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

by Focus 109 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Focus

  Old Goat:

  This was before Income Tax

  And?

  What I's written was:

  Another may have been related to tax.

  There are, and have been, many a tax. The word "tax" is not synonymous with, and does not imply, "income tax".

  There are, for example,:

  taxes on capital gains especially on the sale or transfer of a business,

  taxes on capital ("wealth tax"),

  taxes on corporations (corporation tax) whose average rate - quite commonly - could vary with the company's ownership (to prevent fraud by splitting taxable profits between entities where corporation tax rates are banded) - I'm sure the relevance is not lost on you,

  taxes on trusts and settlements (likewise),

  taxes on transactions (sales or value-added taxes),

  duties and levies on goods / octroi,

  stamp duties

  estate, inheritance or death duties

  and so on and on, seemingly ad infinitum.

  I don't think you were setting up a strawman there; I am being explicit because I suggest you may be misunderestimating (sic) Russell's knowledge and subtlety. Most of the taxes I've mentioned potentially impact such arrangements.

  I have expertise on many of these areas, but zero knowledge of or interest in their implementation, if indeed they were in place, during 1900-1916.

  I mistrust newspaper articles

  So, often, do I. I won't set up a strawman against you by pointing that they'd be likely to be enormously more accurate than the fabrications and delusions of scum lilke Russell or Rutherford.

  But let's look at the care and diligence they knew they had to put into their coverage of Russell.

  We know that Russell was litigious, and we know how he comported himself during the "divorce" hearings, and whatever we know, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle knew just as well, if not better. They knew he would sue them for libel on the drop of a hat, if even the beginnings of a chance showed.

  That put them on alert, and I suggest that the reason he didn't sue them over any of this was simply that it was not only true, but fair, and furthermore provably true.

  Since Russell showed himself willing to sue them over a non-explicit - and in my opinion fairly innocent - cartoon, doesn't that say it all? Yes, he lost, and lost on appeal - but the point is he projected belligerence when faced with opposition, and his actions (including the setting-up of the four clergymen) shows actual malice.

  The Brooklyn Daily Eagle were fully aware - and so would have been extra careful with their coverage.

  I suggest it is probably more than fair to Russell. They took no chances. They were extremely proud of their reputation and accuracy, and in general were excellent for a newspaper of their day.

  How do I know? As you'll discover from my next post in this thread, I've been reading a lot of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle - needless to say, it wasn't just the Russell and Rutherford material, but also adjacent or neighboring articles would catch my eye. (Most) newspapers of today are facile, shallow, superficial by comparison, in my opinion. This was a class act, and not some scandal-sheet like the National Enquirer.

  To trust Russell (or Rutherford) instead of the Eagle would be barmy - but I'm sure you are not going to do that.

  When I can, I'll scan the transcript for more relevant tesitmony.

  Testimony, even. Please do, thanks. I am very interested and it will save me OCR-work.

  __

  Focus

  ("Anti-Pasta" Class)
• 

  Focus

  Everyone else but EdenOne - thanks for your interest / encouragement / comments.

  EdenOne, I'm sure you don't want to be dismissed as a lightweight or troll a la cofty, and therefore to be ignored, right?

  So why are you persisting with:

  Focus, out of curiosity: Are you in any way related with the website www.jwdivorces/bravehost.com ?

  ?

  This isn't the first time you've done it - just very recently, in http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/281308/2/A-precious-gift-to-all-from-Jehovah-channelled-via-Focus#5049332 EdenOne wrote:

  This is post #2197 of forum member Valis, from 10/26/2002.
  I couldn't help but to notice the same tone of writing and the same 'signature'.
  So, Focus... are you also Valis, or is this a coincidence?

  I politely and fully responded, to be met with a dismissive wave, perhaps meant as an insult (informing me you don't read what I write carefully) from you in reply.

  Are you in your right senses?

  My identity is, by and large, my business, right?

  Put your name and address in your reply, OK? Then we'll make some progress, though it may well not be along such theocratic lines as you might be comfortable with.

  There are over a billion people on the internet. I'm not most of them. Grow up and get over it.

  I'm going to answer your new impertinent questions - why, I don't know - and the answers are that I've nothing to do with the people behind that website, have no idea who they are, etc.

  Since you appear to have some fetish about finding out who I am... or who I'm not... please don't. For my sake. And for yours.

  I first saw the webpage about a day ago, when you posted (in your post #1193) the links to three j-w.n threads, and unless my memory is playing tricks with me, one of the posts to one of those threads linked to that jwdivorces website you mention.

  I hadn't seen it before, and it follows I hadn't seen it when I did my original research or made my lead post to this thread (to which your post providing the indirect link was made in response). I don't have a time-machine.

  My Google search (to check if someone had found it before) didn't pick up that site as I was searching for Russell's name together with those of at least one of the clergymen, and various other things. Just searching for Russell and the cemetery name was pointless as that has been covered ad nauseam before.

  Your apparent attempt to smear me doesn't gel, as on the matter of the duping of the clergymen, my post is the one with the detail - not the one at this jwdivorces site you found. How would I have gone from there to what I found?

  My motive for being here is to destroy the Watchtower.

  What's yours?

  Poking around trying to making some half-ass clever comments and snide innuendo? Which when refuted, you sidestep around, and then come back with some new, unrelated BS.

  In the present instance of Russell, there is a mountain of evidence to show what appalling caliber of creature he was. And court decisions aplenty. Perhaps you don't know about them?

  You are the one with the case to prove, when attempting the (incompetent) whitewash that you apparently are.

  I'll stop short of telling you go forth and procreate - for now.

  I've been cult-busting for 20 years. My material pre-dates all but a handful of the stuff you'll find on the internet. Your lack of knowledge about my activities is not my fault. My posting history on anti-WTS and sting-WTS boards goes back 5 years before I first posted here, so that's about 5+13=18 years ago. And more on usenet, which is not part of the web at all.

  You're the newcomer "here".

  This already bit the know-it-all who accused me of plagiarizing what was my own original work. And the dimwit who doesn't know the difference between words and ideas. If you think you are joining the bandwagon, and in general as to your accusations and innuendo, watch it.

  For this, my source was - pretty obviously, isn't it, to those with a functioning braincell or two - the BROOKLYN DAILY EAGLE...

  Which is why I'm posting cleaned-up and reformatted scans from it... You won't find my scans anywhere else, and there's a reason for that.

  I'm systematically going through the Eagle, using SEARCH tools (imperfect, as the OCR used is imperfect, and thus it occasionally misses things) and also a list of dates on which I know key "things" transpired, followed by a manual search by me.

  The extensive information found in "jwdivorces", if accurate, is pretty damning for the Watchtower Society, especially for its founder CT Russell. However, the historian in me wants to see probatory documents. I don't find them there, as much plausible the information contained there appears to be. Are you able to provide documentation to backup your information?

  "[T]he historian in [you]" - rather presumptuous, what? And why should I provide documentation to backup "their" information? It is not "my" information! They are not connected to me.

  For all I know, much of what is on that site - I've only glanced briefly at the page - are concoctions or reprints of concoctions. Russell did more than enough wicked or sly deeds - there's no need to invent any.

  It's probably fair dinkums Theocratic War Strategy for jW-apologist shills to put up websites with OTT accusations which are then shot down. It's an online variation of a "False Flag" attack.

  I agree this jwdivorces site would be more convincing if there was documentary support. I suggest you take it up with them, instead of trying to troll me on the internet. A historian like you will know that sauces are king so track them down - took me just a couple of minutes, I don't think they were trying to hide - and check the flavor.

  And, in conclusion, there is a pressing need for a very well-deserved:

  WHACK !!!

  __

  Focus

  ("Suffering 'em ungladly" Class)
• 

  Old Goat

  What tax, specifically, would Russell have avoided? You loaded a shotgun with supposition and fired it. The result is a miss. Saying he might have avoided some tax doesn't cut it as evidence. What tax did he avoid? How did he avoid it? Cite the statute. Was there an investigation? Cite the documents.

  I would be surprised if many here haven't already read the B. Eagle articles. There's a file folder of them circulating on the net, and the paper is searchable from two sites at least. This is not new. And neither supposition nor the word of a newspaper with a religious agenda is creditable on its own.

  Saying Russell "probably" did something is useless. Prove he did something. The time for suppostion is long gone. Shouting with out proof is just shouting.

  And if you want help with your crusade, stop abusing people and present some reason.
• 

  Focus

  Old Goat:

  What tax, specifically, would Russell have avoided? You loaded a shotgun with supposition and fired it. The result is a miss. Saying he might have avoided some tax doesn't cut it as evidence. What tax did he avoid? How did he avoid it? Cite the statute. Was there an investigation? Cite the documents.

  Ah, I see you are trolling, as there is no way my:

  Another may have been related to tax.

  otherwise merited such a response from someone who is sane and balanced. Right?

  Re Brooklyn Daily Eagle articles:

  There's a file folder of them circulating on the net

  Yes.

  This is not new.

  Right. You made the above assertion re the Brooklyn Eagle clipping that I provided in the lead post of this thread.

  So show me, in that file folder (or folders, if more than one is in circulation), where the November 5, 1911 article from the Eagle is to be found.

  I've several versions, but they all seem to be identical, except in terms of compression ratio and therefore filesize, with"1909-1916_brooklyn_eagle_News_clippings.pdf"

  I won't hold my breath while I'm waiting.

  Because you won't be able to. It is not there. Of course I checked before calling this New Light.

  Big on accusations. Short on proof.

  Will you apologize when you've discovered your blunder - or make more of a fool of yourself (if, indeed, that is possible)?

  Note: I'm required, however, to jump through every hoop or needle-eye to show that Russell really, really wasn't just someone who everyone somehow misunderstood... including not only all those private individuals, victims, whistleblowers, concerned clergymen, newspaper editors but also those judges in several countries. And poor Maria, who was willing to testify for J.J.Ross - hahahaha!

  Think the double-standard isn't clear? Sure is to me.

  stop abusing people

  Oh, that's rich... on a troll scale of 0-10, that must be at least a "6".

  So, every two-bit, unlearned fool (for the avoidance of doubt this isn't a reference to you) can come along and accuse me of plagiarism (even self-plagiarism, lol) or lying, and I should accept it gracefully, thus suggesting to the fairly uninterested passerby that it's there's at least a grain of truth in their repeated smears?

  Not on yer nelly.

  I'd suggest, then, that the addle-pated, IQ-challenged, generally ignorant, ill-educated, arrogant fools don't abuse me, then. As I'm better than they are at pretty much everything relevant, I'm probably better than they are at abusing too.

  Still enmeshed in the clutches of the Old Mother Whore, some might say Occam might indicate... lol... Show me the typical Elder (alleged ex-Elders included), and I'll show you a Spiritual Rapist (using the terminological criteria employed by the Watchtower in describing material critical of itself as pornography and dealing with "apostates" as "spiritual fornication").

  It is safe to conclude that I'm not surprised one bit.

  __

  Focus

  ("Swine" Class)
• 

  Old Goat

  Testimony of W. E. VanAmburg. Questions by Sparks for the Eagle. Transcript pages 203-204.

  Q. We had some reference yesterday and the day before to a Cemetery Company, down in Pittsburg. Didn’t you take the name of that company or the title of that property in your name?

  A. I did.

  Q. What consideration was paid for the property?

  A. $27,000. That was not my money that bought it. It Was the money of "The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society." I conveyed to The United States Investment Company; they deeded it to the United Cemetery Company. There is no stock in the United Cemetery Company. May I explain that?

  Q. Yes, if you will. I will be glad.

  A. The Society receives contributions in a tentative way very frequently, for which we issue a receipt something like this: "The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Company," a corporation under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, has received from John Smith $500 as a donation to the Society to be used in the propagation of its work as the proper officers see fit. However in consideration of the uncertainties of life, it is hereby especially stipulated that should said donor have need of any portion or portions of said donation, and shall make request for the same in writing before death, the same shall be reimbursed to the donor from the Society fund." This fund is not ours to use at liberty. It may be called for at any time. Therefore, the Society thought well to have some place where it would have a good asset. It looked around in various places, and they found a farm, and they arranged for a United Cemeteries Company as being the most stable, it could not run away, something satisfactory that could always be used as an asset.

  Therefore, it deemed it wise to use $27,000 of the Society’s money on this investment. It bought the farm. It was then agreed to take it in my name, and I passed it on to the United States Investment Company, and the United States Investment Company passed it on to the United Cemeteries Company. That is in the deed of the United Cemeteries Company that that company is—that the United Cemetery Company is a benevolent organization for benevolent purposes; and it is thereby stipulated that half of the income from this cemetery shall be used for the preservation and upkeep of the cemetery, and the other half of the income should go to The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. That is in the deed on record in Pennsylvania. The directors of the United Cemetery Company do not get one cent from it. The United States Investment Company never got one cent from it. I never got one cent from it. It is simply a holding—it is simply on the part of the United States Investment Company, as a protection against some of those who have placed money with us, and who may call for such at some time. We are in honor bound to- protect these shares, and we have taken the best method we know of how to do it."

  Each year there comes to the "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society" from this, half of the income, the proceeds of the sales of lots. This being a benevolent organization, the lots are placed on sale in that cemetery in the suburbs of Pittsburgh at about one-fifth to one-tenth of what they can be gotten for elsewhere. There are lots— It is a fact. There are many people in the large cities that are not able to buy a cemetery lot, scarcely able to buy a place to bury their dead; and we arranged for plans there or plans were arranged through the Cemetery Company so that one could get a five grave plot for $15, large enough to bury the whole family. The Society has received income from that source, and is receiving it now, as it comes in, and were receiving it in 1911, and in 1909.

  This Miracle wheat was raised on that property. I say yes, I beg your pardon. I don’t know. I simply speak of what I heard from hearsay. Of my own personal knowledge, I was not there when it was raised. The income from that property in 1911 I should judge was about two thousand dollars to three thousand dollars. That is, one half equaled the two thousand dollars which is the share we got for "The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society." The other half was used for the benefit of the cemetery.

  Q. Whose signature is that, will you look?

  A. I would say it was the Signature of Mr. C. T. Russell and F. W. Williamson.

  I could not swear it is. I did not see them write it. It looks very much like it. I have been a worker with Mr. Russell twelve years; have seen his signature during that twelve years I presume a hundred times, maybe more. I say that resembles it very closely—his signature; but there are so many counterfeiters nowadays that can counterfeit them very closely. If they desired to do it, they might do it easily. How could I say it was his signature? I say it resembles it very closely. If there was no such thing as counterfeiting, I would say that it was his signature. I believe it is his signature.
• 

  Old Goat

  Facts, focus. Not vituperation. Grow some.
• 

  Focus

  Thanks for the OCR work!

  And now, answer the material in blue in my post #907. Just above. You responded only to ignore it.

  This is what happened, in case memory is proving troublesome.

  Just a few moments ago:

  You made an accusation.

  I robustly deny it.

  I can't prove a negative.

  Show me in which online folder of Eagle clippings (exposing the Watchtower) is "my" November 5, 1911 article to be found, as you alleged when smearing me that my "new" research was not new.

  You wouldn't want to be known as a stupid old blowhard whose bluff was called, now, would you?

  Much quicker to check and then apologize. It won't go away, You Know.

  Everyone makes mistakes. Those who have really "growed up" learn to acknowledge them, pronto. Or are you trying to fit with your avatar-name?

  Tick, tock.

  __

  Focus

  ("Accountability" Class)
• 

  Old Goat

  Focus,

  If you say this article isn't in the eagle files, i'm certain you're correct. It is, however, available through two search funcitons. You've raised this issue to avoid presenting facts. You raised the issue of taxes and tax avoidance. Prove it. If you can't. say so.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Hey. I don't know what happened to this thread, but I propose the printing and displaying of scans of these articles. Seriously, get an identical LITTERATRASH rolly-cart and set up shop right next to some JWs. That would be awesome.

  DD, of the ( don't know everything but willing to fight) class.
• 

  Focus

  Focus, If you say this article isn't in the eagle files, i'm certain you're correct.

  And that's what you call an apology.

  Some Elder you must have made.

  No "lol".

  It is, however, available through two search funcitons.

  Functions, even. Yes, Search functions on the gigabytes of Brooklyn Daily Eagle online archives.

  (a) So, how would I know what to search for, if I didn't know about it already?

  (b) Alternatively, if I'm searching for every reference to WATCHTOWER, RUSSELL or similar then I'm doing an awful lot of work. Work not done by others as the said article was never mentioned by others (well, I've tried dozens of permutations in Google for it, after I found it the hard way).

  Either way, (a) or (b), it's my new, hitherto-unpublished research. As I said.

  Not important, except you went out of your way to smear me about it.

  Are you a fool or just another liar to continue with this demolition of your credibility?

  You've raised this issue to avoid presenting facts.

  Both nonsense and another smear.

  I raised the issue solely because you smeared me and you need to apologize pronto. You've had three posts when you could have.

  You raised the issue of taxes and tax avoidance. Prove it.

  lol, you really are not very bright at all.

  What I had written was:

  Another may have been related to tax.

  First, where was there a mention (by me) of tax avoidance or any synonym thereof?

  My implication was there may have been a tax motive.

  You may be ignorant of fiscal planning and related accounting techniques, but that's not my fault.

  A common reason (and overwhelmingly often, the main or sole reason) for creating complex corporate and/or trust structures for assets and/or income streams is

  related to tax

  It's a no-brainer, really. In fiscal lawsuits in those jurisdictions where a "general anti-avoidance rule" is in place (i.e., most of them), the burden of proof for that the complex structure was entered into for purposes other than tax reduction falls on the taxpayer and not on the IRS or equivalent.

  Further, there's nothing illegal about tax minimization exercises, within the law. Russell was usually quite good at staying within the law ... just.

  Going to continue with this strawman, Old Goat, or apologize like a good upright man would.

  Like Chas T. Russell (as he exists in your dreams, perhaps) would, even!

  Now - that is an insult.

  __

  Focus

  ("Casting pearls" Class)