Auldsoul,
(1) The advice Marvin Shilmer gave was not in any way legal advice. You give yourself away as poorly knowledgable on the subject of what constitutes legal advice simply by saying so.
I was using a legel of subtle sarcasm. However, given that I have legal training, and work with the law and courts, I have a good measure of knowledge. I am not an attorney, though I am in university for the purpose of becoming one down the road. It is far easier to get into trouble for giving legal advice than most people realize. So, in this respect, you demonstrate that you are lacking some knowledge.
(2) Whether the advice he gave would be helpful to anyone who is not currently being invited to attend a Judicial Committee meeting is entirely subjective, and would be determined only by the person who read the thread. This advice was not given to help people pick fights with bodies of elders, congregations, or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
What you say in the first sentence is correct. However, it was Marvin, and those who agree with him, who first employed the terms "intimidate the Elders" and "threaten the Elders" with calling the police and other legal actions. Therefore, one can conclude that this could lead to "picking fights" with the Elders or even the Society. Though, I did not say nor think about "picking fights" with Elders. I simply believe that calling the police on matters less than crimes is a pointless exercise in hot wind that impresses no one.
If that is really what you thought, you give yourself away as lacking basic reading comprehension skills, because I can't think of many 8th graders who would have taken from the initial post any hint of ability to use these suggestions in a recursive sense. I hope that isn't really what you thought.
I do not lack basic reading skills, and to suggest such demonstrates that you are lacking in comprehension of the written word and development of this dsicussion. You are not being honest with the string of threads that have evolved between myself and Marvin. We are having a disagreement, all of which was hinged on the one point that I first disagreed with his recommendation of calling the police (unless a crime were involved). I later disagreed with his implied application of California case law, all of which he has finally come around to what I was arguing for in the first place.
(3) If you present the California finding in a state that does not have similar laws, you may find yourself hard pressed to base the finding on meritorious grounds in the state where you are pressing your case.
My point with marvin is that initially he implied that the California has some broad application in his effort to refute my points. I am the one who said the case law was restricted to California and in particular in cases that involve child molestation. My point to Marvin was to force him to either accept the challenge, or admit that the case law is confined to California ... he finally admitted it is confined to California. That is where I left it yesterday. I employed a style of challenge that takes the point to its logical conclusion to expose the logical fallacy he was using. In so doing, I succeeded. Following the thread history reveals that is what took place.
(4) If you present the California finding as a finding narrowly applied to a child molestation case or even infer that its focus could be construed so narrowly you will without fail eliminate the possibility of applying it in any other context. Once again, your suggested method of presentation demonstrates you have an abundant lack of knowledge of case law and legal theory.
I stated early on that the finding could be broadened to other crimes, but that it takes court battles in that State's court, all of which do not guarantee that the employment of the finding will result in a favorable outcome. One could also try to cite the California finding in another State, but each State is not bound by anything done in California. So, it is a challenge. When you read various opinions of trial and appellate courts you get a flavor for how case citations get argued. Both judges and counsel for the opposition do exactly as I suggested, they argue a more narrow application. It takes a lot of argumentation to get them to broaden an application. So, to allege that I have an abundant lack of knowledge is silly on your part. I never claimed to be, nor do I now claim to be an attorney. I have simply been exposed enough to understand what I am talking about.
My focus however in discussing the California finding and case law was to debate Marvin's broad application. I have asked him if he is an attorney, or licensed to practed in any of the 50 Untied States ... to which he has yet to respond. If he is an attorney, then he should say so and give us all a brief legal education. Instead, he avoided that topic. My challenge is also not just about Oregon. I have had discussion with an attorney experienced in this issue regarding the California decision and whether it could be employed elsewhere, such as my case. I have asked marvin to go off board and talk to thsi attorney, to which he has yet to replay as well.
My question to you: Are you an attorney? Are you licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the UNited States, Canada, or the United Kingdom? I ask this because of the general similarity of legal theory and law structure of all three nations. You claim I lack abundant knowledge, then I want to know just where your knowledge resides.
(5) The involvement of the legal department would not in any way invalidate the religion's authority to eject whomever it wishes on spiritual grounds. However, if you were pursuing a civil tort against the elders in your case, the WTS legal department, or the WTS itself for which the statute of limitations has not expired, the California case law could potentially (depending on the laws in Oregon {France?}) compel testimony/discovery relative to the tortuous claims which would otherwise remain concealed behind a veil of clerical "confidence".
You now demonstrat a lack of knowledge. Of course anyone can cite a case, and seek to compel testimony on that basis. But you ignore what I earlier argued. The judge in hearing such a motion does not have to agree to grant it on the basis cited. Also, just because the WTS lost in one case in California does not mean that they will not fight the same elsewhere with their own set of motions, all of which take months and years to get through the system. It has been years since this set of cases were initiated in California, and yet the pre-trial work is still going on. I gave testimony in some of this almost three years ago.
My point with Marvin was not that the California finding could "never" be applied elsewhere or broadened beyond its initial scope, but that the time (and cost) are prohibitive in most cases, especially in cases that do not involve a crime such a molestation. I well understand that the California court ruled against the Society on the basis that its JC system is not like Catholic confession, and thus not protected in such matters from discovery, etc. I also made that point early on with Marvin. However, how does one then get it broadened in other types of cases? That is the difficult road that I was talking about with Marvin.
You mention tort against the Elders or the WTS. So, I challenge you as I have Marvin. Give an example of how this finding in California can be used in such torts against the Elders and/or the Society. You have already excluded tort on being DF'd on "spiritual" grounds. So what is left? Tort in cases of child molestation works, we know that very well. What else is there? Could it be slander or libel? The Society has already lost a number of cases on these grounds. I doubt one needs the California finding to support such a tort. Slander and libel have to be proven by what is said or written that causes harm to a person's name and reputation. Olin Moyle was able to make the case without the California finding as it it did not exist. One needs to prove a number of things, all of which fall outside the California finding. What else is left then tht one would sue the WTS, bringing a civil tort? I am truly curious since you seem to have a handle on the law ... let's hear it.
(6) As in point #5, the California case law might be used to compel testimony which would otherwise be concealed if a prosecutor were pursuing convictions of criminal charges.
That has likewise been my exact argument ... where a cime is involved. But, in most cases, crime is not involved. The child molestation cases are a unique and serious crime in dealing with the JWs, the Elders and the Society. What other crimes would be commonly dealt with among the JWs. Don't forget the context and history of this thread and my original critque that Marvin's recommendation to call the police was ill advised. I am the one who suggested that calling th police in cases of crime. It took Marvin two or three more postings to agree with me. But his initial recommendation made no such clarification.
(7) In every case, if someone chooses to attend a Judicial Committee to which they have been currently invited (not picking fights with elders)—i.e. the only context within which the advice in the first post was given—and wants to know how to best protect their interests in the process, Marvin's advice is stellar on every point. Without exception.
This gets back to the point, and that is Marvin's initial advice is wrong on his recommendation to call the police. Also, his advice creates intimidation and threatens, and he later stated that was his goal So, call it picking fights, or whatever, intimidating andf threatening at some point is picking a fight.
In my estimation, you have made a royal ass of yourself by confusing his advice with being recommendations on how to best pick fights with the elders. From your description of your attempt to use the California law, it seems advice on how to best pick fights is what you wanted to hear. But that is not what Marvin offered, no matter how much you wish it had been. He never once indicated it could be used in the way you suggested.
I confused nothing. I simply took whatr he said, as he said it. If you read his first post, it recommends actions such as calling the police without any further clarification. If you read my first response, I was not very critical, and simply challenged his advice on calling the police. All Marvin had to do was merely clarify his position ... but no, he chose to debate and broaden the discussion.
Now, you say I make an ass of myself ... really? Just because I discuss and debate Marvin on his less than stellar advice? You have rasied a red herring in claiming that I have confused his advice with picking fights. I did not such thing. Anyone on this board who has known me for any length of time knows that I of any one would bethe first to emply whatever tactic necessary that would help a person seek and obtain justice against the Watchtower and its Elders. I have myself called the police in dealing with the Elders in case you want to know. I did so in the case of a crime. But really, to call the police for any other reason, or to simply threaten as Marvin suggested, is ludicris.
In the one paragraph of yours I have here quoted, you demonstrated in many ways that you had not the first clue what Marvin's initial post was recommending and you have, as a result, greatly overreached the bounds of common sense in every response you've made on this thread thus far. Rein it in, get a grip, go back and read the first post for what it says and stop superimposing what you wish it said onto it.
I read the firts post, and the SUBSEQUENT posts by Marvin. IF YOU read my first response, it all could and should have died right there, with Marvin clarifying his position. You are deliberately ignoring Marvin's subsequent postings where he broadens his advice in ways that I did not expect or that was warranted. So, I respeonded accordingly.
When it comes to accepting challenges, I haven't seen anything posted by you so far that someone moderately versed in the issue under discussion would remotely consider a raised challenge. If you felt that the paragraph of yours that I quoted was clinching evidence of the uselessness of Marvin's advice you have a grossly underdeveloped imagination to accompany your lack of direct, first-hand knowledge.
The challenege is this: Talk to the attorney I did, who is experienced in this matter, and see if Marvin's advice holds up in utilizing the California finding. It is as simple as that, and should not be a big mystery. You simply keep repeating how I am not knowledgeable but you have failed to qualify yourself and your knowledge. Your repeated claims are just that ... releated saying what you thnk of me ... that is nothing but ad hominem attack in more eloquent fashion.
Your situation is not even arguably a violation of a civil right, a Constitutional right, nor is it an example of criminal conduct. It also happened too long ago for this finding to be useful to you. In your situation, if you had followed Marvin's advice when it was all "going down" to begin with, you might have been able to take advantage of the finding now. But you can't get a "do over" and Marvin never hinted that you could.
My argument with Marvin has been to question what civil rights are involved? Your subsequent comments are absurd, and Marvin's advice would have no relevancy. My point was not to suggest that anything now could be done ... but were it a current issue, just HOW his advice could possibly work. You are the one with a reading comprehension problem now if you are making such comments that I in anyway thought that my situation could be current or within some statute of limitations.
His advice is for people currently facing situation similar to what you once faced (past tense). He never intended for you to apply it to your situation, and never suggested that it could be so applied.
Now you are talking down to me ... and this is done when people have run out of arguments but are obsessed with proving themselves right. I know well that his advice is for current JWs facing problems with the Elders. My first and only real concern was his overly broad recommendation to call police.
Jim Whitney
