JWLEAKS.ORG is back for 2019 with a Scandal

by jwleaks 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  vienne

  Unless it's a Federal Court, no California court has jurisdiction in New York. I do not see how selling property is a scandal. Maybe I'm just dense, but that seems like a reach.

  My husband and I own a small farm. We bought the property at ten dollars an acre about twenty years ago. Recent sales of similar property suggest it would sell for nearly 100 dollars an acre. Do I 'sin' if I now sell off the farm and take the profit? Is that a scandal? If it isn't a scandal for me to do so, how is it one for the Watchtower to do so?

  Is it a 'sin' for me to ignore a California court with no jurisdiction in Washington State, where I live? That issue arose when my dad's mother died. Our lawyer simply reminded the State of California that they had no enforcement power over a Washington citizen.
  
• 

  Corney

  jwleaks, can you please answer my question about a copy of the stipulation of 8/6/12 or of the order of 8/13/12?

  vienne, I think California courts have jurisdiction over entities operating in the state, having agents and subordinates in it etc.
• 

  Listener

  Vienne - Recent sales of similar property suggest it would sell for nearly 100 dollars an acre.

  Now there's a scandal ;) I wish I could find farmland for that price in Australia, that is dirt cheap. Even Tasmania would do.
• 

  vienne

  Listener,

  Some of our pasture is on floodplain and about 20 feet next to the river is underwater as Cascade Mountain runoff fills the river. That affects value.
  
• 

  vienne

  to find agency one would have to find that elders are employees of the Watchtower Society. I think that would be hard to sustain on appeal.
  
• 

  Listener

  Many of those documents show unusual names as the purchaser. For example, the property at 21 Clark Street was sold to a buyer caller '21 Clark Street Property owner, LLC'. Many of the properties sold are similar.
  
  I can't understand how a Limited Liability Company could be created with the same name as the property address. Where would the money to purchase the property come from?
  
  Is it possible that the Watchtower set up these Limited Liability Companies and 'purchased' their own property and although a monetary value was listed in the documents no actual money was paid/transferred. In this way, all the properties could be transferred to private owners (those listed as directors of the LLC) thus reducing the Assets belonging to the Watchtower.
• 

  Corney

  vienne,

  "Watchtower admitted that Fremont Congregation elders Gary Abrahamson and Michael Clarke were Watchtower's agents while acting within the course and scope of their church duties".

  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1697528.html

  Anyway, the question of jurisdiction is immaterial. I have reasons to suspect that the story is incorrect.

  Listener,

  This question was discussed previously: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5766476486148096/all-watchtower-brooklyn-sales-37-nyc-doc-pages-spreadsheet?page=2#5389997151617024
  I also believe it's a common practice in real property business to create legal entities for every project.
• 

  Corney

  I think I've waited long enough.

  @jwleaks,

  You used my compilation without even mentioning it isn't yours.

  You labeled documents that are public records as "leaks".

  You implied that Watchtower Brooklyn sales are linked to the Conti case but the facts say that the WWHQ relocation project was adopted not later than in the first half of 2009 (fact 1: Watchtower purchased land in Warwick for $20,000,000 in July 2009 (see property records); fact 2: it filed the new HQ initial planning documents to the town authorities before October 2009).

  The above mentioned dishonesty is very small, and I wouldn't write about it if there wasn't another, more serious, issue.

  The entire 67 Remsen St. "scandal" is likely fake. I have reasons to believe that on August 13, 2012 the order of June 20 was amended and its effect was restricted to Watchtower's properties in Patterson - and the fact that you ignored my simple question forces me to think you knew it. Unfortunately, I was unable to purchase a copy of the order - likely because I'm not a US resident. And now I have only prima facie evidence - half-page preview of the order:

  
  

  If somebody is interested in establishing the facts, lives in the US and can afford to spend five dollars to purchase the document of 8/13/2012 - "Order Stipulation to Modify Order Staying Enforcement of Judgment and Order" (case HG11558324) - via the Superior Court's DomainWeb system... ok, I think I've provided all necessary info but if you have any question feel free to contact me.
• 

  Esse quam videri

  bbwt ...I like the fact that Stephen Lett says about doing(?) the math(?) : "the amount of money flowing out will be MUCH GREATER then the amount of money flowing in" . Boy can they be anymore dumbed downed than this group of GB? He has a very limited vocabulary full of under statements full of denial to say the least...

  That's not quite what Lett said. The words were carefully chosen to give the impression that so much more was going than coming, hence the words 'flowing out' and 'coming in'. You see? Not money 'going out' and money 'flowing in'. Of course you will never be told just how much is flowing in or flowing out. In that case the lowly publisher could decide for themselves just how serious the problem is.