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

UNITED STATES v. ZAREMBA MANAGEMENT COMPANY ET AL was a 2013-14 Ohio federal Justice Department prosecution. The Justice Department alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by maintaining a policy of refusing to rent units at Linden House Apartments to families with children. It also alleged that the Linden House Apartments had a policy of evicting tenants or asking tenants to relocate if they had children while living at Linden House. While the Fair Housing Act does allow housing that is reserved for older persons to limit residency to adults under certain circumstances, Linden House Apartments did not meet the requirements for this exemption.

The Zaremba Management Company LLC (ZMC) was formed in 1987 by Jehovah's Witness Elder, Timothy Zaremba, to manage real estate properties owned or partially owned by the wealthy Zaremba Family of Jehovah's Witnesses in Cleveland, Ohio. By 2022, ZMC managed almost 6000 apartment units and 250,000 sf of office space in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina. (See below for additional corporate entities.)

Linden Apartment Company, LLC owns the Linden House Apartments, an apartment complex located in Rocky River, Ohio. Zaremba Management Company manages and operates the Linden House Apartments on behalf of Linden Apartment Company, and is responsible for showing and leasing dwelling units. Katrina Ivanskis is an employee of Zaremba Management Company. Ivanskis is the on-site manager for the Linden House Apartments and is responsible for showing and leasing dwelling units.

Between October 2012, and February 2013, the United States Department of Justice conducted three tests at Linden House Apartments to evaluate its compliance with the Fair Housing Act. Testing is the simulation of a housing transaction that compares responses given by housing providers to different types of home-seekers to determine whether illegal discrimination is occurring. 

During the first test, Katrina Ivanskis told a tester that Linden House Apartments is an adult-only building and does not allow children to live at the property. During the second test, a female tester who represented herself as married with two children under the age of ten, asked about an available two-bedroom apartment. An employee of Zaremba Management Company, LLC told the tester that the residents of the Linden House Apartments must be over 19-years old and that no children live at the property. The employee told the tester that she could not live at the apartments. During the third test, a male tester who represented himself as married with no children inquired about a two-bedroom apartment. Katrina Ivanskis told the tester that Linden House Apartments does not allow children to live at the property. 

Zaremba Management Company maintained a policy of evicting and/or asking current tenant(s) to relocate to different housing if the current tenant(s) have a child and the child reaches the age of 18 months or older. Zaremba asked a tenant, Paulette Sebille, to relocate to a different apartment complex because Sebille had a child while residing at the Linden House Apartments.

In August 2014, the defendants agreed to settle this lawsuit for $100,000.00. The settlement required the defendants to pay $90,000 to victims of their discriminatory actions, and to pay $10,000 in civil penalties to the United States. The settlement also required the defendants to remove any restrictions on occupancy by families with children at the Linden House Apartments and to take certain steps such as training employees and reporting to the Department of Justice to make sure that such discriminatory policies are not implemented in the future.

Also see:  Zaremba Group LLC, Zaremba Land Development LLC, Zaremba Northeast Development Company, Zaremba Southeast Development Company, Zaremba McCalla Realty Co Inc, plus literally dozens of inactive entities.



In March 2008, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania loaned $3,290,000.00 to SONS INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED, of Fayetteville, Georgia, to finance an unknown real estate investment project. Between 2008 and 2017, multiple transactions took place between the Watch Tower Society and SIGL, including another loan of $228,500.00 in 2011. Indications are that the WatchTower Society may have lost money on these deals.

According to Dun & Bradstreet, SONS INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED, of Fayetteville, Georgia, is merely a one-man operation owned and managed by an African-American named Alwin Peterson.

What we would like to know is whether Alwin Peterson or his associates mentioned in the following newspaper article are "Jehovah's Witnesses", or does the WatchTower Society negligently loan JW contributors' pennies to this type of persons?


Four get federal prison for stealing $4 million from bank accounts

Four people, including three metro Atlantans, were sentenced to federal prison Tuesday for stealing more than $4 million from the corporate bank accounts. From 2012 to 2014, the fraud scheme targeted more than 150 accounts at Bank of America, with many belonging to small businesses, U.S. Attorney John Horn said.

Alwin Peterson, Jr, 38, of Fayetteville, Allen Parham, 46, of Atlanta, Vivienne Bloch, 54, of Decatur, and Kori Henegar, 35, of Spring, Texas, were convicted of bank fraud conspiracy after pleading guilty.

Peterson, who led the scheme, according to Horn, collected personal information about the individuals listed on the accounts and impersonated them in calls to the bank's customer service representatives. During the calls he obtained additional account information, monitored account balances and learned about the latest transactions on existing accounts. He also changed the online banking passwords for some accounts so he could access them by computer.

Peterson employed "runners" -- Parham, Bloch and Henegar -- who went to bank branches and withdrew money from the accounts, Horn said. Using fake identifications, they posed as the real account holders and wired money from the business accounts to other accounts Peterson had opened. Peterson also used counterfeit checks to steal money from the accounts, prosecutors said. ...

Peterson was sentenced to 12 years, one month in prison and ordered to pay $1,019,381.40 in restitution.

Parham was sentenced to six years, six months in prison and ordered to pay $85,414.11 in restitution.

Bloch was sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay $538,383.50.

Henegar was sentenced to two years, nine months in prison and ordered to pay $395,583.87.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
November 25, 2015

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

3121 REP INC. v. 77 BEVERLY PARK DEVELOPMENT. This 2009-12 California real estate case involved controversy between Jehovah's Witness entertainer "PRINCE" and his attorney Patrick S. Cousins, aka Patrick St. George Cousins, who is a PROMINENT south Florida Jehovah's Witness. In 2012, the California Court of Appeal wrote, in part:

This matter involves a dispute over who is entitled to some or all of a $150,000 security deposit paid in connection with the rental of a luxury home near Beverly Hills. We affirm the trial court's judgment ordering the security deposit, less utilities, to be returned to the tenant from whose funds the security deposit was originally paid. ...

Patrick Cousins represented Prince Harold Nelson (more widely known as Prince) from approximately April 2004 to April 2009. Cousins formed 3121 Rep, Inc. (3121) to manage properties for his clients, including Nelson. On February 18, 2008, 3121 entered into a lease agreement to rent a property near Beverly Hills from 77 Beverly Park Development, LLC (Beverly Park). Although 3121 was listed as the tenant and Cousins signed the lease as president of 3121, the property was occupied solely by Nelson. As part of the agreement, Nelson signed a personal guarantee in connection with the lease and $300,000 was transferred from William Morris Endeavor Entertainment (Nelson's talent agent) to Hilton & Hyland (Beverly Park's agent) on February 21, 2008. The transfer represented $150,000 for the first month's rent, plus $150,000 as a security deposit. Nelson lived in the property from February 21, 2008, to June 2009.

On January 12, 2009, Cousins wrote to Hilton & Hyland stating that 3121 intended to terminate "our responsibility with the lease" beginning February 20, 2009. On January 21, 2009, Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc., a company associated with Nelson, wrote to Hilton & Hyland to confirm that it "will assume obligations" of 3121 on the lease and that all terms would remain in place. On January 23, 2009, Beverly Park's attorney acknowledged, "3121 Rep, Inc. has concluded to rescind its notice of termination of the tenancy at 77 Beverly Park" and approved the "assignment" of the lease from 3121 to Paisley Park. Nelson signed the assignment of the lease on behalf of Paisley Park.

Cousins first requested a refund of the security deposit from Beverly Park in letters dated February 3, 2009, and February 6, 2009. He acknowledged that Nelson could stay in the property but, because "I am the named tenant, 3121," he was entitled to a refund of the security deposit. Cousins denied the money on deposit was for the benefit of Nelson or Paisley Park. In a February 17, 2009 letter, Paisley Park stated that the $150,000 security deposit came from William Morris as agent for Nelson and it was Nelson's money. Beverly Park responded on February 19, 2009, asserting that it "acquiesced in the assignment from 3121 Rep, Inc. to Paisley Park Enterprises in an informal manner and on the understanding that all parties were fully cooperating in and consenting to the assignment. Until your letter was received, there was no suggestion that the security deposit would have to be returned and replaced, let alone any discussion as to who provided it in the first instance, who was entitled to a refund of it, and who would be responsible for replacing it. I note that you did not timely raise any of these issues before the lease was assigned."

3121 sued Beverly Park on April 23, 2009, seeking damages of $300,000 for breach of contract. Beverly Park cross-complained against 3121, Paisley Park and Nelson for declaratory relief and indemnity. Beverly Park also sought to deduct money from the security deposit it was owed for utilities and repairs to the property. Paisley Park and Nelson in turn cross-complained against Beverly Park for declaratory relief.

A bench trial began on June 18, 2010. ... The trial court issued its tentative ruling on the record on September 15, 2010, concluding that there was an assignment of the lease and that Nelson sufficiently proved that the money used to pay the security deposit and rent came from funds that belonged to him. As a result, the trial court ordered the security deposit, less appropriate amounts for utilities, to be returned to Nelson. Judgment was entered on November 16, 2010, entitling Beverly Park to retain $83,481.33 for utility expenses and $16,334.67 for attorney fees and costs from the security deposit, the remainder to be paid jointly and severally to Paisley Park and Nelson. 3121 timely noticed its appeal on January 12, 2011. Beverly Park filed its notice of appeal on January 18, 2011. The parties filed briefs on a consolidated schedule and we will address the issues in each of the parties' briefs in this opinion. The attorneys for Nelson and Paisley Park filed a motion to be relieved as counsel in the trial court; it was granted on February 18, 2011. Neither Nelson nor Paisley Park have filed briefs in this appeal or otherwise appeared. ...

On appeal, 3121 challenges the trial court's determination that it is not entitled to a refund of any part of the security deposit. ... While 3121 takes the view that this is a simple transaction in which a tenant seeks a refund of his deposit after 30 days' notice, the facts of the case reveal a more complicated state of affairs. Substantial evidence supports a finding that Nelson funded the security deposit. It is undisputed that the initial $300,000 rent payment and security deposit came from William Morris, who is Nelson's agent and not 3121's. It is also undisputed that Nelson occupied the property. When 3121 sought to be replaced as the "tenant" under the lease, Cousins specifically stated that he did not want Nelson's occupancy to be disrupted. 3121 also made no mention of a refund of the security deposit until after Beverly Park agreed to substitute Paisley Park as the tenant. These facts are sufficient to support a finding that the parties agreed to assign the lease and the related security deposit to Paisley Park.

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

DARREN RUCK v. RAE was a 2015 Australia condominium noise lawsuit. In 2008, Jehovah's Witness Minister Darren Ruck, aka Daniel Ruck, and Heidi Ruck purchased a ground level condo beneath the condo purchased in 2007 by now 71 year old Elizabeth Rae. The condo structure had been economically built in the 1970s, and most units were subject to noise problems.

Rae alleged that the Rucks had been making false allegations since they had moved in, and that Darren Ruck had even become a member of the three person condo board in his attempt to further harass Rae. Rae alleged that she has been hospitalised several times as a result of the Rucks' behaviour and allegations directed towards her.

The Rucks alleged that contractors spent a week in 2008-09 tearing out carpeting and replacing such with a tile floor without proper soundproofing. The Rucks alleged that Rae finished removing all carpeting from her unit in 2013, when Rae had tiles installed in her two bedrooms. The Rucks further accused Rae of occasionally intentionally making extra noise to harass the Rucks.

Rae provided evidence that she was out of town on one alleged occasion of intentional extreme noise. Rae further provided evidence that she had not replaced any carpeting with tile since she had owned the propery. Neither was any tiling nor re-tiling done for a week in 2008-09. Instead, leaks were repaired in a bathroom.

Rae even purchased a washing machine that was sold as a "less noise, less vibration" type of machine, and photographic evidence of her washing machine proved that feature. Rae placed a rubber mat under the washing machine to further reduce noise levels. Rae provided a photograph of her vacuum cleaner, and noted that it was a machine of top quality, and no noisier than any other vacuum. Rae also purchased a $3000 rug to lay on the tiled floor in the lounge room to try and reduce any possible noise penetrating the floor.

Heidi Ruck allegedly had informed Rae that she had difficulty sleeping and may suffer from postnatal insomnia. Board member Darren Ruck allegedly had required security lights removed from the common areas as such supposedly were switching on/off and causing a nuisance to the Rucks. Rae somehow alleged that the Elders at the Rucks' congregation had become involved in this mess in some unspecified fashion. Rae won.


TYRELL v. TYRELL (pseudonym) is an ongoing 2016-23 New South Wales, Australia Divorce-Custody-Property Settlement case. The three main actors are a wealthy, 94 year-old, JW Family Matriarch; her only-surviving-child and dependent-on-mother JW Son; and the disfellowshipped (9/2020) and divorced (5/2021) ex-wife. Both litigants were/are frequently being dishonest, disceitful, and outright liars --essentially using "every trick in the book" against each other.

The JW Couple had twins -- son and daughter -- in 2006, and another son in 2010. This couple lived together until December 2019 (despite Wife openly carrying on an affair), when Police removed Wife from the family home due to violence concerns. Husband cared for their three children until September 2022, when the family court granted Ex-wife custody of the youngest child.

In order to obscure the family's status as Jehovah's Witnesses, the Husband has repeatedly interjected suggestions that he, his ex-wife, and their children celebrated holidays and birthdays -- which disfellowshipped ex-wife denies. Husband even testified that he was unaware that a Kingdom Hall was located less than two blocks from the two homes where he has lived his entire life. Amusingly, Husband testified that he always has placed the interests of his three children over and above the beliefs and practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and that he was "born to be a husband and father. There's nothing as rewarding as that." Husband also has asserted that he no longer is a believing JW, while disfellowshipped Ex-wife claims to still be a believer.

In fact, Husband (b:1966) was reared as one of Jehovah's Witnesses by two active JWParents in the typical WatchTower Cult fashion -- meetings, field service, TMS, etc. Twenty-six year-old Husband actually met his then 16 year-old immigrant future wife "at the door" in 1993. She was baptized in 1994, at age 17, so that she could marry 27/28 year-old Husband as soon as she became 18 years-old. Neither party has ever been gainfully employed for any significant period of time during their 25 year marriage. Rather, they depended on Husband's wealthy JWParents for the couple's $1,100,000.00 home (two doors down from parents' home), and had free access to a $500,000.00 bank account. Both parties also applied for and received government disability pensions for injuries (Husband) and CFS (Wife:2005).

Complicating complicated matters, the couple's female Jehovah's Witness Attorney (A.S.?) continued to counsel both Husband and Wife through their separation (12/2019) until five months before their divorce was final (5/2021). In fact, the female JW Attorney advised Wife to confess her adulteress affair to the Elders, advised/assisted Wife in confessing the affair to Husband, and advised Wife to forget about trying to get custody of her children due to her having committed adultery.

Note this edited excerpt from the September 2022 decision:

... I have noted on numerous occasions my concerns in relation to the conduct of two professional people -- Ms D, the children's long-time counsellor, and the [Husband's] solicitor, who was formerly the Grandmother's solicitor, ... the solicitor owed, and always owes, specific and clear duties to the Court. Certain documents that were plainly in her possession, notably from the Grandmother's former solicitor, were not disclosed until after a specific Court Order, after the final hearing had concluded. Once those documents ultimately came to light, it made clear that her client (at this stage, the Husband) had filed an Affidavit that was clearly erroneous, and therefore misleading. It is unclear what, if any steps, were undertaken to check the Husband's Affidavit before it was filed. On its face, it would appear that little if any checking was done of it. Further, in the light of the Husband's evidence that the solicitor read his Affidavit to him (along with other documents), the jurat to the Husband's trial Affidavit (and others likewise) did not disclose that the [Husband] had difficulties reading and comprehending. Plainly it was, as to form, and as to evidence, an incorrect jurat. For the reasons given, in my view, there was also clear lack of financial disclosure by the Husband in the course of this litigation. For these reasons, the conduct of the [Husband's] lawyer should be referred to the Law Society for consideration. I request that the local Registrar of the Court provide a copy of these reasons to the Law Society.

Also in these reasons I have set out the multiple concerns regarding the conduct of the children's counsellor, Ms D. For the reason given earlier, in my view, her conduct was unprofessional and unethical. Her conduct could, and perhaps should, have led to her being cited for contempt. Strictly, her actions were an abuse of the Court processes. I also request the local Registrar of the Court to provide these reasons to the relevant psychologists' registration board for consideration.

(Given that the psychologist "Ms D" was a pre-divorce, "longtime" councellor of this Jehovah's Witness Family's three children, there is a good possibility that "Ms D" was either a JW, or was "JW approved". If either case is true, she would have a large JW clientele, with a business relationship to protect.) 

Here are edited excerpts from the November 2022 decision:

11] The Husband and his aged Mother argued strenuously that the marital residence (and the funds in the "joint account") should be excluded from the property pool as an asset of the parties. Curiously perhaps, they studiously avoided addressing directly the Wife's contentions that (a) the Husband repeatedly, and often publicly, represented (and recorded in various documents) that the marital residence was owned by him, (b) the parties lived in the same residence for the duration of their long marriage, and (c) even when on formal notice from her then solicitors about changing the name on the title of the marital residence from the Husband's to her own name as long ago as 2014 and 2015, the paternal Grandmother did not do so. She did nothing to rectify the title deed to the [marital residence] property for at least the last 8 years, and she was aware that the Husband regularly represented to third parties that he was the owner of this property. ...

[13] Further, the conduct of the paternal Grandmother, and the Husband in particular, in relation to the [marital residence] property over such a long period of time precludes them, on the basis of principles of estoppel set out below, from now asserting (as they do) that the Wife has no claim at all on that property in any relevant respect. In all of the circumstances of the matter here, not least being the 25 years of largely uninterrupted residence at the property, and the contributions to the family (detailed later), it would be unjust and inequitable for the Husband's (and paternal Grandmother's) argument in this regard to succeed against the Wife.

[14] In effect, the Husband's argument, and rather likewise for the paternal Grandmother, was that (a) the primary asset/financial resource(s) should be excluded from the pool and removed from any possible access by the Wife, and (b) apart from begetting, delivering, raising and home schooling the children, and for the most part, being a supportive Wife to the Husband (who had little, and has little, resources of his own in any relevant respect), the Wife should get almost nothing for her contributions and all else as a result of the 25 years of marriage. The Husband's and paternal Grandmother's arguments against the Wife, regrettably, were astonishingly niggardly and utterly scurvy-like. Put another way, on the Husband's argument (supported by his Mother), there were few bones or scraps that could or should be left for, or made available to, the Mother and Wife from the reasonably, and comfortably, well-adorned table of the Grandmother from which the Father and Husband, throughout his life, has always supped without limit.

[15] The calculated parsimony of the Husband and his Mother was especially clear in their respective attempts to put any and all assets (or financial resources) beyond the reach of the Mother. Added to this conduct, full, [Husband] and ongoing financial (and other) disclosure (which included copies of the Grandmother's most recent Will, which excluded the Husband as a beneficiary, and which had been prepared by her then lawyer who now formally acts for the Husband) was a regular failure on behalf of the Husband, in particular, and his lawyers. ...

[17] All of this said, the adjustment would likely have been somewhat higher on the Husband's side in the light of the substantial and ongoing financial contributions, not by, but on behalf of, the Husband by his Mother, ... The reason why it is not as high as it might have been arises from the conduct of the Husband and his Mother, particularly in their significant failure to disclose relevant documents, which include the Grandmother's testamentary material. This was made more egregious because (a) the Husband's current lawyer acted for the Grandmother regarding said testamentary documentation but did not disclose or provide this material until after the final hearing concluded, (b) similarly, multiple requests by the Wife's solicitors seeking disclosure, as set out in the Wife's Affidavit filed 14th September 2021, and (c) the still undisclosed whereabouts, use of, and access to, the funds removed by the Husband (or the Grandmother) from the "joint account" in late December 2019. ...

[18] [Husband] and his Mother have been less than forthcoming in relation to important documentation and financial information generally. [Husband's] lawyer also has aided the "obfuscation and evasion" by not providing documents that she plainly had in her possession because she acted for the Grandmother when preparing (and witnessing) her Will in December 2019, and a Codicil in December 2020.

[19] Orders were made after the Final Hearing on 13th May 2022 directing the [Husband's] lawyer to provide all documents in her possession and control received from the Grandmother's former lawyers. Those lawyers ceased acting for the Grandmother in 2015. I need not detail the various correspondence and the like that followed these Orders except to note that from the large number of documents produced, the following matters are clear -- but only became so after the hearing, which also confirms that information directly relevant to the financial position of the Husband, and in turn the paternal Grandmother, was not disclosed until after the hearing pursuant to Orders made by the Court on 13th May 2022:

(a) By letter dated 7th April 2014, the Grandmother's then lawyers confirmed that it was the view of the Husband's bankruptcy trustee that the Change of Name form regarding the [marital residence] property was fraudulent, and that in providing a sworn declaration as he did, the Husband committed a criminal offence;

(b) By letter dated 2nd April 2014, the same lawyers confirmed that, at that time, (i) the Grandmother was not aware that [Husband] had transferred the [marital residence] property into his own name; (ii) [Husband's] illegal conduct regarding the transfer of title to this property exposed him to one or more criminal charges; (iii) [Husband] is recorded as having urged his Mother to provide evidence of his criminal misfeasance; and (iv) the Grandmother gave instructions not to expose [Husband] to possible criminal prosecution;

(c) By letters dated 7th April 2014 and 11th August 2015, the Grandmother's then solicitor advised and sought instructions for the [marital residence] property to be transferred into her name. Those instructions were never provided.

[20] This correspondence (and other documentation set out later in these reasons) makes plain that from April 2014, the Grandmother, and the Applicant Husband, were both aware that the [marital residence] property was registered in the latter's name, and that this had occurred by his fraudulent conduct (also set out in detail below). This fraud, and the circumstances by which it occurred, nor the correspondence just referred to, was recorded in any material filed by either the Husband or his Mother. This is also in circumstances where the Grandmother's former solicitor, now the Husband's solicitor, had this documentation in her possession since approximately September 2021. It was not disclosed until May 2022. It was not disclosed in any of the Affidavits filed by the Husband or his Mother. Further still, the information set out in the 2014 and 2015 letters from the Grandmother's former lawyer makes the Husband's generalised evidence regarding the [marital residence] property, and his bankruptcy, in his Affidavit dated 14th September 2021, especially at pars.24, 30, 31, 36, 62, and 73, inaccurate, erroneous and misleading. How and when, if at all, the Husband's lawyer checked on the accuracy of her client's material, particularly once the former solicitor's records became available in September 2021, was never explained. In my view, "obfuscation and evasion" were writ large in the material provided, and even more so in the material not disclosed, by the Applicant Husband and his Mother.

[21] The "obfuscation and evasion", if not worse, was also plainly evident in the parenting side of things. Indeed, it was compounded by the [Husband's] lawyer urgently arranging interviews for the children with an external expert, only three weeks after the incident that led to the [Wife] no longer living in the former marital residence after 25 years or so, and before these proceedings had even been filed. The comments made by the children about the Mother strongly indicate that they had been coached and provided with information that could only have come from the [Husband]. No less troubling is that the [Wife] was never told of this action to arrange interviews with the children with a family consultant. The interviews took place not only without the [Wife's] knowledge but also without any input from her.

[22] As is plain later in these reasons, I took a very dim view of the Father's evidence. He was an astonishingly poor witness. However, what is more than a little curious bordering on the disturbing is that among the recently disclosed material there is SMS correspondence between the Husband and his lawyer. As relatively brief as it is, there are few if any spelling mistakes but rather "slick" engagement, and easy familiarity with his engagements with the Bank. This is in stark contrast to his fumbling and bumbling evidence during the trial about his dealings with the Bank. As noted later, the Father also gave evidence that but for the incident in December 2019, the family would likely have stayed together and carried on with their lives because they all were "good actors", When coupled with the recent "smooth" if not "slick" and easy correspondence between the Father and his lawyer, the Father's evidence at the hearing may have to be assessed as somewhat more of an act to ensure that the Wife (and Mother) was deliberately removed from his life, from the lives of the children, and that she had no access to any of the "family assets". Put another way, he was perhaps not (and is not) quite as bumbling and fumbling and uncomprehending as he often made himself out to be at the hearing. Certainly his Affidavit evidence was less than precise, especially in the light of the post-hearing disclosed material from 2014 and 2015. Moreover, in his Affidavit material, he even indicated that he knew about the [marital residence] property being in his name as long ago as 2010. However, as somebody like a more modern "artful dodger", he could be very "flexible" in his [testimony]. For example, sometimes he contended that this property was in fact his (when seeking funds), but at other times he argued strongly that it was not his property (e.g. for the purposes of his bankruptcy). But either way, as something of the acting schemer (or the scheming actor), or the bumbling and fumbling Husband and Father, his evidence and that of the Grandmother (certainly the "brains behind the outfit" so to speak), were clearly calculated to "obfuscate and evade", and to make the access of the Mother to both the children, and to any assets, as difficult and troublesome as possible.

[23] Finally, the Grandmother's declaration sought in the current proceeding regarding the [marital residence] property is the first action she has taken since April 2014 when she was advised by her then lawyer to transfer the property into her name, following the fraudulent conduct of her son in putting it in his name. It is too late in the day, not to say too "convenient" to argue now in this case, that such a declaration should be made regarding the property. Certainly in this respect, the Wife's argument, among a number of alternatives, for the doctrine of laches to apply is well founded.

[24] The Grandmother well knew, because she was formally advised by her then solicitor, of her son's (the Husband's) various defaults, including fraudulent conduct, as long ago as 2014. At that time, she was also advised to rectify the title deeds to [the marital residence]. She did not do so, or take any action at all to initiate such action. For the last 8 years, in effect and in reality, she has engaged in "calculated inaction" regarding the title to that property. ... In the light of the Husband's various representations, regularly in writing, that he was the owner of said property, which the Grandmother admitted she knew about, she cannot now disavow the effective representation to the Mother, as the Husband stated, that this property "belonged" to the married couple. Until this litigation, the representations of the Husband regarding this property were never disavowed by the Grandmother. At the very least, her conduct indicated "acquiescence" in the representations of her son. Her conduct, in turn, represented to all, including the Wife, that the Husband's representations were accepted by the Grandmother or not opposed by her. Indeed, although not provided to this Court, her specific instructions to her then solicitor was to take no action that could potentially expose her son to any possible criminal action for his fraudulent conduct regarding the title deeds to [the marital residence].

[25] Further, just as the Husband cannot rely upon his fraudulent and misleading conduct to defeat the Wife's claims regarding entitlement to certain property to be included in the asset pool, likewise, the Grandmother cannot similarly rely upon the fraudulent and misleading conduct of her son to lead to her benefit, by defeating the Wife's claims.

In my view, this summary, of itself, more than justifies a [$163,500.00] costs Order in the Wife's favour. The remainder of the reasons sets out in significant detail the multiple and long-standing defaults on behalf of the Applicant and his Mother, notably in relation to property matters. Other defaults, to speak in general terms, regarding parenting, obviously are only attributable to the Father.

Here is an edited excerpt from the September 2022 decision:

... having regard to all of the circumstances, which necessarily includes, among other things, (a) the very significant non-disclosure of the Husband and Second Respondent Grandmother, ... and (c) the wanton recklessness, misleading, and grossly negligent conduct of the Husband, for example in his regular dealings with financial and other institutions (which the Grandmother either facilitated by providing him with documents of title, and/or by deliberately turning a blind eye to her son's fraudulent conduct, paying out her son's debt, and instructing that there be no referral to the police regarding her son's fraud), the contributions and assessments reached herein are just and equitable. On the basis of the matters set out in these reasons, in my view it is just and equitable that there be a division of the [$1,830,600.00] property pool, 45% to the Wife and 55% to the Husband. On the property pool determined above, this will result in a payment to the Wife of $823,770.00.




MAINE v. ERIC STEVENS MURPHY JR. was the 2009-10 Maine criminal prosecution which the Attorney General of Maine boasted as resulting in the "longest sentence in a state securities prosecution". This prosecution involved a Jehovah's Witness Elder named Eric S. Murphy, Jr. -- not to be confused with his father, Eric S. Murphy Sr., who is/was the Presiding Overseer, or COBE, at the same Ellsworth Maine Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Notably, Eric Senior and Eric Junior are the Son and Grandson of William B. Murphy, arguably the greatest CEO/President of the CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, and a notable American Patriot (who is likely spinning in his grave every time his earnings are donated to the anti-American WatchTower Cult). Eric Murphy Sr. became acquainted with the Ellsworth Maine Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses while staying at the wealthy family's summer home at nearby Little Deer Isle, Maine. The WatchTower Society, the Ellsworth Maine Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and several other nearby Congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses are all ANNUAL recipients of thousands of dollars from the Murphy Charitable Foundation, of which Eric S. Murphy, Sr., is a Director.

In June 2009, Eric S. Murphy Jr., age 47, who owned and operated MURPHY HOME LOANS, in Ellsworth, Maine, was indicted by the Hancock County Grand Jury on two counts of theft by deception, one count of security fraud, and one count of forgery, all relating to an alleged PONZI-LIKE SCHEME operated by Eric Murphy Jr. Maine's Attorney General alleged that Eric Murphy duped his investors by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of the investors' money on personal and business expenses instead of using it to fund the specific mortgage loans for which the investments had been obtained. In March 2010, Murphy agreed to plead guilty in exchange for an 18 months prison sentence and paying $570,000.00 restitution to 6 victims. However, that plea agreement was rejected by the local Judge. In a July 2010 jury trial, Eric Murphy Jr. was convicted on all counts and ultimately sentenced to 5 years in prison. Eric Murphy was also ordered to pay restitution to 4 victims totaling $338,000.00.


IN RE ERIC MURPHY JR and MURPHY HOME LOANS. In March 2009, after receipt of a notice from Maine's Department of Professional and Financial Regulation of a pending Hearing regarding numerous complaints from customers and investors, Eric S. Murphy Jr. hoped to render the scheduled Hearing "moot" by voluntarily surrendering his Maine mortgage loan broker license. That did not end the matter.

In April 2009, the Hearing officer found that Eric S. Murphy Jr. and Murphy Home Loans had committed 11 separate violations of Maine's Consumer Credit Code by misapplying, misspending, or losing track of investor funds. Eric S. Murphy Jr. and Murphy Home Loans were ruled to have 1) failed to meet the required licensing standard of financial responsibility, character and fitness; 2) failed to establish and properly utilize a trust account required of all loan brokers; 3) failed to exercise "good faith and fair dealings" with his customers; and 4) failed to properly safeguard the funds of clients. Eric S. Murphy Jr. was assessed $21,500.00 in penalties and costs and his broker's license was revoked for a minimum of 5 years.

At least two of Eric Murphy Jr.'s victims were fellow Jehovah's Witnesses who testifed against him at this Hearing. JW Elder Merritt F. Williams lost his investment of $150,000.00, plus earnings, while Anthony Belch's, and his wife Elizabeth Belch's, losses from repeated business dealings with Eric Murphy, totaling several hundreds of thousands of dollars, were partially recouped when the Breezy Maples Farm project went through foreclosure.


JUSTIN LIMEBURNER v. ERIC S. MURPHY SENIOR and ERIC S. MURPHY TRUST. See the linked Maine webpage for the business and employment dealing between Justin and Tina Limeburner and Murphy Home Loans and the Father-Son Murphys. Although this civil lawsuit was ultimately summarily dismissed due to untimely or insufficient evidence, we find it significant that the Limeburners alleged that Murphy SENIOR and his TRUST were legally responsible for the business activities of his son, Eric S. Murphy Junior.


JERRAD WILSON v. ERIC S. MURPHY SENIOR and ERIC S. MURPHY TRUST. See the linked Maine webpage for the business and employment dealing between the Murphys and Jerrad Wilson, who was Eric Murphy Jr's STEP-SON. Although this civil lawsuit was ultimately summarily dismissed due to untimely or insufficient evidence, we find it significant that Eric Murphy Jr's STEP-SON alleged that Eric Murphy SR and his TRUST were legally responsible for the business activities of his son, Eric S. Murphy Junior.


CATHERINE ARANDA MURPHY v. ERIC S. MURPHY JR. was the DIVORCE court case between Junior and the wife he had married around 1995, when he was living in California, where he also operated an investment business. The couple relocated to Ellsworth, Maine in 2004. The couple has one daughter of their own, and they initially separated in 2008.



In May 2016, in the Scottish Perthshire highlands, the tragic death of 56 year-old, ex-Royal Marine Gus Connolly at his home sparked a "bitter row" between local homeowners and local estate owner, multi-millionaire real estate developer and Jehovah's Witness Minister, Malcolm Ross James.

Local residents claimed that a locked gate on a private road running through Malcolm James' 90 acre Dall Estate caused a significant delay to paramedics trying to reach the home of Gus Connolly, who had suffered a heart attack, and later died at his cottage in the rural settlement near Loch Rannoch. Local homeowners asserted that emergency vehicles should not be prevented from using James' private drive, which they claim is a shorter and faster route than the longer public route which includes a weak bridge.

Around 11:00 PM, two neighbors who are both advanced nurse practitioners arrived first on the scene and performed CPR until the arrival of First Responders forty minutes later. The First Responders had been scrambled from Tummel Bridge and Kinloch Rannoch. Following their GPS, they were unable to get access to Connolly's home at Gardener's Cottage because of a locked metal gate at James' estate. Instead they took a longer back route through the forest.

An ambulance also tried to get in by the most direct route, but was also held back by the same locked gate. Malcolm James was alerted at his 6.6 MILLION POUND mansion by the ambulance crew to come open the gate, but James was unable to unlock the combination lock on the gate in the dark. That prompted gathering neighbors to lift the gate off its hinges and allow the ambulance through. However, Connolly was gravely ill by the time the ambulance arrived, and he soon died. Different incensed "good samaritan" neighbors alleged differing estimates as to how much delayed were both the First Responders and the ambulance.

Malcolm James disputes his frustrated neighbors' version of events. The Scottish Ambulance Service was not exercised by James' locked gate, nor the short delays of only a "few minutes". SAS claimed that First Responders arrived on scene in 22 minutes, even while using the longer route. The ambulance arrived 31 minutes later, and was delayed more by fog than the locked gate.

Regardless who was the more accurate, the next morning, Malcolm James discovered that his metal gate had been removed and vandalized. "Someone" had sawed off the gateposts and took a metal grinder to the gate. Besides summoning the police, James also parked one of his automobiles across that private roadway so as to block such. James publicly stated, "All I want is for my family and I to enjoy some privacy." James further stated that he privately owned all three roadways through his estate. 


In the mid 1990s, a Jehovah's Witness Minister, who owned a growing business which employed a number of other Jehovah's Witnesses, including Elders and Ministerial Servants, wanted to build a new commercial building to house his business's offices and warehouse. This JW Minister located a desirable tract of land in an affluent suburb, which had a light commercial zoning despite being surrounded by high-value residential properties. The JW Minister needed to obtain a zoning variance simply to qualify a warehouse for the tract. However, this JW's business operations generated too much traffic (including semi and other large trucks), which would have to travel through or adjacent to the surrounding residential areas. That, plus other now long forgotten issues, would have certainly disqualified this JW from obtaining the variance he needed from the local Zoning Board. What to do? JW Minister conspired to lie to the Zoning Board. After consulting with one real estate attorney in order to educate himself on everything needed to be done and said to obtain the variance, the JW business owner then employed a second attorney to represent him in his case to the Zoning Board. JW Minister was then able to provide all the "right answers" to second attorney. When the zoning hearing was scheduled, the second employed attorney was informed that he had to attend the hearing by himself, because JW business owner had a much more important out-of-town appointment which could not be re-scheduled!!!


FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. DAVID PAUL DEL DOTTO, YOLANDA LYNN DEL DOTTO, and DEL DOTTO ENTERPRISES, INC. was a 1993-96 federal enforcement action and lawsuit initiated by the Federal Trade Commission. During the latter 1980s and early 1990s, the highly charismatic Dave Del Dotto was probably the best known Jehovah's Witness Minister in the world other than Michael Jackson, despite the fact that few people, even other Jehovah's Witnesses, knew that Dave Del Dotto was a Jehovah's Witness. At one time or another during the latter 1980s and early 1990s, just about everyone with cable television watched all or part of at least one of Dave Del Dotto's six half-hour long "Cash Flow System" infomercials -- which sold Del Dotto's "get-rich-quick" real estate investing course consisting of books and audio cassettes. Del Dotto's filmed-in-Hawaii infomercials featured celebrities of that era such as John Davidson and Monty Hall. In 1992, Del Dotto stopped the infomercials after such came under scrutiny by the F.T.C. However, Del Dotto continued selling his "Cash Flow System" at seminars conducted throughout the United States. Amusingly, there are several internet biographies which claim that Televangelist conman Robert Tilton was greatly influenced by Dave Del Dotto. One Bio even claims that Robert Tilton found his own "second God" when he discovered Dave Del Dotto on cable television.
In April 1993, the F.T.C. formally accused the then 42 year-old David P. Del Dotto, of Modesto, California, of deceiving thousands of customers with phony claims about how his real estate investing course had made hundreds of thousands of real estate investors wealthy. In April 1994, the F.T.C. issued a consent order prohibiting Del Dotto from making false claims regarding real estate, credit, investments, or business opportunities in the future. The order further prohibited Del Dotto from misrepresenting that any endorsement for a product or service represented the typical or ordinary experience of previous users, and from representing that any advertisement is not paid advertising.
In February 1995, the F.T.C. filed a federal civil lawsuit alleging that David Del Dotto had made false and unsubstantiated representations that consumers who used his "Cash Flow System" typically would profit from investments in real estate, and that hundreds of thousands of Del Dotto customers had made substantial sums of money using the "Cash Flow System". The lawsuit also alleged that Del Dotto misrepresented and failed to deliver other goods and services sold at seminars. The lawsuit further alleged that Del Dotto misrepresented the guarantee accompanying a home business package sold at the seminars by failing to inform purchasers that there were conditions to receiving a refund. The F.T.C. also challenged as deceptive Del Dotto's alleged failure to adequately disclose a 10% restocking fee charged on refunds. Finally, the F.T.C. alleged that Del Dotto violated federal consumer regulations by failing to credit consumers' credit card accounts within seven days of accepting returned merchandise or services.
In 1996, after purportedly raking in "millions of dollars" in sales for many years, Dave DelDotto settled with the F.T.C. for a mere $200,000.00 fine. The conditions of the settlement with the F.T.C. should have put Dave Del Dotto out of the "get-rich-quick" business. Interestingly, in February 1997, infomercial giant Guthy-Renker applied for a trademark for Del Dotto's real estate investment course, which would seem to indicate that Del Dotto had sold it to Guthy-Renker. Thereafter, Del Dotto reportedly unsuccessfully attempted to sell non-real estate services and products using his same past marketing techniques.
WASHINGTON v. DAVID DEL DOTTO. By 1998, Dave Del Dotto was again conducting real estate related seminars. Del Dotto's "Affordable Housing Network" purported to teach people with low incomes and/or poor credit how to purchase their own home by obtaining low or no interest mortgages with little or no downpayment. After conducting four such seminars in Seattle, the outcry from dissatisfied attendees caused the Washington State Attorney General to file a lawsuit seeking a court order restraining Del Dotto from holding any more seminars in the state, and freezing any money already paid to Del Dotto. The SEATTLE TIMES reported that some of the advice for which attendees paid included suggesting that as a credit-repair tactic, that people with bad credit flood credit-reporting agencies with so many requests for correction that derogatory information is kept permanently in limbo. To claim the family car as a business advertising expense, Del Dotto allegedly suggested that people fill the glove box with business cards and every once in a while throw a couple out the window. The Washington AG's complaint alleged that Del Dotto misrepresented himself as a successful, self-made millionaire whose system can lead others to success in real estate, when, in fact, his record is littered with bankruptcies, foreclosures and numerous enforcement actions by state and federal agencies. The lawsuit also accused Del Dotto of acting as a mortgage broker without a license. More importantly, and what may explain why Del Dotto's real estate education business seems to have stopped shortly thereafter, the lawsuit alleged that Del Dotto's 1998 business activities violated the terms of his settlement with the F.T.C., thus violating the order of the federal USDC.
Thereafter, Del Dotto, his wife, their daughter, and Del Dotto's father and mother threw themselves into operating Del Dotto Vineyards, which has since become one of more prominent vineyards and wineries in Napa, California. Del Dotto allegedly had purchased the vineyard business in 1988, at the height of his infomercial success. At some point, the vineyard was titled in the name of Del Dotto's father -- John Del Dotto. John Del Dotto died in 2002, and as an apparent "exemplary" Jehovah's Witness, was permitted a funeral at the Calistoga Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, when Del Dotto's mother died in 2012, her funeral was held at a winery property, and her obituary contains no reference to the JWs. Interestingly, in 2012, Del Dotto's daughter, Desiree Del Dotto (divorced in 2010), made a $2500.00 donation to Rick Perry's presidential campaign.
A May 1993 Associated Press report briefly mentions several additional legal problems for Del Dotto. The lien holder on Del Dotto's Modesto Headquarters had foreclosed and sold such at public auction. Interestingly, Del Dotto apparently stopped making the mortgage payments after he had no further use for the building. A software company which developed software sold by Del Dotto had sued Del Dotto for allegedly not making payment. The Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office and the California Attorney General's Office both had received multiple complaints regarding Del Dotto and the products he sold. The Internal Revenue Service had placed a $240,000.00 lien on Del Dotto's $600,000+ home in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii due to alleged evasion of income taxes in 1990 and 1991. Other newspaper articles allege that the State of Hawaii sued Del Dotto in 1995 over more than $5,000,000.00 in unpaid real estate loans. In 1996, David and Yolanda Del Dotto filed personal bankruptcy. In 1996, Del Dotto's real-estate holding company, Investmark Asia, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, listing assets of $2.5 million and debts of $6.2 million.
Interestingly, in 1988, David Del Dotto, and two other Jehovah's Witness friends and/or associates, formed a Not-For-Profit Corporation in Florida, called the "WORLDWIDE KINGDOM FOUNDATION, INC." That terminology will ring a bell with Jehovah's Witnesses. Second Officer, David E. Schlegel, of Kona, Hawaii is a Real Estate Agent originally from California. Dave Schlegel is believed to be both a JW Elder and a member of the Big Island's "Watchtower Society Hospital Liaison Committee". Third Officer, Robert Groff, is a longtime friend and associate of Dave Del Dotto. Bob Groff was last a "Manager" at Del Dotto Vineyards, and is also a Jehovah's Witness, as are most if not all of Del Dotto Vineyard's employees. We have not been able to locate any info for what purpose that this NFP was formed.

MARIA P. STANDER v. LINDA SZABADOS was a 2010-13 real estate fraud court case involving two older sisters living in Jefferson City, Missouri, who both were (probably illegal) immigrants from Honduras. During her testimony in the trial, Szabados identified Stander as a supposedly trustworthy Jehovah's Witness. Although never specifically identified as such, Linda Szabados was in all likelihood also a Jehovah's Witness at some point in her life.

Linda Szabados (born 1951) apparently was the first to settle in Jefferson City, while Maria Stander (born 1953) followed sometime thereafter. Szabados helped Stander find an apartment and a job, and helped her sister financially. The two very-close sisters discussed for some time the prospect of jointly purchasing a house together, and moving their families into the house together, which they did in February 2002. The two sisters verbally agreed to contribute equally to all expenses related to the purchase of the home, as well as to contribute equally to all future expenses related to the ownership of the home. Szabados believed that she and her sister had an "understanding" that the house would be owned equally by both sisters, even though only Stander's name was put on the mortgage and the deed due to the fact that Szabados was unemployed at the time of the mortgage application and the purchase. The house was purchased for $92,000.00, with a $20,000.00 down payment and a $72,000.00 loan. At some point, Szabados later used Stander's identity to refinance the house at a lower interest rate and shorter payoff period. Stander did not object to Szabados's mortgage fraud.

The legal problems between the sisters began in 2010, when the mortgage was paid off. Stander received a $1200.00 escrow refund, which she refused to split with Szabados. Szabados then demanded that Stander add Szabados's name to the deed, but Stander refused to re-title the property to reflect Szabados's one-half interest. In August 2010, without Stander's permission, Szabados again fraudulently used Stander's identity and executed a general warranty deed conveying the property from Stander to Szabados's daughter and Stander. When Stander discovered what Szabados had done, Stander filed this lawsuit against Szabados requesting that the trial court set aside the Deed because Szabados had forged Stander's name on the Deed, and award Stander damages based upon Szabados's fraud. Szabados counterclaimed, requesting that the trial court quiet title in the Property to Stander and Szabados as tenants in common, and partition the Property by sale, or alternatively, to award her damages resulting from Stander's fraud.

Amazingly, at trial, the "trusted" Jehovah's Witness, Maria P. Stander, testified that she never ever told her sister that she was part owner of the house, and that she never ever had any intention of putting Szabados's name on the deed. The "trusted" Jehovah's Witness further testified that her sister had never ever paid half of the mortgage or other ownership expenses, but had merely made some payments towards the water bill. However, the trial court expressly found the "trusted" Jehovah's Witness's testimony completely lacking in credibility. In contrast, the trial court found Linda Szabados was credible and truthful as to the agreement and performance of the terms of the agreement between the parties.

The Missouri trial court also found that each sister had defrauded the other, as related above. The deed created by Szabados was declared void. Stander and Szabados were found to be tenants in common, with each holding an undivided one-half interest in the Property. The trial court ordered the property partitioned by sale. On appeal by Stander, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling.


UNITED STATES v. TAYA ROMANO was a 2010-11 New Jersey federal criminal prosecution of Taya Romano (adopted maiden name), a/k/a Taya Cavagna, a/k/a Taya Waldon, who purportedly was reared as a Jehovah's Witness and eventually married two JW husbands. Taya Romano also is believed to be a relative of one or more WATCHTOWER BETHELITES via her multiple JW connections. In 2007 and 2008, Taya Romano, of Ridgewood, New Jersey, and multiple indicted and unindicted CO-SCHEMERS (some who were very close relatives allegedly perpetrated a mortgage fraud scheme in which 12 distressed properties were purchase for low amounts and then sold to unqualified purchasers at inflated prices with the understanding that Romano would help the unqualified purchasers obtain "no down payment" loans. Instead, Romano would prepare appraisals, financial statements, loan applications, etc. -- all with false information, including doubly inflated selling prices sufficiently inflated to also cover the falsely claimed large downpayments. All properties, including three sold to her adoptive father, Frank Romano, of Paramus, NJ, eventually went into foreclosure. (Taya Romano's mother, Kathleen Romano, reportedly was involved in this scheme, but was never prosecuted.) Unbelievably, in January 2011, Taya Romano was permitted to plead guilty to merely a single count of mail fraud affecting a financial institution.

UNITED STATES v. ELIZABETH LaBRUNA (2010-11). In November 2010, Elizabeth Labruna, age 53, of Little Falls, New Jersey, pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud for her role as a settlement agent at closing transactions in the larger Taya Romano real estate schemes. Sentence unknown.


UNITED STATES v. TAYA WALDON was a related 2010-13 New Jersey federal criminal prosecution. In 2008 and 2009, Taya Waldon and husband Ronnie Waldon Jr. (a JW), an unindicted co-conspirator, allegedly defrauded two sets of family friends (possibly fellow JWs) by soliciting investments of $1,032,750.00 and $890,000.00 from them for ownership interests in real estate developments located in Oklahoma. Little of the monies were actually used for the intended investments, and none was returned to the investors. In July 2012, Taya Waldon was permitted to plead guilty to merely a single count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

In February 2013, Taya Waldon, age 39, was unbelievably sentenced FOR EVERYTHING to only 4 years in prison, with 3 years of supervised release. Taya Waldon was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $4,700,000.00.

See also Oklahoma foreclosure case: BANK OF HYDRO v. TAYA ROMANO AND RONNIE JAMES WALDON ET AL


UNITED STATES v. MICHAEL SHENEMAN was a 2010-12 Indiana federal criminal prosecution. Michael P. Sheneman (age 59) and his son Jeremie Sheneman (age 32) engaged in an elaborate mortgage fraud scheme between 2003 and 2005 which convinced four unwitting buyers, including two illegal immigrants, to purchase 60 properties in South Bend, Indiana, and Mishawaka, Indiana, that they could neither afford nor rent out. As part of the scheme, mortgage lenders were duped into financing these ill-advised purchases through various misrepresentations about the buyers and their financial stability. Most of the homes were eventually foreclosed upon, and the buyers and lenders each suffered significant losses. Michael Sheneman was convicted of four counts of wire fraud and sentenced to 97 months in prison and three years supervised release thereafter. Michael Sheneman was also ordered to pay restitution to six different lenders totaling $269,967.50. Conviction was upheld on appeal in June 2012.

See also SHENEMAN v. SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE, a 2007 Indiana state slander lawsuit summarily dismissed by the local St. Joseph County Court. Michael Sheneman was also ordered to pay the newspaper's $47,000.00 legal bill. None of the multiple articles published by the South Bend Tribune from 2007-13 mentioned anything about Michael Sheneman's religion and his status therein, but the September 14, 2011 article reporting on the sentencing of Michael Sheneman was cutely entitled "ELDER SHENEMAN GETS EIGHT YEARS ... ."

See also JACK STILP ET AL v. MICHAEL SHENEMAN and JEREMIE SHENEMAN, a 2007 civil lawsuit in which four South Bend Police Officers who also had purchased investment properties from the Shenemans also sued the Shenemans for fraud. Outcome unknown.

See also OAK STREET MORTGAGE ET AL v. MICHAEL SHENEMAN and JEREMIE SHENEMAN ET AL, a 2007 federal civil lawsuit alleging mortgage fraud, which includes party names not found elsewhere. Outcome unknown.


UNITED STATES v. JEREMIE SHENEMAN was a 2010-13 Indiana federal criminal prosecution. Jeremie Sheneman, of both South Bend, Indiana and College Point, New York, was tried and convicted of participating in two separate wire-fraud schemes, and was sentenced to concurrent 10-year prison sentences and three years supervised release thereafter. Jeremie Sheneman was also ordered to pay restitution to six lenders totaling $269,967.50.

In the first scheme, Jeremie Sheneman collaborated with his father, Michael Sheneman, to broker the sale of 60 residential properties, lie to the four unsophisticated buyers about the property values, lie to the lenders about the purchaser's creditworthiness, and then pocket the profits from those sales. The properties, which the Shenemans' falsely touted as being reliable sources of rental income, were plagued with undisclosed problems, such as faulty plumbing, termite damage, leaky roofs, and no tenants. Jeremie Sheneman, a loan officer at Superior Mortgage Lending and Tri State Mortgage, both in South Bend, falsified the loan applications for the buyers by overstating their incomes, inflating the balances of their bank accounts, and forging the buyers' signatures. The majority of the loan proceeds, which totaled $3,100,000.00, went into Michael Sheneman's bank account, but $360,000.00 went directly to Jeremie Sheneman. Michael Sheneman also transferred another $646,000.00 to Jeremie Sheneman. The buyers could not make the mortgage payments on many of the dilapidated and untenable properties, so they went into foreclosure and were sold at a loss to both the buyers and the lenders.

The second scheme involved Sheneman's grandmother, Phyllis Sheneman, of greater South Bend, Indiana. Jeremie Sheneman and his GrandMother agreed that, as partners, Jeremie Sheneman would purchase in her name real estate investment properties located in Chicago, California, and New York, which would also be titled and financed in her name using her credit history. However, Jeremie Sheneman submitted fraudulent loan applications on behalf of Phyllis Sheneman by falsifying information relative to her employment income, the nature and scope of the Consignment Shop she owns and operates in Granger, Indiana, the extent of her financial liabilities, the intended use of the purchased properties, and the source of the purchase price funds.

See also JEREMIE SHENEMAN V. NEWBY, LEWIS, KAMINSKI, JONES, LLP, which was a legal malpractice lawsuit summarily dismissed by the USDC in June 2014.


UNITED STATES v. DWIGHT JENKINS was a 2001 Massachusetts federal criminal court case. In August 2001, an African-American Jehovah's Witness, named Dwight Jenkins, age 29, of Brockton, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty to a two-count criminal indictment charging him with bank fraud and possession and uttering of counterfeit checks. Dwight Jenkins was busted in a sting conducted by the United States Secret Service. In May 2001, Jenkins met an informant in a Boston hotel room monitored by the Secret Service, and sold him approximately 40 counterfeit checks for $1500.00. Fifteen counterfeit commercial checks in the name of a local Real Estate firm had been manufactured with a total amount of $75,000.00. Twenty-five counterfeit personal checks had been manufactured without amounts. Per the Boston Herald, in the early 1990s, Jenkins had had "brushes with the law involving drug possession, bad checks and receiving stolen property, but did no jail time, ... ."
Dwight Jenkins' mother, Ella Jenkins, and his sister, Cherry Jenkins, and other family members wrote letters to the federal judge describing Jenkins as a "devout Jehovah's Witness", and devoted father to three young children. Cherry Jenkins wrote that Dwight Jenkins was an attentive caretaker for their mother, who needed to be driven to doctors for diabetes and heart problems. "My brother constantly speaks of God and his children. I truly feel that my brother is a reformed person, and is ready to have that chance at a truly righteous life." Dwight Jenkins also wrote a letter to the Judge, and said that he planned to build a career as a real estate investor in 2001 but stumbled when he chose to take a "shortcut". Jenkins vowed never to take another one, and outlined his hopes to help others set up foster homes, day cares and halfway houses. Jenkins proposed to give free seminars to halfway-house residents on real estate. Jenkins stated, "I pray this Honorable Court show me mercy and believe me when I truely (sic) say I'm sorry and I will never break the law again because my family and bussiness (sic) means everything to me." In October 2001, that Judge sentenced Dwight Jenkins to only one year at the Wyatt Detention Facility, and five years of supervised release.
In April 2008, the Boston Herald published a series of six or more articles, plus a slide show, regarding three civil lawsuits filed by eight investors against Dwight Jenkins, Ella Jenkins, Cherry Jenkins, and Dorea Smith (Dwight Jenkins's wife or ex-wife), with regard to various real estate deals in which the investors allowed Jenkins to use their names and credit to obtain loans and purchase properties in exchange for a one-time $20,000.00 payment. Those investors alleged that Jenkins took his own cuts off the top without their knowledge, ranging from $12,000.00 to $154,000.00 per property; that Jenkins sometimes paid them only half of the promised $20,000.00; that some properties went unrented and/or unrehabilitated, and that Jenkins failed to make the promised mortgage payments on some properties, all of which resulted in some properties being foreclosed, and the investors' personal credit ruined. The Jenkins Clan denied any wrongdoing.
UNITED STATES v. DWIGHT JENKINS and ERIC ARCHAMBAULT was a 2009 Massachusetts federal prosecution in which this Duo were charged with multiple counts of wire fraud and money laundering in connection with a Real Estate mortgage fraud scheme which generated roughly $1,200,000.00 in profits (most kept by Jenkins), and sending nine properties into foreclosure. The Indictment alleged that, from about August 2006 through February 2007, Dwight Jenkins and various associates recruited "straw buyers" for the purchase of nine properties for which Archambault fraudulently prepared and brokered the mortgages. Although the straw buyers took title to the properties and obtained mortgages to finance the purchases, none of the straw buyers actually intended to live in the condominiums they bought or intended to repay the loans. Instead, it is alleged that Jenkins and his associates promised the straw buyers that Jenkins, or his company, would pay the mortgages, maintain the properties, find tenants and then re-sell the properties. Jenkins and his associates allegedly promised most buyers they would be paid a fee for the use of their names and credit histories in securing the loans. The indictment also mentions that businesses using variations of the name, "Great Western Capital Corporation" were owned by Jenkins, and were operated in both Massachusetts and other states. A business called "Boardman Real Estate" was owned by a Jenkins associate, but allegedly was controlled by Jenkins. This case was investigated by both the Internal Revenue Service's Criminal Division and the United States Secret Service. Outcome unknown.
MTW Investment Financing v. Great Western Capital Corp. of the America's was a 2007-8 Mississippi mortgage default case against one of Jenkins' corporations.
ROBERT SMITH and MARIA DaSILVA v. DWIGHT JENKINS ET AL was a 2010-11 Massachusetts federal civil court case filed by two of Dwight Jenkins "straw buyers" to collect "damages" from Dwight Jenkins, Cherry Jenkins, Dorea Smith, and everyone else allegedly connected to the property sale and mortgage. A Massachusetts jury awarded Smith $260,000.00, including $85,000.00 against Dwight Jenkins under the counts of fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.


UNITED STATES v. FREDERICK C. FORCELLINA, BANK v. FORCELLINA, and IN RE FORCELLINA were related 2000-02 Connecticut federal, state, and bankruptcy court cases which involved one of the most prominent Jehovah's Witness Elders in the state of Connecticut. Fred Forcellina first received media attention as a Jehovah's Witness in 1951, when at the age of 20, the drafted Forcellina refused to serve in the U.S. Military. During the 1960s and 1970s, there were numerous media articles reporting that Forcellina had conducted JW funerals, conducted JW weddings, and spoke and worked at various WatchTower Conventions, including one at Shea Stadium.

Fred Forcellina supported himself and his JW Wife as a Real Estate Agent and investor -- evidently quite successfully, given that, in 1998, Forcellina boasted to a reporter that he had traveled to NYC to see Frank Sinatra in concert "dozens of times". Forcellina also defended Sinatra's affection for mafia associations. Fred Forcellina's financial condition suffered unknown serious reversal around 2000, when he reportedly lost his entire $3,000,000.00 fortune. By 2001, Forcellina's home was in foreclosure, and he had filed for bankruptcy. In fact, a warrant was issued for Forcellina's arrest due to his failure to attend several bankruptcy proceeding.

On October 16, 2001, while on his way to those bankruptcy proceedings at the federal courthouse in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Fred Forcellina stopped at a payphone at a Fairfield shopping center and made a 9-1-1 call. Forcellina stated that the federal courthouse in Bridgeport, as well as the state courthouses in Norwalk and Stamford, had all been "dusted" -- implying anthrax. Forcellina also threatened that he and "his people" -- implying Al Qaeda -- were also going to "dust" railroad stations and schools. Fairfiled police caught him hanging up the phone, and questioned him, but allowed him to continue to the Bridgeport courthouse, where he was questioned by the F.B.I. Forcellina admitted making the call, and was subsequently arrested. In June 2002, Forcellina pleaded guilty to maliciously making false terrorist threats, and was eventually sentenced to six months in a federal halfway house -- reduced by the two months he had spent in jail. Son, Todd Forcellina, told the judge that his father, Frederick Forcellina, is a loving husband and father who is "always trying to take care of everybody else," and "he never really asked for help from anyone."


In the early 1990s, the JW Elderette Wife of a JW Elder at one of the two Owensboro, Kentucky Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, in Daviess County, Kentucky, worked as an independent Real Estate Agent. Over a period of nearly two years, multiple non-JW business associates of another, second Owensboro JW repeatedly brought it to that second Owensboro JW's attention that JW Elderette Real Estate Agent was not fully disclosing to interested parties all publicly known negatives about a commercial car wash owned by JW Elder and JW Elderette. One day, just coincidentally, second Owensboro JW was conducting business in the office of a non-JW business associate who had NOT previously mentioned JW Elderette's dishonest business practices, when business associate's secretary interrupted their business meeting, and asked her boss if he would take a telephone call from JW Elderette regarding the car wash. Business associate told his secretary to take a number and to tell JW Elderette that he would return her call --- until second Owensboro JW intervened, and asked if he could participate in the telephone call for reasons that he then went on to explain to business associate. Business associate agreed to help trap JW Elderette. Business associate took JW Elderette's telephone call, and asked her if it was okay if he put the call on speaker-phone so that one of his own associates could listen in on the negotiations. JW Elderette stupidly agreed without even asking the identity of that second person. JW Elderette was allowed to make her full pitch, and sure enough, JW Elderette failed to disclose the major negative about the car wash. Fellow Owensboro JW then proceeded to interrogate JW Elderette via questions written on a legal pad for business associate. JW Elderette - Real Estate Agent was given every opportunity to tell the complete truth, but she repeatedly failed to disclose the major negative about the car wash operation.


UNITED STATES v. MEYER was one or more 1993 Federal criminal and/or civil court cases in New York or Pennsylvania. Incomplete details. In 1983, a Long Island, New York, Jehovah's Witness Millionaire Real Estate Developer, named Robert J. Meyer, purchased and began restoring a historic 42 room, 22,500 square foot Mansion on a 158 acre estate located in Muttontown, New York. The mansion was then known as the George S. Brewster Mansion, but later was known as the Fox Run, and later as Fox Meadow, and even later as the Hoffman Center. The restoration project attracted media coverage which publicized the fact that Robert Meyer was using more than 100 of his fellow Jehovah's Witnesses to perform the restoration. Media articles included photos of Bob Meyer, a son named Micha Meyer, a daughter named Monica Meyer, a daughter named Bethany Meyer, and Meyer's other three children.

In 1990, Robert Meyer filed an insurance claim for $831,000.00 in water damage to the mansion -- a figure which the F.B.I. later labeled as a "grossly inflated" amount. The Insurance Company eventually issued three claims checks totalling $379,000.00 as partial payment on Bob Meyer's claim. The three claim checks were made out to both Robert Meyer and Hill Financial Savings Association, which was the Philadelphia S&L which financed the project for Meyer. At the time, Meyer's loan reportedly was in default. In April 1993, Robert J. Meyer, age 48, was indicted in Pennsylvania on federal charges that he defrauded Hill Financial Savings Association of $1,000,000.00, and charges that Meyer submitted false financial statements to the S&L. According to the indictment, Meyer submitted three false financial statements to Hill in connection with approximately $13,000,000.00 in loans that Meyer obtained to acquire and develop the Muttontown property. The indictment charged that the financial statements overstated Meyer's assets and failed to disclose his substantial debts.The indictment also charged that beginning in March of 1984, Meyer developed a scheme to defraud Hill by causing Hill to issue checks to pay invoices submitted for subcontractors work. According to the indictment, many of the invoices were fraudulent because they were not prepared by the subcontractors and/or they did not represent work actually performed. Meyer allegedly obtained more than $1,000,000.00 through this scheme.The civil complaint charged that the Fox Meadow property represented proceeds from fraud and were, therefore, forfeitable to the government. The case against Meyer resulted from a joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Secret Service. Robert J. Meyer reportedly pled guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

In May 1993, Robert Meyer was indicted in New York on federal charges of defrauding Hill Financial Savings Association of $379,000.00 by forging the S&L's signature on the three aforementioned insurance claim checks. Robert J. Meyer reportedly pled guilty and was sentenced to 21 months in prison.

R.T.C. v. MEYER. In 1995, the Mansion and surrounding 158 acre estate was sold by the Resolution Trust Corp as an asset of Hill Financial Savings Association, after the S&L went under in 1989, and after a civil forfeiture lawsuit between Meyer and the RTC.

I.R.S. v. MEYER. In 1996, Robert Meyer's wife, Rosemarie Meyer, was ordered to pay $59,718.00 federal income tax on the couple's income in 1989 from one of their corporations, which had not been reported, plus $7258.00 in additional tax, plus $11,944.00 penalty.

In 1990, Robert J. Meyer was awarded an approximately ONE BILLION DOLLAR contract by the National Park Service to renovate Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, New York. Multiple 1992 media article mention that the project had been put on hold because of a probe into whether the highest-ranking African-American NPS official had "steered" the contract to Bob Meyer. Reportedly, that official had previously done personal business with one of Meyer's companies. Outcome unknown after NPS official cried racial discrimination. One media article also quotes a federal prosecutor who alleged that Bob Meyer had submitted fraudulent financial statements to the Interior Department in connection with his bid on the Floyd Bennett Field contract. It is not known whether there was an indictment or prosecution with regard to such bid documents.

Some of Meyer's corporations were East Coast Investors, Ltd., Grand-Perridine Development Corp., Union Street Consultants, Inc., American Express Development Corp., and American Express National Development Corp.


GLOVER v. WILLIAM KLINGLESMITH and IN RE WILLIAM ALLEN KLINGLESMITH were related 2009 and 2010-11 Florida civil and bankruptcy court cases. Curiously, googling the various business entities mentioned in the bankruptcy case indicates that William Klinglesmith's middle name is "Edward", which is also William Klingesmith's father's first name, rather than "Allen".

William Edward Klinglesmith, owner of Landmark Realty Associates Inc, Outlaw Trading LLC, Island Towers Development LLC, and Landmark Capital Funding Corporation is amongst other things a Florida Real Estate broker and developer. In 2009, Klinglesmith's three business partners in two other real estate development projects, Harbor Gardens, LLC and Diamonte Sands, LLC, filed a civil lawsuit to collect outstanding capital call contributions. They received a judgment against Klinglesmith in the amount of $438,205.00, in August 2009.

Sometime thereafter, Bill Klinglesmith filed Chapter Seven Bankruptcy. In that proceeding, the bankruptcy trustee objected to Klinglesmith's homestead exemption claim of $109,000.00 -- alleging that Klinglesmith had "laundered" non-exempt cash into the exempt homestead during a December 2007 real estate exchange with his wealthy Jehovah's Witness Parents, Ed and Sharon Klinglesmith, in anticipation of a possible later bankruptcy filing. The bankruptcy court ruled in Klinglesmith's favor.

Readers are encouraged to read the entire linked decision. There are some interesting tidbits scattered throughout, including the court's note that it found it "troubling" that Klinglesmith could not account for the $356,250.00 cash that he received from his JW Parents in the aforementioned real estate exchange. In fact, the bankruptcy trustee presented evidence of "numerous transfers and transactions the debtor could not explain", including a $250,000.00 transfer between Klinglesmith, his JW Mother, and Landmark Realty in June 2008. Other tidbits include divorce, drinking, and time spent out of the country, in the Philippines, in 2008.

One especially interesting tidbit was a $130,000.00 donation that William E. Klinglesmith made "to the Jehovah's Witness church" in December 2007. Did the court really mean the "WatchTower Society"? Or, was the donation made to the Kingdom Hall which William Klinglesmith attended? Or, was the donation made to the Melbourne Florida Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, where his father, Edward Klinglesmith, is an Elder?

Googling "William Edward Klinglesmith" yields an arrest in February 2004, marriage to a 26 year-old female in March 2004, and another arrest in July 2004. Was this really the first marriage for this 38 year-old wealthy real estate developer, as the bankruptcy decision states?


EDWARD TELKAMP and HAROLD TELKAMP v. SOUTH DAKOTA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION was a 1991-94 Supreme Court of South Dakota case originated by the complaint of two "patriarches" from the large, extended Jehovah's Witness TELKAMP family of South Dakota. At one point in time, these two TELKAMPS had owned MORE than 160 acres of local real estate -- most or all of which was inside the city limits of Spearfish, South Dakota. However, by January 1991, Harold Telkamp had left only 4 acres, while Edward Telkamp had left 88 acres. Over previous years, most of the two TELKAMPS' real estate had been sold for commercial development. WAL-MART, for example, had been sold 9.6 acres for $207,000.00 ($21,562.00 per acre).

For YEARS prior to the updated 1991 tax assessment, the TELKAMPS had maintained their property as "agricultural" land, and the taxable value of the TELKAMPS' property had been assessed at less than $400.00 per acre. Finally, in 1991, local tax officials had properly assessed the TELKAMPS' property in line with its actual commercial value. The Board assessed Harold Telkamp's 4 remaining acres at an average of $3,285.00 per acre, and assessed Edward Telkamp's 88 acres at an average value of $2,875.00 per acre. Three guesses as to what happened next.

Instead of simply being "thankful" for having received ridiculously low local real estate tax bills for YEARS, the TELKAMPS challenged the finally-updated tax assessments. On appeal to the South Dakota State Board of Equalization, it upheld the assessment calculations of the local Board of Equalization. Although acknowledging that they would never, ever sell their property for its low value as "agricultural" land, the TELKAMPS then filed this lawsuit in state court, where they WON at the local Circuit Court level. However, the State Board of Equalization then appealed that local decision to the Supreme Court of South Dakota, which overturned the Circuit Court decision, and reinstated the State Board's decision.


SALVATORE PICCOLO v. RICHARD C. WHITE, ROCCO DIBENEDETTO, and ROSS OSMUN was a 1995-2002 Ontario, Canada civil court case involving only one of several loans made by a Jehovah's Witness Plaintiff to one or more defendants who also were Jehovah's Witnesses. Ross Osmun was an Attorney involved in both the transaction in this lawsuit and other transactions between the JW Plaintiff and the other two defendants. Osmun's legal representation was an issue in this decision. Osmun was found to have also represented Piccolo, as well as his initial clients DiBenedetto and White, and was found to have breached legal duties owing to Piccolo. Osmun was ordered to pay Piccolo the remaining $75,000.00 still owed on this single loan.

Salvatore Piccolo had immigrated from Italy to Ontario in 1963, at the age of 32. Piccolo had only attended schoool to the fifth grade. His English language abilities were allegedly limited. Piccolo was employed as a school janitor in Windsor from 1970 until his retirement in 1996. Piccolo was a married Jehovah's Witness, who had a disabled child who lived at home. In mid 1983, Piccolo decided to renovate his home to accommodate the needs of his physically disabled child. Fellow Jehovah's Witnesses recommended another fellow Jehovah's Witness Contractor, who was also Italian, who was a member of the Amherstburg Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, named Rocco DiBenedetto. Over multiple meetings regarding the proposed renovations, the two Italian Jehovah's Witnesses became friends, and at some point while discussing the financing of the renovations, Piccolo disclosed to Rocco DiBenedetto that he had managed to accumulate substantial savings over the years, which he maintained in bank Guaranteed Investment Certificates.

Fellow Jehovah's Witness Rocco DiBenedetto then began to persuade Piccolo that Piccolo should be investing his savings in higher yielding investments rather than allowing such to sit in the bank on interest. DiBenedetto told Piccolo that he would help Piccolo find suitable investments for Piccolo's savings. Beginning in late 1983, DiBenedetto convinced Piccolo to make an unknown number of UNSECURED loans, and invest in one high-risk mortgage, all of which apparently went to "projects" or entities connected to Rocco DiBenedetto and/or his brother-in-law Richard C. White (possibly also a Jehovah's Witness, and brother of Lee White DiBenedetto).

By the mid 1990s, Piccolo was apparently forced to seek legal representation to help recover some of the unpaid loans made to Rocco DiBenedetto and Richard C. White. It is believed that Piccolo may have been mostly unsuccessful due to lack of written documentation. This court case opinion, from which the additional sketchy and incomplete info is extracted, relates to only one of those transactions. However, the very first "loan", as described in this court opinion, may be illustrative of the "irregularities" which may have went on with the subsequent loans.

By December 1983, DiBenedetto convinced Piccolo to become a "partner" with DiBenedetto and Richard White in a $95,000.00 apartment building purchase. In reality, DiBenedetto and White invested none of their own money. Unbeknownst to Piccolo, his "investment" of $26,000.00 was secured by a "third mortgage", after a first mortgage securing a $53,183.79 loan, and a second mortgage securing a $28,243.74 loan. Only $17,283.17 of Piccolo's money went toward the purchase of the apartment building and related legal fees. At least $6000.00 went to a corporation allegedly owned by DiBenedetto and White. Interestingly, DiBenedetto had convinced Piccolo to take that money out of a GIC yielding 11.5% interest, to earn 12% from a risky "third mortgage". Fortunately, according to this court case opinion, "It is appropriate however to note that ... for reasons peculiar to [Rocco DiBenedetto's] involvement and needed guarantee in other property, resulted in [Piccolo's third] mortgage being paid in full."

This opinion mentions that DiBenedetto moved at some point during all this mess, and that Piccolo lost communication with him. This opinion also mentions "default judgements" against both DiBenedetto and White. This opinion also mentions that Richard C. White filed bankruptcy at some point, and that Piccolo was listed as a creditor, thus discharging his obligations to Piccolo. No clue as to the total amount of loans made by Piccolo, nor other amounts he ultimately recovered.


There is so much additional internet info available on Rocco DiBenedetto that we do not wish to take the time to summarize such unless we have confirmation that Rocco is still a Jehovah's Witness, or is doing business with Jehovah's Witnesses. For those readers who are interested, here is a LINK which contains a lengthy summary of multiple later schemes, including names of co-conspirators and victims, some of whom may be Jehovah's Witnesses. Please let us know if you can identify such.


For several weeks in August-September 2014, British Jehovah's Witness Parents of six children, Brett King and Nagmeh King (aka Naghme King, aka Naghmeh King), were the subjects of international media attention after an international manhunt was began for the King Family after they removed their cancer-stricken five-year-old son, Ashya King, out of a British hospital without obtaining the hospital's consent. Interestingly, this is NOT the first time that this JEHOVAH'S WITNESS FAMILY has been the subject of international media attention. In 2009, the Kings were involved in a real estate boundary line dispute which garnered international media attention due to the "circus-like antics" of Naghmeh King.

In 2004, the King's residence was located adjacent to the Grove Independent School -- a small private school located in Loughton. When the school chopped down a large hedge located on its side of the property line, but which provided "privacy" for the King residence, the Kings protested claiming that the hedge was on their property, and thus belonged to them. The 2009 media coverage did not report what all must have occurred legally and otherwise between 2004 and 2009, but at some point the Kings constructed a privacy fence. However, the school also had the fence removed because the fence was on the school's property.

Thereafter, the Kings, who defined themselves as Jehovah's Witness "missionaries" to the media, reportedly began to harass the school and its staff by a variety of nuisance actions. The Kings reportedly directed loud Salsa music toward the school during school hours. School officials accused the Kings of erecting a clothesline on or near the adjoining property line onto which was placed unsightly clothing and/or bags of rubbish. The school also accused the Kings of dumping rotting rubbish on the disputed boundary line.

In March 2009, this five year-old real estate dispute finally garnered media attention after Nagmeh King began picketing outside the school for an hour every morning when parents were dropping off their children. When Naghmeh King's placards did not garner sufficient public attention, Naghme King began to dress in a manner guaranteed to garner the desire attention. Nagmeh King reportedly began to wear bizarre clothing, and eventually what most observers labeled as a "witches hat".

At some point, after parents began to complain that Naghmeh King was scaring their children, the local police were contacted. Locals allege that it was then that the "protest slogans" on Naghme King's placards were switched to Bible verses, and allegedly that Naghme King began to attempt to handout WATCHTOWER literature -- all of which some locals speculated was Naghme King's legal strategy to prevent local law enforcement from interfering with her legal right to "freedom of religious speech". Nagmeh King told one reporter that, "I'm not protesting. ... I'm just spreading the word as a Jehovah's Witness should."

By March 2009, Naghmeh King was SIX MONTHS PREGNANT with son, Ashya King. In yet another attempt to garner further public attention, the six months pregnant, 39 year-old, mother of five, Nagmeh King began to wear a bikini during her morning protests. In fact, local observers accused Nagmeh King of first wearing "old underwear" before then switching to the "bikini". (Do readers around the world know how COLD it is in England in March?) In response to complaints about her bikini, Nagmeh King simply told a reporter that, "It's not shameful or wrong to wear a bikini when you're pregnant."

Readers who have real estate disputes, or any other type disputes for that matter, with "Jehovah's Witnesses", who ALL believe that they are "Jehovah's" duly appointed "earthly representatives", should be prepared to contend with similar attitudes, if not similar antics, from their own adversaries.

To read about another RIDICULOUS British Jehovah's Witness public protest held in March 2014, click here and go to another court case in this same "HONESTY-DISHONESTY" case section: "BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE v. JEHOVAH'S WITNESS ELDER CARE PROVIDERS". These ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT JWs should have been in HIDING in fear of being criminally charged rather than out protesting in public. Non-JWs should take a lesson from this protest as to the REAL SECRET "WE ARE OUTSIDE OF THE LAW" ATTITUDE of Jehovah's Witnesses.


FLORIDA v. PROMISE TOBY is an ongoing 2014 Florida criminal court case. In June 2006, Promise Toby Jr., son of African-American Jehovah's Witness Elder, Promise Toby Sr., of Ocala, Florida, was selected as an example of an exemplary Jehovah's Witness teenager by the WatchTower Society public relations department for presentation to the news media covering the summer 2006 WatchTower District Convention held at the University of Florida. The GAINESVILLE SUN published:

Promise Toby, 13, of the Ocala Central Congregation, attended the convention all three days and said the drama was his favorite part. "Normally, I enjoy the drama the best because of the example it shows. The drama shows you exactly what your parents try to tell you," said Promise, who plans to attend Forest High School next school year. "Deliverance is for everyone. We do have a chance, and we shouldn't try to do everything the world does today," he said. Promise said conventions are a good way to meet people who share the same values. He said he made two friends at a Jacksonville convention whom he e-mails about school and spiritual subjects.

In March 2014, Promise Toby Jr., age 21, an Investment Analyst with Commercial Real Estate investment firm Marcus & Millichap in Tampa, Florida, was arrested and charged with five counts relating to the theft of property. Bond was set at $70,000.00 Outcome unknown.


PAUL CRUDEN v. ROGER HANDISIDES was a 2010-11 New Zealand REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL administrative appellate case. Roger Handisides is a Jehovah's Witness Minister, and at the time of this "incident", Handisides was employed as a "Salesperson" with Golden Bay First National Real Estate under the supervision of a licensed Real Estate Agent at their Nelson office. In August 2009, Roger Handisides sold to Paul and Karen Cruden a 40 hectares tract of wilderness property located adjacent to a National Park near Takaka. In 2010, the Crudens filed a complaint with the Real Estate Agents Authority, and its Complaints Assessment Committee issued a ruling against Roger Handisides in November 2010. Handisides appealed that decision to this Tribunal, which also ruled against Handisides in November 2011. However, because of a quirk in NZ law, because Handisides was merely a "Salesperson" and not a licensed Real Estate Agent, the Tribunal did not have the authority to order that "damages" be paid to the Crudens.

Although the Crudens had purchased the property with the intent to construct a home, and although Roger Handisides was aware that the boundaries of this tract near the property's only structure were questionable or even unknown, Handisides went ahead and publicly advertised and showed the property as including a hunter's cabin with two adjoining acres of flat land suitable for construction of other improvements. After the sale, and after the Crudens had spent $15,000.00 on home site preparations on that adjoining two acres, a construction permit survey disclosed that the cabin and home site were not even located on the Cruden's property. In fact, the only place on the tract suitable for construction of a home was a 1/4 acre plot located elsewhere on the tract where access would require construction of a bridge across a river.

Notably, the Tribunal also found much of Roger Handisides' testimony regarding his various interactions and conversations with the Crudens to be unbelievable. After the appellate decision, a reporter asked Roger Handisides if he or his employer would voluntary compensate the Crudens for their loss on their also "over-priced" purchase. Handisides indicated that he would not be doing so given that the Tribunal did not order such. Handisides' employer indicated that they "might" turn a claim into their insurance company. Outcome unknown.


NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. ROUX PROPERTY FUND and NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. MAJESTIC SILVER TRADING 275 are/were two separate 2011-13 South African court cases in which the South African government watchdog agency sought to have two longterm leases for a Pretoria police station building and a Pretoria government office building declared null and void after the details of those leases became highly publicized in the SA media. SA media also reported that more leases with similar terms in other SA cities were being planned. The public notoriety eventually led to the dismissal/demotion of several of the involved government officials.

The leased Pretoria police station building was alleged to be poorly suited as a police station, and the Pretoria office building was much larger than needed. Both buildings supposedly could have been purchased or even built for much less than the lease payment, which yielded the lessor a healthy monthly profit from the start of the lease, and accelerated thereafter. These lawsuits asserted that the lease agreements were entered into without observance of statutory and administrative procurement procedures that constituted conditions precedent for the lawful conclusion of such agreements, and that the government officials who concluded the lease agreements were not authorized to do so.

The building lessor is a black African named Roux Shabangu. Although only in his late 30s, Roux Shabangu is regularly labeled by South African media as a "billionaire" property developer. Roux Shabangu is also a friend or acquaintance of South African President Jacob Zuma. Roux Shabangu has allegedly used that relationship to develop relationships with others in the SA government, and with powerful people in the SA business and banking communities. Interestingly, SA media has also labeled Roux Shabangu as a "staunch" JEHOVAH'S WITNESS MINISTER.

Even before this government leasing scandal occurred, the SA media linked Roux Shabangu and Jabu Shabangu with South African companies African Dune Investments 123, Golden Dividend 36, and Westside Trading 570, and their alleged involvement in a 2007 SA government Land Bank loan scandal.

Interestingly, although extensively investigated, and although several associated SA government officials have either been dismissed or demoted as a result of such investigations, black African Jehovah's Witness Minister Roux Shabangu has never even been criminally charged.

Google names and keyterms for many more interesting details to these lawsuits and other Roux Shabangu investments and business operations.


YOUNG v. YOUNG was a 1990 British Columbia Court of Appeal "divorce" case decision which included consideration of the fact that the Jehovah's Witness Husband's, named James Kam Chen Young, who worked as a REAL ESTATE AGENT, had "attempted to mislead the [trial] court on various applications involving maintenance payments by failing to disclose several very important financial matters". The trial court further listed a number of examples and concluded "this type of non-disclosure was ever present". The BC Court of Appeal declared:

These findings, critical of Mr. Young, are amply supported on the evidence.

On the motions respecting interim maintenance which were dealt with in July and August of 1988, Mr. Young failed to advise the court of the fact that he had received the sum of $40,000.00 from his mother in June, 1988. Worse still, he swore that his mother had not helped him since April, 1987. In addition, he failed to disclose real estate commissions of over $38,000.00 that he was to receive within days of swearing his affidavit.

In February, 1989 Mr. Young was substantially in arrears of the payment of interim maintenance which had been ordered by Mr. Justice Finch on August 4, 1988. He applied for an order cancelling the arrears and reducing the maintenance, swearing an affidavit that he was unable to comply with the interim order to pay $3,500.00 per month to Mrs. Young. However, in his affidavit Mr. Young failed to disclose a gift of over $3,200.00 which he had received just prior to swearing it, and failed to disclose an existing bank balance of $12,000.00 standing to his credit. Prior to the hearing of this application Mr. Young received two real estate commissions totalling approximately $11,000.00 and this was not disclosed. He also failed to disclose the fact that, although he was in arrears and was asserting his inability to comply with the order for interim maintenance, he had invested $7,500.00 in an R.R.S.P. At trial Mr. Young stated that he did not consider it necessary to advise the court of the receipt of such funds and he admitted under cross-examination that he elected to pay expenses and certain debts and to purchase an R.R.S.P. ahead of making maintenance payments.

Again, in July, 1989 Mr. Young applied for orders cancelling the arrears of maintenance and reducing his monthly maintenance payments and, in support of his application, he swore an affidavit stating that he would make no real estate sales for the months of July, August or September and would receive no further income from the date of his affidavit, sworn July 13, 1989, until the trial date set for September 25. On these motions Mr. Young again failed to advise the court that he had received gifts from friends of over $3,200.00 in February of 1989, a further $9,700.00 in May of 1989, and a further $2,150.00 from his family in May and June of that year. In addition, he failed to disclose the fact that he expected an income tax refund of almost $10,000.00, his tax return having been prepared and signed on April 30, 1989.

Counsel [W. Glen How] for Mr. Young made the point that notwithstanding these significant non-disclosures, the order for maintenance was sustained and the application for the sale of the matrimonial home and the cancellation of his arrears was dismissed. Such a consideration cannot provide any excuse for the lack of candour Mr. Young displayed.

Mr. Young had sold property pursuant to an interim agreement dated June 12 which would provide him a commission income, payable in the month of October, in excess of $16,000.00 but he did not disclose this to the court in July. It was not until his commission earnings were garnisheed in October that this source of income came to light.

The seriousness of such a lack of candour can hardly be overstated. The conduct of litigation, and particularly matrimonial litigation, is difficult enough at the best of times; when it is rendered more so by such deliberate non-disclosure as has been exhibited in this case such misconduct ought not to be ignored. It seems clear that Mr. Young's attempts to mislead the court in this case were such as to prolong the trial, to complicate the issues and to make it necessary for Mrs. Young and her solicitors to take steps in the course of the proceedings which would have been unnecessary had it not been for those attempts and the false and misleading statements made by him. The court should properly mark its disapproval of the appellant's conduct, which crosses the bounds set in Stiles, by making an appropriate award respecting costs.



SOUTH CAROLINA v. SHEPPARD was a 2007 South Carolina criminal court decison. Labeled "The Largest Bankruptcy in South Carolina's History", HomeGold, Inc., a subprime mortgage lender, and its subsidiary, Carolina Investors, filed for bankruptcy in April 2003, and defaulted on approximately $277,000.000.00 owed to over 8000 lenders and investors -- many of whom were elderly retirees who lost much or most of their lifetime savings. In February 2007, a Jehovah's Witness, named Ronald J. Sheppard, 49, was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison on three counts of securities fraud committed whilePresident and CEO of HomeGold, Inc., from 2000 until November 2002. 

Sheppard was originally indicted on 11 charges found in a 39 page indictment -- Securities Fraud (3), Bank Fraud , Insurance Fraud (4), Theft, Perjury, and Breach of Trust -- but Sheppard was only tried on the fraud charges. The court dismissed the perjury charge. It is not known whether the State will pursue the remaining 7 charges, but Sheppard will likely be paroled when he is eligible in Spring 2012.

Ronald Sheppard was a multi-millionaire, and a prominent Jehovah's Witness known throughout much of the United States. Sheppard reportedly credited his huge financial success to his being a Jehovah's Witness. Sheppard reportedly showed his appreciation by donating the land and the money to construct the West Columbia Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. Given Sheppard's status, it is most probable that he was an "Elder" in the organization. Sheppard's wife, Dana Sheppard, who was supported by several weeping friends and family, spoke at his sentencing and asked the judge to consider her husband's charity and kindness when issuing his sentence. Dana Sheppard said that if her husband was guilty of anything, "he is guilty of being generous to a fault."

With regard to the settlement in the separate bankruptcy case, in which investors recouped only about 18c on the dollar, Dana Sheppard attempted to gain the judge's sympathy by proclaiming, "We paid millions of dollars in a civil suit. ... Nearly everything he got from the company he paid back." The "millions of dollars" to which Dana Sheppard was referring as having been repaid was most likely the $5,000,000.00 which the Sheppards had borrowed from Carolina Investors in the Fall of 2002 to start EMMCO, another subprime mortgage lender, which they founded after Ronald Sheppard left HomeGold. It is doubtful that the Sheppards were required to repay any of the money they received when they sold their interest in HomeSense to HomeGold in 2000, and it is doubtful that it included any of the millions (possibly approaching $10,000,000.00) that Ronald Sheppard received in compensation while President and CEO of HomeGold.

There are a number of affiliated corporations involved in this case in one way or another. Here are some of the names which popped up in the indictment: HomeGold, HomeSense, Carolina Investors, Emergent Mortagage, EMMCO, R-Doc, FlexCheck, and Prevost Montana. Several of Sheppard's business associates have also been either indicted or convicted. It is unknown how many employees of all these businesses were fellow Jehovah's Witnesses. Google names and keyterms for many more details.


ANTHONY VERNELLE SCURLOCK v. CITY OF MEMPHIS was a 2013-14 Tennessee civil court case. In Memphis, Tennessee, an African-American Jehovah's Witness Minister and businessman named Anthony V. Scurlock owns and operates Pallet Service Company, at 611 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee. The west side of Scurlock's property runs alongside a 25 foot wide city alley for approximately 148 feet. At some point, Anthony Scurlock had extended his business operations onto the public alley, and even constructed a concrete block wall on city property to enclose his own property. At some point in time, due to new construction requiring additional sewer lines in the area, the City decided to run a new sewer line through the aforementioned alley. The City claimed that Scurlock had known about such for some time, but he took no action to clear the portion of the alley that he had obstructed, so the City sent a Notice in April 2013.

In October 2013, Scurlock filed this lawsuit seeking a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DAMAGES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. By November 2013, Scurlock still had not cleared the obstructions from the alley, so another Notice was sent. In December 2013, the City sent in city workers, escorted by City Police, to tear down the wall. What did Anthony Scurlock do? Someone called a local television station to send in their news crew. Once the news crew began filming, the City's work crew stopped and left. Anthony Scurlock vowed to file a lawsuit to stop the City from removing HIS WALL from CITY PROPERTY. Outcome unknown. Typically, the media made the City look like the bad-guy in this scenario. Someone sounding alot like the City Attorney anonymously posted the following soundbite in the Comments section of an article published about this matter:

Mr. Scurlock has taken liberties that don't belong to him. True he has been in business for 25 years, but that brick wall has not always been there. As a business owner he needs to understand that he cannot take over public property by means of Adverse Possession. The property belongs to the City of Memphis Tennessee. The City of Memphis has every right to tear down the brick wall that was built on public property. Not only did Mr. Scurlock disregard the notices that the City of Memphis gave him, he decided to build a patio on top of the brick wall. He has shown a disregard for protocol & procedure ( The Law of Memphis) and lack of good business sense.


PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES M. PANASIK was a 2011 Pennsylvania criminal court case which involved Jim M. Panasik, reportedly an Elder at the Easton Pennsylvania Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, and member of the WatchTower Society's Pennsylvania Regional Building Committee. In October 2011, James Panasik, a landlord of residential rental property located in Minersville, Pennsylvania, was convicted in a court trial on the charge of permitting occupancy of a non-registered rental property. Specifically, Panasik failed to register his tenants as required by law. The issue came to the forefront when a nearby fire caused concern with local officials who were attempting to evacuate all properties near to that fire. The state presented evidence that Jim Panasik had been mailed info regarding the registration of tenants in his rental property back in 2008. Panasik was fined $250.00, plus court costs.


IN THE MATTER OF RONNIE WILSON was a February 2012 Application Hearing of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD. African-American male, Ronnie Wilson, then age 48, relates in the Hearing that he had been reared as a Jehovah's Witness; relates that he had reared his two daughters as Jehovah's Witnesses; and discusses his then current status as a Jehovah's Witness. Ron Wilson managed to convince this ABC Board to conditionally approve his application for a manager's license despite the fact that at the time of the Hearing, Ronald Wilson was on probation for a cocaine possession charge back in 2010, and as is discussed in the linked transcript, Wilson had been minimally charged in a REAL ESTATE FRAUD CASE in February 2011. CHAIRWOMAN RUTHANNE MILLER moved that Wilson's application be approved, and the only other female on the Board, JEANNETTE MOBLEY, immediately seconded RUTHANNE MILLER's motion, but not without a "what the hell are some of you thinking" dissent from Board Member NICK ALBERTI, who stated to Wilson, in part:

"Your willingness to perpetrate a [REAL ESTATE] fraud just nine months ago, I mean, that wasn't just a small [REAL ESTATE] fraud. I mean, you had to think about that and knowingly go into someone else's property and set up house. That's pretty serious to me. The fact that you are telling us that you don't need [DRUG]counseling is a huge red flag for me. It says to me that you're not ready to really take control, to admit to yourself that -- what is necessary for you to move forward. And because of that, I don't think you're ready for this responsibility, let alone the responsibility, as you indicated to us, that you would be in charge day-to-day of an establishment that's selling alcohol in a neighborhood that has its own set of problems with drugs. I'm just astounded that anyone thinks that you're responsible for this -- rise to the level of responsibility for this privilege. That's it. I'm done."

RUTHANNE MILLER's motion passed 4-3. A followup on this conditional approval was scheduled for August 2012. Nothing can be located indicating that such occurred.


MATTHEW KERR v. BROCK HARRESCHOU and HANNAH HARRESCHOU was a July 2010 "Forcible Detainer Complaint", or, EVICTION proceeding filed in regard to a single family rental dwelling located at 290 Lovell Lane, Mount Vernon, Kentucky (across the street from Kerr Heating & Cooling). The "issue" apparently was not "rent payment" given that the Harreschou couple eventually moved out of Matthew Kerr's rental property into a newly purchased home located only one block away -- only to DIVORCE shortly thereafter.

What is INTERESTING about this EVICTION proceeding is that it especially involved the WatchTower Society's admonition that Jehovah's Witnesses must resolve any differences amongst themselves within the confines of the local congregation -- especially if one or more of the involved parties hold a position of responsibility within the congregation. In this case, BOTH the Kerr Family and the Harreschou Family are longterm Jehovah's Witnesses, and both males have been both Ministerial Servants and/or Elders at various times in their lives -- although we can't confirm their congregation positions at the time of the proceeding. Additionally, both the Kerr Family and the Harreschou Family can be described as "needgreaters" within the JW community given that the Kerr Family relocated from Ohio and the Harreschou Family relocated from Florida -- both to where "the need was great".


RICHARD ALAN HARDY and PAULINE HARDY v. IRIS HASELDEN, JILL HASELDEN, and HASELDEN ESTATE was a 2007-12 British civil lawsuit which was brought by all too typical JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TENANTS against easy-going, non-professional landlords. (It has been this Editor's lifetime experience that most "mobile" Jehovah's Witnesses are "mobile" for reasons other than the oft used excuse that their mobility is used to facilitate their personal ministry. Most "mobile" Jehovah's Witnesses actually have a lengthy history of financial problems, and these JWs target unsophisticated landlords who they know will not run a background check on them, and who are easy prey for these JWs' lifelong training as door-to-door scam artists.)

In 1988, a retired couple named John and Iris Haselden, then around 60 years-old, purchased a ?? acre farm -- possibly to give the recently retired father something to do, but more likely to help out their 30 year-old daughter who possibly needed a place to live and something to do to financially support herself. By 1996, instead of the farm being "farmed" by the daughter and her aging father, who by then was in his late 60s, the farmland acreage was apparently being leased out to neighboring farmers. In 1996, the possibly re-married daughter purchased another farm about 12 miles away, and moved there, leaving her parents' farmhouse and surrounding buildings vacant and unattended.

In Summer 1997, some Jehovah's Witness farmer neighbors of the Haseldens, who knew that the Haseldens were looking for someone to keep an eye on their property, acted as intermediaries to bring the Haseldens together with another Jehovah's Witness Couple named Richard and Pauline Hardy, who apparently had fallen on financial hard times, and needed some help. The Haseldens made the HUGE MISTAKE of verbally agreeing to rent the farmhouse, its surrounding buildings, and one acre of land to the Hardys. Because the farmhouse needed repairs, both families agreed on reduced "rent" of only 200 pounds (about $335.00) per month, which years later the British media characterized as "peppercorn rent", or nominal rent. Apparently, the Haseldens thought they were giving the Hardys reduced rent in exchange for the Hardys making the needed repairs to the farmhouse, while the Hardys eventually claimed that they were to be compensated by the Haseldens for the repairs that they made. The bigger issue became the length of time that the Hardys were to live on the Haseldens' farm for only 200 pounds per month. The Hardys eventually claimed that the Haseldens had promised them that they could live in the farmhouse for as long as each one of them was alive. The Haseldens later claimed that they thought that the Hardys were intending to live on their property only until they were able to get back on their feet financially, which the Haseldens thought was to be about two years.

TYPICALLY, five years later, in October 2002, the Hardys were still living in the Haseldens' farmhouse, and they were still only paying the elderly Haseldens 200 pounds rent per month. In October 2002, the Hardys requested and received permission from the Haseldens to open a child daycare business at the farm. In 2004, possibly needing money, the Haseldens, by then in their mid 70s, sold off a chunk of the farmland -- leaving them with only 60 acres total. In July 2006, under unknown circumstances, a Bank holding a mortgage on the farm began foreclosure proceedings, which were not ended until the mortgage was redeemed in June 2007.

HOWEVER, back in 2006, after they learned of the foreclosure proceedings, the Hardys began to "ask" the Haseldens for a written lease which gave the Hardys possession of the farmhouse and surrounding buildings and grounds for the LIFETIME of each Hardy, at the same monthly rent of only 200 pounda. At the same time, the Hardys began demanding that they be reimbursed for repairs they allegedly had made to the farmhouse, which allegedly amounted to 31,399.30 pounds (about $52,500.00). (IF THE HARDYS WERE TO BE REIMBURSED FOR REPAIRS, WHY DID THEY WAIT UNTIL 2006 TO ASK FOR SUCH???)

In September 2007, after the aforementioned mortgage situation had been remedied, the Hardys filed this lawsuit requesting: 1.) specific performance of a written lease with noted terms, 2.) reimbursement of repairs amounting to 31,399.30 pounds, and 3.) an additional 8,000 pounds (about $13,500.00) for income from their child daycare business lost during the foreclosure proceedings, and 4.) their legal expenses. Although the Haseldens were legally served with all court documents, for unknown reasons, the Haseldens apparently did NOT attend any of the multiple legal proceedings conducted between September 2007 and September 2008.

In September 2008, District Judge Anson of the local Preston County Court issued a default judgment granting the Hardys their requested LIFETIME lease at 200 pounds rent per month -- and not just the farmhouse with one acre of land, but the entire remaining 60 acres farm -- 40,095 pounds(about $67,000.00) for repairs and lost income, plus 25,000 pounds (about $42,000.00) for their legal expenses. When the elderly John Haselden learned what Judge Anson had granted the Hardys, John Haselden had a heart attack and died 26 days later. In between the heart attack and death of John Haselden, the Hardys sought and obtained from Judge Anson a levy on Jill Haselden's farm to cover the money judgment. In August 2009, the Hardys attempted to evict Jill Haselden from her farm, but such was forestalled due to the various appeal efforts.

Not did was the Haselden family unjustly screwed by Judge Anson, but he and other Preston County District Judges did everything they could do to prevent his decision from being reviewed by an appellate court -- likely because they knew that Judge Anson's rulings were all counter to English law. It took until November 2011 before the Haseldens' appeal was heard by the London Court of Appeal, which voted 3-0 to overturn every single ruling by Judge Anson, and sent this case back for a new trial with instructions that every previous ruling was contrary to English law and impliedly should be reversed. Outcome is unknown, but we assume that the other Preston County District Judges decided it best not to try again to intentionally screw over the Haseldens, because there is no further appeal on record.

TALK ABOUT THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF "NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED" WHEN A NON-JW DOES SOMETHING GOOD FOR A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS. If justice had not finally won out in the end, the JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TENANTS and their attorney would have ended up with TWO FARMS and a large amount of CASH. All that the Haseldens ever received for their "Christian" attempt to help out people they had not even known previously was NOMINAL RENT for nearly 15 years which in total likely did not cover the legal expenses it took to simply hold onto what already belonged to them. If there is a BURNING HELLFIRE, .... .


-- OR --
(Submitted /Edited)
Back in the mid 1980s, my JW Wife and I owned our own "mortgage-free" 4-bedroom two-story home in my hometown. When I was transferred to a new job location not that far away from hometown, my JW Wife and I decided to rent an apartment near my new job location. Because I was uncertain about my future with that employer and probable continuing relocations by that employer, and because we had no intention whatsoever to remain living in the new city for any significant length of time, we decided NOT to attempt to rent or lease our home until my employment situation clarified itself.
Only about a month after moving away from my hometown (no help from either Congregation moving out or moving in), one day, a JW Super-Elder from my hometown named Gary K. unexpectedly showed up at my new place of employment. I already was aware that this Super-Elder and Super-Elderette had been "studying" for some time with a family of non-JWs, which included four children, and that when the husband rejected conversion to the Jehovah's Witnesses, Super-Elder and Super-Elderette then proceeded to destroy the couple's marriage. Super-JW Elder explained that he had just recently moved the recently baptized "Study" and her three youngest children into HIS HOME -- along with Super-Elderette and their two children. Super-Elder complained that the recently baptized "Study" and her three children were destroying his family's routine and driving Super-Elder and his family "crazy". Gary K. practically "begged" me to allow the recently baptized "Study" and her three youngest children (husband and oldest son left) to move into our home back in hometown. Although everything about the situation screamed to me, "NO!!!", at that time I was a young, age-20s, koolaid-drinking, rank-n-file JW who believed that Elders should be obeyed as handpicked servants of Jehovah. I repeatedly expressed my deep reluctance to accommodate JW Super-Elder, but he overcame every objection that I had -- including promising to "oversee" the rental situation and make certain that these recent converts did NOT damage our home and paid their rent on time. After having been made to feel that I would be opposing the "will of Jehovah" if I said "No", and taking JW Super-Elder at his word to oversee the rental, I agreed to allow the new converts to move into our home.
After delivering the keys to Gary K., I heard no more from him or my new Tenants -- except for mailed rental payments a few days late each month. Four months later, in place of the overdue rental payment, I received the keys and a brief note informing me that JW Tenants had moved out of our home into a government subsidized apartment complex because they could no longer afford the $250.00 per month rent. Apparently, that had been the plan all along -- except that JW Super-Elder had failed to mention that to me. Apparently, JW Super-Elder had USED ME to get the "heathens" out of his own home long enough until they became ELIGIBLE for government subsidized housing. I eventually heard through the rumor-mill that JW Super-Elder had even given his Converts the rent money just to get them out of his own home. (After running off the family's husband and father, they had no income except welfare and food stamps.)
Having deep apprehension, we went to inspect our home. As soon as I opened the rear kitchen door, immediately I could see that the kitchen's light-reflecting linoleum was pock-marked with BB size indentations all over it. Those BB size indentations spread to the soft-pine wood floors throughout the home -- literally dozens per square foot in the traffic lanes. We eventually figured out that the indentations in the linoleum and pine flooring had been made by exposed nails in the heels of the teenage son's boots.
In the living room, besides the floor damage, the pecan paneling on one wall had a section of the paneling WORN HALF WAY THROUGH (surface veneer completely gone) from a rocker or recliner that had repeatedly ground against the paneling's surface. Another section of paneling on another wall had the same but smaller damage from another couch or chair that had repeatedly rubbed against it. Paneling in other areas of the home showed new scratches, scuffs, and scrapes.
When we had moved out of our home into the apartment, we had left an unneeded older couch in the living room. I had told JW Super-Elder that the new converts could use that couch while they lived there, rather than my going to the hassle of moving it, and he expressed his gratitude given that they supposedly had no living room furniture. However, when we went back to inspect our home, that couch was GONE. Months later, when I eventually saw my former tenants for the first time, I tactfully asked about OUR COUCH. Former Tenant alleged that Gary K. had given HIS PERMISSION for them to take our couch, because it was old, and because we did not need it any more.
Some of the JW Elders and Ministerial Servants even helped Tenants move, thus the "Congregation" knew about the couch as well as the "condition" in which the house was vacated. Noone ever said a thing. No apology. No nothing.
Between the DAMAGE of property and the THEFT of property, we lost several thousands of dollars in exchange for the $750.00 rental income. Thereafter, Super-Elder and Super-Elderette paraded their CONVERTS for a decade before the Circuit and District during repeated "parts" on Circuit Assemblies and District Conventions. (Typically, as with 90% of "experiences", or "testimonies", published in WatchTower literature, or personally related at WatchTower Conventions/Assemblies -- removal of nearly all "negatives", and other "shading", resulted in a ridiculous "fairy tale" being related to the JW audience.) 
Super-Elder, Super-Elderette, and their CONVERTS avoided my wife and I for several years thereafter, and never mentioned the rental situation again. After they got what they wanted from us, Super-Elder and JW Tenant basically said, "F-You!!!" Former JW Tenant eventually married a divorced JW Male professional, who divorced her ASAP. She eventually married a JW Elder TOO OLD to divorce her and remarry again. Tenant's son, who destroyed our floors, was eventually baptized, married a JW, divorced, fornicated with another divorced JW, disfellowshipped, and committed suicide. Slippery JW Super-Elder remained a slippery JW Super-Elder whom I continued to allow to screw me over time after time over the years until I finally figured out that Gary K's decades-long "fruitage" revealed him to be a "SON OF LUCIFER" rather than being the "Son of God" that I had long been CONNED into believing him to be.
Attesting to the fact that my employment situation was highly uncertain at the time of the above scenario, my JW Wife and I did not move back to my hometown for more than a decade due to several employment relocations. Our next tenants were a local Veterinarian and his Registered Nurse wife. Not JWs. No problems. When they moved out about a year later, they recommended the house to a co-worker at the local hospital. That family rented for about 8 years. Not JWs. No problems.
When the last non-JW family moved out in the mid-1990s, we decided to remodel the house under the thought that we were just about ready to relocate back home. Before we barely even got started, a local Jehovah's Witness Couple -- the Husband (Jonathan) being an Employee of SUPER-ELDER (Gary) and the Wife (Marjorie) being a "very special friend" of SUPER-ELDER -- approached us and literally begged us to allow them to move into the house right then and there -- as the house "was". They claimed that their then present rental house was literally collapsing in on them, and they PROMISED that if we would allow them to move in that we would not have to remodel -- just simply finish making the minor repairs already in progress. They even PROMISED that if we would purchase the materials that they would paint and perform other minor repairs themselves -- without charge.
This time I had no apprehension. I thought that this situation was a "home run" even though it involved "Jehovah's Witnesses". Since the wife (Nora) was a Regular Auxiliary Pioneer who supplemented the family's income by working a variety of part-time jobs, I decided that not only would I take them up on their offer, but that I would even make the couple a BETTER DEAL. Since I reasoned that it was better to have Pioneering Wife performing additional hours in field service rather than working part-time simply to pay me rent money which I fortunately did not need at that time, I sent the couple a letter in which I outlined a BETTER DEAL in which the more hours that Pioneering Wife performed in field service each month the LOWER THE RENT they would have to pay me. Over the 17 months they rented from us, the JW Couple averaged paying only $175.00 per month -- for a 4 bedroom house with a full basement. (Although I had hoped that my "deal" would give Pioneering Wife the incentive to greatly increase her hours, she only put in the absolute least amount of hours my lenient "contract" required to drastically slash the rent. Essentially, Pioneering Wife put in the same amount of hours that she would have put in anyway, while I reduced their rental payments to less than half of what was then "fair rental value".)
The only thing which I was truly FIRM about in our "contract" were the repairs and painting that the JW Tenants promised to perform themselves (I paid for the materials). I gave the JW Tenants a written list of the work, along with expected easily obtainable completion dates -- three months and six months. Everything was quiet until about six months into the rental. Despite the fact that they were paying barely enough to cover insurance, taxes, wear, and tear, JW Tenants asked me if I would have new carpet installed throughout the house. That pissed me off. I declined their request, and that pissed them off.
About 16 months into the monthly rental, my wife and I decided that we were ready to move back "home". We notified JW Tenants of our decision, and gave them 90 days to move. I believe that I also offered even additional financial concessions on the rent during that time period so the JW Couple could save their money to obtain a new rental. We thought that having provided the JW Couple with a much better home for much less rent over the past year and a half would have earned much appreciation from the JW Couple. Boy, were we wrong!!! JW Couple proceeded to slander us to anyone who would listen to them. How dare us "kick" fellow JWs out of THEIR HOME. Our understanding is that they received much sympathy from many of the local JWs. Although the JW Couple had 90 days to move, they moved out in 30 days, and "acted" as if the final two months of $175.00 per month rental income they were not paying us was "hurting" us somehow. During that final 30 day period, in their stupid anger, JW Couple even let it "slip" that about half the work which they had promised to perform within 3 or 6 months of moving in HAD NOT BEEN PERFORMED until that last 30 days.
After we moved back into what we considered to be our "home" congregation, it was apparent that we were "not welcome". However, my wife soon did not have to deal with any negatives as the Elders and others soon placed all the blame for the aforementioned dealings with JW Tenants on my shoulders. Over the following years, the local Elders (Daniel Hosier, Junior Hosier, arsehole William "Bill" Bartlett, etc.) continued to take whatever lowball shot at me that they could contrive. ... ... I finally "saw the light" and went on the offensive. ... I currently am happy with the score of the game, and I still have "rested reserves on the bench".
I almost forgot!!! When JW Tenants moved out, they left a pile of rubbish, trash, and broken furniture for us to pay to have hauled off. In that pile of refuse, I found a decades old STEEL lawn chair which was probably from the 1950s. JW Couple threw it away because it was rusty and the seat was dangling half off due to missing bolts. I took the discarded chair out of the garbage, and placed it in the basement. Months later, when I had time, I repaired the seat, laboriously hand-sanded the entire chair, and re-painted it. That lawn chair was ten times better than any lawn chair available at LOWES or HOME DEPOT. At some point, visiting aforementioned JW SUPER-ELDERETTE (named Marjorie) saw the by then nice steel lawn chair at our home, and my wife explained that we had salvaged it out of the garbage that JW Couple had so graciously left us to dispose. A couple of weeks later, former tenant PIONEERING WIFE (named Nora) approached me at the Kingdom Hall and TOLD ME THAT THEY WANTED THEIR CHAIR BACK. ... I still have the chair.


MISSOURI v. TOM DAYWALT (1987) and MISSOURI v. TOM DAYWALT (1988) were related 1987-88 Missouri "trespass" criminal court cases which evolved out of a landlord-tenant dispute. In December 1987, a 60 year-old unemployed, indigent Jehovah's Witness divorcee with three adult children and multiple grandchildren, named Thomas Daywalt, was evicted from a McDonald County apartment which he had been renting for seven years due to Daywalt's owing $8900.00 in back rent.  When Tom Daywalt quickly attempted to re-occupy that apartment, the landlord was forced to have Daywalt removed by the local police, who wound up charging Daywalt with "trespass". Unable to pay the bail, Daywalt spent 25 days in jail until his trial in January 1988, when he was convicted of misdemeanor trespass, and sentenced to three days -- time served.

Tom Daywalt went straight back to the aforementioned apartment building, where he again was arrested and charged with trespass. After spending three months in jail awaiting trial, that charge was dismissed in April 1988. However, Daywalt was personally unaccepting of the "dismissal" -- wanting a trial so that he could prove his "innocense". Having been denied a trial, Tom Daywalt began a six month long public protest by "occupying" a bandstand located in front of the McDonald County Courthouse. After seven weeks, the Pineville, Missouri Chamber of Commerce convinced the county judge to remove Daywalt from the bandstand. During the two weeks Daywalt was in custody, he was evaluated by state mental health officials, who declared Daywalt fully sane and competent. Thereafter, Tom Daywalt renewed his "occupancy" of the "public" bandstand due to a ruling by the circuit judge.

In the meantime, Tom Daywalt appealed his first conviction to Missouri's Court of Appeals, which overturned such, and remanded for a new trial, in September 1988. With that bit of good news, and the onset of cold weather, Daywalt terminated his occupancy of the bandstand in November 1988. Further proceedings and outcomes unknown, but the citizens and public officials of McDonald County probably PAID this Jehovah's Witness Minister to relocate elsewhere.

During this nearly year-long public spectacle, Tom Daywalt continuously credited "Jehovah" with guiding, directing, and assisting him. During his "occupancy" of the bandstand, Daywalt constantly displayed and read his NWT Bible and WatchTower Cult literature. (Probably reported time as a "pioneer".) Jehovah's Witness friends would slip around and bring Daywalt literature, food, clothing, and provide encouragement.


Readers specifically interested in the topic of Jehovah's Witness Honesty and Integrity should be aware that related court cases are scattered throughout this website -- specifically the JW Business Owners, Managers, and Supervisors page. Readers should also refer to the 8 webpages of other types of thefts and other criminal court cases posted on the JW CHILDREN website linked from this website's Homepage.



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