ATTORNEY AT LAW
6-6-02
Draffenville Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
ATTN: George Bandarra
PO Box 788,
Benton, KY 42025
Re: William H. Bowen
Dear Sirs:
I am in receipt of your letter of June 01, 2002 in which you are requesting a meeting that is “an extension of your shepherding work” and has as its purpose to “render spiritual aid in Christian love” along with not being in an “adversarial relationship” to try and help my client Mr. Bowen. After consulting with my client regarding your letter he expressed that if all you need is to “shepherd” Mr. Bowen that he would be glad to meet with one elder at a public place and accept any spiritual assistance the elder wanted to offer. On the other hand, if you wish to continue to press for a judicial hearing on allegations my client absolutely denies then it certainly would appear to make your stated intentions disingenuous with regard to your actions. As you have been previously instructed in writing my client has an engagement in matters beyond his control therefore your requested date will not work as my client will be traveling out of town. Bear in mind your actions to date have lead my client to have reason to doubt that you will follow through with what you put in writing.
In my letter to you dated 5-30-02 my client and I made three specific requests of which you only partially answered one with a suggested new date for a hearing/shepherding call. Your latest letter seems to confuse what Mr. Bowen is being summoned for. I ask that you clarify what kind of meeting you wish to have with my client.
It is also noted that on Friday, May 24, 2002 you contacted my client by telephone, to which you were verbally informed to only contact his attorney for any type of communication. Mr. Bowen has clearly made his request known in a letter written on October 31, 2001, where he stated:
If I were to try and think further I am sure there are many other items that could be brought forward, but I believe the above should be sufficient to show the disingenuous actions of the Watchtower representatives acting at the guidance of the Watchtower home office. The above evidence clearly shows you cannot trust any word that comes out of the mouth of anyone who represents the Watchtower organization. Your actions force me to request the following stipulations:
1. Any further communication must be in writing and sent to my attorney. His address is:
Attorney
Main Street
Madisonville, KY 42431
2. Any verbal communication from this point forward will be considered harassment as you have repeatedly disregarded my request for answers in writing.
3. I am formally requesting that no Jehovah’s Witness elder or member trespass on my property at anytime. Unless they are willing to undergo a complete background check for child molestation history and submit this to my attorney.
4. I request that all questions submitted in previous letters be answered in writing to my attorney instead of being sent to me personally.
It grieves me greatly to have to take this action to protect myself against brothers I at one time trusted so completely. Your actions have proved you to be otherwise. In order to be “cautious as serpents” it forces me to deal with you as the snakes you are.
This request was made after two elders had come to Mr. Bowen’s home for a confrontation instead of answering in writing five certified letters requesting assistance on slanderous remarks and actions directed by headquarters against my client. My client again referred to this request in his letter to you of May 6, 2002 in which he stated: “Please continue to honor my previous request of all correspondence going to my attorney for the reasons stated in previous letters.”
My client has been the subject of harassing automobile drive bys, theft of property, telephone calls, emails, postal mail, which have included death threats, all from Jehovah’s Witnesses. Therefore he has reason to suspect the intentions of anyone coming to his property who represent themselves to be Jehovah’s Witnesses. Instead of respecting his request you have continued to harass my client. In February of 2002 two Jehovah’s Witnesses were sent to my client’s home. My client respectfully asked them to leave. Then on another occasion George Bandarra who is well familiar with all correspondence as chairman of the judicial committee chose to ignore my client’s request by calling him over the telephone on 5-24-02. My client instructed Mr. Bandarra very clearly all communication must go through his attorney. Yet again, Mr. Bandarra and Jeff Stein ignored my client’s request by trespassing on his property June 01, 2002. Mr. Bandarra and Mr. Stein approached the property in a covert fashion coming to the back door and pounding quite loudly, thus frightening children in the home. My client again informed Mr. Bandara and Mr. Stein of his request of all communication going through his attorney and shut the door, at which Mr. Bandarra again disregarded my client’s request by throwing a letter on a chair in my client’s back yard. This now makes three occasions Jehovah’s Witnesses have chosen to disregard clear and explicit instructions to not trespass and harass my client. Any further infractions will result in criminal charges being leveled at your lack of respect for my client’s wishes.
As was clearly explained in my letter of May 30, 2002, Mr. Bowen has been scheduled to be out of State for a speaking engagement along with a business trip. The nearest time available in his schedule will be on June 28, after 6 P. M. Mr. Bowen is sad to have to wait this long but as you gentlemen failed to appear with no notice at the last scheduled meeting I am sure you can understand that he had no idea there would be arrangements for future meetings that would conflict with his long arranged schedule. In addition, as mentioned in my client’s letter of 5-24-02, several witnesses had traveled from great distance to appear in his behalf, your failure to appear without notice caused them to lose considerable time and expense. In your correspondence of 5-29-02 you failed to answer Mr. Bowen’s request to compensate these victims of abuse so that they might be able to reappear to offer valuable testimony to help Mr. Bowen have a fair and impartial hearing. In my letter to you I specifically requested, are you willing to pay expenses for Mr. Bowen’s witnesses that you have inconvenienced? To date you have ignored my question, therefore it puts forth the appearance you do not want to offer “an extension of your shepherding work” and “render spiritual aid in Christian love” along with not being in an “adversarial relationship” if you deny my client an opportunity to offer witnesses in his behalf. How can my client have a fair and impartial hearing if you do not allow his witnesses to testify? Will you ignore this question also?
In addition, Mr. Bowen’s previous letter of 5-20-02 remains unanswered as to the request for written apologies for slanderous remarks made by Watchtower spokesman to the media. My letter went on to address this issue and request a specific answer. Again you ignored my request in the interests of my client. To request my client to appear for a hearing, before which you make more than one attempt at harassing my client and his family, then go on to ignore his many letters in which he asked for spiritual assistance and healing, and finally to attempt to deny his witnesses their right to testify certainly gives the appearance of subterfuge along with devious intent.
As you continue to offer no answer to the clear and concise questions of my client it therefore requires me to take the following action. I request answers to the following questions:
1. Will you make an immediate public apology and letter of vindication to Mr. Bowen and the other victims cited in his letter?(We expect that to be published in all AP affiliate newspapers)
2. Are you agreeable to pay expenses for the witnesses on behalf of Mr. Bowen that were inconvenienced due to your actions?
3. Are you willing to communicate to me the written confirmation of the new judicial hearing date on June 28, 2002 after 6 P. M.?
My client has requested an answer by June 10, 2002. If you choose to ignore any one of the three questions above it will be accepted as a refusal to meet with my client and a no answer to all three questions. My client is more than happy to meet and defend himself against false allegations, but there is an appearance you wish to create a kangaroo court in which he is at a disadvantage with no witnesses in his behalf, no apology for slanderous remarks and actions made locally and nationally, no attempt to set an agreeable judicial hearing date with my clients schedule, this certainly is not the way of Christian love and creates an adversarial meeting.
It is interesting to note in J. R. Brown’s letter to Richard Greenberg dated February 7, 2002 regarding the appearance on the Dateline program with Watchtower Officials, he made this statement:
“..you have related to us that your participants are primarily individuals who view themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses. We therefore do not view them as adversaries, but as individuals whose views and opinions should be heard within the framework of the congregation, or church, and not in front of a nationwide television audience…’ Our Governing Body is willing to resolve differences of opinion within the framework of the congregation and according to Scriptural principles.”
My client has to wonder how charging him with a disfellowshipping offense and establishing a judicial hearing in which it appears you are denying witnesses in his behalf could be considered, resolving “differences of opinion within the framework of the congregation and according to Scriptural principles.” It seems only one opinion is being considered and anyone with any other opinion is being excommunicated. Would that not be considered an adversarial meeting?
By copy of this letter to the elders I am advising them of Mr. Bowen’s position in this matter and while I chose not to attend the judicial committee meeting out of courtesy to Mr. Bowen and to the elders, I will not stand idly by while Mr. Bowen’s personal rights are violated and he is ostracized for following the dictates of God and the requirements of state and federal law. It is our hope by your actions you will offer an “extension of your shepherding work” that has as its purpose to “render spiritual aid in Christian love” along with not being in an “adversarial relationship,” to date, you have failed miserably in that regard. Perhaps by proper actions you can redeem my client’s confidence in your intentions.
I will await your usual, prompt and courteous response to this letter and hope that you will immediately and publicly vindicate Mr. Bowen who has been a good and loyal supporter of the church for many, many years.
Sincerely yours,
Attorney