J F Rutherford: 1917-1919: Information, Misinformation and Disinformation

[Srecko Sostar]

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But it was considerably more serious to the War Department and FBI if a person had influence, and their words were intended to influence.

Words has power to influence. Preaching Service, for example, is tool to make influence on people to change according to message. 

Words cannot change reality, but they can change how people perceive reality. Words create filters through which people view the world around them. A single word can make the difference between liking a person and disliking that person. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/let-their-words-do-the-talking/201011/words-have-power

[Srecko Sostar]

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

as there is evidence that ex-JWs helped the prosecution in Australia

...  fluctuation of people, from here to there, is always good way that the other part can be able to understand more - other people reality :)))

[JW Insider]

6 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

...  fluctuation of people, from here to there, is always good way that the other part can be able to understand more - other people reality :)))

It seemed to me that some of the information that the ex-JWs had tried to prepare the prosecution with was unrelated to the case and was merely brought up to prejudice onlookers against Witnesses. Things can be done wrong, or said wrong, and still might have almost nothing to do with the case at hand. The place for the discussion of such things is in the context of how to improve our viewpoint and make it more in line with our own claims. It should not be used in order to stretch the truth about our lifestyle to make it seem like it could be matched up with extremists. If the State/Nation thinks it has a case against a person or group, let the State/Nation present it honestly so that the person or group knows what the real problem is, and can fairly defend themselves -- or even offer solutions and fixes.

[JW Insider]

@Srecko Sostar: Completely different subject. Have you read or heard of a political author (American) named Michael Parenti? I have read a couple of his articles and have a book of his on the socio-politico-economic situation around Croatia and recent history there from Bill Clinton's time, and since. Wondered how much truth you thought his ideas had (if you know of them). They are not popular ideas in the US, so, even if credible, it's difficult to get a sense of validation/confirmation.

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

@Srecko Sostar: Completely different subject. Have you read or heard of a political author (American) named Michael Parenti? I have read a couple of his articles and have a book of his on the socio-politico-economic situation around Croatia and recent history there from Bill Clinton's time, and since. Wondered how much truth you thought his ideas had (if you know of them). They are not popular ideas in the US, so, even if credible, it's difficult to get a sense of validation/confirmation.

Sorry, I am not familiar with this author and text of him. I will try to find something on internet to learn about his writings. Thanks for subject. :))

[JW Insider]

Rutherford and his associates were not released in 1919 because they had been declared innocent. They were simply being released on bail, because the case was on appeal. A payment of $10,000 each gave them release until the case would be fully retried. Note that even up to January of 1920, they were still being told the case was going to be retried on April 7, 1920. (This is the Brooklyn Daily Eagle from January 20, 1920.)

But by April it was looking less and less like they could ever get a conviction. The "Proclaimers" book presents the situation like this:

*** jv chap. 29 p. 654 “Objects of Hatred by All the Nations” ***
Nine months after Rutherford and his associates were sentenced—and with the war past—on March 21, 1919, the appeals court ordered bail for all eight defendants, and on March 26, they were released in Brooklyn on bail of $10,000 each. On May 14, 1919, the U.S. circuit court of appeals in New York ruled: “The defendants in this case did not have the temperate and impartial trial to which they were entitled, and for that reason the judgment is reversed.” The case was remanded for a new trial. However, on May 5, 1920, after the defendants had appeared in court, on call, five times, the government’s attorney, in open court in Brooklyn, announced withdrawal of the prosecution. Why? As revealed in correspondence preserved in the U.S. National Archives, the Department of Justice feared that if the issues were presented to an unbiased jury, with the war hysteria gone, the case would be lost. U.S. attorney L. W. Ross stated in a letter to the attorney general: “It would be better, I think, for our relations with the public, if we should on our own initiative” state that the case would be pressed no further.
On the same day, May 5, 1920, the alternate indictment that had been filed in May 1918 against J. F. Rutherford and four of his associates was also dismissed.

Obtaining an appeal does not mean that they would win on appeal, but it does (at least temporarily) "reverse the judgment" of the first trial. The next trial could have turned out even worse for them. But soon after the war was over on November 11, 1918, other appeals of 1918 Espionage/Sedition cases were losing their "teeth" and being overturned, and sometimes just being dropped altogether, so it was becoming more difficult to successfully try such cases in late 1919 and early 1920. (Eugene Debs was a glaring exception, and unrelated to religion.)

Judge Howe, himself, makes it sound as if he knew all along that they would be released much sooner and Howe was in agreement that they should get bail, and even says he expected the President to commute their sentence after the war. (Howe had played up his support for President Wilson for years, and had communication and contact with him while running for Governor of Vermont, which is apparently why Wilson appointed him to a Federal judgeship as soon as Howe lost the election for Governor.)

Those 5 calls to have the defendants come to Brooklyn was not such a hardship on most of the defendants, because they lived at Brooklyn Bethel -- except for Rutherford who lived in Southern California. He complained that he was dying. Only a couple of months after his release on bail, he got sick and developed pneumonia. This was more than 20 years before he actually died, but he really was seriously ill back in 1919. This could even have been tied to the conditions in the Atlanta penitentiary, or perhaps in the worse conditions of the local jail back in 1918 before they were transferred. Some newspapers reported that Rutherford said he was "dying" and the courts stopped forcing Rutherford to make the trip from California to Brooklyn.

This is a bit out of order but the situation by October 1919 made it look like the Feds were not quite ready to give up on the case, but were already being pushed to declare it a non-case (abandonment of action, "nolle pros"). It doesn't mean they think you are innocent, but they are giving up trying to prove it, and it becomes as if the case never happened.

BTW, when the Proclaimer's book says "As revealed in correspondence preserved in the U.S. National Archives" these are the same archives I am quoting from, although most of the newspaper quotes are coming from clippings from Newspapers.com. Also, archives of the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" are available for free online. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

To make a long story short ... the "Great war" was over, the Allies had won, and everybody lost interest.

Governments are not in the business of exonerating people .... that is impossible.

[JW Insider]

11 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Governments are not in the business of exonerating people .... that is impossible.

The 1975 Yearbook had mentioned that Howe was immediately ready to have the sentence commuted, not to exonerate them, which, as you say, was never the point:

*** yb75 p. 116 Part 2—United States of America ***
On March 2, 1919, the trial judge, Federal District Judge Harland B. Howe, sent a telegram to Attorney General Gregory in Washington, D.C., recommending “immediate commutation” of the sentences imposed on the eight imprisoned Bible Students.

Had the Society's defense attorneys known this in advance, I wonder if they would have gone for the immediate appeal. It's quite possible that the Fed Dept of Justice figured they should ignore this immediate commutation request and just let Rutherford's attorneys have the appeal they wanted. The appeal might have been what kept them in prison for so long, although the way it worked out in making them "seem" exonerated was probably better for the Watch Tower Society in the long run.

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Sorry, I am not familiar with this author and text of him. I will try to find something on internet to learn about his writings. Thanks for subject. :))

[on the OTHER topic of Yugoslavia/Serbia/etc]

Srecko, It's about the same take that Edward Hermann has on the topic: https://monthlyreview.org/2007/10/01/the-dismantling-of-yugoslavia/

I can no longer locate the Parenti essay as it is down, but just got it from the "wayback machine."

https://web.archive.org/web/20190331172008/http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

I reference Parenti, rather than Hermann, because Parenti is so much more succinct.

[Srecko Sostar]

On 8/3/2019 at 6:56 PM, JW Insider said:

[on the OTHER topic of Yugoslavia/Serbia/etc]

Srecko, It's about the same take that Edward Hermann has on the topic: https:// monthlyreview.org/2007/10/01/the-dismantling-of-yugoslavia/

I can no longer locate the Parenti essay as it is down, but just got it from the "wayback machine."

https://web.archive.org/web/20190331172008/http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

I reference Parenti, rather than Hermann, because Parenti is so much more succinct.

I have never dealt with the reasons for the aversion that exists between Croats and Serbs. Neighboring countries with very similar language but different Christian religions. Two small nations with big appetites. The 1991 conflicts arose and were caused by old, unresolved accounts in their relationships dating back to about 1941 (especially) and before. 

How much and in what measures Foreigner Powers was involved in conflict it is hard to say for me. They had, for sure, interests. And some of actors had their expectations in relation to West or East.

They, Croats and Serbs, who was involved in conflicts in WW2 period as soldiers of regular armies and paramilitary groups and/or supporters of domestic governments and in this or that as supporters or in alliance with out side powers, done many crimes for sure. Tito was united many Yugoslav nations in resistance to domestic and foreign aggression and violence. But, obviously he had power and way how to unite all of them in one goal, freedom and own state. After his dead, and changes in east block, fall of Wall, awaking of people who want separate states, which is one of possibility made by YU Constitution everything went in that direction. Why leaders of YU Republics didn't that wisely and without conflicts and suffers and many deaths ....?