My thoughts about Watchtower fully owned "independent" lawyer firm / Dutch case

Gorbatchov

Friends,

Of course we have the Vampire story, but this is what i'm thinking of now:

In the current Dutch jw.org law cases about child abuse and religion rights the jw.org is represented by Shane Brady, partner of W. Glen How & associaties. https://wghow.ca/partners-associates.htm

What I think, is that this law firm, fully owned by jw.org but presented to the outside world as independent law firm, is a money machine for Watchtower. It is very possible that the hours of the lawyers will be payed by the local witnesses cq. local Christian association of JW's.

The more and more I think about this vehicle, the more I smell a money machine.

When a court case is won by jw.org, the opposite party will be ordered to pay the lawyer costs. With this law firm jw.org can bring in a high cost level, because of the firm structure instead of a volunteer lawyer of jw.org

Let me know if i'm wrong with this.

G.

waton

Glen How in Canadian Witness legal history is like the 1914 ** of their doctrines. Front cover news. Man of the year of Macleans Magazine (Canada's "Time") The name spells Prestige, fire power, Victory.

At least one on the team has been put through Law School at wt's behest . Bethel-lite heavy family.

Would wt be payed for their services at least in beancounter fashion?

insiders will know. ** 1914 really happened. Big time.

Incognito

Although operated from the Canadian Branch address, the law firm is registered independently as an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership). The law firm could claim it merely rents office space from WT and so it is only a tenant.

Even if actually owned and operated by WT in the background and the various lawyers and staff are considered and are 'paid' as bethelites, the fact that it is operated as an independent law firm, I anticipate, will qualify its clients to claim and be awarded legal costs from the losing party when its clients are successful in court.

Anders Andersen

There may be something else to this: afaik in some (many?) jurisdictions discussions with in-house lawyers do not automatically fall under attorney-client privilege.

What better way to make sure your in-house lawyer can never be made to testify against you then making him an external firm on paper?

Vidiot

Anders - "What better way to make sure your in-house lawyer can never be made to testify against you then making him an external firm on paper?"

Gordon Gekko would be proud.

Like I just said ten minutes ago in another thread...

...sneaky fuckers.

NikL

The fact that they have made a website for a law-firm that seems to work ONLY for JW.ORG is really weird.

I think you are right Gorby