I posted this in a comment in another thread but it was off topic, so I thought I'd repost it on its own for all to see:
Take a look at this gem of an excerpt from an amicus brief filed by the Watchtower with the US Supreme Court in the case of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California (493 U.S. 378 (1990))(emphasis added):
Every one of Jehovah's Witnesses is an active door-to-door minister, preaching the good news of God's Kingdom to willing listeners and offering printed sermons in the form of religious tracts, pamphlets, magazines, books and Bibles for a suggested nominal contribution.
This is patently false. Our congregation had several regular, baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who for various reasons did not engage in the "door-to-door" ministry. These individuals were baptized, and regularly attended the meetings. In our congregation, these individuals were considered to be "Jehovah's Witnesses," despite the fact that they did not engage in the "door-to-door" ministry. The question is whether the Watchtower lawyers, as officers of the court, intentionally made this misrepresentation to the US Supreme Court?
An amicus brief is known as a "friend of the court" brief; it is generally filed by a person/entity who is not a party to the underlying litigation, but who believes their interests could be affected by the outcome. The brief goes on to state that the "Watchtower supports neither party in this case, . . ." but if the arguments in that brief were adopted in the decision of the Court, the outcome would have been beneficial to Jimmy Swaggart Ministries.