Elder body removed – Watchtower letter

by Marvin Shilmer 75 Replies latest jw friends

  • thetrueone

    OK had to reread the letter........my bad

    Have to admit its unusual for this happen, I wonder what they were doing that was so egregious to the WTS.

    Maybe there was some laxing of the regulatory laws of mustn't do's. ...... secular holidays etc.

    Maybe the elders were getting together and having sex orgies ?

  • aristeas

    Thx for this share.

  • sizemik

    Thanks for those links Mad Sweeny . . .

    There is a heap of reading in them, but the feeling I'm left with is that the Society is merely trying to acquire the proceeds from the sale of the dissolved congregations assets, and that the local BOE were presenting an impediment to that. And that this was the prime motivation for their deletion. Do I have this right?

  • aristeas

    There's some interesting stuff here. If yo go to p. 36 it appears that the WTS is attempting to avoid paying some new taxes to Caesar (actually Calif.). What about giving him/them his/their due per Jesus' words?

  • aristeas

    I've got to thank Marv and Mad S again for this stuff. I've been getting into it—it takes a lot of time to digest it all & figure out what's going on.

    This looks like it might well become a MAJOR headache for the WTS. It will be worth keeping tabs on to be sure. Maybe a lot of naïve people, including the plaintiffs, will have to wake up to reality.

  • shepherd

    No sex orgies, @thetrueone, the local body complained officially about the attitude of their Circuit Overseer (Koehler) and that was the beginning of the end. Basically the CO wanted to renovate and possibly sell off the KH and the local body did not want to do it (Legally they administer the hall). As a result the order was given to merge 2 congregations - this would change the voting results. The elders were also removed.

    For me, the reason for removal is facinating. As anyone knows, a JW can choose what congregation they are in, yet this was the basis of the removal:

    "When plaintiffs filed a formal complaint against defendant Koehler with the Branch office in October 2009, plaintiffs were subsequently presented with an unfounded charge of insubordination relative to organizational direction during defendant Koehler’s next scheduled visit to the Menlo Park Corporation in February 2010.

    As presented during the hearing, this charge stemmed from an administrative matter involving a congregation member. When congregation members relocate to a new area and begin associating with the Christian congregation in their new locale, a record card and letter are typically sent to formally introduce this person to the managers of their new congregation.

    The point of discussion in the hearing dealt with a situation where a congregation member still resided in Menlo Park but was employed in the Santa Rosa area. As a caregiver, her employment called for her to stay in Santa Rosa for several days/nights each week. On weekends she would return to her residence in Menlo Park. This member repeatedly stated that she desired to remain a member of the Menlo Park congregation and the congregation in Santa Rosa was advised of such when they requested her record card.

    In time this congregation expressed concerns to the Branch Office in this regard and plaintiffs then received a letter from the Branch Office dated 1/18/2010 directing them to send the record card as requested to the congregation in Santa Rosa.

    Plaintiffs sent a letter of response to the Branch, dated 2/3/2010 explaining the overall circumstances in an effort to confirm the proper course of action based on the congregation member’s expressed wishes to remain a member of the Menlo Park congregation.

    As alleged by defendants Koehler and Misterfeld, during the hearing on this matter, plaintiffs’ letter was viewed as an act of insubordination and thus plaintiffs were so charged.


    A review of organizational policy and directives clearly establishes that there is no basis for disciplinary action in this particular case as congregation members are free to choose for themselves which congregation they will formally join and attend based on their individual circumstances.


    Plaintiffs recognize that the recommendation for removal and the subsequent decision rendered by Branch Office representative defendant Doe (SDG:SSX) is a charge and action of convenience, an act of extra-judicial punishment with clear intent to further the defendants’ overall scheme to displace Menlo Park Corporation management, apparently by any means necessary..."

    - [United States District Court For the Northern District of California: CV10-3907) PDF of this is available (http://ex-jw.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Lawsuit-CV10-3907.pdf)

    Basically, these elders were not cooperating with the CO. It is facinating that such a petty thing as a record card became the reason for removing the elders - but not surprising. Rutherford took over the Org., ignoring Russell's will using legal manipulation too. And Ray Franz was disfellowshipped just for eating a meal with his landlord when they introduced a new rule and applied it retrospectively.

    It's not often this gets out into the public domain, but one thing emerges from all this that is as clear as day - whoever is right and wrong in this case, there is NO sign of the Holy Spirit in action whatsoever, especially from the side of the Org.

    This is very much just a man made organization pretending to be led by God.

  • sizemik

    Good summary shepherd . . . pretty much started out as a pissing contest between two individuals wrestling for the executive power over a petty squabble. The BOE and Society then formed the subsequent battle lines. It appears however that control of funds and assests is also a less visible factor with illegal bank accounts being set up etc.

    It becomes quite sickening when such transparently political squabbles are all presented in a "serving Jehovah" context . . . sickening and laughable at the same time.

  • dissed

    Sheperd - Something similar happened in our congregation. Except it was one lone Elder standing up to the CO. The Elder was correct according to WT reasoning, but was removed for 'insubordination.' He just disagreed with the CO over a matter, that's all, and the CO had a fit. The rest of the Elder Body offered to stand up for him, but he admonished them to drop the support, it wasn't worth the trouble.

    The CO met with the Elder privately and asked him to do the WTS a favor and 'just leave' the organization. He wasn't the type they wanted. He did.

    To this day, I owe that CO my life.

  • binadub

    I think the is the information I was looking for.

    Many thanks,


  • william hahn
    william hahn

    good for you "dissed" they did you a favour.

    The cong i untill recently was a part of a few years ago was recommended by the CO(a friend of mine) to remove a whole body of elders.Big call but for a genuine reason.What happened?

    Old boys club pulled all strings and called in favours in Bethel and lo and behold my mate got shipped to outback South Australia and the body gave themselves a pat on the back for getting rid of him.next co comes along and we as MS get told how fantastic the cong is going.eventually the BOE found out i knew they had meant to be removed and that was beginning of the end for me.

    thanks for posting court docs-not everything can be hidden away.

Share this