than a few brothers involved as I have discovered first hand.


Wrong.

If your goal is to discount Freemasonry "wholesale", then what you'd really have to prove is that the actions of these Masonic Thugs of your's have been sanctioned as a matter of commonly-accepted protocol for dealing with people like you.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by Icarus_Fallen]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus_Fallen
Masonwatcher,

Note the context in which I've called into question your motivation. I've highlighted the fact that your attacks on Freemasonry "as a whole" are based on allegations involving two specific groups. Apart from the point that this amounts to an appeal to the Guilt by Association fallacy, there's also an implicit misguidedness associated with your motives. That is, going after Freemasonry because you feel that you've been wronged by a handful of Masons, is similar to condemning an entire ethnicity on the basis of the actions of a few of its constituents. In both instances, the motivation for a wholesale condemnation is clearly misguided.


Give me a break! What the hell is wrong with you? How can I take you seriously when you are drawing similarities between race and Freemasonry. No one is born with masonic regalia.

In the UK members of a society are financially held in mutual liability in civil law. The same goes for political parties. If damages are awarded against political parties or societies and the organisation can not pay, then the membership pays. Savvy?

I am not interested in entering a discourse on what is a fallacious argument. I doubt you would survive such a debate with me.





top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join