Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2002, Page 75
the Jehovah's Witness, in our experience and from the documentation that we
have, to, in essence, cover up, lie, [or] distort ...to make the Society look
good ...‖ (R.T. p. 47).
After a study of Watchtower policies and practices, Attorney Thad Nugent concluded that
the Watchtower recommends
the giving of testimony under oath which is known to be untrue. ...By the
statutory definitions, that is perjury [and] … it is very clear that [the
Watchtower] instructs the ―Jehovah‘s Witnesses, who find themselves
involved in custody cases, how to avoid getting themselves into a position [in
which] ...they have to say what it is they are really practicing with respect to
their kids, with respect to the way that their children live, and with respect to
the limitations that are placed on those children for their psychological and
emotional and social development [and this conclusion is] real clear!.
(Witness, Inc., 1994, taped interview with T. Nugent).
In one case3, which is evidently not atypical, the Watchtower attorney allegedly informed a
Witness trying to achieve custody that the court ―may be biased against Witnesses because
of their religion. Therefore, any example of abuse that you can recall would be very helpful
to your case.‖ After the Witness stated that she could not think of any, the Watchtower
attorney allegedly then coached her to mislead the court with the following words: ―If you
cannot [think of an example of abuse], it is going to be far more difficult to prevail in your
case. Think hard, and I am sure you can come up with an incident when you at least felt
frightened of your husband.‖ The attorney allegedly encouraged lying by explaining to the
Witness that the outcome of this trial meant her children‘s everlasting life and emphasized
that giving custody to her husband, an opposer, would surely mean their destruction at
Armageddon, arguing as follows:
Would you want your children to die the horrible death at Armageddon? Don‘t
you want them in the New World with you? Their life is in your hands, and
you must do what you can to insure that you receive custody. If a deranged
man, foaming at the mouth, came to your door asking for your mother, would
you openly tell him that your mother was upstairs, allow him to force his way
in and go up there and harm her? No, of course not you would say anything
to mislead him. After all, he has no right to the truth. Likewise, in this
situation the court has no right to the truth. (From a taped transcribed
transcript with a former JW, source not identified due to client confidentiality.
The author was a consultant to this case.)
In another case in which the author was a consultant the Witness claimed that her husband
only ―mouthed‖ that he wanted to harm her, yet in court he was accused of physical abuse,
quite in contrast to her earlier claims. By using such tactics the Watchtower attorneys may
prevail upon their client to use theocratic war strategy in court. The Watchtower also not
uncommonly uses unscrupulous ad hominem attacks, presenting wholly inaccurate evidence
against the people who testify in these kinds of cases.
An earlier example of the Watchtower's use of theocratic war strategy was provided by a
Watchtower official in Sweden, a Johan Henrick Eneroth, who states that during World War
II it ―became necessary to use theocratic war strategy in order to maintain desired contact
with occupied countries.‖ He then explained he had to deceive the government and
misrepresent his purpose in order to obtain a visa. Specifically Eneroth misrepresented
3 From a typed transcript of interview with the client and his attorney. The case is not cited because
of lawyer-client confidentiality. The author was a consultant in this case.
the Jehovah's Witness, in our experience and from the documentation that we
have, to, in essence, cover up, lie, [or] distort ...to make the Society look
good ...‖ (R.T. p. 47).
After a study of Watchtower policies and practices, Attorney Thad Nugent concluded that
the Watchtower recommends
the giving of testimony under oath which is known to be untrue. ...By the
statutory definitions, that is perjury [and] … it is very clear that [the
Watchtower] instructs the ―Jehovah‘s Witnesses, who find themselves
involved in custody cases, how to avoid getting themselves into a position [in
which] ...they have to say what it is they are really practicing with respect to
their kids, with respect to the way that their children live, and with respect to
the limitations that are placed on those children for their psychological and
emotional and social development [and this conclusion is] real clear!.
(Witness, Inc., 1994, taped interview with T. Nugent).
In one case3, which is evidently not atypical, the Watchtower attorney allegedly informed a
Witness trying to achieve custody that the court ―may be biased against Witnesses because
of their religion. Therefore, any example of abuse that you can recall would be very helpful
to your case.‖ After the Witness stated that she could not think of any, the Watchtower
attorney allegedly then coached her to mislead the court with the following words: ―If you
cannot [think of an example of abuse], it is going to be far more difficult to prevail in your
case. Think hard, and I am sure you can come up with an incident when you at least felt
frightened of your husband.‖ The attorney allegedly encouraged lying by explaining to the
Witness that the outcome of this trial meant her children‘s everlasting life and emphasized
that giving custody to her husband, an opposer, would surely mean their destruction at
Armageddon, arguing as follows:
Would you want your children to die the horrible death at Armageddon? Don‘t
you want them in the New World with you? Their life is in your hands, and
you must do what you can to insure that you receive custody. If a deranged
man, foaming at the mouth, came to your door asking for your mother, would
you openly tell him that your mother was upstairs, allow him to force his way
in and go up there and harm her? No, of course not you would say anything
to mislead him. After all, he has no right to the truth. Likewise, in this
situation the court has no right to the truth. (From a taped transcribed
transcript with a former JW, source not identified due to client confidentiality.
The author was a consultant to this case.)
In another case in which the author was a consultant the Witness claimed that her husband
only ―mouthed‖ that he wanted to harm her, yet in court he was accused of physical abuse,
quite in contrast to her earlier claims. By using such tactics the Watchtower attorneys may
prevail upon their client to use theocratic war strategy in court. The Watchtower also not
uncommonly uses unscrupulous ad hominem attacks, presenting wholly inaccurate evidence
against the people who testify in these kinds of cases.
An earlier example of the Watchtower's use of theocratic war strategy was provided by a
Watchtower official in Sweden, a Johan Henrick Eneroth, who states that during World War
II it ―became necessary to use theocratic war strategy in order to maintain desired contact
with occupied countries.‖ He then explained he had to deceive the government and
misrepresent his purpose in order to obtain a visa. Specifically Eneroth misrepresented
3 From a typed transcript of interview with the client and his attorney. The case is not cited because
of lawyer-client confidentiality. The author was a consultant in this case.
