was discussing this w/lawyer (husband) and how the cult wants to look pathetically poor, etc., --- I recall yrs. ago a P.O. telling me they don't have any money (yea, right) anyway, he said it's better to put up land (Patterson) because they get away w/out paying for bonds, whatever, so costs them nothing and even if they go broke a bank wouldn't foreclose on them because who would want property out in the middle of no where. At that point we all know the witnesses would give away their own homes to save the cult.
Patterson on the line: Watchtower claims that paying cash bond would cause immediate irreparable harm and hardship
by cedars 339 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
LV101
I hope we're all wrong on their assets and they are going down after Candace and other victims get their settlements but would have to see it to believe.
Lawyers think the thought of religion ever being taxed in this country ridiculous --- in our life time, unfortunately.
Appreciate all that Cedars does and need to read the link.
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
I enjoyed your article Cedars. There is a fair amount of speculation in it, but none of it is without foundation. Since WT is so secretive and these actions of theirs are very suspicious, your reasoning cannot be disputing by anything WT has said or done to date.
One thing that has come to mind is that besides all the money they've raked in by selling properties, and reducing expenses by cutting personnel and reducing magazine sizes, they also have "excess congregation funds" in WT accounts. It's been a few years ago now that many US congregations, like a few thousand from the KH I was last attending, sent their bank balances in excess of what would be needed in the next few months to be "used by 'Mother' for 'important Kingdom activities'". So, WT coaxes these congregations to send money to them, zero interest, yet WT is balking at paying this bond? Makes it pretty clear that WT certainly doesn't believe that everyone will be throwing their "gold and silver" into the streets anytime soon!
Personally, I think WT should be allowed to offer Patterson as surety... but there should be several signs prominently posted throughout the property explaining that fact. Like a big marquee on RT22, entrance to the main lobby, stage of the auditorium, dining room waiters wearing tshirts explaining the Patterson property status, etc.
-
mamochan13
I believe WTBS has plenty of $$, and I'm sure Tylinbrando's figures are right on. In fact, I recall one year where they actually suggested each family allot a minimum of $5 per family member per day to cover the circuit assembly. It adds up. I know my relatives give plenty. But they plead poverty partly for legal reasons (as has been pointed out) but also to perpetuate the myth that they are different from other religions, i.e. "we do not tithe or pass the collection plate." They use more subtle means to get the $$. Plus, as Flipper points out, they believe the laws do not apply to them.
Cedars has admitted he's not a lawyer on this topic. I've seen him always willing to learn and adjust when inaccuracies are pointed out. If anything, he maybe is too passionate for his subject. Wishful thinking can colour our opinions at times. I greatly appreciate his articles, his research, the time and effort he is wiling to expend to enlighten the rest of us. Cedars makes us think, and he sparks extremely helpful discussions on here.
KS - I have no personal issues with you and I appreciate the thoughtful information you often contribute. But I'm personally getting tired of your attacks on Cedars and a few others here. I really get the feeling that you believe that since you did not choose to pioneer and instead had the opportunity for higher education and a doctorate that you consider yourself much more intelligent and educated than the rest of us here. You seem to believe you know far more about JWs in your short years of association than those of us who have spent a lifetime in the cult. Maybe you don't really feel that way, but that's how your posts come across to me. I wish you would tone it down because I would like to hear your opinion and thoughts without the condescension attached. I don't understand why you feel you have to do it, because it does not enhance your contribution in any way. I mean that very sincerely.
I greatly appreciate threads like this because I'm interested in the topic and I need to stay abreast of things because it is important to my personal healing and for me to be able to help my daughters continue to stay free of the cult (hopefully enlighten other family members as well). But I don't have the time or the energy to do the kind of research and work Cedars and others do on our behalf - so thank you. I also appreciate the expertise and insight others bring to the topic to help our understanding.
-
cedars
144001 - Thanks for your opinions/observations. I think much of it revolved around the precise wording used.
Point 1 - the wording you highlighted was explaining in layman's terms that, following the judgment, Simons filed a motion requesting that no property be bought or sold until the outcome of the appeal to guarantee that funds would be available to pay the damages.
Note the first line of the following paragraph...
It was initially suggested that this pledge would be in the form of a court-imposed ban on the buying or selling of property until the appeals process was over.
This was what I was referring to in layman's terms. I'll see if I can tidy up the text a bit to satisfy the details, but I don't want to overcomplicate things.
Point 2 - As other people have pointed out, whilst offering property as surety is nothing overly unusual, it IS unusual for the Society to offer Patterson, arguably amongst the crown jewels of Watchtower's portfolio, as surety. If they lose the appeal (which I believe they will), and cannot produce the full amount of damages plus interest etc, they effectively lose Patterson to someone they would term as an "apostate". Is this a gamble? I believe so. I believe others will view it that way too.
Also, on Point 2, you say that the Society would be able to sell other properties to pay the damages if they lose, but what makes you so sure of this? Shifting multi-million dollar properties in the current financial climate is not the walk in the park that you make it sound. Also, why do you suggest that the Society would be able to sell Patterson and THEN give the money to Candace? That, as I understand it, is not what is on the table here. The Society is prepared to offer Patterson as surety, meaning that Candace gets the deeds to Patterson (or a significant portion thereof) if they can't stump up the cash. That's how I understand it. If I can be proved wrong on that understanding, I will willingly concede.
In any case, it's really a moot point because it's likely the Society will throw out the Watchtower's motion and insist on the money.
Point 3 - I specifically used the word "proposal" rather than motion. Please check the words! Watchtower's legal team are in frequent contact with Candace's legal team and obviously checked with them to see if they would be willing to accept property as surety instead of cash. They wouldn't. This is well documented in the court papers. There is nothing wrong with describing these discussions as "proposals" and saying that they were "blocked" if Candace's team objected to them, meaning that they are forced to approach the judge over this. Again, I am explaining things in layman's terms that everyone can understand. Please bear this in mind!
Point 4 - Yes, I do believe the whole thing is reckless. Maybe not so much if property OTHER than Patterson was used, but we are talking about a complex in which the Society takes great pride and which many brothers around the world are very familiar with. Putting it on the line in a legal dispute over child abuse so that it could potentially fall into the hands of a potential "apostate" (though I know Candace dislikes that word), however remote the possibility, is very reckless indeed. That's my opinion. You can take it or leave it.
There have been other comments about the "irreparable harm and hardship". I looked closely at the word "immediate" (i.e. why use that word if they are only going to lose the premium at some point down the line if they lose the case?), and other paragraphs that gave me the impression that payment of the premium is the "road of no return" with the first bond payments following soon thereafter. I personally feel the expression DOES refer, atleast indirectly, so the Watchtower suffering serious operational ramifications as a result of paying the bond in cash. However, in light of what others have said (and in absence of further clarification from those with legal knowledge), I will also put in some paragraphs indicating that this COULD mean merely that they are afraid of losing the $80k bond premium.
I hope that answers any/all questions!
Cedars
-
Vidqun
Cedars, thanks for the update. Bottom line is: The Society and its lawyers speak with forked tongue. With theocratic warfare, and all that, they cannot be trusted to speak the truth, especially when under attack.
-
AnnOMaly
Suggestion: instead of using the word "blocked" (which implies a successful action), use "opposed."
-
maisha
That is the key Cedars,, WHY OFFER PATTERSON,,,
it sort of reminds me of the Jesuits and their underhanded tactics...
not christ like at all.
giving false testimony (Exodus 20:16) or claiming something when it is in fact not the case, misleading testimony,,,
Another reason why Jehovah has been rejecting these apostates.
Romans 12:17, the Bible tells us, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil." Instead, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" (Romans 12:14)
Wouldnt it be nice if they apoligised to Candice and paid the money causing no further agrevation to her hurting.
That surely would be the Christ like way of doing things!
-
cedars
Ok, article amended!
I've tried to make it clear that there are various opinions as to what the "immediate irreparable harm and hardship" might mean, and why I think it refers indirectly to the serious consequences if the bond amount isn't reduced, which is what the Society has specifically motioned for.
I've taken into consideration people's observations, and made it clear that whatever I say is my own opinion/speculation. People are more than welcome to reach their own conclusions. However, I DO believe that offering Patterson (and not some other less prestigious/significant property) is reckless and will be interpreted by many rank-and-file Witnesses as a gamble.
I appreciate any and all constructive and non-insulting feedback that has been received!
Cedars
-
soft+gentle
great article cedars