SECRET JW CASES

The 140+ miscellaneous Jehovah's Witness court cases, and related scenarios, posted in this three-page section are intended to provide additional enlightenment on the main legal and/or historical issues that arise elsewhere within this website. Readers will never have heard of most of these cases, primarily because such have never been cited by liberal authors, whose works are intended to glorify the Jehovah's Witness Court Cases of the 1920s-1970s. Even some of the cases which have been publicized have been "spun", so as to obscure any "negatives" that occurred.

UNSPINNING THE 1940 BURNING OF THE

KENNEBUNK MAINE KINGDOM HALL OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

The torching of the Kennebunk Maine Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses on June 9, 1940, was in RETALIATION for the legally unjustified shooting and wounding of two men outside the Kingdom Hall earlier that day.

Amazingly, that essential element of the story is nearly always left out when this unfortunate incident is cited by reporters and supposed historians -- some of whom obviously have an agenda.

"... But before you shut the door on a Jehovah's Witness the next time, pause to consider the shameful persecution they suffered not too long ago, as well as the rich contribution they have made to the First Amendment freedoms we all enjoy. ... Next month will mark the 60th anniversary of the most infamous Jehovah's Witness decision, one the Supreme Court got completely wrong: Minersville School District vs. Gobitis. The court, smitten by pre-World War II patriotic fervor, ruled it was constitutional to require Jehovah's Witness students to violate their faith and pledge allegiance to the flag in public school. ... As recounted in Shawn Francis Peters' powerful new book, Judging Jehovah's Witnesses, the Supreme Court's decision unleashed a wave of virulent anti-Jehovah's Witness persecution across the nation that is little remembered today. Witness missionaries were chased and beaten by vigilantes in Texas. Their literature was confiscated and even burned. Less than a week after the court decision, a Kingdom Hall was stormed and torched in Kennebunk, Maine. American Legion posts harassed Witnesses nationwide. The American Civil Liberties Union reported ..." -- by Tony Mauro, in his USA TODAY newspaper article, "Thank Jehovah's Witnesses For Speech Freedoms", published May 30, 2000.

"1940 was a bad time to be a Jehovah's Witness. In June that year the Supreme Court held 8-1 that a Pennsylvania school district could legally expel Jehovah's Witness children who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the flag. The Witnesses were not trying to cause trouble, but as a religious group they sincerely believe that expressions of devotion to national symbols like the flag constitute a form of idolatry. They claimed a constitutional right not to do either. The justices of the high court rejected that argument and in the Minersville School District v. Gobitis decision they held that freedom of conscience must bend the knee to the rituals and symbols of national unity. Far from instilling a feeling of national pride and love of country, the Gobitis decision in fact unleashed a frightful wave of intolerance and hate across America. Some segments of the population saw it as a Supreme Court-sanctioned 'open season' on Witnesses. ... And in Kennebunk, Maine, a community adjacent to George Bush's Kennebunkport home, an unruly crowd charged the local Witness Meeting hall and burned it down. In 1940, between June 12 ... " -- by Robert L. Maddox, in his CHURCH & STATE magazine article, "With Liberty and Justice For All", published October 1988.

COMMENTARY ON MADDOX'S ARTICLE: Although not wishing to distract the reader from the theme of this article, I cannot allow Maddox's two factual inaccuracies (highlighted in red) to go unchallenged. "Trouble" was exactly what the Jehovah's Witnesses wanted. In fact, "trouble" had been the policy of Judge Rutherford long before 1940. Cities and counties whose officials opposed the work of local Jehovah's Witnesses would find themselves flooded with out-of-state JWs, whose job was to pick a fight with local citizens and officials. While it is correct that there was a spike in the number of attacks on Jehovah's Witnesses after the GOBITIS decision, it is not accurate that the the decision did not instill pride and love of country in the 99.99% of Americans who never lifted a finger against the JWs. In fact, within a only few weeks after the GOBITIS decision, practically every available American Flag in the United States had been purchased for display in/on homes and businesses. Many Americans displayed pictures and photos of American Flags cut from magazines and books.

"Despite their treatment by the Nazis, the Witnesses did not embrace Roosevelt's war effort. Resolute in their belief that the governments of the world were subordinate to God's authority, members refused to serve in the military, vote or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This position aroused a mob of 2,000 self-proclaimed patriots to torch the organization's Kennebunk, Maine, branch during a week of pogroms in 1940. -- by Keith Elliot Greenberg, in his ?2000 newspaper? article, "The View From The Watchtower".

The "spinning" of what happened in Kennebunk in the early A.M. hours of June 9, 1940, began the moment the police started investigating the shooting. The three men outside the Kingdom Hall probably lied as to why they had stopped their car in front of the Kingdom Hall, and why two occupants got out. By one account, they supposedly needed to change a tire on the car. By a second account, the transmission was acting up. By a third account, they stopped simply to change drivers. By a fourth account, they were returning from a party, and stopped for whatever reason(s) drunks often stop. At trial, they claimed to have stopped only to change drivers. At any rate, the 10 or so Jehovah's Witnesses inside (and also possibly outside) the Kingdom Hall undoubtedly lied to justify their having shot and wounded the two men.

Although the events of June 9, and subsequent legal proceedings were covered in the news media, in later years, many reporters and authors have repeatedly relied on the ACLU's report of the incident contained in its' January 1941 propaganda booklet, entitled, "The Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses: The Record of Violence Against a Religious Organization in America Since the Attacks on the Mormons." The section subtitled, "The Kennebunk Case", opened with these paragraphs:

"The shocking events at Kennebunk, Maine in the early summer of 1940 were preceded by a long campaign against Jehovah's Witnesses, who maintained in the town a Kingdom Hall.

"The culmination of the attack on the night of June 9 resulted in charges not against the assailants but against Jehovah's Witnesses, who fired some shots from inside the Hall. Nobody was killed or wounded. One member of Jehovah's Witnesses was convicted of assault with intent to kill and his conviction appealed to the Supreme Court. One man still remains to be tried. Four others were acquitted. Persons charged with burning Kingdom Hall were arrested and tried but all acquitted."

"The following is from an affidavit of Mrs. Gertrude A. Bobb, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose husband was largely responsible for the conduct of Witness work. Mrs. Bobb's affidavit recounts events after Jehovah's Witnesses were forced out of a rented hall because of mob violence:

"One day during the last week of September, 1939, at approximately 5 p.m. I went with Edwin Bobb, my husband, and Richard Trask to the home of a deputy sheriff of York 'County, to tell him of the plans of the French Catholics to break up our meeting, and to ask for police protection. I waited outside in the car while my husband and Richard Trask went inside. In a few minutes they came out and I saw the sheriff swinging his arms and heard him shouting 'Don't come here for protection and don't go to any other deputy sheriffs because they are Legionnaires, too. You'll get no protection from them.

"We held the meeting without police protection. Kingdom Hall was packed with hoodlums. While I was sitting there a rock crashed in and missed my head by about a foot.

"The following Sunday night [October 1939?] we held another meeting and Bible study in the same hall. Albout 8:30, rocks and all kinds of fruit and garbage were thrown through the windows, breaking every window in the front. There were others in the alley crashing windows in the back. We were forced to leave the building. After we left, the hoodlums crashed the doors down and broke all the furniture. The mob downstairs was estimated at about 2,000, among whom there were a handful of Salvation Army men and women in uniform. ... ****

"The night after Memorial Day [?May 30, 1940?], a mob attacked Kingdom Hall, crashing in the front, breaking the windows and even the walls. I jumped into the car and drove to the nearest telephone to call the state police. In the meantime the hoodlums had returned and two got out of a car with their arms full of beer bottles. As they stepped into the yard to throw them, a shot was fired from the building. The two men dropped the bottles and fled.

"The next day Pat McCab, a state policeman, told my husband that our lives were in danger. He said he was telling this to us because he was afraid the whole thing was getting beyond the point where the state police could control it. My husband told him we would stick it out and protect Kingdom Hall even if we were to be shot."

This ACLU booklet contained no other comments about the events in Kennebunk other than those taken (**and edited**) from Gertrude Bobb's affidavit. Interestingly, the ACLU failed to mention that it was Gertrude Bobb's husband who had been convicted of the shooting and given a four year prison sentence. It is even more interesting that the ACLU stated: "Nobody was killed or wounded", especially given that in this affadavit, Gertrude Bobb states:

"This sort of thing kept up until 2:30 in the morning when a car pulled up in front of the Kingdom Hall and three men [not a crowd or mob of 2000] got out and started for the Hall. As soon as the rocks started to fly, I said 'Lights!' Then I heard gun-fire but I couldn't tell how many guns were fired.

"A little later the state police came and reported that two men were hurt and in the hospital. They took our names and addresses and the guns, and left. ..."

Note carefully that Gertrude Bobb purports to know the exact time that the car stopped in front of the Kingdom Hall. She purports to have seen three men get out of the car and start to throw rocks. Bobb even admits that it was she who yelled for the other JWs to turn on the "Lights!". Then, this eyewitness with the perfect memory will not even admit that her husband, and probably some of the other JWs, fired shotguns at the supposed rock throwers. Instead, Bobb relates: "Then I heard gun-fire but I couldn't tell how many guns were fired."

Bobb won't even admit that it was the JWs who fired the shots. She won't even admit how many guns were fired, since such fact would have likely incriminated more than one shooter. Bobb won't even admit to having first-hand knowledge to the wounding of any of the rock-throwers. She references the state police as her source for that fact.

It also would have been nice if this ACLU propaganda booklet had mentioned the fact that Edwin and Gertrude Bobb were out-of-state organizers sent from West Chester, Pennsylvania to Maine by the WatchTower Society, who evidently were involved in some of the other JW-Locals skirmishes in New England reported during the Spring and Summer of 1940.

But, that is not all! When the booklet starts quoting from Gertrude Bobb's affadavit, it starts with three paragraphs that relate incidents from September 1939. Did you notice the "..." (edit mark) at the end of those three paragraghs? Even in the year 2007, every reader of this ACLU booklet still assumes that the events related in those first three paragraphs occurred at Kennebunk, Maine. BUT THEY DID NOT!!!

Those three paragraphs relate events which actually occurred in Saco, Maine, which is 9 miles north of Kennebunk. However, I am extremely appreciative of those obscure edit marks, because they point out another probable error that has been repeated for decades.

In his book, "A People For His Name: A History of Jehovah's Witnesses and an Evaluation", Anthony Willis (aka Timothy White) states that the Saco, Maine Kingdom Hall was torched by a mob in October 1939. Edwin and Gertrude Bobb then supposedly went nine miles south to Kennebunk and rented another building. Tony Willis may have used David Manwaring as his source for that "fact", but I'm not sure. However, if the Kingdom Hall in Saco had been burned down, rather than simply "trashed", THEN WHY DID THE ACLU EDITOR NOT INCLUDE SUCH IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH? And, why can't I locate any other source that reports the burning of the Saco Kingdom Hall -- other than those authors who are themselves citing Willis?

BECAUSE THAT REPORTED SACO ARSON PROBABLY DID NOT OCCUR, AND IS ONE MORE FICTIONALIZED ELEMENT TO THE KENNEBUNK ARSON WHICH MAKES THE CITIZENRY LOOK MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH. Did any Reader notice how many "Maine mobsters" Gertrude Bobb reported attacked the Saco Kingdom Hall? She estimated that there were "2000" mobsters. It is interesting that when most newspapers later reported the Kennebunk arson they reported that it was done by "2000" or "2500" Maine mobsters. Who was their source? Probably Gertrude Bobb. (Some later newspaper reports stated that there had been only "500" mobsters.) The people who attended the torching obviously did not discuss the arson with reporters. The building did not even belong to the JWs. It was rented. Where was the owner while all this was going on? Why was he not questioned by reporters? In all likelihood, the building was probably burned by a handful of simpletons who did not even know the JWs were merely renting the building. Why were only Ralph Labarge and Nadeau's father arrested for the arson? The prosecutor even could not find sufficient witnesses or evidence to prosecute those two. If there had been even 20 witnesses to the arson, much less 2000 or 2500, at least one of them would have later felt remorse and testified.

On June 11, 1940, one Vermont newspaper editor described the events of June 9 like this:

"At Kennebunk the local patrioteers, hiding their sadism and brutality under the guise of zeal for our institutions, got worked up about it, went to force the non-conformists to salute the flag -- on the idiotic theory that you convert a man to patriotism by breaking his hand and making him make a gesture to a piece of bunting. Several of the Witnesses were beat up. The rest fled to sanctuary from the mob to the frame building which they used as a place of worship and as headquarters for distributing their literature, barricaded themselves.

"An automobile drew up to the vicinity of the building. The Witnesses thought it was the mob, blazed away with a shotgun, wounded two men -- who may or may not have been mobsters. The news flew over town, the mob swelled to 2,000 persons, swept down upon the headquarters, burned it."

Readers who shortsightedly credit that editor for mentioning the shooting should note that he did so only after fictionalizing the events preceding the shooting so as to give the JWs the legal basis to have done the shooting. A person can legally use deadly force only to protect themselves or others from peril to life and limb -- not to protect "property". No JWs, much less "several", had been beaten up that night; nor had the ten or more JWs fled to their "place of worship" for "sanctuary"; nor had the ten or more JWs "barricaded themselves" inside to protect themselves from a mob of 2000 people. The JWs were there, not to protect their lives, nor to protect the building, which they were merely RENTING, but they were there to protect the large quantity of WatchTower literature being stored there.

Assuming that the fourth paragraph excerpted from Gertrude Bobb's affadavit is relating events which happened in Kennebunk, did readers pick up on the fact that the JWs had actually previously fired shots at some beer-bottle throwers on the night of May 30, 1940? And, what about what Bobb related in the fifth paragraph? It is a good possibility that the JWs' firing of shots the previous night was really the reason that the conversation between Edwin Bobb and the State Policeman took place. Bobb related: "My husband told him we would stick it out and protect Kingdom Hall even if we were to be shot." Does that paraphrase not seem to indicate that the State Policeman had warned the JWs that they could only use deadly force to protect humans -- not the building and the WatchTower literature inside?

It is even possible that the May 31 conversation with the State Policeman clued the Bobbs in to the fact that they needed more "bodies" inside the Kingdom Hall if they were to guard the WatchTower literature using deadly force. Note that Gertrude Bobb reports that on May 30 that only "a shot" was fired at the bottle throwers, and who went to telephone for help -- another male? No, she went for help. I'm guessing that Edwin and Gertrude, who were from Pennsylvania, had been living in the rented "Kingdom Hall" by themselves, and that it wasn't until the conversation with the State Policeman that local JWs were asked to stay the night so that any shooting would more likely appear to be necessary to protect human life.

The six JWs who were arrested for the shooting were Edwin Bobb, Benjamin Graves, Carroll Madsen, Joseph Leathers, Fayette Snowdale, and Richard Trask. Although I am uncertain about the number, there also were approximately four of more wives, or other females, who were taken into custody for their protection. These JWs were taken to a jail in Sanford, which is about 15 miles west of Kennebunk.

Some of the newspaper articles which reported the Kennebunk incident also reported that "two out-of-state Witness organizers" were beaten in Sanford by 1000 mobsters that same Saturday night of June 8/9, while other newspapers reported only that two JWs had gotten into a fistfight with locals in Sanford that evening. Some articles reported that it was the earlier Sanford incident that initiated the Kennebunk incident (15 miles away), while other articles seemed to indicate that the beatings occurred after the jailing of the JWs from Kennebunk at Sanford. Some newspapers reported that two JWs were beaten in Biddeford by a mob of 500 on Sunday evening. Who knows whether a Sanford incident, or a Biddeford incident, or even a Wells incident, happened at all. Given all the coverage of the events of that night, if any of these separate incidents did occur, then it would seem that the supposed unnamed JW victims would have been identified by name.

Note the accuracy of this article published in TIME magazine, dated Jun. 24, 1940, under the title, "Witnesses In Trouble":

"... But Republican Maine had the worst riots. At Kennebunk last week. Witness headquarters were sacked, burned by an angry mob. There and in nearby towns private houses were raided, Witnesses dragged out and beaten up.

"Trouble at Kennebunk began when patriotic natives concluded that Witnesses were spreading subversive doctrines. When a threatening group marched to "Kingdom Hall," flimsy frame headquarters of the Witnesses, late one night, two got potted with buckshot. Next morning a mob of 2,000 set fire to Kingdom Hall. Police clapped its six occupants into jail for assault with intent to kill, later jailed two of the 2,000 for arson. Then the riots began. By the second night mobs were hunting victims. At Wells, Me., a crowd went to one man's house, demanding to know whether he was a Witness and whether he would salute the flag. Reported A. P.: "When the man denied membership and expressed no objection to saluting the flag, the crowd became abusive and threw stones at the house." Not until calmer heads pointed out that throwing stones would do no good to Maine's summer tourist season did thrifty Down-Easterners stay their hands.

"At week's end, with little Witness literature left unburned in Maine, three Witness defendants were under protective guard in the jail of another county, three in hiding after giving bail."

Roland Nadeau, 19, Dwight Robinson, 22, and Fred McDonald, 33, and Ralph Labarge, 26, were the occupants of the car which stopped around 2:30 A.M. on Sunday, June 9, in front of the darkened rented "Kingdom Hall". One early news report gave their excuse for stopping as having to do with transmission problems. At trial, they said they stopped to change a tire. Nadeau, Robinson, and McDonald got out of the car. Although Gertrude Bobb swore that she yelled "Lights!" only after "three" men started throwing rocks, they testified at trial that they had done nothing, when without warning, they both were struck with shotgun pellets from an uncertain number of shotgun blasts. McDonald was only slightly injured in the legs, while Robinson was reported to have received "serious injuries" to his hips and legs. One later report claimed that Robinson had to have a leg amputated. I don't doubt that the three [probably extremely inebriated] men were planning on "doing something", but evidently no rocks, bottles, etc. were left as evidence at the scene. Apparently, they were shot before they even had a chance to do any mischief.

MAINE v. BOBB and MAINE v. MADSEN/MADISON. Of the six JWs arrested, all but Madsen were tried in October, 1940. Edwin Bobb of West Chester, Pennsylvania, was convicted of "assault with intent to kill", and sentenced to four years in prison. (Arthur Cox, who killed Deputy Dean Pray in North Windham, Maine in August 1940, was from Philadelphia. West Chester is just outside Philadelphia.) The Supreme Court of Maine upheld Bobb's conviction in 1942. Because the prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence that any of the other four had injured Robinson or McDonald, the trial directed a verdict of "not guilty", without the jury even having the opportunity to decide such. Carroll S. Madsen, alias Stanley Madison, was also indicted and supposedly tried in 1941, but outcome is unknown. Some later news reports indicated suspicions that Madsen/Madison had fired a rifle at the trio, and that it was the rifle shot that eventually caused Robinson to lose one of his legs.

Interestingly, at trial, Edwin Bobb admitted passing out weapons to several of the JWs, and stationing some outside the Kingdom Hall, in addition to those who stayed inside. Bobb further testified that he/they never intended to hit the trio, but rather were firing at the tires of the car. (Why would you shoot out the tires of the men's car if you only wanted them to leave you alone?) State Police reportedly confiscated 6 shotguns and 2 rifles from the Kingdom Hall before it was wrecked and set ablaze later that evening. (Another newspaper reported 5 rifles and 2 shotguns.)

One can only wonder whether the other incidents of violence involving the Jehovah's Witnesses in 1940, and other years, were and have been as accurately reported and "spun" as was this Kennebunk incident. As many of us have learned over the years, THE TRUTH is not always "the truth".

NEW HAMPSHIRE v. EDWIN BOBB, NEW HAMPSHIRE v. GERTRUDE BOBB, NEW HAMPSHIRE v. HANS MADSON, and NEW HAMPSHIRE v. MATILDA MADSON. Readers might be interested to know that Edwin and Gertrude Bobb, along with Hans and Matilda Madson (aka Madsen), had been involved in another court battle in Nashua, New Hampshire (and probably others all over New England) just a few weeks previous to the Maine incidents, where they and other JWs were charged with littering the sidewalks with WatchTower handbills. Maybe someone with better research skills might want to discover why Hans Madson, aka Stanley Madison, aka Carroll Madsen, aka Carroll S. Madsen seemed to provide Police with a different first and last name every time he was arrested.

As evidence of how the WatchTower Society used these incidents to arouse persecution against its own members, so as to gain further publicity, is how the WatchTower Society handled the local situation during the days following the murder of Deputy Dean Pray. Arthur Cox was taken to Portland, Maine, for arraignment on August 22. The Portland JWs rented the second floor of a commercial building directly across from City Hall for use as a "Kingdom Hall". Instead of using an ounce of common sense, and "lying low" until local anger from the shooting had subsided, the JWs proceeded to string a banner across the length of their rented second story which read: RELIGION IS A SNARE AND A RACKET. That only inflamed Portland citizens that much more. Crowds gathered outside the "Kingdom Hall", and even though it was across from City Hall, local police had to escort the JWs in and out, as they apparently continued their activities. The Police Chief asked the JWs to take down the banner, but they refused. He was forced to seek court authorization to order the banner taken down, but outcome is unknown.

On August 24, the WatchTower Society apparently ordered a major demonstration by the JWs in Portland. The main thoroughfare through Portland was lined with JWs displaying WatchTower literature. Nineteen JWs, including eleven females, were arrested by the Police, who acknowledged that the arrests were for the JWs' own safety, who were released August 26.

After the end of World War II, the WatchTower Society and its Legal Department continued to pick "fight" after "fight", both literally and figuratively, with anyone and everyone they could. It was as if the Jehovah's Witnesses all across the United States were addicted to the "power" that each court victory brought them. And, it was not just the leadership at WatchTower Society Headquarters in New York City, either. Individual Jehovah's Witnesses would write "Letters To The Editor" to their local newspapers about any preceived slight, in which the JW would warn the local citzenry what would happen to them as soon as the WatchTower Society's lawyers were notified about the slight.

Between 1945 and the latter 1950s, Jehovah's Witnesses began to "bully" small communities over the use of public buildings and property Repeatedly, lawsuits were filed whenever a local school board would refuse to allow Jehovah's Witnesses to hold weekend services at a local school, or whenever a local community would refuse use of the town hall, the city park, or other public facility.

Most times, the "fight" was a legal one limited to attorneys and the courts. However, there were a few incidents in which local citzenry, many of whom were war veterans who had just returned from fighting their country's enemies in Europe, Africa, and the Pacific, were in no mood to be bullied by anti-government, anti-patriotic, anti-religion Jehovah's Witnesses, who the vast majority of the time not only were from "out-of-town", but oftentimes were from "out-of-state". After all, if the JWs were locals, there would be no reason to hold services at a school, courthouse, or public park.

19 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES v. VILLAGE OF WYANET ILLINOIS was a 1950 Illinois federal lawsuit which evolved out of "The Battle of Wyanet". This "battle" was the typical scenario in which neither side was "innocent", but you would never know it from listening to each side tells its' version of what happened.

For instance, at the federal trial, one or more of the "villagers" testified under oath that they saw a Jehovah's Witness, eventually identified as William K. Jackson, present in Wyanet on the day of the "battle". Given that there were approximately 115 Jehovah's Witnesses present that day, why would the presence of William Jackson be significant? Because, at that time, William Jackson was "right-hand man" to Hayden Covington, Head of the WatchTower Society's Legal Department. Jehovah's Witnesses will also recognize that William Jackson was such a "company man" that he was eventually named to the group's secretive "Governing Body", in 1971. Interestingly, Jackson testified at the trial that he was in Brooklyn on the day of the "battle", and that he had never been in Wyanet's Park. The main JW speaker for the event, who interestingly was from Clinton, Iowa, testified that he did not see Jackson in the Park that day. I can't help but wonder how "villagers" in Illinois, in 1949-50, even would know enough to make up a "lie" about someone from WatchTower headquarters in NYC? And, if someone were willing to perjure themself in federal court, why would they "steal a dime", when it would be just as easy to "steal a dollar"?

Wyanet is locate in north-central Illinois. In 1950, the "village" of Wyanet had a population of around 900 people. The closest "group" of Jehovah's Witnesses was located in the nearby town of Princeton, and it is probably safe to assume that "group" meant one or two families; given that the JWs would have made an issue of such if there had been more locals.

The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Village of Wyanet had already had "ongoing problems" even prior to the "The Battle of Wyanet", which occurred on October 23, 1949. In fact, an attempt to hold a smaller WatchTower rally in the town square the previous weekend had been disrupted. Evidently, "out-of-town" JWs had been holding sporadic recruiting meetings in Wyanet for several years. The local community leaders had evidently been cooperative, since the JWs had been allowed to use either a local schoolroom and/or the City Hall. However, possibly in 1944, some locals who had attended one of the WatchTower meetings at City Hall reported that the Jehovah's Witnesses had removed the American Flag from the room before starting their meeting. That had outraged locals, and thereafter, the Village had refused to provide the City Hall to the JWs. However, it is possible that the JWs had used a local schoolroom as late as the summer of 1949.

The details are unclear, but sometime after the end of World War II, the Village had leased either an existing park or land to the "War Memorial Association" for construction or re-construction of a community park -- known as "War Memorial Park". Interestingly, at a time when there were several ongoing or recent lawsuits over use of city parks and building (including lawsuits in nearby Iowa and Wisconsin), it appears that this group of JWs, including many from Iowa, asked "someone" in Wyanet, Illinois to use "War Memorial Park" on Sunday, October 23, 1949 -- not exactly the time of year to hold an outdoor meeting in northern Illinois. It is unclear who even had given the JWs permission to use the Park.

When word got out that the "nuts" who refused to Pledge or salute the American Flag, and who refused to serve in the nation's military in a time of "world war", were going to hold a recruitment meeting in the Village's "War Memorial Park" on that Sunday afternoon, then the local Veterans, who probably had donated money and labor for the Park, were outraged. And, they figured that they had as much right as did the "out-of-state" JWs to use their local Park that Sunday afternoon.

When the JWs started arriving that Sunday, they found the Park in full use. Both a softball game and a football game was in progress. Evidently, there was some kind of stage or platform on the side of the Park away from the softball diamond, but where the football game was ongoing. The JWs came prepared for anything, and were undetered. They started erecting loudspeakers on the stage, and setting up folding chairs on the field in front of the stage.

The local park users complained to the Village President, who, along with the Village policeman, went to the JWs and explained that the Park had been leased to the "War Memorial Association", and thus was not "public property", and that the JWs had no "right" to use the Park that day without permission from the "War Memorial Association". When the JWs stood their ground and refused to leave, the Village President left to consult an attorney (no doubt after having been typically threatened with a lawsuit by the JWs).

The JWs then proceeded to start their meeting. However, the locals had no intention of surrendering the Park to the JWs. The details are unclear, but as the football game continued, the football apparently landed in midst of the JWs several times. The locals claimed that an annoucement was made over the PA for the JWs with cameras to get them ready. Finally, the football landed on the stage. As three locals walked toward the stage to presumably retreived their football, a fight broke out. Supposedly, about 20 locals and the 115 JWs eventually went at it. The JWs claimed other locals threw rocks, bottles, tomatoes, and even rolled a burning tire into the crowd.

The "battle" supposedly went on for an hour, so much of this must have been sporatic, and the JWs obviously were not spooked by the confrontation. In fact, the JWs came prepared to fight -- including the JW females. Locals testified that several of the JWs pulled knives when the battle started. A Princeton doctor even testified that he had treated three locals for "stab wounds" -- one local man having been stabbed in the back three times. One local man testified that while he was on the ground wrestling with two JWs, a third "elderly" JW started kicking him in the ribs. Locals also testified that the JWs also used their folding chairs as weapons.

Casualty estimates varied from 4 to in excess of 30, but surprisingly, noone was arrested, and not even a criminal complaint was filed. The fact that nearly all JWs were from "out-of-town" or "out-of-state" probably meant that they would have sought any needed medical attention after they arrived home.

However, not long thereafter, as expected, nineteen of the JWs filed a federal lawsuit against the Village and 21 locals. The JWs claimed $170,500.00 in damages (roughly $1,550,000.00 in today's money). The locals counter-sued the JWs for $26,500.00 ($250,000.00 today).

The case was heard in USDC in Peoria in the summer of 1950. Both sides presented testimony which made themselves appear completely innocent, and the other side completely guilty. The fact that this court case has rarely if ever been mentioned by the WatchTower Society in recent years probably indicates that the JWs' actions that day would preferably be erased from their history At the end of trial, the federal jury decided that neither side had proven their claims. There is a hint that the JWs may have appealed, but I can not find anything that indicates any success.

Interestingly, in January 1959, Iowa Jehovah's Witnesses filed a complaint with the state's Human Rights Commission after the City of Des Moines refused to rent Veterans Memorial Auditorium to the WatchTower Society for one of their conventions. The City explained that the building had just been dedicated to all local veterans who had fought for their country, and that to rent the building to be used as a convention site for a group well known to refuse to salute or pledge the American Flag, and who refuses to serve in America's armed forces, simply appeared to be a slap in the face of the very people to whom the building was dedicated. Guess who won.

Having shown the City of Des Moines who was "Boss", the Iowa JWs moved on to the City of Marshalltown. Later in 1959, the exact same scenario occurred there when the JWs attempted to rent the local "Veterans Memorial Building" for a convention. Same outcome.

******************

BIGNELL v. PHILADELPHIA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, and, MCKIM v. PHILADELPHIA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, and, WALKER ET AL v. PHILADELPHIA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY was a 1948-50 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decision. This single decision addressed three separate lawsuits filed against the Philadelphia Transportation Company by three female Jehovah's Witnesses and the husband of Walker.

This case is especially "interesting" given that in court case after court case, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the WatchTower Society had contested soliciting and licensing laws in city after city by making the argument that its literature was not "sold", but was offer "free", in exchange for a "suggested donation", and that neither the WatchTower Society nor its members ever made a "profit" from the "distribution" of WatchTower literature.

On a night in October 1947, the three female Jehovah's Witnesses were traveling a Philadelphia street in an automobile driven by Bignell, when Bignell collided with a streetcar owned and operated by the Philadelphia Transportation Company. The three female JWs alleged that they were injured due to the negligence of the streetcar operator, and sued. In 1948, a Philadelphia jury decided that it was Bignell who was at-fault in the accident -- not the streetcar operator.

As part of their failed lawsuit, the three JWs had alleged that their "damages" included "loss of earnings". In each plaintiff's original complaint, they averred:

"9. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, the plaintiff, _____________, has been and will be unable to attend to her daily duties, which include her occupation as a Minister, to her financial loss and damage."

Since it was the three JWs' responsibility to prove their own "loss of earnings", under direct examination by her own attorney, Bignell testified that as a "Minister" of the Jehovah's Witnesses, she received $25.00 per month from the WatchTower Society, if and only if, she was able to report that she had spent a total of 175 hours time selling WatchTower literature during that month. Bignell also related that she also received an additional $10.00 per month in earnings from her work as a "Minister", since her sales of WatchTower literature was about $20.00 per month, and her cost was 50% of that amount. Bignell testified that as a result of injuries received in the accident, she had been unable to meet the WatchTower Society's 175 hour requirement to receive the $25.00 payment, plus her reduced hours had also resulted in reduced profits from reduced sales of WatchTower literature. Evidently, the Sales Managers at the WatchTower Society were unsympathetic to Bignell's having been injured while doing their bidding.

Under cross-examination, PTC's attorney asked:

Q. "Are you an ordained minister?"

Q. "You were ordained when and where?"
Q. "Did you attend any seminar?"

Q. "As an ordained minister did you officiate in any church?"

Q. "In other words, in your occupation you visit homes, don't you, and endeavor to interest people in the beliefs and teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. That is what you mean when you say you are a Minister?"

The JWs' attorney objected to every one of those cross-examination questions -- contending that such breached a Pennsylvania statute which prevented witnesses from being questioned about their religious beliefs "for the purpose of affecting either his competency or credibility." The objections were overruled, and it was on such basis that the JWs appealed the jury's verdict against them. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania also ruled against the three JWs, stating in part:

"The cross-examination was pertinent to enable the jury to consider the claims for impairment of earning power and losses said to have resulted from the accident. We cannot say that the challenged questions exceeded the scope of fair cross examination of the parties making these claims for loss or impairment of earning power. The questions did not challenge appellants' competency to testify nor go to credibility on the ground of membership in a religious sect."

******************

In May 2007, a Lansing, New York newspaper published a news article which disclosed that the WatchTower Society was seeking to capitalize on the much appreciated market value of what the Jehovah's Witnesses refer to as KINGDOM FARM, which the WatchTower Society has owned since 1935.

Most Jehovah's Witnesses know very little about this large tract of farmland, except the fact that this is one of several farms which the WatchTower Society has used over the years to feed its' Bethel "volunteers". The 1% of JWs who actually know some of their own religion's history may recognize that "Kingdom Farm" was the original location of the WatchTower Society's missionary school, known as "Gilead", which was founded in 1942/3.

However, a rarely publicized 1948 court decision regarding the taxable status of "Kingdom Farm" provides some interesting details about its' 1940s operations that somehow were neither mentioned to the JW membership

In WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. v. MASTIN (1948), the Board of Assessors of Taxes of the Town of Lansing had denied exemption from taxes that part of the property devoted to farming. Here is how the court described the property:

"The property involved here consists of six separate parcels of agricultural land, originally six separate farms, operated by the relator as one large farm which it calls "Kingdom Farm". Kingdom Farm is well equipped and stocked with a large dairy, beef cattle, hogs and poultry. There are 701 acres of land with numerous buildings. Six hundred and fifty acres are tillable. Aside from large quantities of grain and fodder for livestock, fruits and vegetables are grown. Kingdom Farm is not different from any large farming operation in any sense, except that upon one of the parcels is located a brick building which relator calls "Bible School of Gilead", and which is used by students for bible study and instruction in the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. This building has been exempted from taxation by the respondents. Kingdom Farm had been operated to produce agricultural products for a substantial length of time before this school was built."

Evidently, "discovery" in this case revealed that the WatchTower Society of New York's receipts for the previous fiscal year were $28,512,000.00 [*]. (*According to the the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $1.00 in 1947 is equal to $9.34 today, so the dollar figures here and to follow will be pre-adjusted and rounded off to aid reading comprehension. Readers should also understand that this corporation is a subsidiary of the parent corporation, similarly named, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., plus there were also other subsidiary and/or associated corporations Thus, it is not known if this adjuested $28 Million income was solely from the NY Corp.) The City of Lansing argued that no corporation with that much income, even a corporation engaged in religious work, should be entitled to the benefit of tax exemption statutes. However, this Court rejected that contention by the City.

This Court also rejected the City's challenge of the "good faith" of the WatchTower Society, when stating in the application for a corporate charter, that it was a corporation formed strictly for "religious purposes". Instead, the Court restricted itself solely to the issue of whether "Kingdom Farm is used by the relator exclusively for its corporate purposes." The Court stated, in part:

"It is without dispute that this property was used during the taxable year exclusively for the production of crops, livestock and farm products generally. It is not claimed that the premises were used directly for any religious, scientific, experimental, educational or training purposes. It then becomes a question of what use was made of the products of the farm. It is without dispute that all of the products of any nature produced thereon were used for one of three purposes, i.e., (1) as food for the students attending Bible School of Gilead; (2) as food for the Bethel family in Brooklyn; (3) sold to the public generally for money. The portion used in the first category is without question used for corporate purposes, but the quantity is so comparatively small and insignificant that it is not even claimed that the premises were operated for such purpose or that the operation of the premises would be justified for such a purpose. The relator has assumed that the production of food used in the second category to feed the Bethel family is unquestionably for a purpose that would entitle the property to exemption; and that the products used in the third category for sale to the public were merely incidental sales of surplus not affecting the exempt status. The court cannot agree with either of these assumptions.

"Relator's first assumption is based upon its frequent assertion that the members of the Bethel family are ministers and that the food is furnished to them gratuitously. They are not ministers in any legal sense or within the commonly accepted meaning of that term. Their qualifications do not include any recognized educational requirements or graduation from any recognized educational institution. They have attained no peculiar qualifications for the ministry. Their ordinary and regular duties are not the ordinary and regular duties of a minister as such are ordinarily accepted and understood. The vast majority of them perform the manual labor of operating machinery and equipment in the publishing house not at all dissimilar to the services of any employee of a commercial publishing house. Others regularly perform secretarial, bookkeeping and administrative duties not at all dissimilar to the duties of any office worker. If they perform any work at any time which is directly of a religious nature (the evidence is vague as to whether they do or not), it is in their spare time and is trivial and incidental. Such work, if any, alone would no more entitle them to the designation of "minister" than would the work of a Sunday school teacher in one of the more conventional churches. They are not ordained within any commonly accepted meaning of that word. It is true that they are given an "ordination certificate" issued by the relator. The evidence as to the qualifications for such a certificate is so vague that it appears to the satisfaction of this court that the certificate is issued merely at the pleasure of the relator corporation to anyone connected with its organization. The farm manager and all of the farm employees who do the work upon Kingdom Farm are designated as "ministers". However, the record is so full of their worldly duties of managing and working the farm and so barren of any time whatever spent in spreading the gospel, or in any spiritual pursuit, that the court cannot accept the designation. ...

"Neither is the food furnished gratuitously to the Bethel family. It is compensation for their manual services in the publishing plant and offices of the relator. The mere fact that the relator's activities relate to religion does not necessitate blind acceptance of its characterization of these persons as volunteer workers engaged in spreading the gospel for a "nominal" allowance. The only honest, realistic factual conclusion which seems reasonable from the evidence is that they are employees manning machines in a printing shop and are paid partially in goods instead of money. Their compensation, consisting of complete and comfortable housing, heat, light and public services, meals consisting of unlimited rations of the best foods, laundry, traveling expenses when "upon the business of the Society", in some instances medical attention and clothing allowances, plus $10 per month in cash, would compare most favorably under present price conditions with the wages of any employee in a commercial publishing house. It would not even be arguable that the relator could operate a tax exempt farm in a distant community and use the cash proceeds from the sale of its products to pay its publishing house employees. It seems clear that it was not within the contemplation of the Legislature that it can gain exemption by the simple process of paying its employees with the products themselves instead of cash. For all legal purposes these employees seem to be comparable with the lay employees of conventional churches. It seems no different in principal than the maintenance of a farm by a group of churches for the purpose of producing food for their janitors, maintenance men and other paid lay employees, as a part of their compensation.

"If the court be mistaken in the foregoing interpretation, the relator's claim for exemption still must fail. The third use of the products of Kingdom Farm, the sale to the public, is clearly not a corporate purpose. A brief consideration of the volume of such sales, the manner of making the sales, the efforts devoted to producing the most salable products, and the continued production, year after year, in large volume of products known in advance to be usable only for sale demonstrates that such sales cannot fairly be said to be the incidental disposition of surplus, but constitutes one of the primary purposes of the operation of the farm.

"It appears without dispute that during the taxable year here involved, ending August 31, 1947, the relator sold from Kingdom Farm dairy products, poultry and eggs, hides, dairy cattle, and fruits and vegetables of various kinds. Its employees made regular and systematic trips to Ithaca, New York, and the surrounding vicinity, to sell various kinds of vegetables and farm products to restaurants and other commercial users. A truck was sent weekly during the growing season from the farm to the regional market at Syracuse, New York, with a load of products from the farm. This is a public market for the use of farmers (incidentally, created and partially maintained from taxes), and the products of Kingdom Farm were systematically offered for sale each week in open and immediate competition with taxpaying farmers. Dairy cattle were bought and sold in competition with taxpaying farmers at the "Earlville Sales", a widely known and used public auction system for transactions in dairy cattle It produced and offered for sale to the public a variety of kinds of cheese which could be purchased at the farm or be shipped to any purchaser (labeled KINGDOM CHEESE).

"According to relator's own figures [*ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION AND ROUNDED PER ABOVE NOTE], the value of the total production of Kingdom Farm for the year ending August 31, 1947, was $1,177,000.00, and the value of the production on Carmel Farm (a nearby farm owned by relator but not directly involved here) was $409,000.00, and the amount sold from both farms was $560,000.00. This is a substantial percentage and its designation as an insignificant surplus cannot be justified.

"The sales of poultry and eggs for the year ending August 31, 1947, from Kingdom Farm alone amounted to $206,000.00, and produced a net gain of $133,000.00. It is a fair inference that the reason such enormous quantities of poultry and eggs were produced each year was because such products were readily salable and produced a handsome profit. Similar products sold for the year ending 1946 amounted to approximately the same figure, and for many years large amounts of poultry products were sold. This would seem to eliminate the incidental feature of the surplus and render it an intentional surplus for the purpose of sale. The relator states in its brief that the large poultry department was established "years ago in anticipation of providing poultry for the institution at Brooklyn headquarters. However, due to the operation of the poultry department on Staten Island, New York City, it never became necessary to make demand upon the Kingdom Farm poultry department for supplies of eggs to maintain the institution." Yet during these "many years" relator has continued the heavy production of poultry and eggs, knowing well in advance that it had no use for them except for sale. Why were they produced? The obvious answer is to sell and to make money. In fact, the relator anticipates in the reply brief that the court would necessarily have to find that the operations of the poultry department eliminate any claim of exemption and suggests an arbitrary figure of one thirtieth of the premises (apparently acreage actually occupied by poultry houses and yards) be separately assessed as taxable Of course, this belated suggestion is not feasible as the entire premises, including the poultry department, are operated as one operation, using the same equipment, facilities and land for the production not only of the poultry but of poultry feed, straw and other materials used in the maintenance of the poultry department.

...

"... It follows that the property was not exclusively used for an exempt purpose and that the assessors properly assessed it as taxable."

The WatchTower Society's Legal Department, which is known to appeal every trial court case it loses, unless such an appeal or the publicity from such would reflect negatively on the JWs, chose NOT to appeal this decision. I WONDER WHY?

In fact, tax cases such as this one can be litigated each and every single tax year. Thus, it is curious as to why the taxable status of KINGDOM FARM was not again litigated until 1954/5? Could it have been that the WatchTower Society's attorneys knew that the profit-making operations ongoing from years 1947 to 1952 were still too large for them to argue for a tax exemption?

In 1958, the WBTS finally litigated tax years 1954-6, evidently because such profit-making enterprises had been reduced to the point where they correctly believed that they could finally win in court. The NY court finally ruled that since sales of farm products sold for profit only amounted to 5% to 8% for 1954-6, that Kingdom Farm was entitled to tax exemptions for those years. In those proceedings, it was disclosed that the "net worth" of the New York Corp in 1955 was $8,925,934.00 (non-adjusted), and $10,654,450.00 (non-adjusted) in 1956 -- a significant single year increase.

******************

EVEN MORE AND MORE INTERESTING MISCELLANEOUS COURT CASES ON NEXT PAGE!!!

******************

<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>

SECRET JW LEGAL CASES - PAGE 2