by Amazing 12 Replies latest jw friends
Thanks for this information, Amazing. I guess I was either misinformed or lived under a wrong assumption. Either way, I thought that as a result of Bonham (and perhaps other, less-well-known cases) the Society had sought to establish complete ownership/control over local properties. If what you say is accurate then Bonham can happen all over again. Interesting.
tj
ANuttyPerson:
You are totally clueless on this subject, just like on most other subjects.
Its a damn shame that some of the other people on this DB don't have the guts as E.H. and I do to respond to your nonsense, which misleads those who don't know any better, and hurts our "cause".
... Judges must award damages and will do so based on what they believe is the WTS's DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER PERSONELL & PROPERTIES OWNED.If they look at deeds and the deeds seem to show the hall buildings are locally owned, then the Judges will tend to not award those to the victims. That would save the WTS some big dollars.
Response: Your statements are utter stupidity. Courts award damages based on degree of fault on the part of the defendant(s) in relation to the amount of damage caused to the plaintiff(s). Damages are awarded in dollar amounts, which defendants must satisfy with whatever assets they possess. Your nonsense about Courts making such assessments based on assets owned by the negligent parties is easily dispelled by common knowledge of abuse victims who are awarded millions of dollars against their abusers, but such judgment goes uncollected due to the abuser having no assets. That's why asset-holding corporations, such as the WTS, are also named in such suits.
Further in another discussion thread it's brought out that one possible upgoing move is the WTS may dump many if not all Circuit Overseers to not only save money but make it seem to Judges and others that the local kingdom halls have local autonomy due to no intervening layer of CO's which would indicate a Hierarchy. In reality the WTS would simply send in elders (even some of the ex-COs) who would be called local elders but in fact would be direct WTS appointees lording it over the local elders.
Response: Whether the WTS does or does not trim back on COs/DOs, it WON'T be for the so-called legal reasons you and others hypothesize. The WTS's relationship to local Congregations is irrefutable, and evidenced by many, many other factors.
Again, these things would be confusing to the Judges and Juries and give the WTS more wiggle room to challenge the big-dollar awards going against them, and if they due to such ploys can reduce their monetary losses even a little, that will help them.
Response: Don't assume "judges and juries" are as stupid as you are. Again, your line of reasoning is totally off base.
I think Silentlambs needs to read this too and to warn Anderson & Reinhardt legal firm of some that the WTS may be taking moves to mask their culpability and shield their assets even more than the coorperate restructuring they undertook in early 2001, still another "shuffle game" tactic on the part of the WTS and its attorneys.
Response: Jeffrey Anderson needs your help about as much as a prostitute needs a case of the clap.
Hello all, I should never have relied totally on my memory. That incident (in Bonham)was pre-internet and caused quite a stir among the bros.I have been busy doing research on what the BASIS was that Ralph Deal was able win the case against the society over the property involved. One nugget turned up but I will do further research to verify. When I get all ducks in a row it should be interesting. Dino
