The Lösch Court Declaration

1. This is BACKGROUND material -- do not lead with it. Use it only when organisational integrity is already under discussion (e.g. after arguments 027 or 019).
2. Present the facts calmly: In 2014, Gerrit Losch -- the longest-serving Governing Body member at the time -- filed a signed declaration under penalty of perjury in a California child abuse case (Lopez v. Watchtower). In paragraph 8 he stated: "I am not, and never have been, a corporate officer, director, managing agent, member, or employee of Watchtower. I do not direct, and have never directed, the day-to-day operations of Watchtower. I do not answer to Watchtower." In paragraph 9 he added: "Watchtower does not have, and never has had, any authority over me."
3. Then contrast this with what the Watchtower tells its own members: the Governing Body is the "faithful and discreet slave" that directs all activities, and "our spiritual health and our relationship with God depend on this channel" (Watchtower, 15 July 2013, p. 20).
4. Ask the simple question: "Which statement is true -- the one made to Jehovah's Witnesses, or the one made under oath to the court?"
5. The point is not to attack Losch personally, but to highlight that the organisation presents one face to its members and another face to the courts. Jesus said, "Let your 'Yes' mean yes" (Matthew 5:37).

That is precisely the point. Internally, the Watchtower teaches that the Governing Body directs the organisation, controls all publications, and that obedience to it determines your relationship with God. But when a court asks a Governing Body member about his connection to the organisation, he says he has no authority over it and it has no authority over him. If the distinction is so clear, why are regular Witnesses never taught it? And why does the Watchtower use language that deliberately blurs the line -- calling the Governing Body the "faithful slave" that "directs" the work?

This is a public legal document, signed under penalty of perjury by a Governing Body member and filed in a California court. It is not gossip or rumour. Jesus said, "I have spoken openly to the world... I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20). If the organisation has nothing to hide, why would examining a public court filing be forbidden? Proverbs 12:22 says "Lying lips are detestable to Jehovah." Should a Christian organisation not welcome transparency?

That is true -- the California Court of Appeal in 2016 reversed the trial court's finding that Losch was a "managing agent" of Watchtower, on the narrow legal ground that the evidence did not meet the statutory test. But the appellate court did not say Losch's declaration was accurate about the Governing Body's real relationship with the organisation. The legal question (does he meet the Code of Civil Procedure definition?) is different from the moral question (is the organisation being honest about who directs it?). The $13.5 million default judgment was reversed on procedural grounds and remanded -- not because Watchtower was found innocent.

Lopez and Lösch are not isolated. They sit inside a well-documented pattern. In 2012, Candace Conti won a California jury verdict against Watchtower for failing to warn her congregation about a known abuser — $28 million in punitive damages, later reduced on appeal but with the underlying liability finding preserved. That became a pattern case, not an outlier: subsequent U.S. litigation repeatedly surfaced the same internal-records-of-known-abusers issue, and in 2023 a California court ordered Watchtower to disclose decades of internal abuse files it had refused to produce voluntarily. This is the same pattern the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse documented in Case Study 29 (2015–2017): internal records, two-witness rule suppressing reports, no mandatory referral to authorities. The Conti case is the American parallel. Contrast the direction of response: the Southern Baptist Convention — after its own 2022 Guidepost Solutions audit — voted to publish its internal abuser list rather than fight its disclosure in court. Watchtower's direction of response is the opposite: litigate to prevent disclosure, comply only when court-ordered. Which direction reflects accountability, and which reflects self-protection?

The declaration is a public court document: "Declaration of Gerrit Losch in Support of Motion to Quash," filed 5 February 2014, Case No. 37-2012-00099849-CU-PO-CTL, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. It is available on DocumentCloud and other legal archives. The appellate decision is Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., 246 Cal.App.4th 566 (2016). Read both documents for yourself.