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

by Focus 109 Replies latest jw friends

  • Old Goat
    Old Goat

    Original cemetery document is here:

    Given the official paper, the original court document, it would be impossible for any of the trustees to have not known of Russell's involvement, no matter what the Brooklyn Eagle claimed. Wild claims and nonsense speculation as found in these posts hurt our cause. And they're stupid.

  • Focus

    Old Goat:

    Given the official paper, the original court document, it would be impossible for any of the trustees to have not known of Russell's involvement, no matter what the Brooklyn Eagle claimed. Wild claims and nonsense speculation as found in these posts hurt our cause. And they're stupid

    I can't prove you are wrong.

    It is, in general, an impossibility to prove a negative.

    Here the negative is that the four clergymen - all of whom were strongly opposed to Russell both in terms of doctrine and their opinions of him as a rogue; a belief pretty nigh universal among his peer group - actually knowingly acted as Trustees for an enterprise whose beneficial owner was Russell.

    So, it is you, not I, who needs strong proof of your conjecture.

    Your explanation requires all four respected clergymen, who contributed to the Eagle's religious pages, to have GONE MAD, lol!

    Let us deploy Occam's Razor and see whose explanation makes more sense, OK?

    This is my explanation.

    The clergymen were genuinely deceived. They were careless, for sure, and too trusting, and could not even conceive Russell's audacity.

    The clerical "mugs" Russell wished to set up were contacted and asked if they would be willing to be Trustees.

    Each of those who agreed then signed a letter appointing a person to act as their "ATTORNEY" in this matter.

    The "ATTORNEY" isn't necessarily a lawyer - here, the word has the meaning of "representative and authorized signatory". Such a document of appointment is called a "POWER OF ATTORNEY".

    This is the norm, not the exception, otherwise the very formation of the Trust would be very onerous - each Trustee giving separate notice of appointment to each other. Here, for example:

    13 Trustees, therefore 13 x 12 = 156 separate documents! No way!

    So the P.O.A. route is normal, else all the Trustees would need to sign each other's copies of all documents. A logistical disaster.

    This way, the Attorney just signs one document.

    And the attorney appointed, who need not himself be a trustee, was one of Russell's lesser known stooges.

    Now look at this extract from the deed:

    (ending with the illustrious soon-to-be author of the 7th volume in Studies in Scriptures, "The Finished Mystery" (the craziest of all WTS publications).

    Do you notice that all the text is in the same handwriting?

    These are not signatures (totally obvious). It is just a list.

    I suggest that no single document that bears the actual signature of any of the clergymen, and Russell's name, actually exists. Not surprising, given the Powers of Attorney granted.

    Indeed, the only document these dupes PHYSICALLY signed was the Power of Attorney document, which would merely outline the details of the property to be managed under trust, and the details of the appointed power of attorney.

    The "actual" i.e. beneficial ownership of the property would not be visible in any of this paperwork, either.

    These fellows were clergymen. Not lawyers or business people like Russell. Never be a trustee without finding out who your co-trustees are. I'm sure they learned a painful lesson and were humiliated - Russell's own intention.


    My explanation is simple, and fits in on every single count:

    * Russell modus operandi of hidden ownership of valuable assets, avoiding forthcoming and present alimony issues

    * Russell wishing to revenge himself on the clergy who had seen through his scam from the start and abused him, so if it ever unraveled, the clergy would be in the firing line.

    * Normal way in which trusts that involve more than 1 or 2 trustees, or trustees not in a common family or employment setting, are set up, using an attorney to sign documents on their behalf - so they never saw the document bearing the names of all the other trustees (until the whole alimony-dodging scam came out in Court)

    * Russell must have been chuckling to himself when all this trust-creation took place... right in character for him, too - the lone warrior who outwits his opposition

    I think there is little doubt of what happened.

    A better question is - was this the photo of the "attorney", who at the time of the trust coming into being was not a well-known Russellite at all:

    Yes, it's that future editor of the Watchtower's "The Golden Age" and future author of "The Finished Mystery"... and also one of the Trustees.

    End of.

    The danger of calling the work of those who know much more than you do in general, and also in this particular field - and who are apparently much smarter than you - "stupid" is that it is almost guaranteed to backfire.

    What's it now, the third time?

    I have much more to come. I'm not going to "WHACK!", as I sense you may be learning.

    And prepare for some "Humble Pie" on the matter of Russell and TAX-DODGING.



    ("Progressive Revelation" Class)

  • Old Goat
    Old Goat

    None of your speculation is proof. it is just speculation. Of course they aren't original signatures. This is the document of record copied into the record by a clerk. It is apparent that all you have in your inventory is wild speculation. Speculation isn't proof. Give us proof. I'll send you a dozen cookies.

    I can think of several good business reasons to use the United States Investment Company as a financial vehicle, none of them nefarious.

  • Old Goat
    Old Goat

    I have all the Brooklyn Eagle articles on the tax issue for the WatchTower property in Brooklyn. As I said before there is a folder out there with all of this in it. It isn't my problem that you can’t find it. That the city of Brooklyn denied tax exemption is not proof that he "dodged" taxes. Any church can apply for tax exemption. What you won’t find in the Eagle articles is the reversal of the county/city decision.

    The Eagle articles may be a good starting point, but they are a poor resource on their own.

    The family that started the Eagle was Catholic. In the Russell era, its city editor, principal reporter, and several important managers were catholic. This is easily found. Did you look? Apparently not. Too hard for you? Do you really think you attract help with vitriol? Others here and elsewhere have documents, the original documents or at least copies of them that might further your arguments, but it is unlikely that you will pry them out of anyone given your lack of civility.

  • Focus

    Your posts are full of red herrings (e.g., the United States Investment Company - what does it have to do with the propriety of these trust arrangements? I know of the later transfer - but what has it do with the pastors on the board of trustees?)

    Let's ignore the red herrings.


    So in your ludicrous and ridiculous scenario, four clergymen of good standing:

    (1) each contrived to get invited by or on behalf of Russell, their enemy, to stand as a trustee to protect and facilitate one of his shells (how could they have managed this?); and

    (2) pretended not to know Russell was behind the setup (why would they pretend?); and

    (3) even though this would lead to censure and ridicule for them (to what end? They were the ones made a fool of, not Russell, whose reputation as cunning and devious was well established already); and

    (4) then lie and perhaps even commit perjury that they did not know this, when it all unraveled during the alimony proceedings (rendering them liable to an action for libel, as they complained further to the Eagle's reporter); and

    (5) do this when a single testimony from Russell or any of his associates / friends that they were lying, with circumstantial evidence to show they must surely have known; would have been highly embarassing to them; and

    (6) all four of them, united - if even one deviated from the story, the others were accepting the risk of irreparable damage to their reputations as honest clergymen. They had nothing to gain (Russell was a known sharp financial player - except to you, perhaps) and much to lose; and

    (7) somehow these naive clergymen knew it would, many years later, all unravel in alimony court (how?)

    Utterly absurd, from start to finish a nonsensical attempt to contrive an explanation for somehing I've explained with a single phrase - they "dealt" via a POWER OF ATTORNEY. They were perhaps a little naive but were telling the truth.

    But then, the same lack of reasoning power and ability to weigh up facts and reach conclusions trapped you in the dub-dub-moronland to begin with, didn't it, Old Goat?

    And then, even though you now know full well that you are wrong, persisting with your profound misconduct, twisting, misrepresenting, failing to address substantive issues, misdirection, creating strawmen, demanding unreasonable standards of evidence for something 100+ years old (where YOU, not I, are making the hard-to-believe claims, and you provide no proof)...

    ... seen it all before...

    No doubt you made a despicable Elder, Old Goat.

    Not that I need any trumpcard - all the above have removed any reasonable doubt - but just for the heck of it:

    Furthermore, why didn't Russell use those arguments that you employ today, eh?

    ... in order to discredit the clergymen as liars, which he'd have loved to do. But, he did not. He kept quiet, both in and out of court. No letter to the press, no libel threat, nothing at all - just silence (and private laughter at how he'd tricked the four clergymen). He knew the clergymen could easily explain how they'd been tricked (and to some extent, they did).

    If you aren't clever enough to see how ridiculous you are being, Old Goat, well, .... WHACK! (a recreational one, just to keep my foot in).

    And this is to defend the reputation of a filthy, disgusting scoundrel - shame on you, shame, shame, shame, shame.



    ("Rational" Class)

  • Old Goat
    Old Goat

    all speculation. no proof. a fantasy. you want help. stop the fantasy and present provable fact. your schreeching is useless. your 'work' - there is no real work in it - is a waste of my time.

  • Old Goat
    Old Goat

    one more comment. commit perjury? this didn't make it to court. you don't have the transcript (an original document, no?). you have imagination and a newspaper article. read the transcript. consult the records in Allegheny county. Certainly anyone who can find a few newspaper articles can graduate to real research. Even if it takes them ... how long? Say 20 years. Can't they?

    If one wants to speculate, ask yourself why the Eagle's lawyer didn't raise this issue in court. He's have had to prove it, wouldn't he? Didn't want to have to do that, did he? or it would be in the transcript.

  • Focus

    You are truly delusional, Old Goat... hahahaha....


    If one wants to speculate, ask yourself why the Eagle's lawyer didn't raise this issue in court. He's have had to prove it, wouldn't he?

    You are in complete confusion, lol!

    What on earth has this to do with the Miracle Wheat trial? Do you think the fraudulent Miracle Wheat was being grown in the cemetery, raca, rather than in Bohnet's back yard?

    What other trial do you think involved the Eagle's lawyers?

    The incident, of tricking the pastors into being a trustee for something beneficially owned by someone they loathed, involved no criminality by Russell - just cunning and reflected his mindset.

    The Eagle was defending an audacious lawsuit by Russell.

    The Eagle had much solid material with which to defend their attack on him.

    Why would they choose material which would require the testimony of up to four other reluctant, perhaps by now hostile, parties, the pastors, about something where their own lack of diligence was partly to blame? To be cross-examined by the liar Russell's lawyer?

    Little to gain - there was a mountain of evidence already to establish that to publish, say:


    while highly defamatory would nonetheless be safe as it was provably so.

    The jury agreed, needing only a very short while to do so.

    How very silly you are, Old Goat...

    You are simply far, far too stupid, ignorant and uneducated for me to even pretend to "debate" with. Sorry.

    The only functions you serve are occasional entertainment, and that in refuting you (as if such refutation is needed - you provide no evidence to back your counter-intuitive, illogical and fantastical views, but expect a mountain that is acceptable to Your Highness to support mine, lol - no wonder you were a Cult-Leader, hahaha; further, you simply ignore and skip over detailed evidence that does not support your unlearned POV) some doubts on the part of readers who don't know much or who have forgotten.

    My suggest to you is to go out and get an education. Sorry, brain transplant technology is still in its infancy. You can't have any part of mine, even if it was.





    ("Tolerance has its limits" Class)

  • ILoveTTATT2
    I agree with Focus here. I have investigated Russell quite a bit and I am shocked at how much even respected JW historians like Penton dismiss the Miracle Wheat episode as not being too important. We might despise Rutherford, but that's only because Russell hid a lot of his dealings. Finally, EdenOne saw the reality of things.
  • MarkofCane

Share this