CANADIAN WTBS CHANGES it's name

by Jez 31 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  diamondblue1974

  Islam is the only way of life open to servants of Allah. Being submissive is the only way to realise our God given blessings. allah will help us if only we ask for the right reasons. 2nd sura (The Cow). His word is full of wisdom and benefit and the scripturest that he has given us must be obeyed. His love abounds and when we leave him, he awaits our return with a patience of a father who awaits thwe return of his son who is lost without him. Allah be praised, Allah be blessed and Allah the Almighty be given all the glory that he deserves. May thw wicked return to doing good and to praising Allah all day long. Islam is the way, it is the only way. Our struggle, (our daily personal Jehad) in daily living according to Islam will only bring us blessings all day long, even until death if that must be. Allah Akbar
  Andrew Drozdowski <[email protected]>
  Canterbury, Kent UK - Tuesday, November 23, 1999 at 19:02:34 (EST)
  
  
  Hmmmm...
  
  _________
  
  Vexatious litigants
  ... DROZDOWSKI, Andrew Martin - 6 April 1998. EBERT, Gedaljahu - 7 July 2000.
  EDGAR, David Alan - 1 February 2002. EDWARDS, Ralston Peter - 20 June 2001 ...
  www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/ infoabout/vexatious_litigant/ - 21k - Apr 11, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
  
  Litigation Practice
  ... Hm Attorney General -v- Andrew Martin Drozdowski. Admn 06 April 1998,
  Litigation Practice. [ - lawindexpro [1998] EWHC Admin 408] [06 April 1998 ...
  www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/Litigation_Practice.shtml - 513k - Cached - Similar pages

  Hmmn indeedy....I have checked companies house in the UK and they confirm also that Co Ownership Registers Limited is about to struck off the companies register for what appears to be failing to lodge their accounts with them. Personally I think its some nut nut thats set up a company seperate to the WTS but why I wonder? Has Andy litigated against the watchtower perhaps and ended up worse off for it....who knows.

  Mr Drozdowski well its clear that the vexatious litigant named above could well be the same person but we cant be sure...of course we could say what we wanted really because the Mr Drozdowski is prevented from litigating....

  Sorry for hijacking the thread...when im allowed to start another thread i will!!

  Nice work SF
• 

  xjw_b12

  Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (Incorporated 1884)President Don A. Adams

  Get Smart is president?

  u/d

  And if you ask him about the failed 1975 prophecy his reply is "Missed it by that much"
• 

  Preston

  the "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Canada" will change its letterheads and signature to "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses"

  If anyone asks we're not Canadian, Eh......

  - Preston
• 

  Scully

  The WTS has been having so many legal problems over the last few years, it would not surprise me that this name change is the result of adding another layer (a financial buffer zone) to prevent the payout of large settlements to plaintiffs.

  When you create a corporation with a new name, and transfer assets from the corporation under the old name, it protects those assets when the "formerly known as" corporation is being sued.

  Follow the money.
• 

  iiz2cool

  When you create a corporation with a new name, and transfer assets from the corporation under the old name, it protects those assets when the "formerly known as" corporation is being sued.

  So when you look at the number of corporations they use in so many countries one can only imagine the number of potential lawsuits the conglomerate is worried about.

  Walter
• 

  GermanXJW

  Like the Public Affairs thing they tested this method in Germany.
  
  It happened to be that after the Wall came down they founded the "Religious Community of Jehovah's Witnesses" in Eastern Germany.
  
  After the reunification they had two German corporations.
  
  They renamed the Eastern corporations "RCoJW in Germaby" and said it is responsible for total of Germany and even renamed the WTS to "WTS of Jehovah's Witnesses".
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  I think it's a means to get away from a Publishing Company as head of this "religious" organization.

  Just because they say in their title they are Christians, doesn't make it so....

  and PS - What Scully said!
• 

  Aztec

  Someone asked me to post this:

  ANDREW MARTIN DROZDOWSKI (On behalf of himself and on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses) v. WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA LUC VANDERPUTTE and JACQUILENE FRANCINE VANDERPUTTE SMITH VANDERPUTTE [1997] EWCA Civ 2895 (4th December, 1997)
  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE LTA 96/5634/5636-7/E
  
  LTA 96/6512/E
  
  IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
  
  ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
  
  (MR JUSTICE KENNEDY )
  
  
  Royal Courts of Justice
  
  Strand
  
  London WC2A 2LL
  
  
  Thursday 4 December 1997
  
  
  B e f o r e:
  
  
  LORD JUSTICE HOBHOUSE
  
  LORD JUSTICE MANTELL
  
  - - - - - -
  
  
  ANDREW MARTIN DROZDOWSKI
  
  (On behalf of himself and on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses)
  
  Plaintiff/Applicant
  
  - v -
  
  
  WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA
  
  LUC VANDERPUTTE & JACQUILENE FRANCINE VANDERPUTTE
  
  SMITH
  
  VANDERPUTTE
  
  Defendants/Respondents
  
  - - - - - -
  
  (Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
  
  Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street,
  
  London EC4A 2HD
  
  Tel: 0171 421 4040
  
  Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
  
  - - - - - -
  
  Mr Drozdowski appeared in person.
  
  
  The Respondents did not attend and were not represented.
  
  - - - - - -
  
  J U D G M E N T
  
  (As approved by the Court)
  
  - - - - - -
  
  ©Crown Copyright
  
  JUDGMENT
  
  
  LORD JUSTICE HOBHOUSE: Lord Justice Mantell will give the first judgment.
  
  
  LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: The applicant, Mr Drozdowski, who appears in person, has four separate applications for leave to appeal arising out of four separate High Court actions. In three of them the orders in respect of which leave is sought were made by Kennedy J on 29 February 1996. The fourth involves a decision of Sir John Wood made on 23 April 1996. It is apparent that there has been considerable delay in bringing the applications before the court. It would not be fruitful, however, to enquire into the reasons for the delay except to observe that at one time the applicant indicated a wish to have them all dismissed by consent.
  
  
  In his grounds of appeal, in the written argument presented before us and in the supplementary oral arguments advanced to this court, the applicant has been concerned to attack the way in which the several actions progressed up to the hearing before the Master, District Judge, or up to the time when Kennedy J and Sir John Wood had to deal with it. In particular, he complains about the misuse, or misapplication of, or breaches of, the rules of court. In consequence he has not at any stage addressed the substance of any decision which he now seeks to attack. He complains that, certainly in one case, a hearing designed for another purpose had been converted into an opportunity for entertaining a strike-out application.
  
  
  As a result of exchanges during argument, the applicant now understands that the court was entitled, in the one instance to which I have referred, to consider the question of strike out as of its own motion, his attention having been invited to Order 18 rule 19. The merits of the action, or the substance of the decision appealed against, at some stage have to be addressed. This court is not concerned merely to consider whether at various antecedent stages there has been a technical breach of the rules of court. The applicant had made it known that he approved of a judgment handed down, or delivered by, one judge who has been fortunate enough to hear the applicant in the past and, in particular, that judge received an encomium because of the number of decided cases or authorities referred to in the course of the judgment. I shall be sorry to disappoint the applicant, who seems to expect much the same in relation to his present applications, but the matters which fall for decision today are not matters which in the main are covered by previous authorities.
  
  
  I turn from those general observations to consider the four applications in turn. I remind myself that we have to consider the substance of the decision, in the first three cases made by Kennedy J and in the fourth by Sir John Wood and not any antecedent breaches or misapplication of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
  
  
  The first application relates to an action in which the plaintiff purported to sue on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Jehovah's witnesses. The defendant was the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania. The matter in relation to that action, from which the plaintiff now seeks leave to appeal, is the order of Kennedy J made on 29 February 1996, by which the appeal of the plaintiff from the order of District Judge Hebbert striking out the action was dismissed. Costs were ordered on an indemnity basis to be taxed if not agreed. Leave to appeal was refused by the judge. It is necessary for the applicant to have leave to appeal by virtue of the RSC Order 59 rule 1B(i)(j) because the order made was interlocutory in character by reason of RSC Order 59 rule 1A(6)(k).
  
  
  The plaintiff's writ had been issued on 3 January l996 seeking damages for slander, libel, defamation of character, deception, fraud and negligence said to have occurred since 1993. The claim was pitched at £300 million. The Statement of Claim runs to a great many paragraphs, but in the course of the hearing before Kennedy J, the applicant indicated that the substance of the claim was to be found in paragraph 7 which reads:
  
  
  "Comments in the December 1st issue of the Watch Tower magazine published earthwide, make assertions that the opposers of their society, in ´Legal Battles´, are linked with ´Satan and his Demons´ and also are responsible for doing all they can to thwart the efforts of God's faithful servants or make problems for them and such comments do by extension link myself with ´Satan and his Demons´ as one involved in ´legal battles´ with the society WBTS."
  
  
  It is not plain from the Statement of Claim whether it was contended by the plaintiff that he himself is or was a Jehovah's witness.
  
  
  On 28 January 1996 the defendant issued a summons seeking to set aside service of the writ under Order 12 rule 8, and seeking a declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over the defendant in respect of the subject matter of the claim or the relief or remedies sought. It was stated that, pursuant to Order 15 rule 12, the plaintiff was not entitled to proceed with a representative action "on behalf of Jehovah's witnesses" and that the defendant had not been properly served. In the alternative, the defendant applied to strike out the claim under Order 8 rule 19 on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
  
  
  On 7 February the action was struck out by the Deputy District Judge. It was declared that the court had no jurisdiction to award the relief or remedies sought by the plaintiff in a representative action. It was said that the words complained of as being defamatory were not capable of being understood as referring to the plaintiff. That decision was appealed to Kennedy J who upheld the order made by the Deputy District Judge.
  
  
  In the course of his judgment, Kennedy J said:
  
  
  "So far as the second action is concerned, which is an action against a body known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, at their premises at Watchtower House, the Ridgeway, London - where the brief name employed for them is Watchtower Bible and Tract Society -the plaintiff's claim is a claim for slander, libel, defamation of character, deception, fraud, and negligence, occurring against the plaintiff between 1993 and the date of the issue of this writ of summons. In essence, the claim is one for slander, or libel, but, at all events, for defamation."
  
  
  The judge then goes on to recite the terms of paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim. He continued:
  
  
  "Now, the fact is that there is litigation, a considerable body of litigation, it seems, between the plaintiff and either directly members of the society, of the society, and others which could be said to be legal battles, but, for all that, I am wholly satisfied that the learned district judge was quite right in his essential conclusion that this particular Statement of Claim and writ does not disclose any reasonable cause of action and that it too should be struck out under the inherent jurisdiction of the court."
  
  
  As has been observed, the grounds of appeal in all these applications failed to address the substance of that decision. There are ten of them in all. They relate in the main to allegations that the rules of court had been misapplied or misused. Ground 1 is common to the three applications relating to the orders of Kennedy J, to the effect that he was in error to hear the three matters at the same time.
  
  
  It is difficult, in my judgment, for this court to grant leave to appeal where none of the grounds of appeal upon which it is proposed to rely actually address the substance of the decision against which leave to appeal is sought. Having read all the papers in this matter, I am satisfied that the judge was plainly right in his decision and that there are, so far as this application is concerned, no arguable grounds of appeal.
  
  
  I turn, therefore, to the second application. This relates, in the order in which I propose to take them, to an action by the applicant against Luc Vanderputte and Jacquilene Vanderputte. This is an application for leave to appeal against the order of Kennedy J, also made on 29 February 1996, dismissing an appeal from the decision of District Judge Higgins by which the plaintiff's request for a judgment in default to be entered had been refused. Costs were awarded on an indemnity basis and leave to appeal was refused. Once again, by reason of Order 59 rule 1A(6)(f) this is an appeal which needs leave before proceeding further.
  
  
  The plaintiff had issued his writ on 3 January 1996. Again, he was alleging slander. The claim is more modestly set at £50 million. The claim arises out of statements alleged to have been made by the defendants, which the applicant contends caused his children to abscond. By virtue of Order 12 rule 5, the time limit for acknowledging service was 14 days after service of the writ. The acknowledgment was filed on 29 January 1996. The plaintiff had sought judgment in default of the filing of such acknowledgement on 26 January 1996. The matter having been referred to District Judge Higgins, he refused the applicant's request for a default judgment to be entered. It was his judgment that the requirements of Order 13 rule 13(1)(iii) had not been fulfilled. Further, it was contended by, or on behalf of, the defendants that the writ had not been served.
  
  
  On the appeal before the judge, the decision of the District Judge was again upheld. The judge said in relation to that:
  
  
  "So far as the third appeal is concerned [as this was before him], there it is perfectly apparent that there has been a dispute about service of the writ. It is perfectly plain that the service which was purportedly sworn to in the plaintiff's affidavit was not good service and that the learned district judge was absolutely right to refuse to enter judgment in default of defence on the material before him. This action is not at this moment struck out, all that happens is that the plaintiff's application -- that judgment should be entered in default of defence, fails."
  
  
  As a result of the order which Kennedy J made in relation to this matter, the action for the time being lives on. But, with regard to the application for leave to appeal against this judgment, I observe once again that none of the grounds advanced, and none of the arguments advanced, seek to address the substance of the decision against which leave to appeal is sought. For that reason, if no other, I would refuse the application. It appears to me upon reading the material in this case, such as it is, that the decision of the District Judge and that of Kennedy J, cannot be impugned. There is no argument which can be presented to the court which would have any chance of succeeding.
  
  
  I turn to the third and final matter which exercised Kennedy J on 29 February. On that occasion, in an action which had been brought by the applicant, ostensibly on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife and children, against Robert Smith, defined as Group 1 in the Statement of Claim, Deputy District Judge Lamb had made an order on 23 January 1996 striking out the claim. Once again leave to appeal is required.
  
  
  The writ in this matter had been issued on 1 November 1995. The plaintiff complains that the defendants had abducted one of his children contrary to Section 19 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. On 29 November 1995 the defendant applied to set aside the writ pursuant to Order 12 rule 8, a declaration that the writ had not been duly served and that the court had no jurisdiction over the defendants in respect of the subject matter or of the claim, or relief for the remedies sought. It was said that the plaintiff was not authorised to bring a representative action on behalf of his wife and remaining children, and was not entitled to proceed with an action on behalf of the defendants as described, and, by that action, to include any unidentified persons engaged in the causes of action. The District Judge made the order sought.
  
  
  On appeal Kennedy J found that the appropriate steps had not been taken to bring a representative action into being. Once again I refer to Order 15 rule 12(11) which provides that persons bringing a representative action, or being sued in such capacity, must have the same interest in the proceedings. The judge also found (this arising of his own motion) that the statement of claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action. For that reason the action was struck out.
  
  
  The grounds of appeal once again are chiefly concerned with technical objections relating to proceedings which predate the hearing before the judge and, in some instances, predate the hearing before the District Judge. They do not address the substance of the decision which it is sought to appeal. I can find no arguable grounds which would justify the grant of leave and accordingly in that application also I would refuse the application for leave.
  
  
  I turn finally to the application which relates to the order of Sir John Wood, made on 23 April 1996, by which he set aside the writ on the basis that it had not been duly served. Unfortunately this court does not have the advantage of any reasoned judgment by Sir John Wood delivered on the occasion when he made the order. It would appear that the recording machine had not been switched on. However, it is plain from the material before us that, by his order, Sir John Wood upheld a decision which had been made previously by the District Judge.
  
  
  On 7 August 1995 the plaintiff had issued his writ in the action which was said to be on behalf of Jehovah's witnesses against Luc Vanderputte and another. By that writ he sought to claim £40 million in damages for impeding his, the applicant's, work over a period of 12 years. Acknowledgements of service were filed on behalf of the International Bible Students Association, one of the defendants, and Mr Vanderputte. However, on 13 August 1995, judgment in default of notice of intention to defend was entered long before the time limit for acknowledging service had actually expired. At some time prior to 10 October 1995 the defendants issued a summons returnable on that day seeking to set aside service of the writ, together with a declaration that the writ had not been properly served and the court had no jurisdiction over the defendant. One of the arguments advanced was that the applicants daughter, Michaela Drozdowski, should be removed from the action on the basis that she was a minor. At the hearing on 10 October she was struck out from the action.
  
  On 11 January 1996 judgment was entered in default of defence, which the defendants then applied to set aside by summons dated 15 January 1996. This was on the basis that judgment had been entered prior to the determination of the application to set aside service of the writ. On 15 January 1996 Master Foster ordered that the execution of the judgment be stayed, pending the hearing of the summons to set aside judgment. On 31 January Master Foster set aside the judgment, and on 19 March he set aside the writ declaring that it had not been properly served. He further ordered that the plaintiff should pay costs on an indemnity basis. Those orders were appealed and the matter came, as I have indicated, before Sir John Wood. He upheld the orders which had been made by the Master.
  
  
  This is yet another case in which the grounds of appeal do not address the substance of the decision against which leave to appeal is made. Nevertheless, I have examined the papers available in the case and can see no basis upon which those decisions could be attacked. Once again, for my part I would refuse the application for leave to appeal.
  
  
  LORD JUSTICE HOBHOUSE: I agree. All four applications are refused.
  
  
  Order: Applications refused.
• 

  tijkmo

  a few weeks back we discussed the new df announcement being.... so+so is no longer one of jehovahs witnesses'..and how that remark is slanderous because a disfellowshipped person can still witness about j. if he wants and it appeared to me that making that announcement would open the way to further litigation...unless...the org is patenting the expression as some kind of brand name..meaning that it becomes a title as opposed to a description and they are therefore within there rights to expel
• 

  blondie

  Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (Incorporated 1884)President Don A. Adams
  Vice Presidents Robert W. Wallen, William F. Malenfant
  Secretary/Treasurer Richard E. Abrahamson
  Directors Danny L. Bland, Philip D. Wilcox, John N. Wischuk
  
  Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (Incorporated 1909)
  President Max H. Larson
  Vice Presidents George M. Couch, Lonnie R. Schilling
  Secretary/Treasurer Gerald F. Simonis
  Directors Gerald D. Grizzle, David G. Sinclair, Robert M. Pevy
  
  Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Incorporated 2000)President William L. Van De Wall
  Vice Presidents Charles I. Woody, Leon Weaver, Jr.
  Secretary/Treasurer William H. Nonkes
  Directors Harold K. Jackson, Merton V. Campbell, Stanley F. Weigel
  
  Religious Order of Jehovah's Witnesses (Incorporated 2000)
  President Patrick J. LaFranca
  Vice Presidents Peter D. Molchan, Ralph E. Walls
  Secretary/Treasurer Joseph D. Mercante
  Directors Marvin G. Smalley, Kenneth J. Pulcifer, Eugene D. Rosam, Jr.
  
  Kingdom Support Services, Inc. (Incorporated 2000)
  President Harold L. Corkern
  Vice Presidents Alan D. Janzen, Robert L. Butler
  Secretary/Treasurer Alexander W. Reinmueller
  Directors James F. Mantz, Jr., Thomas Kalimeris, Alan G. Browning
  
  Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New Jersey, Inc. (Incorporated 1955)
  President Charles V. Molohan
  Vice Presidents James L. Bauer, J. Richard Brown
  Secretary/Treasurer Alan K. Flowers
  Directors Allen E. Shuster, David L. Walker, Vernon C. Wisegarver
  
  Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Florida, Inc. (Incorporated 1986)
  President Leonard R. Pearson
  Vice Presidents Alejandro G. Rodriguez, Maurice C. Turcot
  Secretary/Treasurer Mark L. Questell
  Directors Jim Moody, Sr., Anselm J. Packnett, Donald R. Krebs
  
  Valley Farms Corporation (Incorporated 1987)
  President Charles J. Rice
  Vice Presidents Kent E. Fischer, Robert L. Rains
  Secretary/Treasurer Albert L. Harrell
  Directors John R. Strandberg, Samuel D. Buck, Louis A. Travis