Watchtower Land Grab?

by Marvin Shilmer 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  FatFreek 2005

  So, to make things fair and equitable to the sheeples, I'm quite certain that Watchtower -- fair as they say they are in all matters (wink, wink) -- takes such surplus funds (from a dissolved or merged congregation) and places them into some accounting "bucket" awaiting news that some brand new startup congregation in some other place is fixing to build. This new startup merely applies for some of these funds to ease their local load.

  The funds, you see, are merely recycled from one set of brethren to another. Makes sense to me.

  Len
• 

  designs

  Thank VP Gerry Seimonus (spelling) and the Wt Lawyers for creating the perfect shell game to hold and hide assests.
• 

  sizemik

  Thanks for your excellent work and for posting this Marvin . . .

  Over my time in the cult, I spent time renovating KH's as well as many Quickbuilds. With the congregations of which I was a member, it was always emphasised that the assests belonged to the congregation . . . as an encouragement when fund-raising.

  I'm sure this change has much to do with the current situation with the Menlo Park case.

  It amounts to nothing less than THEFT as far as I'm concerned.

  The WTBTS are downright thieves . . . nothing less. This makes me very angry.

  The dissolving of congregations will now go ahead at pace purely for the purpose of revenue gathering . . . even if it means shared halls.

  How can this change to the articles and charter be implemented without being voted on in the congregation?
• 

  AGuest

  such clauses in title deeds are standard practice for unincorporated bodies , such as churches and charities.

  Yes, dear dozy (peace to you!), which makes sense... for an unincorporated organization. In these cases, however, the clause is in the "Articles... of INCORPORATION." Meaning, the congregations are not "unincorporated." They are very much incorporated (albeit as an exempt non-profit, but even non-profits have assets)... and I've glanced over two or three sets of congregation Articles* and my recollection is that they show the "congregation" as the shareholder body. I don't know exactly how they're worded now but it used to be that the PO was the "President", the TMS Conductor was the "Secretary" and the Service Conductor was the "Treasurer"... or something to that effect. They were the directors. But it was the "Congregation of Such-and-So" that OWNED the KH and land it was built on.

  And... that's what the folks are TOLD when they donate the money, time, and effort TO build... and maintain... it. They're obviously NOT told, though, that they RELIQUISH it if the congregation dissolves... and that the WTBTS can most certainly dissolve it.

  It's not all on the up-and-up, dear one, which I see as a problem... given their whole FDS/anointed/"christian" schtick.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA, who just realized how they're getting away with this: I don't recall that congregations have their own 501(c)(3) exemption (those are a MONSTER to apply for and receive)... but (I think) incorporate under the "umbrella" of the WTBTS, which DOES have such standing. Like a subsidiary or affliate. Perhaps the exchange is, "You can use our non-profit status, but if/when you dissolve, your ass(ets) belong to us"? THAT would make sense. Sheisty, conniving, and dishonest, still (because the congregation MEMBERS don't know)... but legal. And heck, what are all those Pharisaical WTBTS lawyers for, anyway?

  *I did "secretary/clerical" (organizing docs, making files, posting time on publisher cards, etc.), type work for a few congregations during my time as a publisher.
• 

  Voices

  I wonder what my brother would say if he found this out? Afterall he is the C.O. now...he's suppose to have come back from that training. He'd probably say something 'That's what the law or IRS says that we have to do...blah blah ' ...whatever.

  Me

  (there is only one Me..and it's ME)
• 

  thetrueone

  Another scenario I can think of is when attendance drops off so much in an area that the congregations that go to a particular lot are are dissolved. Then the land, with a nice building on it, would be given to the Watchtower to sell. At which point the Watchtower has full legal rights over the property and therefore collects all the money upon the sale.

  Exactly Sab, this happen here in Vancouver, 2 I know of for sure possibly a third, the land where these old congregation were

  had grew enormously in value over the years and they were probably land originally donated to the Borg.

  The WTS probably pocketed over 2 mil. easily $$ over the sales of those properties.

  "Remember all Kingdom Halls belong to Jehovah", I just about spewed over my Keyboard reading that.

  Who says religion isn't big business ?
• 

  sizemik

  In these cases, however, the clause is in the "Articles... of INCORPORATION." Meaning, the congregations are not "unincorporated." They are very much incorporated (albeit as an exempt non-profit, but even non-profits have assets)... and I've glanced over two or three sets of congregation Articles* and my recollection is that they show the "congregation" as the shareholder body. I don't know exactly how they're worded now but it used to be that the PO was the "President", the TMS Conductor was the "Secretary" and the Service Conductor was the "Treasurer"... or something to that effect. They were the directors. But it was the "Congregation of Such-and-So" that OWNED the KH and land it was built on.

  I'm not sure how different laws might apply in different countries. I do recall however that this was the basic arrangement here in NZ when I was a member. Any expenses regarding maintenance, loans, mortgages, purchases etc etc, were presented to the "shareholders" and voted on. We were looking at a land purchase at the time so it was a regular monthly occurrance at least. I stopped attending early 2003. What I cant understand is how this alteration to the articles could be made without the shareholder approval (vote), without it being illegal. No such change was ever presented for approval in my cong prior to early 2003.

  Any legal minds shed some light on this?
• 

  St George of England

  How can this change to the articles and charter be implemented without being voted on in the congregation?

  Even when they take a vote in the congregation, very few oppose the recommendation of the elders. I have seen many votes pushed through over the years without a proper count, no chance for discussion or questioning about alternatives.

  George
• 

  sizemik

  Yes George I concur with that.

  However, the particular congregation I was in from 1999 - 2003 was looking at selling and rebuilding, so some discussions, and even some dissent did occur at voting time. I don't recall a change to the articles being one of them . . . but of course . . . it could well have occurred in my absence. In which case, just as you've described may well have occurred.

  And, as this thread has demonstrated, they can be very cunning as to how these changes are presented. They're still bloody thieves either way . . . the change is purely for the pecuniary advantage of WTBTS