May 25th, 2025

 

On Thursday, May 22nd, 2025, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ chief General Counsel Phillip Brumley appeared in Federal Court to appeal fines of more than $154,000, issued against him by Federal Court Judge Susan Watters.

The fines against Brumley stem from his involvement in two parallel child sexual abuse cases filed in Montana in April of 2020.

The underlying child abuse cases involve allegations of years of abuse of multiple victims by multiple predators in Hardin, Montana, including Jehovah’s Witness Church Elders, Ministerial Servants, and other congregation members – cases that were concealed from law enforcement for decades.

The civil lawsuits were filed against multiple defendants, including two key corporations used by the Witnesses – The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. On June 22nd, 2020, Watch Tower Pennsylvania filed a motion to dismiss their corporation from the lawsuit, claiming that the PA corporation had no jurisdiction over Witnesses in Montana, and that WTPA was merely the organization that held copyrights to JW publications, and “provide[d] humanitarian aid to communities after natural disasters.”

This is where Phillip Brumley entered the picture.

To support the claim that Watch Tower PA should be dismissed from these lawsuits, Philip Brumley signed an affidavit on June 19th, 2020, affirming that the PA Corporation “has no contact with congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Montana” and that “WTPA does not establish or disseminate policy or procedure to congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Montana.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses were leveraging Brumley’s position as their top in-house attorney to convince a federal court judge that the PA Corporation had no connection with, or accountability to, congregations in Montana. The Plaintiffs immediately filed a motion opposing Watch Tower’s motion to dismiss, along with a group of documents and letters suggesting that the PA Corporation was involved in much more than copyright and humanitarian aid.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses objected, filing a brief on July 27th, 2020, claiming that the documents submitted by the Plaintiffs were “irrelevant.” To support this claim, Philip Brumley filed a second affidavit on the same day in which he doubled-down on his first affidavit, stating “WTPA and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not one and the same, and the “support” WTPA provides to Jehovah’s Witnesses includes owning the copyright to the Bible and other Bible-based materials and funding international humanitarian relief efforts.”

The legal battle over whether Watch Tower PA should be a defendant led to a lengthy period of litigation called Jurisdictional Discovery. During that period, the Plaintiffs were able to obtain several key documents from outside sources – documents that strongly supported their argument that during the 1970s and 1980s, Watch Tower Pennsylvania was, in fact, equivalent to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Equivalent because the members of the Governing Body were also the top corporate officials, both for the PA and New York organizations, and because they directed every aspect of the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It took over 17 months to resolve the jurisdictional issue.

Meanwhile, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were obstructing the court by their refusal to turn over critical documents and information, which led the Plaintiffs to ask Judge Watters for compensation for six months’ worth of legal work. On September 9th, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel the Jehovah’s Witnesses to pay for those costs. In part, the motion stated:

“PLAINTIFFS’ FEES AND COSTS WERE MADE NECESSARY BY DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT

The time expended in connection with the tasks for which fees are sought is reasonable. This is a complex case involving events starting in the 1970s and ending in the 1990s. After Defendant Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (“WTPA”) challenged this Court’s personal jurisdiction over it, and after this Court permitted Plaintiffs to conduct discovery concerning the same because the affidavits WTPA submitted were misleading and incomplete, Plaintiffs prepared dozens of written discovery requests seeking information and documents regarding WTPA’s contacts with Montana. Most of these requests were met with baseless nonproduction of documents, purposeful and bad faith obfuscation of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, and strings of unjustified objections. Defendants’ evasive tactics forced Plaintiffs to spend significant time analyzing objections, corresponding with opposing counsel, drafting the Motion to Compel and associated briefs, travelling to Billings to argue the Motion, and finally, drafting this Statement and the supporting documentation.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ respectfully request entry of an Order requiring Defendants to reimburse Plaintiffs $22,631.80 for their reasonable expenses incurred making Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel.”

The judge agreed, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses were ordered to pay $22,631.80 to the Plaintiffs.

On December 3rd, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against Jehovah’s Witness top attorney Philip Brumley, as well as attorney Joel Taylor, for their role in knowingly making false statements to the court, and for multiplying legal proceedings for 17 months, in their efforts to obstruct the Plaintiffs’ claims.

On August 23rd, 2022, Judge Susan Watters issued her Order compelling Philip Brumley to pay for all legal costs associated with his judicial misconduct.

In part, Judge Watters stated, “Brumley’s actions demonstrate, at minimum, a reckless disregard for providing an accurate and truthful accounting of WTPA’s role.”

Finally, on April 14th, 2023, Judge Watters issued her Order on Sanctions, compelling Philip Brumley to pay a total of $154,448.11 for his role in misleading the Court.

On May 5th, 2023, Brumley notified the Court of his intention to appeal the sanctions, petitioning the United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.

The appeal was finally deemed ripe for adjudication on Thursday, May 22, 2025, and Oral Arguments were heard in the Court of Appeals. Philip Brumley appeared in Court with his attorney, Benjamin Shatz. Ryan Shaffer appeared for the opposition to Brumley’s appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, provides the following video of the Oral Arguments.

Date: Thursday, May 22nd. 2025

 

The substance of the sanctions against Philip Brumley originates with Federal Law 28 U.S.C. 1927 – a law that is designed to hold attorneys accountable for intentionally “multiplying” or extending court proceedings excessively, leading to expensive and unnecessary litigation and wasting of the Court’s time. In this case, Brumley intentionally misled the Court on his affidavits filed in 2020, causing at least 17 months’ worth of legal wrangling.

It is important to note that Mr. Brumley was not an attorney of record in the two child abuse cases before the Court. While he is the Overseer of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Legal Department, he normally does not take a direct role in defending the JWs in child abuse cases. Instead, the Witnesses use a combination of in-house attorneys and outside law firms to litigate their defense. Hence, Brumley never filed a notice of appearance in the Montana abuse cases.

Rather, Brumley used his position as the top attorney for the Witnesses to lend credibility to his statements about Watch Tower Pennsylvania, hoping that the Court would view him as an expert authority and dismiss the PA corporation from the litigation. The JWs wanted to reduce their financial liability as much as possible.

Now that attorney Brumley has been sanctioned, his attorneys are presenting him in a new light – as a mere fact witness who signed affidavits that any JW executive could have signed. By reducing Brumley to a fact witness and downplaying his role as the JWs’ top lawyer, Brumley is attempting to escape the language of 28 U.S.C. 1927.

Brumley’s attorney has also argued that these sanctions would create a dangerous chilling effect, in which future attorneys would fear significant sanctions for signing affidavits. This argument lacks weight, since it opposes the very reason for this law – to prevent unnecessary litigation, delays, and judicial misconduct.

To this day, Brumley and his attorneys continue to maintain that his affidavits are true and accurate, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The 3-Judge panel will confer and issue its decision at a future time.