by Leolaia 198 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Moyle did not violate any confidence in privately writing what he did to Rutherford.
It was Rutherford who decided to make the contents publicly known!
It was Rutherford who mangified the issue totally out of proportion to what was warranted.
Charles Russell would not have done what Rutherford did.
Leo said:
I don't know law, so I don't know if Moyle's workplace and living conditions would have been matters of confidentiality (in terms of legal fiduciary duty) outside of his practice of law....or if Moyle still owed fiduciary duty after his termination on August 8th....or if such a breach is defensible when it is self-defense against libel.
Attorneys have a duty to clients not to disclose confidential information, even after their termination. That duty lasts FOREVER.
The issue would be raised of whether the information Moyle disclosed was gained via the course of his representation (eg if what Moyle saw was witnessed during interaction with Rutherford in his offices while discussing other legal matters, etc), but the safest approach is simply NOT to disclose ANY details (eg whether the client picks their nose, etc). Lawyers hold themselves to a higher standard of non-disclosure, where "no comment" is safest.
Wikipedia puts it best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney-client_privilege
An attorney speaking publicly in regard to a client's personal business and private affairs can be reprimanded by the bar and/or disbarred, regardless of the fact that he or she may be no longer representing the client. Airing of a client's or past client's dirty laundry is viewed as a breach of fiduciary responsibilities.
Wikipedia continues:
Nonetheless, the lawyer still owes a duty of loyalty, and clients may feel betrayed if such information is disclosed, even if it becomes public knowledge. Though there are no legal ramifications for disclosure, discretion on part of the lawyer may be in the long term interests of maintaining the propriety of the legal profession.
Note the use of the word "discretion": an ethical (but not necessarily legal) obligation exists for an attorney to be discreet, and they breach the PUBLIC (and not necessarily just their client's) trust by disclosing "dirty laundry". Both Moyle and Rutherford knew this, and I suspect that it may have been suggested to a translator to use the NWT to remind Moyle of his professional breach of trust (even though the libel case was lost), which although not illegal, is not considered professional, which worse than just "not wise".
The same principle exists in medicine: even though HIPAA laws protect the patient from confidential patient information being released, a doctor has an ethical obligation not to betray the patient's confidence and trust in ALL information disclosed to the doctor during the course of the doctor/patient relationship. Doctors have to be careful of avoiding the perception of being "gossips", not merely for the sake of avoiding being sued for HIPPA violations, but as a matter of public trust, avoiding bringing a "black eye" upon the profession.
Leo said:
I don't see Covington making a claim of a fiduciary breach, at least as far as I can see so far; he charges Moyle with libel and claims that Society's articles were in response to that.
I suspect that the issue of fiduciarly breach issue would've been raised by Covington in a separate matter, had they not gotten an adverse outcome in the libel case. Restated, winning the libel suit would've laid the groundwork for a slam-dunk matter of going after Moyle's license by subsequently filing a complaint with his State Bar (in whatever State(s) Moyle was licensed to practice law), but it obviously didn't happen.
Apparently the question of burden of proof came down to determining who published the letter first. Covington argued that Moyle did so in late August to the Aeblys (who had requested to see it), and then to others soon thereafter. Moyle's attorney argued that Rutherford was the first to publish it by reading it in front of the entire Bethel family on August 8th.
Well, then that's the crux of the libel case, right there: the client (Society) waived the attorney confidentiality privilege by publicly disclosing the information first. The judge hearing the case apparently agreed with Moyle's claim that reading the letter in front of the Bethel family on Aug 8th met the criteria of public disclosure.
In retrospect, Rutherford's ego-driven desire to garner outrage against Moyle and ostracize him publicly and immediately was the price paid for losing any subsequent libel suit against Moyle.
FWIW he made the argument that JWs are all "official publishers" of the corporation, and the publication of "Information" in the Watchtower was "a privileged communication ... made by the defendants in the discharge of a private, legal and moral duty to inform all of Jehovah's witnesses of any believed or supposed disloyalty" (p. 1676). If I am reading that right, it seems to claim that the Society's publication of those articles in the Watchtower was an internal and private matter within the corporation as a whole. What does this mean for Moyle? He didn't make a breach to parties outside the corporation; he related information about Bethel as a publisher (no longer representing the Society as counsel) to other publishers, and the information concerned matters known to other publishers at Bethel. I see no legal argument that disclosure of matters concerning Bethelite publishers to publishers outside Bethel represented a breach of some sort. But I don't know really....it's an interesting question.
Yup. There it is.
In hindsight, it means Moyle could've disclosed the letter far and wide without waffling, if he'd known that the Aug 8th disclosure protected him (and as they say, hindsight is 20/20). However, Moyle DID waffle on the disclosure and expressed doubt, which means HE had SOME reservations (and whether those doubts were grounded in theocratic or ethical or legal concerns is anyone's guess).
I dunno if the Society tried to go after his license or not, but obviously it was unsuccessful if they had: Moyle continued to practice law.
Leo, no comment on the theocractic angle of whether it's likely that Rutherford considered the Bethel family (or even the Legal Dept) as part of the Society, and hence as possibly covered by the FWS parable, needing to show "discretion"? I think that's actually more compelling than even the legal angle....
VM44 said:
Moyle did not violate any confidence in privately writing what he did to Rutherford.
I never said the letter did: that letter would be a priviledged communication to the client from the attorney. The issue was whether Moyle breached his duty by releasing the letter to OTHER third-parties that may have contained confidential information.
As the court transcript showed (which I haven't seen, just relying on Leo's posts), the judge apparently agreed that Rutherford waived that expectation of confidentiality on Aug 8th by reading it to the Bethel family.
I kind of wonder how much the Salter affair affected Rutherford's reaction to Moyle.
Salter had similarly written a letter to Rutherford that made accusations about his character (including issues of drinking and discrimination). Salter then carried out a campaign against the Society. If you recall, he actually had copies of his letter mailed out with issues of the Watchtower to subscribers. I think Rutherford saw Moyle as "another Salter" and decided to strike fast. Rutherford railed against Salter for years....the April 15th 1939 issue of the Watchtower even has a "study article" entirely devoted to showing how Salter fulfilled Bible prophecy as the antitype of Achan in a "prophetic drama" from the OT. Here is a small sample to illustrate:
"This part of the prophetic drama occurred immediately following the siege of Jericho, and applies in the fulfillment after 1931, and more particularly after 1933, after which the march around the antitypical Jericho had begun...It was about 1933 or shortly thereafter that one occupying a position of responsibility in the Lord's organization, and who was aided and abetted by some of his personal admirers, tried to gain something for selfish reasons.... Note how accurately the drama pictures what has come to pass in modern times: Particularly from or after 1933 some have taken a course similar to that of Achan by marching around the modern Jericho of Satan's organization ... but after doing so for a season yield to temptation which arises from something appearing in Satan's organization....The Society's former servant who had taken the wrongful course, when all the evidence proving his guilt was laid before him, then and there promised that he would write a letter to all the consecrated throughout the earth acknowledging his wrong and asking their forgiveness. Not only did he fail to keep that promise, but within a short time he took exactly the opposite course by sending letters throughout the earth condemning the Lord's organization on earth and many individuals connected therewith" (pp. 116-124).
The funny thing is that Rutherford's reaction is that it is what pushed Moyle to break with the Society and publicize the letter.
Leo, no comment on the theocractic angle of whether it's likely that Rutherford considered the Bethel family (or even the Legal Dept) as part of the Society, and hence as possibly covered by the FWS parable, needing to show "discretion"? I think that's actually more compelling than even the legal angle....
It is interesting. I don't know if it has anything to do with the NWT choice of wording, but it does have a resonance.
BTW, I had to laugh when I saw this:
*** w50 4/15 p. 122 par. 10 Divine Requirements Resting on Servants ***
In his letter of instructions to Titus the apostle Paul gave similar advice concerning those that should be given the responsibility of caring for the flock of God on the island of Crete. “My reason for leaving you in Crete,” writes Paul, “was that you might put in order what had been left unsettled, and appoint Officers of the Church in the various towns, as I myself directed you. They are to be men of irreproachable [qualities], who are faithful husbands, whose children are Christians and have never been charged with dissolute conduct or have been unruly. For a Presiding-Officer, as God’s steward, ought to be a man of irreproachable [qualities]; not self-willed or quick-tempered, nor addicted to drink or to brawling or to questionable money-making. On the contrary, he should be hospitable, eager for the right, discreet, upright, a man of holy life and capable of self-restraint, who holds doctrine that can be relied on as being in accordance with the accepted Teaching; so that he may be able to encourage others by sound teaching, as well as to refute our opponents.”—Titus 1:5-9, 20th Cen. New Test.
I should also point out it was a jury trial. But the judge did say that the August 8th reading of the letter was a publication; he left it to the jury to decide if that was sufficient grounds for the plaintiff meeting his burden of proof.
"Charles Russell would not have done what Rutherford did."
Edit > Find > Love and money: Miracle Wheat and Charles' divorce from Maria
http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn1a.htm
The February 1, 1940 issue of the Watchtower published another resolution from a company in Wisconsin affirming loyalty to the organization:
The magazine also pubished two resolutions from Illinois. The Feb. 1st issue printed the resolution from Rockford company (under Illinois Zone 3) concerning "the activities of the 'evil servant' class in this vicinity" which declares that members of the company "will not enter into discussions or correspondence with those who are bent on justifying themselves in 'slandering their own mother's son' ". The same resolution noted that "this attempt to disrupt the witness work at its source in Brooklyn exactly parallels Satan's attempt in 1917 when the 'evil servant' class so clearly and wickedly manifested itself". Then the Feb. 15th, 1940 issue of the Watchtower published a resolution adopted on October 8th, 1939 by the Chicago Central unit (under Illinois Zone 1) which states that "we greatly appreciated the privilege of assembling with Brother Howlett on October 1, 1939, to be further enlightened concerning the perils of the present day, and the attempts made to cause division among the Lord's people" and that "Satan, the chief enemy, is using men as his instruments in fighting against God's people, whether said men be operating from without the organization or within".
The March 1st, 1940 Watchtower published another resolution:
#58:
Letter from the Bradley-Kankakee Company to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, published on 1 Mar. 1940: "We, the Bradley-Kankakee company of Jehovah's witnesses, of Illinois Zone No. 1, desire to express to Jehovah God our grateful appreciation of his loving-kindness manifested toward us by revealing to us, through the WATCH TOWER, his marvelous truths and also granting us the opportunity of telling these truths to others....We want you to know that we are with you in your courageous right for right and truth, and that we refuse to consider the malicious letters which some of the 'evil servant' class have been circulating amongst the brethren. We will not co-operate with such a class who oppose Jehovah's Theocratic government".
Then by direct order from Rutherford, Moyle was disfellowshipped from Milwaukee Company on March 9, 1940:
#59:
C. Hilton Ellison representing Milwaukee Company of JWs to Olin R. Moyle, 9 Mar. 1940: "The following is a quotation from a letter of March 5, 1940, from J. F. Rutherford, President of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. Quote: 'You have seen Moyle's assault upon the Society. He has never made an effort to apologize for his wrongful conduct, but on the contrary continues to send letters throughout the country upholding his wrongful position. Under such circumstances those who really love the Lord and are loyal to his Theocratic Government should not tolerate such nor permit them in the Company to answer questions or make comments but they should be ignored exactly as the apostle says'. The conductors of the Milwaukee company will be guided accordingly".
In his testimony at the trial, Ellison gave his account of how he gave Moyle the news:
#60:
C. HILTON ELLISON
Q. Tell us what course of action did Mr. Moyle and his friends take in the congregation? A. I would say they came to the meetings but took no part in them; simply sat there during the meetings and then left. Q. Mr. Ellison, Mr. Moyle testified regarding certain notices you served upon him in the spring of 1940 .... [A]t the time you delivered either one of these notices, did you have any conversation with Mr. Moyle? A. When I handed him the later notice, I said, "Olin, I am sorry to hand this to you, but you are in bad with the Society, and until these things are cleared up, these instructions will stand"....Q. And did you desire to see him come back and associate himself loyally with the congregation? A. I was hoping that he would do so. Q. And did he ever repent from his course or evidence any desire to return? (Mr. Bruchhausen: I object to the form of the question) .... Q. Mr. Ellison, will you explain to the jury why it was that you served this last notice upon Mr. Moyle denying him the privileges of obtaining literature and preaching from house to house? A. The fact that Mr. Moyle had expressed thoughts that were contrary to our Scriptural understanding....Q. Are persons who are only one hundred per cent in harmony with the Society doctrines and policies permitted to act as its ministers from house to house, Mr. Ellison? A. Yes, sir..... Q. You said something at the time that you were handed this letter depriving Mr. Moyle of privileges, or one of the letters in March, that you were sorry to hand it to him? A. Yes, sir. Q. But you did it because of allegiance to God's agent? A. I did it for the good of the service. Q. Yes, because God's agent had requested you to do it — I withdraw that. God's agent asked you to deliver this letter to Mr. Moyle, didn't he? A. I was instructed from Brooklyn, yes, sir. Q. And that came from God's agent? A. It came from the Society.
Thank you so much Leolaia! I am only through the 4th page of this thread, but am enjoying every word of it.
Loving every word of this thread. Cannot thank you enough Leolaia. Your post #17,440 really interested me. I am from WI and the James Bourne and Dean Bourne families were my parent's very, very best friends. I looked up this Reginald A. Bourne to see if there was some connection and found this juicy piece of info on Reginald A. Bourne......
IOWA v. BOURNE was a 1942 Iowa criminal court case which involved one of the WatchTower Society's "District Sales Managers". In September 1942, a WatchTower Society "Zone Servant", named Reginald A. Bourne, 30, was arrested in Des Moines, Iowa, while performing duties as Chairman at the then ongoing WatchTower Convention. Reginald Bourne was thereafter convicted of "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor". There was possibly even more to the following story. Readers really need to look at a map to see what I am talking about. First, Bourne parked his travel trailer at Indianola, Iowa. The case revolved around a 16 year-old boy named Wayne Emmons, whose home was in Iowa City. Emmons was allegedly attracted to the Jehovah's Witnesses, against his parent's wishes, through relatives (possibly paternal grandparents) living in What Cheer, Iowa. Despite the fact that Bourne initially denied knowing anything about Emmon's disappearance, Bourne eventually confessed to giving money to the 16 year-old so that, puzzlingly, he could travel out-of-state to Madison, Wisconsin, to attend a JW Convention that was going on the exact same time as was the convention in Des Moines. Bourne even drove Emmons from either Iowa City or What Cheer to a bus station in Ames, Iowa, of all places??? Interestingly, references to a JW leader named "Reginald A. Bourne" disappear after this conviction. However, there is "an" Allen Bourne who was baptized around 1936, and who "pioneered" until 1946, when he was selected to attend Gilead (WatchTower's Missionary School), and who then was sent to Honduras for only four years, before returning to the U.S., and settling in Ohio in the 1950s. There is also "a" Dean Bourne, who was baptized around 1939, and who served as a "District Overseer" in Wisconsin and Iowa in the 1960s, after first also attending Gilead and also being sent to Honduras.
What an interesting story that sounds. I'll have to look up that case sometime.
