News story re: Doris Nelson. How many involved are Witnesses?

by LogCon 35 Replies latest social current

  • Vidiot

    My dad was often quite susceptible to MLMs.

    Drove my mom nuts, sometimes.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    I remember one person doing an MLM, they promise to be able to pioneer while the business is generating the income for you. All you have to do is invest $300 and next year you'll be just like that guy, he's a special pioneer after all and he drives a Mercedes, he often comes along with the Circuit Overseer...

    I forgot his name but he was active in North America about 10 years ago

  • Splash

    JWs are susceptible to these scams for a number of reasons.

    They are conditioned to trust other JWs and not dig beyond superficial claims.

    They are insulated from the real world so often lack street smarts.

    They are prevented from getting better education which teaches critical thinking or financial acumen.

    They often have a basic income and financial struggles which easy money would fix.

    WT are responsible for inflicting all of these handicaps on JWs because it serves their agenda. Unfortunately it also makes JWs more vulnerable to other malevolent agendas besides the WTs.

  • HiddlesWife

    I wonder if The CNBC TV series "American Greed" may profile this case as an episode on their show. . . . . . .

  • OrphanCrow
    HiddlesWife: I wonder if The CNBC TV series "American Greed" may profile this case as an episode on their show. . .

    I think it would make for some good viewing. The case is quite complicated and there are so many players. many of them are JWs. 75% JWs.

    I am interested in Lorenz Reibling's investment of $1.5 million. That is substantial. An unsecured investment. That he lost.

    Why it interests me is the claims of his investment prowess on the international market and his targeting of very, very wealthy families' money. (read more here and here)

    This investment does not smell of honest investing. That is evident in the cases where Bruce Kreigman won judgement against some of the "net winners".

    The judge in those cases included this statement, or one similar, in the rulings:
    "Defendants knew or should have known that Debtor was perpetrating a fraud"

    Why did Reibling invest? Because his boys had already made some money? But, he should have known it was a fraud.

    And then there are all those cases that were withdrawn. They also were net winners. But, from what I was able to piece together from the information I could find, I think that those 93 defendants, who had their cases withdrawn, had entered into a payback scheme of some type. It wasn't that they weren't guilty, it was that they settled.

  • waton

    I recognize the name Pakosh from somewhere, still on the shady side after 60 years.

Share this