PAGE 1 PAGE 2 PAGE 3 PAGE 4 PAGE 6
We recently posted elsewhere a child molestation case where a police detective failed to pursue the JW Perp, and we questioned whether that cop might have been a JW, or had JW ties. We asked such a question because having been reared as a JW, over the years, we had heard multiple antecdotal tales of authorities with JW ties who had given some guilty JW some sort of undeserved break.
We are posting the following edited excerpt from the September 5, 1926, THE GOLDEN AGE, as a PROUDLY documented example of such a scenario. In 1911, during a WatchTower convention in London, England, the attendees were sent out on the streets to sell Watchtower literature.
"In many places, [the Bible Students] were stationed at no great distance from one another, and the passing throngs had to run a regular GAUNTLET. Some police officiously ordered them to move on. Some people became indignant.
"One woman called a policeman and ordered the arrest of another [woman] with the books. But the policeman answered: "She is doing nothing wrong." Then the woman called a man to her assistance; and though they both insisted on [the BS woman's] arrest the policeman remained firm that "she is doing nothing wrong". After the offended couple had passed on, the policeman turned to the colporteur with a smile, pulled back his coat and proudly displayed an I.B.S.A. cross-and-crown pin."
INTERESTINGLY, we have just discovered something about "The Battle of Madison Square Garden" which no other WatchTower researchers have discovered -- until they first read it here.
Understand that "Judge" Rutherford knew that Father Coughlin's supporters had boasted that they would attend and breakup Rutherford's Sunday afternoon talk on June 25, 1939. Everyone knows that Rutherford had prepared for them. However, maybe we have missed just how prepared was Rutherford and his henchmen. Let's look at the facts.
The balcony immediately behind the speaker's podium had been kept CLOSED all day, UNTIL just before Rutherford's speech. Rutherford likely had set a trap for the hecklers who had discreetly filtered into the Garden. When Rutherford's armed "ushers" opened that balcony, guess who was waiting to be seated? No, not the hecklers. The hecklers first had to see the balcony opened, and then had to decide as a group to go sit there.
Who had waited all day so they could sit in that balcony? An unreported number of AFRICAN-AMERICANS already were waiting in that newly opened balcony when the SUPPOSED "500" hecklers made their way to the balcony.
Who were those AFRICAN-AMERICANS? Obviously, they were "Jehovah's Witnesses", you say. NOPE! Later, someone at the WatchTower Society made the mistake of reporting that the unknown number of AFRICAN-AMERICANS were "people of goodwill". In other words, the people waiting in the balcony for the crowd of hecklers were NOT Jehovah's Witnesses. They supposedly were "friends" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Probably, they were ruffians out of Harlem hired by the same prominent Bethelites who were arrested after this AMBUSH. Once the police finally made their way to that balcony, possibly the Bethelites threw themselves between the police and the escaping AFRICAN-AMERICANS so that outsiders never learned about the AMBUSH.
WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA ET AL v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL was a 1936-40 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case in which the Watch Tower Society sued the Archdiocese, the Archbishop, the Chancellor, and a Roman Catholic Priest to recover damages in the amount of $100,000.00 (over a $1,000,000.00 in today's dollars) for "intentional interference with business relations" between the the Watch Tower Society and Philadelphia radio station WIP.
"The order of the court below was proper. No valid cause of action was pleaded. The defendants are leaders of their church. They cannot be mulcted in damages for protesting against the utterances of one who they believe attacks their church and misrepresents its teaching or for inducing their adherents to make similar protests. A right of action does not arise merely because a group withdraws its patronage or threatens to do so and induces others to do likewise where the objects sought to be obtained are legitimate."
"When provision is made by a board of school directors for the transportation of resident pupils to and from the public schools, the board of school directors shall also make provision for the free transportation of pupils who regularly attend nonpublic elementary and high schools not operated for profit."
Bernard Rhoades also contended that Act 91 violated the section of Pennsylvania Constitution which states, "No appropriations shall be made for charitable, educational or benevolent purposes to any person or community nor to any denominational or sectarian institution, corporation or association."
"An extensive general investigation is also being conducted by the New York Field Division of Hayden Cooper Covington, General Counsel of the sect, and Vice President of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Incorporated, and Roy Albert Swayze, a member of the legal staff, at the request of the Department [of Justice], which advised that the Selective Service System was in accord with such an investigation. [Roy A.] Swayze is a registrant of Local Board Number 2, Arlington, Virginia. and has appealed his classification of 4-E as a conscientous objector, claiming that he is entitled to the classification of 4-D accorded ministers. Hayden Cooper Covington furnished as an affidavit in support of [Roy] Swayze's claim and as previously indicated, has also counseled the membership of this sect in the procedure to follow under the Selective Training and Service Act. The effort is being made to prove through this investigation that [Roy A.] Swayze's claim as a minister is false, as well as to show that [Hayden C.] Covington's affidavit is false and that he has also counseled, aided and abetted [Roy Albert] Swayze and others to evade their obligations under this act."
I also may have stumbled onto another reason that, if true, would explain the seemed change in the FBI's attitude toward JWs. Again, if true, this incident was apparently "buried" by both the government and the JWs. If any reader has yet to understand what I am saying, let me make myself clear. I have NOT been able to confirm that this "supposed incident" did in fact occur, but here is the gist of a story/rumor that was making the rounds in 1942.
UNITED STATES v. HOMER EUGENE WHITE was a 1942-43 New Mexico federal court case. In November 1942, the FBI announced that they had arrested Homer E. White, age 36, of rural Grant County, who was described as "the leader" of the Jehovah's Witnesses in southern New Mexico. Despite the fact that Homer White had been granted "conscientious objector" status by his local draft board, White told his draft board that he had ZERO intention of reporting to the CO camp. Nor would he salute the American Flag. Nor would he obey the orders of any non-JW. Homer Eugene White further told his draft board that if the FBI came to arrest him that he would "shoot" them. White was arrested without violence after the FBI and local New Mexico law enforcement waited him out, and detained him when he went outside his cabin for spring water -- unarmed. White eventually pled guilty and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Appeal denied.
"We know it was against the law to cross the border without getting consent from the authorities, but Jehovah called us, and we came."
"Jehovah's Witnesses cannot give allegiance to the Kingdom of the Devil."
"Through ignorance I once broke the covenant of Jehovah when I served with the Fifth Regiment of Marines at Soisson, France, during the World War [ I ], but I will never break his covenant again by taking up the sword against any man for any cause. ... I would never go to war again, not even if Hitler invaded the United States. No, sir. I would never again lift my hand to kill another man."
"In Weymouth high school [Jehovah's] Witnesses Charles & Harold Newcomb, who claim to be descendants of Betsy Ross, staged a sympathy strike against [the Pledge of Allegiance]." --TIME magazine, November 18, 1935.
"If I cannot live with my father and have to be in foster care, I want to be able to live with my aunt and uncle. I do not know my foster parents well, and I fight with my foster sister. They have different beliefs and values than I do. I am a Jehovah's Witness and would like to attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall with my aunt and uncle. There are more things to do at their house and I feel more comfortable with them."
"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."
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 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."
"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."
"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 1954-55? 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 1954-56, 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.
<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>