The court case analogy is interesting. I recently thought about that a little bit. In the U.S. legal system, what the organization says about God is equivalent to witness tampering and bribery. In a real court, there would also have to be an unbiased jury who would hear the evidence. In the JW model, the jury is a mysterious group of anointed people who are "on Jehovah's side".
Of course, anyone reading the Bible would realize that God's sovereignty, authority or right to rule was never questioned. What was questioned by the serpent/Satan was whether God was withholding something from Adam and Eve that would make them "like God". And what was questioned in the case of Job was what would a man be willing to do to save his own skin, including cursing God. That was not a question of God's authority, or right to rule. I liken this to a president of a country. If he's lawfully elected, no one questions whether he has the right to rule in his position. They may very well question his ability to rule, and they may even curse him, perhaps even to his face. But his right to rule was legally established, so that's not a question. If it were a question, then cries for impeachment wouldn't happen. Impeachment is, in essence, the legal process of revoking the right to rule. Same with God. His sovereignty, authority and right to rule were never questioned by Satan, thus the JW organization is chasing a red herring on this one.