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

by Focus 109 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Old Goat

  It doesn't add much, but this is from Russell v. Brooklyn Eagle case on appeal. It's from the transcript of the original case, and is found on pages 178-180. I didn't have time to look for more detail. Perhaps later I can.

  Walter E. Spill, residing at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, makes affirmation and is examined and testifies as follows:

  Direct Examination by Mr. Sparks:

  I am osteopathic physician practicing my profession. I know Mr. Bohnet. I am president of the United Cemeteries Company. As president of that company I authorized Mr. Bohnet to plant and use such part of the grounds of the cemetery as were not in use for cemetery purposes. I have been president, I believe about four years, maybe a little more or a little less. Mr. Bohnet had had that right and privilege during all the time I have been president.

  Cross-Examination by Mr. Oeland:

  I have been on the cemetery board about four years I believe. I have never had a patient buried there.

  Q: What interest does the United States Investment Company own in the cemetery?

  Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not proper cross-examination.

  The Court: What is the name?

  Q: United States Investment Company – do you know the name?

  Mr. Sparks: Objected to.

  The Court: It may be connected.

  Plaintiff excepts.

  Q: What is the name of that cemetery?

  A: I believe that the full name would be the Evergreeen Mount Hope Rosemont United Cemeteries Company.

  Q: What interest does Mr. Russell own in it?

  Objected to as imcompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not proper cross-examination.

  The Court: I will take what interest, if any, he owned at the time this wheat was planted by Mr. Bohnet.

  Plaintiff excepts.

  A: I don’t know.

  Q: Do you know his handwriting when you see it?

  A: I have seen letters that he wrote. I believe I would recognize his handwriting.

  I believe that he was a trustee of the United Cemeteries Corporation. I don’t absolutely know it, in the corporation of which I am president. I know that he was at one time a trustee; when I was elected as president about four years ago.

  By Mr. Oeland:

  He was not the man that elected me.

  By the Court:

  I do not know whether this corporation is a stock corporation or a non-stock corporation.

  By Mr. Oeland:

  I am president of it. I came here as a witness.

  By the Court:

  The board of Directors have meetings; I preside at the meetings.

  By Mr. Sparks:

  Q: Do you know who some of the trustees are that you have met with personally at meetings?

  A: No, sir; not as you put the question.

  The Court: You don’t know who is on the board?

  The Witness: I know who is on the Board of Directors.

  Q: Is there a difference between the Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees?

  A: Yes, sir; I understand there is.
• 

  Focus

  Thank you, Old Goat.

  In case the relevance of what you quoted is lost on some of our readers, it is as follows:

  Russell employed a variety of highly complex corporate and other structures in which to hold his revenue-generating assets.

  What he sought to accomplish thereby must have been a mixture of:

  * concealment or obfuscation, and

  * efficiency,

  but with the stress on the first.

  Why concealment? This would have been for several reasons. One was because he wanted to deprive his estranged wife, Maria, of her share in anything.

  Where the asset was held by, for example, trustees, he could quite rightly disclaim nominal (i.e., named) ownership of the asset, while remaining beneficially the owner.

  Another may have been related to tax.

  And of course, it suited his propaganda to play the "humble, religious man living on a stipend of $10 a week".

  Even (some of) the trustees may not have been aware of his involvement, either because they did not research things thoroughly or because there was another structural layer, say via a company whose shares were held via another trust - a secret one - for Russell. It is clear that courts had a tough time figuring what the "Pastor" was up to.

  Here, Spill did not even know who his co-trustees whom he met with at meetings actually were. The cunning, scheming "Pastor" had created a web of confusion and deception, taking in many, like the four priests.

  Is this how (the self-appointed) God's sole representative of earth should be conducting his affairs?

  __

  Focus

  ("Cutting through confusion" Class)
• 

  Old Goat

  This was before Income Tax. So there is little basis to assume a tax burden via income. Russell was obsesive over privacy. It was wrong, he thought, to appear generous. This came from his Presbyterian background and (I think) from some exposure to Plymouth Brethren practice. In any event, if the cemetery was meant to make money, it failed. The last plots were sold off by the society in more modern times at what must be considered a loss.

  I mistrust newspaper articles. This one appears partially right. I suspect it would have been impossible for any of the original trustees to not know of Russell's connection to the cemetery, and they certainly knew his doctrine. Many of the Eagle articles do not hold up well when compared to the Russell v. Eagle transcript. But, other than reading the transcript and reports on Miracle Wheat, I haven't followed this. I'm more interested in other issues.

  When I can, I'll scan the transcript for more relevant tesitmony.
• 

  Old Goat

  I should add that Spill didn't know who the trustees were because he didn't meet with them. He knew and met with the directors, a different group. However, if I were president of a cemetery company, I'd want to know the details. Wouldn't you?
• 

  EdenOne

  Focus, out of curiosity:

  Are you in any way related with the website www.jwdivorces/bravehost.com ?

  Eden
• 

  insearchoftruth

  Marked for later!
• 

  EdenOne

  My question has to do with this information found there, in this link: http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/russell.html

  "ROSEMONT, MT HOPE and EVERGREEN UNITED CEMETERIES

  In April 1905, Charles Taze Russell founded ROSEMONT, MT HOPE and EVERGREEN UNITED CEMETERIES, a corporation, which is still in business today. United Cemeteries actually owns and operates three different cemeteries spread over 18 acres -- Evergreen Cemetery, Mount Hope Cemetery, and Rosemont Cemetery. The five listed incorporators were Clayton J. Woodworth, John G. Kuehn, John Adam Bohnet, and two other lesser known local Pittsburgh Russellites. Interestingly, the original Board of Trustees included Charles Taze Russell, the five incorporators, two additional Pittsburgh Bethelites, and two other locals whose status as Russellites has yet to be established. However, there were also FOUR other Trustees. Charles Taze Russell somehow managed to "con" the four leaders of the four largest denominations in Pittsburgh -- Baptist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and United Presbyterian -- to accept positions as Trustees (can you guess why). Russellites have long claimed that this property was actually a farm that Russell inherited from Charles Tays Russell, and that the current Masonic Lodge sits where the Russell farmhouse was originally located. Tays died back in 1865, and to the best of my knowledge, Tays never owned a farm, and there was no farm in his estate. In any event, United Cemeteries reportedly purchased the "Wiegel Farm" from U.S. Investment Co. Ltd., for an unknown amount, which in turn had purchased the property from Bethelite William E. Van Amburgh, for $30,000.00, who had purchased the property for $27,000.00 from the unidentified owner of"Wiegel Farm". John Adam Bohnet was the "Manager" of this enterprise, and he moved out of WatchTower Society headquarters and operated this business out of a separate office for about a year (again, can you guess why), before then resuming his duties back at WatchTower Society headquarters, and continuing to manage the business from there. Maria Russell alleged that United Cemeteries was essentially a stock scam. Consistent with the real estate being purchased from U.S. Investment Co Ltd for an unknown amount, plus the fact that Russell publicly appeared to have little or no actual control of this corporartion, Maria Russell later claimed that the sales agreement contained terms by which U.S. Investment Co Ltd retained ultimate control of disposition of the realty, other than the piecemeal sale of individual burial lots, plus 90% of the profits went to U.S. Investment Co Ltd, while only 10% of profits went back to United Cemeteries stockholders. Amusingly, on Halloween 1907, a "special" was advertised of six plots for $28 CASH! In April 1908, the cemetery caretaker engaged in a "shoot-out" one night with two thieves attempting to burglarize the stables. A blood trail indicated that he hit one or both of the thieves."

  [End of quote]

  So, Focus... are you the person behind "jwdivorces"? Are you lifting information from that website without crediting them? Has that website's writer(s) ripped information from you without crediting you? Have you researched independently and reached the same conclusions? What gives?

  Another thing: The extensive information found in "jwdivorces", if accurate, is pretty damning for the Watchtower Society, especially for its founder CT Russell. However, the historian in me wants to see probatory documents. I don't find them there, as much plausible the information contained there appears to be. Are you able to provide documentation to backup your information?

  Eden
• 

  MadGiant
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Thanks for the link EdenOne.
• 

  Old Goat

  A financial transaction is no proof of wrong doing. Most of what Russell did seems to have been done for the sake of privacy. There is innuendo here, but no proof. I'd like to see the proof. If there was fraud, where is it in the record? All we've done so far is to prove that Russell had something to do with th cemetery. As far as I can see, the claim that he owned or controled the who cemetery is not sustained. Even if he did, prove the fraud. Without proof, this is wild speculation.

  As for the divorce transcript, I have a copy. Perhaps focus or the author of the Best History page quoted above can point to the page in the transcript where Maria Russell says United Cemeteries was a stock scheme?