Irony: WT owns 50% stock in Rand Cam; Dresser Rand will pay $110,000 to JW employee who's religious beliefs they didn't respect.

Just as a wild-assed guess, could we be talking about two different companies here?

As in - a real company versus some crazy scam being put on by some weird Jdub who was "very good at geometry in high school"?

Like the JDub didn't know what their company was about before getting involved in working for them?  That's like someone taking a job in a peanut factory when they are allergic to peanuts.  Dumb dumb dumb.  Why is Rand Cam responsible?

Here is the letter that I referred to earlier . I present it since I believe that our discussion should include the WTS response to the Rand Cam matter. I make no judgement either way.

TALESIN (whose work I have greatly admired)

If you think that this approach makes me an "apologist", then so be it...feel free to think what you like

The Borg didn't own the stock by 2002 because the company had sold out by then.  James McCann gave the shares to the Borg in the late 80s or early 90s.  Not long after the entire outfit sold out because they couldn't get any prototypes to actually work (it only worked on paper).  Now this clown with his own website is trying to continue development of the same engine design, as is another company called Regi (who I think is the one that bought out McCann).  Either the Borg shares were sold, too, or they became part of Regi (if the latter is the case they are technically telling the truth in their letter and lying at the same time - they don't own any Rand Cam - they would own Regi stock instead).

(The above is partly my speculaton and putting together of the pieces of the puzzle.)

OK, so did the WT Society ever own stock in the real company (Dresser Rand) mentioned in the original post?

I don't think so, James Woods. 

But the name "Rand" in both companies may not be coincidence.  Companies merge and split and merge and split all the time and we're talking about two decades here.  The companies that exist now with "Rand" in the name and the companies that exist now in rand-cam engine research may all have evolved from a common ancestor, so to speak.

A lawyer is  writing it. It qualifies corporations to "corporations that deal with the kingdom interest," They are not denying that any subsidiary owns stock. It is limited to kingdom interest. It is very apparent to me that kingdom interest is not a legal term. I doubt if it is an SEC term or a term used by the BY Corporations Code.

Maybe they don't own the shares. Perhaps they once did and divested. Or they still own the shares.

I want to see a legal letter, written for investors in Rand Cam, that the WT and any related corporation owns no stock.

When I posted the thread, I wasn't under the impression that both companies were the same. I believe RAND, is simply an acronym for Research and Devlopement, right? I just find it ironic that here we have two situations involving JWs, one with an individual JW working for a company that manufacturers weaponry amongst other items for the US Military. On the other hand, the WT had 50% stock in a company that manufactured weaponry. The individual sued to keep his job after balking at his employer when required to work directly on weapon related material. The WT balked at ever having been associated with a company that manufactured such materials, btu there's some evidence that they weren't being entirely truthful. To be fair, maybe it is as they say that a couple individual JWs simply donated the stock unbeknownst to the WT? I don't know, just interesting to me, kinda like Freakanomics.

I recieved a similar letter as BluesBrother did years ago about Rand Cam. The letter said that 2 brothers working on the engine donated stock to them and they refused it and were wrongly listed. They said they never recieved even a penny from Rand Cam stock and those brothers while meaning well, should have inquired first if the society would accept such stocks from that company.

I think some people jump to conclusions too fast without having all of the facts, there is much hurt and anger towards the society on the part of some and they jump on anything to use it to criticize the society.

I try to be fair and objective too. It is impossible for any of us to get complete information on the WTS. it is a priveltly held corporation and is not rquired by law to release information, and it seems they certainly want to keep much information from the public, and from "apostates" who are prone to twist things into a negative light.

I agree with undercover- there are things the wts does that have proven to be wrong. There is no need to speculate on unimportant matters- things for which we cannot know all of the facts about.

BluesBrother- that it the same answer that was sent to me! Thanks for posting it!

http://www.regtech.com/

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/rgus

I believe that the society once or still owns stock in one or both of the companies. I also think that the small engine that these companies were trying to develop might have been at first using the rand cam name for the engine. As can be seen they now call it RadMax. I believe that they at one time held shares in reg, shares that were donated so to speak. This might explain the confusion and mean that the society never did own Dresser Rand. 

Check the "best of" folder on this forum.  The Rand Cam military planes issue has been thoroughly researched and discussed previously here.

I have seen it myself on SEC documents. 

Whether the stocks were donated to them or not, I do not remember, but I don't see why it matters.  They require bros to give up stocks given to them as a doctrinal issue but did not follow their own rule.

I agree with Blue Brother--the letter is a smokescreen--whether they got cash donations from the proceeds matters not.

Aha.  This document from the SEC regarding Rand Cam does say WTS info but for some reason you cannot find it when you do a word search in my browser.  I converted it to pdf and viola.

I am quoting the pertinent info below (which you can verify yourself) re the WTS' involvement.  See the document for the military info.

Name Class A Shares Owned                      Percentage of Class A Shares Owned
The Watchtower Society (3) 5,073,200    44.94%

Rand Cam Engine Corp. is a privately held company whose stock is reportedly
owned 50% by The Watchtower Society, a religious organization, 34% by James
McCann and the balance by several other shareholders. Mr. McCann has indicated
that he donated the shares held by The Watchtower Society to that organization
but has retained a voting proxy for those shares. Accordingly, in Notes (3) and
(4) above, beneficial ownership of the 5,073,200 shares registered in the name
of Rand Energy Group Inc. has been attributed to The Watchtower Society and Mr.
McCann. We believe it would be misleading and not provide clear disclosure to
list as beneficial owners in the table the other entities and persons discussed
in this paragraph, although a strict reading of Rule 13d-3 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 might require each such entity and person to be listed in
the beneficial ownership table.

rebel18 says  "The Rand Cam military planes issue" has been researched. Since there is no Rand Cam military planes issue to research how does that make any sense. If you want to research follow the links from my previous post. The current efforts at developing an engine that works are ongoing. Will the engine ever come to fruition, who knows. But the notion that this engine design and the efforts to create a "better" engine has a component to do with military somehow is redundant. The only connection was an effort to get r & d money from the government on the basis of selling them on the idea that "if" this little motor came to be it would have an application for them.

As undercover comments it is hard to get worked up about something so obscure when there are so many evil things that can be so clearly identified. The reason I continue to comment on this issue is because I know of what I speak. I have had direct knowledge of this issue basically from day one if you will. I purchased stock when the promoter in Vancouver got involved, took the project over and took it public. It has NEVER had anything to do with the military, munitions etc. If you read the last post from rebel18 it is easy to see that it referrs to before it was taken over by the promoter and taken public. Once it went public there were thousands of shareholders, I being one along with friends of mine who got involved after meeting with a sales rep for the promoter in a little restaurant and being convinced we, because of getting in on the ground floor, would make a lot of money.

Reg Technologies
Listing:
Symbol:
Shares Outstanding:

TSX Venture
RRE
25,713,927

This shows the number of shares outstanding. I went back and re-read some posts and one of them was saying that the society should have steered away from the "supposed" military aspect. Let's be clear on this issue. A shareholder almost never has any real say in, or ability to influence what happens in a publcally owned and traded company. Sure the company has an annual meeting and voting on certain issues. but if you have ever attended any of these you quickly realize that individuals will have little influence on anything.

The SEC Statement is from 2002. I am not feeling well now but I will check to see what a current document says. It seems to me as a lawyer that you do not correct a mistatement of fact on an SEC document by issuing letters and referring to "kingdom interest." These shares were not voting. Nevertheless, the individual Witness did not have a voting bloc in the company but sought transfer to a nonmilitary division. If I must choose between a letter from the Society and an SEC document, I vote for the SEC.

The issue is hypocrisy. One rule for regular p eople and another rule for Bethel. An individual would be in trouble for accepting the cash or the shares. Certainly, a corporation as large as the Society should care about the SEC and amend the forms. Perhaps they did so.

band on the run  -  i truly believe there is confusion as to the company being talked about. Anything to do with rand cam engine. reg technology, regus us, etc. have nothing, zilch to do with military, munitions or dresser rand.

And the letter posted by BluesBrother and the link provided by rebel18 talk about the little engine that could and not Dresser Rand. 

@therevealer-

thank you for the additional information!

Since  the Rand Cam engine has nothing to do with the military, etc, then it is not wrong for the wts to own shares in it.

I want to check the SEC listings next week at the law library. It will be difficult to do without knowing the name of the company. The EEOC reports that the employee was required to paint a submarine. It seems as though the more I read, the more confused I am. An engine might have military uses. Painting a submarine seems to not  have much to do with a new type of engine.

Clearly, the company that was involved in the original post does defense work. I refuse to read about four or five companies. A large segment of voting shares can influence corporate policy. The shares in the SEC are nonvoting, however. 

My problem is that a normal JW cannot work on any defense projects. I am certain that one could not hold shares.

Perplexing.