West70

Joined

• started 32 topics
• posted 253 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by West70

• 
  20

  Russell Family & Allegheny - Pittsburgh Census Records

  by West70 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have been trying to run down some info relating to just exactly when did joseph russell enter into the clothing business, etc., and it finally dawned on me that although joseph lists such as his occupation on the 1850 allegheny census, i do not ever recall seeing a business listing for "j l russell & son" until sometime in the 1860s or 70s.

  if someone would care to shed some light, i will share that there are business listings for other "russells" who were in the clothing business in all/pitt during these same time periods.

  i also suspect that "charles tays russell" may have been joseph's early employer who eventually financed him into his own store?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  West70

  Thanks Leolaia:
  
  I realize that someone who knows where Ann Eliza was buried in 1861 is probably LTAO, but I'm at least enjoying the fantasy until they burst my bubble.
  
  Continuing anyway ....
  
  Bear in mind that this "1880 Eliza" has "Russell" for a last name.
  
  Joe and Eliza might have only been "separated with support" for all those years, and when Joe wants to marry Emma, he brings Eliza back to Pitt and agrees to set her up in her own home if she will give him a complete Divorce.
  
  And, just because she talks with a census taker doesn't necessarily mean that anybody else in Pitt knew she was there, or who she really was. After all, Joe's wife had been dead for almost 20 years. How much does a fake plot and stone cost?
  
  :)
  
  :)
  
  Thanks.
• 
  20

  Russell Family & Allegheny - Pittsburgh Census Records

  by West70 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have been trying to run down some info relating to just exactly when did joseph russell enter into the clothing business, etc., and it finally dawned on me that although joseph lists such as his occupation on the 1850 allegheny census, i do not ever recall seeing a business listing for "j l russell & son" until sometime in the 1860s or 70s.

  if someone would care to shed some light, i will share that there are business listings for other "russells" who were in the clothing business in all/pitt during these same time periods.

  i also suspect that "charles tays russell" may have been joseph's early employer who eventually financed him into his own store?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  West70

  Leolaia:
  
  I don't want to "wear out my welcome", but when you have time could you let us know roughly how many "Russells" and "Birneys" were in Philly in 1860s. If "lots", please don't count. Thanks.
  
  A possible answer for Jane's absence from the 1850 Census was that with Ann Eliza expecting her second child in 1850, 5 year old Jane had been sent to stay with relatives. Or, if Joe and Ann had just moved to Pitt that year, again with Ann pregnant, they had left Jane wherever it was they came from???
  
  Thanks.
• 
  20

  Russell Family & Allegheny - Pittsburgh Census Records

  by West70 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have been trying to run down some info relating to just exactly when did joseph russell enter into the clothing business, etc., and it finally dawned on me that although joseph lists such as his occupation on the 1850 allegheny census, i do not ever recall seeing a business listing for "j l russell & son" until sometime in the 1860s or 70s.

  if someone would care to shed some light, i will share that there are business listings for other "russells" who were in the clothing business in all/pitt during these same time periods.

  i also suspect that "charles tays russell" may have been joseph's early employer who eventually financed him into his own store?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  West70

  Thanks Leolaia:
  
  I believe the 1850 Allegheny Census showed a male born to the family in 1850, which would make 4 children counting Jane who was born around 1845.
  
  Also, according to this Philly Census, Taze's Mother age increased 3 years, which matches up with the "Eliza" that showed up in the 1880 census.
  
  Could Ann Eliza and Joe divorced in Philly, with the older daughter and Mother staying there, and Joe, Chuck, and Margaret returning to Allegheny?
• 
  20

  Russell Family & Allegheny - Pittsburgh Census Records

  by West70 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have been trying to run down some info relating to just exactly when did joseph russell enter into the clothing business, etc., and it finally dawned on me that although joseph lists such as his occupation on the 1850 allegheny census, i do not ever recall seeing a business listing for "j l russell & son" until sometime in the 1860s or 70s.

  if someone would care to shed some light, i will share that there are business listings for other "russells" who were in the clothing business in all/pitt during these same time periods.

  i also suspect that "charles tays russell" may have been joseph's early employer who eventually financed him into his own store?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  West70

  I forgot to note that "Ann E." shows up in the 1850 Allegheny Census as age 26. Thus, the ages are very close, with "one year's difference" possibly explainable as dependng on the month/day of her birth and when the census was taken. Also, maybe one or the other was a typo or even a mistake, or maybe given the extra 30 years had provided more accurate info???
  
  If this was Taze's divorced Mother, why would she show back up in Pitt in 1880, and not before?
  
  Remember that 63/4 year old Joseph remarried Maria's 23 year old sister, Emma, in 1879. That's enough to make it worthwhile.
• 
  20

  Russell Family & Allegheny - Pittsburgh Census Records

  by West70 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have been trying to run down some info relating to just exactly when did joseph russell enter into the clothing business, etc., and it finally dawned on me that although joseph lists such as his occupation on the 1850 allegheny census, i do not ever recall seeing a business listing for "j l russell & son" until sometime in the 1860s or 70s.

  if someone would care to shed some light, i will share that there are business listings for other "russells" who were in the clothing business in all/pitt during these same time periods.

  i also suspect that "charles tays russell" may have been joseph's early employer who eventually financed him into his own store?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  West70

  I have been trying to run down some info relating to just exactly when did Joseph Russell enter into the clothing business, etc., and it finally dawned on me that although Joseph lists such as his occupation on the 1850 Allegheny census, I do not ever recall seeing a business listing for "J L Russell & Son" until sometime in the 1860s or 70s.
  
  If someone would care to shed some light, I will share that there are business listings for other "Russells" who were in the clothing business in All/Pitt during these same time periods. I also suspect that "Charles Tays Russell" may have been Joseph's early employer who eventually financed him into his own store?
  
  I have also ran across a third "Charles Russell" in the area assuming it was not a typo.
  
  NOW, for a really long shot that is as wild as the Masonic Lodge connection chase:
  
  Again, while looking at some of the area census records, I noticed something that I had never bothered to look at before.
  
  The 1880 Pittsburgh Census lists an "Eliza Russell", who lived on Broad St in Pitt.
  
  Interestingly, Eliza does not show up in previous area records even though she lists her age as 59. She also lists "Ireland" as her birth country. She is also listed as an "Unemployed", "Divorced", "Head of HouseHold".
  
  Of course, Charles Taze's Mother's name was "Ann Eliza", but according to CT's Bio, she DIED when CT was 9 (1861). Thus, she would not show up in the 1860 Census, but then again, I can't find Joe or Chuck either in the 1860 census.
  
  Just thought some other researchers might not have noticed this little oddity. Probably is nothing. But, it isn't like Taze never LIED about anything else!
• 
  23

  To: Barbara Anderson -- Re: Your First Contact w/ Child Molestation Issue

  by West70 in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  mrs. anderson: .

  thank you for replying to my topic on william h. conley, the watch tower society's first president.

  if not for your finding the "treasure" you described, we might not know this fact even today.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  West70

  Mrs. Anderson:
  
  There are no bigger monsters than those who destroy the lives of innocent children, and I do not differentiate between the pedophile and those who cover up the pedophile's crime so they can maintain their lifestyle. In many ways the WatchTower crimes are worse than what the pedophile did because post-crime they had the opportunity to help the victim, but often they chose to throw the victim on the junk heap.
  
  That's what is so tragic about the victims in this Vernon case; especially the one brave soul that ignored the apparent threats of the loyal JW parent, and the apparent threats from Elders and possibly other WatchTower officials, and eventually disclosed the molestation to school officials.
  
  The WatchTower will always be vulnerable to such. No "gag order" and no threat can stop a victim from intenionally or unintentionally disclosing the abuse to school or other public officials.
  
  However, the problem is that the JWs are a CULT, and they exercise an extreme amount of control over their members.
  
  The Vernon Case is NOT even the most outrageous instance of child sexual abuse in the same circuit as the London, Kentucky Congregation.
  
  Later day, I will try to relate the account of a COVERUP of child sexual abuse which spans multiple JW Congregations, and required multiple BOEs to keep such out of the hands of Kentucky authorities. The WBTS probably has dreaded the day this coverup became public.
• 
  11

  JW GrandMother Files Federal Lawsuit Against School

  by West70 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a jw grandmother has filed a lawsuit against a california school claiming that her grandson was forced to recite the pledge of allegiance and forced to articipate in holiday activities.

  interestingly, this jw also complains that she personally was prohibited from "witnessing" to other schoolchildren from the watchtower society's "book of bible stories": .

  woman claims grandson faced discrimination.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  West70

  Hillbilly:
  
  My take on this particular JW is that she is a "feces stirrer". Someone who knows her personally could probably relate that this is simply her latest "project" among many previous.
  
  In this day and age, no school official in California is going to intentionally do what she alleges UNLESS they were "peeved off" by the JW to the point that the teacher(s) lost their cool and did such out of retaliation.
  
  Never forget that much of the "persecution" received by JWs in the 1930s and 40s was done out of retaliation after the JWs had repeatedly "asked for it".
• 
  11

  JW GrandMother Files Federal Lawsuit Against School

  by West70 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a jw grandmother has filed a lawsuit against a california school claiming that her grandson was forced to recite the pledge of allegiance and forced to articipate in holiday activities.

  interestingly, this jw also complains that she personally was prohibited from "witnessing" to other schoolchildren from the watchtower society's "book of bible stories": .

  woman claims grandson faced discrimination.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  West70

  " ... an ordained Jehovah's Witness minister, ... ."

  Someone should suggest to this reporter and the opposing attorney that they contact this "ordained minister's" church so they can go listen to her next Sunday Sermon.
• 
  11

  JW GrandMother Files Federal Lawsuit Against School

  by West70 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a jw grandmother has filed a lawsuit against a california school claiming that her grandson was forced to recite the pledge of allegiance and forced to articipate in holiday activities.

  interestingly, this jw also complains that she personally was prohibited from "witnessing" to other schoolchildren from the watchtower society's "book of bible stories": .

  woman claims grandson faced discrimination.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  West70

  .
• 
  4

  Famous JW SCOTUS Plaintiff Eventually Became Ex-JW

  by West70 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  over the past several weeks i believe there have been 2 or 3 topics on "famous jws" or "jws with bios published by the wbts" who eventually departed the organization.

  if one of those folks are reading, i apologize in advance that i cannot remember your name, or that i may not recall your personal info absolutely correct.

  but george maynard's case did after he covered up the state of new hampshire's "live free or die" motto on his vehicles's plates.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  West70

  Over the past several weeks I believe there have been 2 or 3 Topics on "famous JWs" or "JWs With Bios published by the WBTS" who eventually departed the organization.

  If one of those folks are reading, I apologize in advance that I cannot remember your name, or that I may not recall your personal info absolutely correct. I believe the "Israeli Commando" featured in an AWAKE has exited the JWs. I believe the severely handicapped "European Male" featured in an AWAKE has exited the JWs. I believe the "Hebrew Scholar" featured in an AWAKE has exited the JWs, or at least went inactive. There are others that I can't now recall.

  However, here is another famous JW who left the organization that I don't recall hearing about previously. For all I know, he may post here.

  George Maynard recalls license-plate ordeal, free-speech victory

  By David L. Hudson Jr.

  11.30.01

  Most United States Supreme Court cases do not arise out of a $25 fine and a license plate. But George Maynard's case did after he covered up the state of New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" motto on his vehicles's plates.

  In November 1974, Maynard received a citation for concealing the motto on his plate with reflective red tape. Maynard went to court to fight the charge because it conflicted with his personal religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. He believed that the motto violated his religious beliefs because it implied that one had to give up his life for the state. To Maynard and his wife, Maxine, the only kingdom is God's kingdom.

  At the time, Maynard, a Korean War veteran, worked as a printer in Vermont. The resulting legal dispute ended up costing him his job. Though the cost of his free expression was high, Maynard felt obligated to adhere to his beliefs.

  "I did it for my own personal integrity", Maynard said in a recent interview with freedomforum.org. "I also did not believe that the motto "Live Free" really indicated the status of freedom in this country. I didn't believe we had that much freedom and my case ended up proving my point."

  "I mean, we don't put slogans on our houses," he says. "Why should we have to put them on our cars?"

  Maynard represented himself before the judge and received a $25 fine, which the judge suspended on an assumption of subsequent "good behavior." In December 1974, Maynard was again cited for violating the law. Once again he represented himself in court and was again found guilty.

  This time the judge fined him $50 and sentenced him to six months in prison. The judge then suspended the sentence provided that Maynard pay his fines. Maynard told the judge that as a matter of conscience he would not pay them. The judge then made him serve 15 days in jail.

  "The 15 days weren't that bad," Maynard recalls. "It was like a country club in jail. I think our criminals are well taken care of. I just don't think that jail is any great punishment. I think that many people intentionally commit crimes because they get more benefits in jail, like free meals, than they do on the outside."

  Before appearing in court for the second charge, Maynard received a third citation but received no additional penalty.

  Federal lawsuit

  Maynard originally did not intend to pursue the matter. However, representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union contacted him. Attorney Richard S. Kohn with the ACLU told Maynard he had a good federal lawsuit based on a violation of his First Amendment rights.

  Maynard says it was the ACLU's idea and he obliged. "I really had no choice," he said. "I wasn't going to stop covering up the motto and I faced more jail time. So I agreed to let them file the lawsuit."

  Kohn and New Hampshire attorney Jack Middleton represented Maynard and his wife in a federal lawsuit file in March 1975. They sued Neal Wooley, the chief of police in Lebanon, N.H., and the state, alleging a violation of their clients' First Amendment rights.

  Middleton told freedomforum.org that his firm took the case pro bono "free of charge" because he thought it was a good case. "I just thought it was a worthwhile case and I really was not all that fond of that motto myself," he recalls.

  "Maynard had very strong religious beliefs and was very sincere in his challenge."

  "In more than 40 years of representing clients, I would say that George Maynard was in the top category of clients," Middleton says. "He was very cooperative and listened to all the advice that we gave him."

  Middleton said he and Kohn feared they might lose the case "because the New Hampshire Supreme Court had rejected a similar First Amendment challenge brought by three Dartmouth College students who had covered up the motto on their vehicles and had lost. But we thought it was such a worthwhile case."

  A week after the lawsuit was filed, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, preventing further arrests and prosecutions of the Maynards. The case then proceeded to a panel of three federal judges at the district court level.

  The three-judge panel also sided with Maynard and issued an opinion in February 1976. The judges determined that the Maynards' actions qualified as a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

  "Whatever else may be said about the motto "Live Free or Die", it expresses philosophical and political ideas," the court wrote. "Plaintiffs' desire not to be aligned with these ideas falls within the ambit of the First Amendment."

  The state had argued that the state law furthered a number of positive values, such as fostering an appreciation of state history and tradition and creating state pride. The state also contended that the motto on the plates aided in the identification of passenger cars in the state.

  The district court rejected both interests. First, the court determined that the creation of positive values associated with the motto is "directly related to the suppression of free expression." The court also determined that the state could advance its interests in proper vehicle identification in ways that would not infringe on First Amendment values.

  "Surely [the state] need not structure its system of vehicle identification so that individuals will have to display a motto to which they are philosophically opposed," the court wrote.

  Maynard's lawyers pointed out that the vehicles driven by state officials did not have to carry the state motto on their plates.

  To the Supreme Court

  Then-governor Meldrim W. Thompson ordered the state attorney general to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. His name: David Souter, who now sits on the high court.

  "Thompson was a very patriotic and very conservative governor," Middleton recalls. "He used to fly the flags half-mast on Good Friday. It was not surprising that the state appealed."

  Maynard himself never attended oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Wooley v. Maynard. "I couldn't afford the time or the travel," he explains.

  "I wish that I had been able to attend. I think it would have been a nice experience."

  The Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of the Maynards. The Supreme Court likened the Maynards' refusal to accept the state motto with the Jehovah's Witness children refusing to salute the American flag in public school in the famous 1943 decision, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. In Barnette, the high court ruled that the state had violated the First Amendment by punishing students and their parents for the students' refusal to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

  "We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all," Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the majority in Maynard.

  "Here, as in Barnette, we are faced with a state measure which forces an individual, as part of his daily life indeed constantly while his automobile is in public view to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable," Burger continued.

  "The fact that most individuals agree with the thrust of New Hampshire's motto is not the test; most Americans also find the flag salute acceptable," Burger wrote.

  The Supreme Court concluded that the state's interests paled in comparison to individuals' free-expression rights.

  Attorney fees

  Maynard never received a dime for the federal civil rights lawsuit filed on his and his wife's behalf. "That was fine with me; I never did it for the money," he says. Instead, Maynard simply filed a lawsuit to have the court declare that the state could not enforce its license-plate law against the Maynards.

  However, Maynard's attorneys were able to receive their attorney fees. In civil rights lawsuits, the prevailing party can often recover legal fees. The federal district court awarded the Maynards' legal team $21,000 in fees for the suit.

  There was one problem: the state refused to pay. "We eventually had to get a writ of execution from the court, which we gave to the U.S. marshal," Middleton recalls.

  The marshal then walked into a state-owned liquor store and demanded the sum of $21,000 from a store clerk. The clerk phoned a superior and then the state agreed to pay.

  "This was typical of the New Hampshire government at that time," Middleton says.

  "I guess they were angry and upset with the decision."

  Reflections

  As for Maynard, he moved from New Hampshire to Connecticut. He also received a citation for covering up the slogan "The Constitution State" on his license plate in Connecticut.

  "I received a citation from a police officer," he says. "I called my attorney and he told me not to worry about it. I never went to court and actually never heard another word about it. I was told I set some kind of precedent."

  Maynard says his case stands for the principle that every individual has freedom of conscience that cannot be imposed on by the state. "My case helped establish that it is a part of freedom of speech to say something or to not say something; they both are protected."

  First Amendment experts agree that George and Maxine Maynard have left an important First Amendment legacy.

  Robert D. Richards, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, says: "Wooley v. Maynard expanded the broad First Amendment "right to refrain" from speaking a notion articulated earlier in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. After Wooley, it was clear that government cannot compel citizens to profess allegiance to a particular viewpoint or even passively display it on a license plate. The case is an important piece in the line of cases dealing with compelled speech because of this expansion."

  Robert O'Neil, founder of the Virginia-based Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, agrees that the decision has had lasting importance in First Amendment jurisprudence. "The Maynard Court solidly affirmed the basic right not to be compelled to speak, at least with respect to an abhorrent message or viewpoint, and the judgment has been largely followed ever since in the realm of union dues, integrated state bar membership, and most recently collective advertising,” O'Neil says.

  "It remains a seminal decision in a vital, if infrequently litigated, area of First Amendment law," O'Neil says.

  Maynard turns 70 in March 2002 and is now retired. He has left the Jehovah's Witnesses and now focuses on helping people turn to what he calls "God's Government."

  "I think that the ultimate authority is God and that is the government that I choose to follow," Maynard says.

  His faith causes him to question whether the First Amendment has been extended too far in certain circumstances. He says that the First Amendment should not protect immorality. "I think that freedom should protect the right principles of morality," he says.

  "I think the ACLU does a good job for good things and I think they do a good job for bad things, such as protecting pornography and homosexuality; things that conflict with the teachings of the Bible," Maynard says.

  "But they did right by me in my case and I still appreciate that."