WT does NOT own "Military Stock"

by amccullough 58 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  amccullough

  Nathan -
  

  The WTS teaches that playing chess is "inappropriate" for Dubs.

  I don't think I would go so far as to say that. In doing a search on articles on chess, all I could find were some poorly written articles that were critical of chess that the extreme JWs could use to say chess is bad (interestingly enough, I also found articles in favor of chess.)

  I do agree with the essence of your post though. In that, if the WT is going to be critical of things as minor as chess and where people work, then they should be equally concerned with what they are doing with their money.
• 

  Amazing

  This issue has been discussed many times since Spet. 2000. The original issues was that it was reported that the Watchtower Society owned an interest in a corporation that made or designed components for military use that was used in the Persian Gulf War "Smart Bombs."

  After checking SEC filings in 1995 and 1992, (after the Gulf War in Feb-Mar 1992), I did not find any statement showing Watchtower ownership at that time. [Note: As of 1/17/01, I have confirmed that Rand Cam ""does"" make military war components.

  HISTORY: The "Company" was originally organized under the laws of the State of Oregon on July 27, 1992 as Sky Technologies, Inc. (After the Persian Gulf War ended.) This does not mean that the Society owned or did not own these shares prior to that date, or that their current ownership precludes that REGI now makes components or designs systems for the Military. All this means is that my information is inconclusive on that aspect.

  SEC FILING: Rand Cam Engine Corp. is a privately held company whose stock is reportedly owned 50% by The Watchtower Society, a religious organization where beneficial ownership of the 5,371,900 shares registered in the name of Rand Energy Group Inc. has been attributed to The Watchtower Society and Mr. McCann who retains voting proxy. Evidently Mr. McCann donated the shares to the Society who now owns them. While not confirmed, Mr. McCann may likely be a JW.

  FINANCIALS CONFIRMED: While the corporation is 'private' it uses the NASD symbol "RGUS" for REGI US INC.
  Exchange: OTCBB (Over-The-Counter)
  Previous Close: 0.437 on 9/13
  Volume: 0
  Currency Units: US Dollar

  This US Corporation is majority owned by a British Columbia Corporation based in Canada. Of the US stock, the Watchtower Society is 50% owner as of the date of the filing I read which is addressed to the Securities Exchange Commission in Sept. 1999. I am a little confused how the parent corporation could be a 'majority' owner, yet the Watchtower Society still own 50%. But that is the data as shown on the filings.

  I would think that if the Society only owned a small share that was donated, it would seem inconsequential to its standing as a nonprofit religious organization. People give assets such as this all the time to religions.

  HOWEVER, the Watchtower Society seems unique in that it denounces investments in the old system and its journal Awake! for many years claimed that it was 'free' to publish 'truth' because of being "unfettered" by commercial interests. In times past, the Society has even forced branches to divest interests in various profit making investments. After which, they even held Conventions where they read a resolution apologizing to Jehovah for their 'sin' and publicly repented of this 'unclean' act before all onlookers.

  Now lets think about this for a minute: 5,371,000 shares valued at $0.437 per share equals $2,347,127 in stock ownership. This is just one company we know about. But, the interesting situation is that the Watchtower Society owns 50% in the US corporation as reported, even if not a 'majority' interest. Is this not a clear powerful position to influence company policy? Even if the British Columbia company holds the major role, would not a powerful voting block such as this at least help 'influence' the actions of what the company builds and sells?

  And even though the voting is by proxy, it is done by the person who donated the stock to the Society. Therefore, would not his votes reflect sympathy and loyalty to the Watchtower Society teachings, policies, and beliefs unique to Jehovah's Witnesses?

  The ISSUE: So what if the original owner retains viting Proxy! The real issue is that the Society gets the DIVIDENDS from the activities of this company:

  EXAMPLE: My brother owns a Whorehouse in Nevada. he gives me half the shares, but he retains the voting proxy. My Brother then sells his interest in the Whorehouse to a cloths manufacturer, but they keep the Whorehouse Division in operation, and I get the DIVIDENDS from all those HOOKERS selliung their bodies ... but somehow I am absolved because my brother retains voting rights? Come on!!!

  RAND CAM (formerly Sky Tech, does make equipment for military use, in addition to the engines mentioned above. The Watchtower is guilty as hell.

  Following Bible principles, we will avoid trying to live - or demand others to live - by an extensive and rigid set of dos and don'ts that go beyond the teachings of the Bible. The Watchtower, 4-15-02, pg 22, pp 15
• 

  MadApostate

  Amazing:

  PROVE that RCEC "does anything" other than sitting, waiting, and hoping that REGI, its subsidiaries, and joint ventures "may someday" actually get a final product up and running, which "may someday" show a profit.
• 

  deddaisy

  This is the last time that I'm even going to look at this thread. Debating such an obvious link is not only a waste of time, but an insult to everybody's intelligence.........

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
  DECEMBER 6, 2001 VANCOUVER B.C.

  REG Technologies, Inc.(RRE.V/OTC BB:REG RF) and its U.S. subsidiary REGI U.S., Inc.(OTC BB:RGUS) wish to annouce that a U.S. Navy Contract (SBIR No1-144) has been awarded to Advanced Ceramics Research (prime contractor) and REGI U.S., Inc. to build and test a NAVAL 0.5 horsepower ceramic engine. The proposed engine is a four stroke RAND CAM engine utilizing continuous injection and combustion in a single combustion chamber. The engine will be of all ceramic construction to permit high temperature operation, without cooling, to effectively burn heavy oil. This new motor will be developed for powering the U.S. Navy's New Smart War-fighter Array of Re-configurable Modules (SWARM) low cost unmanned aerial vehicles.

  mccullough,
  I looked up the above info for my own benefit. I included it here so that others could read it and decipher it for themselves. I don't care to debate its implications. I have to be honest, when I responded to this thread, I hadn't looked up this info for myself. I challenged you only because you were to quick to judge its content, seemingly as if one couldn't do that for oneself. This is an area which is neither black or white and it seems up to the individual to decide if this is a legitimate involvement. I suppose it falls into an ethical question and I think that you would agree that not everybody has the same standard of ethics. It is an individual opinion as to whether one believes the WTS link to the navy is far enough removed to be ethical or not. Actually, I searched "RAND CAM" on the net and ended up at the site where I found the above article, which I'm sure you've already viewed. When I "clicked" on RAND CAM though, the page was "locked." It was however listed at the www.regtech.com site where I got this info. This "RELEASE," in all honestly was enough for me. I cannot decide for you or anybody else, nor do I care to, but for me, the fact that RAND CAM supplies engine technolgy that is ultimately used to equip the U.S. Navy would prevent me from owning this stock if I were concerned with remaining on neutral ground. This is a totally objective, and my personal, opinion. Frankly, I could care less what stock the WTS owns. I am not, nor will I ever be, dependent on the WTS for spiritual or financial advice, so how they conduct their business is something that is not of interest to me. Which brings me to your first accusation. You state that the latter part of my quote "is a lie." The latter part of my quote says "or anyone on this board can read and decipher for themselves without you rearranging the words and sugarcoating things."
  according to Webster's:
  SUGARCOAT: TO MAKE MORE PLEASANT OR ACCEPTABLE.
  YOU:"Who knows how many different stocks they own and IF THEY ARE TRACKING THE ACTIONS OF EACH COMPANY THEY HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN? " give me a break mccullough, if you truly believe that a organization as large as the WTS doesn't have a network of lawyers, financial advisors, and professionals that keep tabs on investments you are more foolish than I originally thought. If not, then you are sugarcoating the issue. The same with rearranging words, your posts are like reading "Who's on First?"
  YOU: "I have no desire to re-spin anything, just understand it clearly. The WT has a MAJOR vested interest in a company that has a vested interest in another company that works with a company on military applications." Just understand it clearly?
  Your next issue with me is so taken out of context mccullough that I'm almost tempted not to address it....You've chopped my question to you in half, addressing only the beginning of the sentence. My question was "why do you insist on proof (from freeman) so that you can investigate, YET you seem not the least bit concerned about investigating the WT unless it concerns denouncing the board?" Maybe YOU need to reread the initial post a few times before ALL the words sink in. I do apologise if this question to you was unclear, but I most definitely was not asking you "and why do you need proof..." You need to complete the sentence mccullough....
  this is getting to lengthy and I think it's safe to say we're both getting bored with this, so I'll attempt to draw this to a close...
  You're right, it really doesn't matter who brought the "stock issue" up, I was just curious why somebody that didn't bring it up to begin with was going to such great lengths to defend any role that the WTS played. As if that was the only reason you had looked into it, to refute any connection. Like I said, I personally could care less what stock is held by the WTS. Some years back I may have taken an interest, but today nothing that the WTS does surprises me. You though, mccullough seemed to take a bit "defensive" spin on the whole issue. That's what aroused my curiousity.
  Lastly, "a conspiracy theorist?" give me a break here mccullough....I mentioned in my first post,"..voting thing sounds like advice from a lawyer..." because it is NOT uncommon for corporations and organizations to make a stipulation when dealing with acquired stock to forfeit voting proxy. This is usually done by the organization's lawyers as a safeguard, if you will. This, and putting stock in a subsidiary name, is done alot by companies in the public eye, so that in the event of questionable press, the company is not directly linked. Get it? If ever the need for a defense should arise, they are removed from any direct involvement by their lack of voting proxy.
  As to not seeing the correlation between ridding oneself of an illegitimate child and ridding oneself of questionable stock, I supposed I'm not surprised. Perhaps it was my choice of analogies. My intent was to show that just because you dispose of the evidence doesn't make you innocent of the crime. If there is no problem with the WTS owning this stock, then why are we even discussing it? If there is no cause for concern yet there exists the possibility that it may "stumble" followers if they learn of it, why doesn't the WTS just address the issue in the Watchtower? State the facts there in the open and explain the situation? If they feel that there is a moral question, then why did they put themselves in a questionable situation? Do you believe that they could have reasoned that maybe they shouldn't own stock in which they had no control over? Possibly thinking if it were invested in a questionable company that members may be "stumbled," so they could've stipulated that they required control of the stock or they couldn't accept it? Did they have to accept it? Certainly any private party that is generous enough to donate half of his stock would understand and relinquish control of the stock or instead make a monetary donation? What was more important, the stock and the risk that it may "stumble", or a refusal of any gift of stock in which control was relinguished?
• 

  MadApostate

  Dear Mr. Higher & Mightier Moral & Ethical Standards (a/k/a Deddaisy):

  You certainly didn't use your higher standards in cutting and pasting, nor in analysing the REGI info.

  First, the "Navy contract" is to "BUILD AND TEST" UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), NOT "smart bombs". REGI-US will do little beyond "licensing" and providing the rand-cam technology to the "prime contractor", Advanced Ceramics Research. (REGI-US has all of TWO EMPLOYEES.)

  Second, REGI-US is a separate public US Corp, whose majority stock is owned by Canadian Corp REGI, which in turn is controlled by John Robertson's RegTech Corp. The only development of the RC technology that I've seen thus far has been by REGI-US, and neither James McCann nor the WBTS has any control whatsoever over REGI-US. Actually, REGI-US has brought in additional engineers who have improved on McCann's original patent.

  I challenge anyone to document any significant activity in REGI or REGI-US by McCann since the early 1990s.

  From what I can tell, all McCann or the WBTS is doing is holding and watching the stock McCann received as compensation for his original invention hoping that Robertson will someday make a profit.
• 

  jwsons

  Someone really put up with bitter beating for "no profits" Please tell your borg. give up, return or cast away all those shares. Dare to get rid all of those bloodshedding shares while Brooklyn is shrinking ?
  ================================================================
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=24645&site=3
  ================================================================

  I like to give raw material here (below) again So everyone can understand by themselves, not by your Jdubs (JW) cunning-explanations:

  http://www.tenkwizard.com/blurbs.php?repo=tenk&ipage=1098910&exp=watchtower&g=

  http://www.regtech.com/main.htm

  http://www.regtech.com/press/press1995.htm
• 

  sf

  "If there is no problem with the WTS owning this stock, then why are we even discussing it?"

  Also, if there were no problem, why was the original blurb pulled off the net for several days then reappeared in the condensed version that is now back up on the net? THIS WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL BLURB.

  In my opinion, no matter how you try to spin this issue, facts remain HIDDEN and will remain that way. This organization is a powerful entity on this earth. Capable of everything this earth and it's inhabitants are capable of. They do what any powerful force in thisworld do to survive...no matter what it takes. No matter how many lives are ruined and wasted in the process. VICTORY!

  Let's see...how does that go again...

  "WE ARE NO PART OF THIS WORLD".

  Bwahhhhhhhhhhhhahahahalololol (wicked, gut-driven laugh)

  You, BrooklynBoyz are so much A PART OF THIS WORLD (SATANS WORLD, according to your very own publications). It's just ALL of your secrets have yet to be discovered and uncovered.

  What's that? In due time? hahahahahaha

  sKally: PB klass
• 

  MadApostate

  SF:

  MY OBJECTION is to the exxagerations and misrepresentations such as that the "WTS Owns A Bomb Factory", "WTS Owns Military Stock", "WTS is manufacturing Smart Bombs", and other similar LIES which are attempting to make a 9.0 earthquake out of a 4.0.

  MY OPINION is that given its theology the WTS has no business owning stock in any Corp whose activities do not match up with the WTS's teachings.

  AND, IMO, RCECorp DOES NOT!!!

  I suspect that James McCann first tested the "private market" with his rand-cam tech, and soon learned that marketing such was even a bigger endeavor than inventing it. He likely also saw that if progress were to be made, then military applications and government grants would have to be pursued. Due to his JWship, he knew that such was not permissible, so he cut a deal with Robertson to take over the marketing of his invention, thus putting someone else out there to handle the "dirty work". McCann likely has rationalized that the legalities of Corporate entities and stock ownership gives him sufficient separation from military and government relationships that "Jehovah doesn't mind".

  Well, if McCann did reason so, he is wrong, and so is the WTS. If a successful military application ever occurs, the resulting profits and possible public market benefits will eventually trickle back to benefit the stock he received in exchange for his original invention.

  SO, YES THERE IS A POTENTIAL SCANDAL HERE, but the current misrepresentations are detracting from the reality of such.
• 

  jwsons

  Mr McCompromise owns a Car leasing company with 250,000 shares in stock market; he donate 50% those shares to DARKtower and Apostate Society. Unfortunally Mr McCompromise lacks of money and has to launch those shares to a brothel business then make a lot of money. And even though the voting is by proxy,ie. WACOtower and Apostate Society doesn't have proxy-right to vote, but still willing to keep those shares "without profit" from them. Keeping those shares for what, guys ? Maybe just let the brothel use the WACOtower name on stock market to promote and increase Silent Lambs victims

  http://www.tenkwizard.com/blurbs.php?repo=tenk&ipage=1098910&exp=watchtower&g=

  http://www.regtech.com/main.htm

  http://www.regtech.com/press/press1995.htm
• 

  dungbeetle

  OH MY GOD WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE.....

  MadApostate, you put up ONE WHOLE POST

  Without one namecalling

  Without being condescending

  Without being patronizing

  Without stomping someone else's value system

  Without stomping someone else's individuality

  Without being holier-than-thou

  HOLY S**T: MIRACLES STILL DO HAPPEN!!!!

  (((((((((((((((( madapostate ))))))))))))