The Complete Scammer's Guide - by "Pastor" Russell (New Light!)

by Focus 109 Replies latest jw friends

  • Focus
    Focus

    Scott77, you are right. On checking, I see it is because the bulletin-board code automatically converted the .COM I had put in the link into .NET within the generated HTML - you can see this by hovering your cursor over the link in your own post, and seeing the URL indicated will be to .NET even though the text below your cursor says .COM.

    The .COM address is the correct one. The other one doesn't work.

    Clearly, this has been done intentionally, so don't bother Simon about it - there's obviously a reason somewhere. In general, the programming quality on this BB is excellent; all the other anti-WTS ones were absurdly clunky by comparison.

    It is easy to get around. Indeed, I've bodged around this - go back and look at my post, please, and use the proxy/redirection link there.

    I generally avoid using such shorteners as there, as it requires trust - the clicker doesn't know where the link is going to.

    However, you can trust me, and further you can explicitly find where a tinyurl link goes to by inserting preview before the tinyurl

    e.g. to see where http://tinyurl.com/FarkelFocus redirects to, without actually going there, use http://preview.tinyurl.com/FarkelFocus

    __

    Focus

    ("Linked" Class)

  • LogCon
    LogCon

    Witness My Fury referred to the Nov 5, 1911 Brooklyn Eagle newspaper.

    All those heavy stories on page 5.

    Amazing.

    Most newspapers, these days, are garbage.

  • LogCon
    LogCon

    m

  • Focus
    Focus

    LogCon, I concur. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle is a major source of "Pastor" Russell information. I have well over a hundred separate articles on him, each of which is an expose of sorts.

    It is interesting that though Russell has demonstrated that he was very willing to sue people for libel to shut them up (for example, his failed suit against Rev. Ross), he only tried it once against the Eagle over the cartoon ("Onion Bank and Miracle Wheat").

    That's because in the factual articles (i.e., non-cartoons!), the Eagle got it correct and furthermore Russell knew the Eagle could prove that they were correct.

    We know this for certain as Russell would surely have sued them if he suspected otherwise.

    That further strongly suggests the redoubtable Eagle had even more dirt on Russell, but they were less certain of proving it. We'll only know about a fraction of his deceits and scams - he was devious and intelligent.

    Shortly after the evil slave died, the Eagle undertook to supply, for a derisory one cent per copy (a deliberate last insult, lol - it would have only covered the postage cost), anyone who wrote in with a collection package of much of their published material about the fraudster.

    __

    Focus

    ("In 2016 lets micturate on his Pyramind" Class)

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    Good work x

    Most JW's doubt anything from the internet, can we see this anywhere else?

  • Focus
    Focus

    snare&racket:

    Of course you are right - the brainwashed jW who has been so thoroughly lied to him by Mother, thinks those who now tell him the truth are liars.

    can we see this anywhere else?

    Of course (assuming, that is, that I'm interpreting your words correctly).

    A few archival public libraries will carry copies of the Eagle, as it was an iconic newspaper.

    However, I'm limited to cyberspace; the best I can do is give you a scan - and here it is:

    The significance of the date is that the Eagle was then celebrating the then recent jailing of Mr "Snare and a Racket" Sr. for 20 years for sedition (conspiracy to cause insubordination and disloyalty in the United States forces, to be pedantically accurate), just 18 months after the Pastor had gone to reap his heavenly reward.

    I believe the Eagle had made the offer earlier too, but that might take me some time to find.

    __

    Focus

    ("Eagle" Class)

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    For the sake of balance (not that is my interest to defend Mr. Russell's character), but it will be an interesting read the following work published by Franklyn Rutherford in defense of Pastor Russell against the frequent libel published by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.

    A Great Battle In The Ecclesiastical Heavens, As Seen By A Lawyer , by F.J. Rutherford (published in 1915) Click the link to read in PDF format.

    If one discards the usual hyperbolic verborhea so typical of Rutherford, (and the fact that it was written by a bully that most of us hate) and stick to the facts he presented, one can see that he makes a pretty good case in debunking the accusations launched upon Russell regarding the "Miracle Wheat" and Mrs. Ball and the so-called "Jellyfish" remark. Same with the case involving Ms. Ruth Galbraith. Regarding Ms. Emily Matthews, can you produce anything else more substancial than Maria Russell's alegation that she once found CT Russell locked in a laundry room with this house maid? When asked in court, under oath, if she was accusing her husband of adultery, she plainly replied "No".

    These stories about C.T. Russell have been more or less known by the "apostate" communnity around this forum. I personally find that most of them lack solid grounds other than sheer wishful thinking. But bring it on - in the interest of historical accuracy, I'm interested in knowing what previously unknown documentation you will produce.

    Once thing we must all keep in mind: nearly 100 years past upon slander don't make the slander truth. Scans of Ad Hominem articles by anti-Russell activists, such as the militant ones in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, or the Washington Post, etc (let's not forget that Russell made powerful enemies within the Evangelical Alliance, and they had important influence in some media of the day) prove nothing just by itself, except that this was a hot topic back in the day. If there's going to be substance to such accusations, much more is needed than just produce scans of slander articles in a local newspaper.

    Eden

    Edit: Here's the link to the scanned booklet: http://www.ukbiblestudents.co.uk/John%20Edgar/battle%20in%20the%20heavens.pdf

  • Focus
    Focus

    EdenOne, I have Rutherford's trashy nonsense in front of me. I'm well familiar with it. Extracts from it are frequently used by me to illustrate systematic lying by jWs and the Watchtower.

    As your link was broken, here's a (very poorly) OCR'd one: http://www.archive.org/stream/AGreatBattleInTheEcclesiasticalHeavens/1915_A_Great_Battle_in_the_Ecclesiastical_Heavens_djvu.txt

    In no particular order:

    I haven't accused Russell of pedophilia with Rose Ball. My Ball-stuff comes later.

    Rutherford's brief explanation re 17 year old Galbraith does not fit the facts. Are you aware that Russell abandoned his normal Bethelic duties for MONTHS when trying to ensnare the child (and heiress - this was a double-find for the filthy old lecher)? Hardly merited if the few lines in which Rutherford tries to explain away this scandal was the whole of the story.

    Rutherford's used the old lawyer's trick of misdirection. The plot against Galbraith's wealth is debunked and the gullible are distracted; what about her body? What kept the Pastor so busy that in his last several years of life, despite being in acceptable health (which is why his death came as such a shock to the Bethelites), he did almost no preaching at Bethel?

    Logic! At 63-4, he wasn't focused on wealth accumulation. He had more than enough.

    Rather than disseminate his his vast scriptural knowledge, I suggest he chose to dissemenate.

    Look closely at the spellings.

    Indeed, Russell's long train journeys afterwards were just possibly motivated by a need to get away from the state, away from the scene of his heinous pastoral crime.

    Re young Matthews - what "laundry room"? Here's an extract from the Maria Russell trial, in testimony given under oath:

    Q. You state that you found him doing this at other times. How often after that?

    A. I found him a number of times; I don't remember how often.

    Q. In her room?

    A. Yes, sir. And I found him in the servant girl's room as well. and I found him locked in the servant girl's r oom.

    Q. Did he make any explanation why he was in the girl's room?

    A. No. He did not; he just got angry.

    The "servant girl's room" obviously refers to a living and sleeping room, i.e., a bedroom for Emily Matthews, not a laundry room.

    You have ignored my own:

    It is interesting that though Russell has demonstrated that he was very willing to sue people for libel to shut them up (for example, his failed suit against Rev. Ross), he only tried it once against the Eagle over the cartoon ("Onion Bank and Miracle Wheat").

    That's because in the factual articles (i.e., non-cartoons!), the Eagle got it correct and furthermore Russell knew the Eagle could prove that they were correct.

    We know this for certain as Russell would surely have sued them if he suspected otherwise.

    That further strongly suggests the redoubtable Eagle had even more dirt on Russell, but they were less certain of proving it.

    Why? What's faulty about its logic?

    In summary - you have fallen for Rutherford's "Great Lies". I'd imagine Da Judge went on to read Mein Kampf, being an admirer of Hitler and a hater of Jews - from Mein Kampf he'd have been happy to see his beliefs confirmed, learning that small lies fail but giant ones usually work. He already knew this.

    You are probably a highly truthful person and thus very easy to deceive.

    For that, and failing to take into account my "WHY DIDN'T RUSSELL SUE FOR LIBEL, THEN (when he's sued for libel over much more trivial slurs or jokes)" line of reasoning, after duly deliberation by judge, jury and executioner, you are duly hereby awarded a (fairly gentle):

    WHACK !

    __

    Focus

    ("I'm not mainly addressing the apostate community" Class)

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    Focus, from the court's transcripts, the deposition from Russell:

    "You know that was the room in which the slops were emptied and the water was carried, [i.e. not the girl's bedroom] and that was the morning that Emily Matthews was sick, and you told me of it and asked me to go up and see her, and when they were running out and in with water pails I turned the key for half a minute until I would have a chance to hear quietly what she had to say, and there wasn't the slightest impropriety in anything that was done. I would just as soon that everybody in this room would be present.'"

    Mrs Russell didn't contradict this statement in court, namely the part where this incident took place.

    The "obviously" assumption is very Watchtowerian in style. In any case, i agree that the reason why Russell didn't sue the Eagle over other much more serious slander articles might well be because litigation over those accusations would probably reveal some skeletons in his closet that he would rather leave hidden - and those would be related to finances. But, I'm afraid we would be merely speculating.

    Eden

  • Focus
    Focus

    Mrs Russell didn't contradict this statement in court, namely the part where this incident took place.

    Mrs Russell didn't contradict it because she didn't need to contradict it.

    She was a highly intelligent lady, as is well established. Certainly she was the brains in the marriage. Indeed, the only evidence I have of stupidity is why she married Chas in the first place.

    So, on seeing the Pastor's feeble attempts at justification in response to her evidence, she immediately knew that she had already won and that further evidence from her would be unnecessary.

    She didn't want to add to her own humiliation by going on further. It would be below her dignity. The only "saving" defence CTR could have mounted would have been to deny he had introduced these sundry young girls into the household or that they were there at all. He failed to do so, and thus was snookered. Rutherford might have saved him from these gaffes.

    Hence, as Maria knew, she'd won, and it was all now down to the quantum of alimony, and nothing more. and cutting through the Pastor's endless lies, financial chicanery and concealment is where her focus lay.

    .... and not debating about whether he phoooked young Em'ly up her laundry basket or down her bed-linen. There was also the issue of decorum - this was a century ago, remember.

    And note that the door - even if it was to the laundry - was locked.

    It is unnecessary for Mrs Russell to reiterate her sworn testimony (with what? "Yes, I still say the same thing under oath as I did the first time." - only a person wishing to admit perjury would say otherwise, so it would be a waste of time).

    Had she said the "servant's girl's room" while in fact it was a common laundry room, she'd have been guilty of misleading the court, and perhaps of perjury. Turning this on its head - why did Russell not accuse her of that? His general tone of response showed he had no qualms about her feelings.

    I've thus established that no response was needed and "no response" was wise.

    As events proved, Maria had made her case and won it easily. She had no problem obtaining the bill of divorcement. Or whatever it turned out to be.

    These stories about C.T. Russell have been more or less known by the "apostate" communnity around this forum

    You sure?

    So far, I have produced but one story, my headline story.

    The first one in this thread.

    It is about the specific scam over the cemetery.

    So, to support your claim, provide any weblink pointing to a discussion about this specific scandal on any "apostate" (or other):

    community

    website

    discussion-board

    and indeed, anywhere except the Eagle's archive - and this thread, when it gets indexed.

    I'm not holding my breath, though...

    __

    Focus

    ("Still being gentle" Class)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit