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

by Focus 109 Replies latest jw friends

  • EdenOne

    She had no problem obtaining the bill of divorcement.

    Focus, get your facts straight. She filed for a full divorce in 1903 on the grounds of mental cruelty, but was granted a mensa et thoro [legal separation] with allimony. Not a full divorce. Later she sued Russell again when the allimony stopped being paid by Russell and eventually she got 10.000 USD in a settlement agreement (this money allegedly paid by friends of Russel). In Russell's funeral in 1916 she placed flowers with a reference to Russell as her "husband".


  • EdenOne

    Rutherford, in the work mentioned above, glances over this issue (without going into specifics):

    "Much ado has been made by his enemies about business corporations with which Pastor Russell is connected, particularly with reference to the UNITED STATES INVESTMENT COMPANY.

    The fact is that this company was never a corporation in the strict sense of the word. It was a limited partnership organized under the Statutes of Pennsylvania. Its capital stock was $1,000. Pastor Russell furnished that $1,000 out of his personal means.

    This company was organized for the purpose of taking title to certain property which it did take over and afterwards disposed of, and every dollar that was received therefrom went into the treasury of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, and was used for its religious work.

    Pastor Russell did not receive one cent profit therefrom, nor has any other person ever reaped any pecuniary profit therefrom.

    This company has been out of existence for more than two years, and does not own anything today, even its capital stock being expended by the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY in its religious work.

    There is no corporation in existence anywhere in the world in which Pastor Russell owns a single share of stock, nor in which anyone else holds any stock for his use or benefit."

    These are Rutherford's words about the case, not mine. I have no way to verify if what he says is true or not. My point is that this, while admittedly obscure, isn't entirely new and can be found on the net - if one knows what to look for, that is.

    For some of known Russell's enterpreneurial ventures, you may find some information here:


  • Focus

    Thank you for instructing me to get my facts right. I wasn't aware I hadn't, and am still not aware I hadn't.

    Maria, as a matter of fact, was granted a "divorce a mensa et thoro" by Court order in 1908 (literally, a divorce from bed and board).

    So, she got what she wanted - to be rid off Russell and to obtain a generous amount of money.

    And she had filed for that separation in 1903.

    So I was totally right that she obtained what she wanted.

    You are presumptuous with your claims of error or inaccuracy on my part.

    Maroa evidently had no interest in remarriage, and that's the only practical difference between this and what you call a "full" divorce, to which I had not referred.

    That she placed flowers on his grave - as you say - is irrelevant. If I was her, I'd have attended too (in which case flowers would have been mandatory - 98 years ago, to do otherwise would have been unthinkable), to make sure the evil swine really was dead and this wasn't another of his endless scams.

    On your first post in this forum, a year back, you referred to

    [your] religious community

    What religious community would that be, please? Or was it just the general hypocrisy of religions that you meant to refer to?

    The Russell-apologetic slant that some might put on your posts (I'm reasonably confident you are simply concerned about truth - which is fine by me, of course) you make remind me - only vaguely - of that of a very robust member of the Dawn Light Association, who posted for years on Usenet under the handle ResLight.

    I know you are not him or connected to him - this is purely about the "I believe all that Russell claimed and disbelieve what the huge horde of detractors claimed" POV.

    Yes, I heard all this rubbish before and demolished all this rubbish before. The man, whose name was Day, lived in eternal Night as far as recognised Russell for what we was. He still called him "The Master", lol. He's still defending Russell online today.

    He too hated Rutherford venomously. As do many others, I should add, and with good reason.

    Russellites, IBSA-ites, Dawn Lights and Thought-Lites are still about well into the twenty-first centuries, which I find hilarious given the blunderings and deceit by Russell... proven beyond any shadow of a doubt - about how the world was going to end well before the end of the nineteenth century!

    The reason I'm asking this to detect if there's any source of possible bias on your side. On my side, I have read The Studies in Scripture (yes! I'm a masochist) and have utter intellectual contempt for Russell, and see through his verbiage very clearly. Including his repackaging of old material - his job was selling magazines and books, at the end of the millennial day.

    I'm pretty sure there isn't any pro-Russell sentiments on your part, but it saves time if you are explicit. I really don't have time to waste arguing with someone who believes Russell was a good guy - they are too far mentally "gone" to be worth the effort.

    And, re your bold claim to me above that:

    These stories about C.T. Russell have been more or less known by the "apostate" communnity around this forum

    I am still waiting for you to provide any weblink pointing to even a single discussion about the specific (cemetery) scandal which is the only one I have provided evidence for in this thread.

    Or, to retract.

    Which is it?

    [Edited to add: I've just seen you added a link to to your last post. Well, no Russellite would dream of doing that, so we'll skip any questions on that front, lol]



    ("Plague" Class)

  • EdenOne

    Focus, I see where you're getting with this.

    To be clear, I am in no way related with any of the splinter groups that separated from the Watchtower Society in the scism that followed Russel's death and who kept looking at him and his writings as some sort of "Holy Scripture". If that's your point, then I hope I have been clear: I have no fundamental bias for or against Russell; I cannot say the same about Rutherforth, whom I vehemently despise. But I love the truth, especially the historical truth (as much as we can reach one, it's highly debatable). Nor have I ever been known by any other username since I started to participate in these JW-related forums.



  • Focus

    There is no corporation in existence anywhere in the world in which Pastor Russell owns a single share of stock, nor in which anyone else holds any stock for his use or benefit.

    ... but somehow dear old Rutherford forgot to mention that Chas. T. Russell was a financial whizz who knew lots about Trust law and would have had the shares settled into Trusts - discretionary ones, most likely, as there were taxes to evade or postpone, and these are most effective - on his behalf, hm being a mere potential beneficiary.

    A simple ruse to allow Rutherford to make the statement above and maintain it is the truth, and nothing but the truth.

    But it assuredly is not the whole truth, as it omits the main thing.

    How do I know?

    Because Rutherford didn't rule it out, nor did he say "nominally or beneficially" or anything like that.

    Would you like to buy Brooklyn Bridge from me, sir? I have it on Special Offer this week. Used hundred dollar bills only, tell me what you've got and I'll tell you the price.



    ("No such word as gullible in the dictionary" Class)

  • Focus

    Thanks for the clarification, EdenOne. You may have missed my emendation that no one who supplied as a link could possible be a Russellite.

    Now, back to the matter of the link to support your claim that the cemetery story (the only one I've evidenced in this thread) about C.T. Russell has been more or less known by the "apostate" communnity around this forum.

    Nothing wrong with admitting you erred, You Know... if you did.

    Those of us like myself, who isn't Divine or even Edenic, are frequently wrong and frequently admit being wrong.

    Edited to add:

    I'm post-limited (i.e. temporarily muzzled by the autobot) so you won't be hearing more from me for a while.

    The links you provided two posts lower are wholly irrelevant - have you read the first post in this thread at all?

    At your links, there is no knowledge shown of, and thus no debate about, the particular scandal I pointed to in the lead post.

    That Russell was associated with the cemetery is Old Light.

    The man was a real estate speculator, and sharp at it, and cheated his wife on alimony - all known.

    But what I'd provided there, however, is New Light. He cheated and fooled all those other Pastors!

    Please, don't waste my time with fripperies. Read post #1 and see your own error.



    ("Jeez" Class)

  • EdenOne

    How do I know? Because Rutherford didn't rule it out, nor did he say "nominally or beneficially" or anything like that.

    While you may well be right, it's still just a presumption so far. This is an argument from silence. You presume, but you don't know.

    Hey, I know I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but big claims deserve big evidence (or so says Cofty...) if you're going to rock and sunk the faithful Witness U-boat, you better be bullet-proof. If that's your audience, dispensing mouthful lashes with less than solid evidence to back it up won't get the rusty JW mind to jumpstart.


  • EdenOne


    Some information on these forums discussed in the past regarding the cemetery ownership, etc.

    I'm sure there's one where forum member extraordinaire Leolaia also did some research about it, but I can't find it right now.

    Those of us like myself, who isn't Divine or even Edenic, are frequently wrong and frequently admit being wrong.

    In any case, if any of the above isn't enough for your satisfaction, I will add that I meant that the information was known to forum members, although not necessarily having been discussed at lenght in HERE (JWN). But if it puts your pride to rest, hey ... my mistake, sorry.

    Pointless trivia ... EdenOne is a cryptic pun for Eden=None. Bet you didn't see that heh?

    Edit: Just saw that you've reached your posting limit. So I won't make other posts in here until you return. Hit me on PM if you want.

    Edit #2: Just saw your latest edits. Ok, so your point about the "noo light" is how Russell cheated those other pastors? Ok, point taken, you're right, I was wrong. Can we move on now? BTW, Russell for sure invented "theocratic warfare" then ....old habits die hard in this organization.


  • Focus

    EdenOne, I am devoting my one post to you, so I expect more than mere craven gratefulness in return, lol:

    your point about the "noo light" is how Russell cheated those other pastors? Ok, point taken, you're right, I was wrong. Can we move on now?

    Good. Yes, of course we can.

    So I deduced right - you'd misunderstood what scandal I was referring to. Indeed, that one article contained the makings of two or three scandals involving Russell. One of those was "noo light" in the so-called "apostate" (i.e., truth-telling) community.

    Remember, this is a fellow who'd been hinting like anything in his scribblings that he was God-appointed as the Faithful & Discreet Slave (he made it so drippingly obvious in ZWT and SiS that even his most moronic reader couldn't have failed to get the hint), and here he is setting-up, using financial chicanery and complex dealing which the layperson wouldn't even begin to comprehend, four unsuspecting local priests, all highly opposed to him, to be trustees for real estate he's using in order to conceal his wealth and thus swindle his wife, therefore scoring a double victory.

    What sort of person is that? He's laughing at anyone stupid enough to believe he is "discreet"! Secretive, sly, underhand and cunning, yes - discreet, anything but!

    Now, you put forward as evidence of something that Maria had placed flowers at Russell's funeral in 1916.

    You put that forward for a reason.

    You know, and I know, and furthermore you know I know what that reason was.

    I've already explained why she did this, and why nothing is to be deduced from it other than it was almost exactly a century ago, when society's mores were different.

    But I'll give you better evidence of Maria's true feelings towards Charles T.

    I have proof that at the beginning of April 1913 Mrs Russell was in Canada, sitting in Court ready to give evidence against her husband.

    In what matter?

    In his attempted libel suit against his most determined adversary, the great Rev'd J. J. Ross!

    Yes, Maria was going to testify on behalf of her husband's greatest enemy, the Rev'd Ross's, basically that Ross's scandalous pamphlet about Russell was true.

    Russell had been blustering about it being lies, and that had it been printed in the States he'd have taken action, etc. - so the astute Reverend Ross sent Russell the money for the trip to Hamilton in Ontario, received once Russell returned from the West Indies.

    I guess Rev'd Ross sent Maria money for her to come too, but that is purely a guess. The fact remains that she was not obliged to come - there was no Canada->USA subpeona - and she chose to come.

    Russell came too, and the lawsuit was duly thrown out with a "No Bill" decision - it refused to consider a case for criminal libel against Rev'd Ross. So there was no need for Maria to testify. Alas, as it would have provided even more evidence.

    Now, I take it you realize the absurdity (I'm being polite, here) of you mentioning this 'left flowers at his funeral', given the significance of her willingness to testify on behalf of Russell's greatest and most fearsome opponent.

    Yes, I have direct evidence of her presence. You will have to wait for it, I am not going to go out of sequence here.

    btw, I am not here mainly to argue. Like Jeeebus, I am here to turn brother against Brother, sister against Sister, etc. But I have to instruct you that I am probably one of the few sane (well, reasonably sane) people alive who have read all Russell's scribblings - and he was a prolific scribbler. Incredibly prolific. All six Studies in Scriptures, and all the Zion's Watchtowers (&HoCP) etc.

    You clearly haven't. I am lucky to still be sane after doing that - years ago - spread over months.

    Russell wrote competently too, in terms of grammar, structure, syntax, idiom.

    His English was almost as good as mine.

    But I use language to communicate. Russell did it to obfuscate and complicate. And fill pages, recycling old material with minor changes. Sometimes as many as half-a-dozen times, whole big sections of text - he'd wait say five years, and then reprint pages of the old nonsense again, with minor alterations, and trusting no one would notice. So the same poor brainwashed Russellites paid for the same worthless pap again and again.

    What else Russell was seeking to accomplish was evident to me.

    To bemuse and befuddle his reader, to get them to completely accept him as their Master... and then to further misdeeds which I won't refer to now, because I want to produce my evidence in the order I want to produce it - and not in response to your challenges.

    He was clearly not stupid, though not as smart as Maria.

    Therefore his culpability is even greater than that of brash bombastic blowhards like Rutherford or filthy perverts like Knorr.

    Russell had the intelligence to know better, and thus to do better. He did not use it, and this was his choice. He chose to be a rogue. Like F.Franz, he deserves the very highest punishment possible.



    ("J. J. Ross" Class)

  • EdenOne

    Moving on, I'm listening.


Share this