Judicial Committee Preparation

by Marvin Shilmer 157 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Humorously, Jim W writes:

  “But, in this you make my point beautifully ... by showing that using the California ruling had complications in each state, and will require an entirely separate set of arguments, all of which could prove fruitless. This has been my point from the beginning, and goes to the point that when you intorduced this ruling in a broader sense, it could be misleading to those who may have considered action against the Elders. My point was to force this to the conclusion that you have now reached. That is why I initially strongly recommended that those considering action against the Society or Elders consult with an attorney in their jurisdiction for proper legal advice.”

  Jim W, if you think there is agreement at this point it can only be because you have looked past your own impressions and decided to take what I have said at face value, something you have failed to do prior. This is because I have said nothing contrary in any of my latest responses to your blather to what I have said from the beginning. Auldsoul is right; you have made an ass of yourself, and you only extend the habit here.
  
  If you believe I have said something contrary then do what I have futilely asked you to do, repeatedly—SHOW THE WORDS, MY WORDS. No reader here will find inconsistency or contradiction in my expressions on this thread. Now, undoubtedly you have inconsistency and contradiction in your personal impressions, because this is ALL you have been arguing against on this thread, so far—your own impressions, which impressions are distinctly at odds with what I have said.

  Furthermore, the self-serving language in you paragraph quoted above and in your earlier response to Auldsoul betrays inappropriate emotional need. I must admit it is distasteful to observe.

  Marvin Shilmer, who has no use for rubbish
• 

  Fisherman

  I don't think that MS is saying that his recommendations will have any effect on what the elders will do relating to that hearing at that point in time, although it could depending on the case. I think that what he is saying is that his recommendations when acted upon will become part of the record and in the event of error, violation of law, or any personal damage whatsoever, the injured party might be able to claim that he was denied fairness and reasonableness and a defense if in the future if any opportunity should arise to plead a cause.

  The purpose of a judicial hearing religious, to help an individual. Keeping records and documents some feel is damaging to privacy and to the good name of a person, and has nothing to do to helping sinners in most cases. Elders have been known to gossip with their wives and to others about confidential matters.

  If minutes or a record of what took place during a hearing is kept by the wts or its agents, it is only fair that copies should be available. If not, then a burden lies on the record keepers and takers and judges.

  Seems that there is advancing legal and other pressure on wts protocol.

  THe bottom line is that people have been injured in the past and the elders know it.Ms recommendations makes them aware of this and of any personal responsibilies.
• 

  Fisherman

  Thank you for your valuable contributions MS.
• 

  Amazing

  Forsher: I understand common law verses legislative or statutory and legal history, etc. You made some good points, but I disagree with some of your conclusions.

  Vitty: I like your idea the best of employing the media. This is the best way, in my opinion, to deal with a book publishing company whose bottom line is image.

  Marvin: I am not evading you, but I am tired and will get back to you tomorrow. We have beat this dead horse enough, and its time to wrap thing up ... the summation and closing arguments ... and then agree to disagree. You have lost the train of thought, and are in proiving yourself mode, thus causing you to miss what I am saying. Cool down for 24-hours and then lets have another go at it.

  Jim Whitney
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Jim W writes:

  “We have beat this dead horse enough, and its time to wrap thing up ... the summation and closing arguments ... and then agree to disagree. You have lost the train of thought, and are in proiving yourself mode, thus causing you to miss what I am saying. Cool down for 24-hours and then lets have another go at it.”

  Jim W, you flatter yourself. I have no need to prove myself to you as though being right is important to me, or to the subject. Likewise with the “cool down” remark—what you have written here only suffices to unsettle a child, which was a long, long time ago for me.

  As for the “we” business, please speak for yourself. I am not kicking any dead horse. If the subject matter was not sufficiently important it would not get kick one from me. If it is sufficiently important then I intend to kick until it stands up and walks on its own.

  I look forward to your attempts at proving that now I realize something about this subject that I did not realize already, and articulate over and over again (kicking). As for what you have written, your stupid comments about the ruling in question being based on child abuse speaks for itself, not to mention the other mooning you’ve done on this thread.

  Marvin Shilmer, who knows that he is not the issue but rather the subject of the initial recommendation is the issue
• 

  TMS

  Mr. Shilmer,

  Obviously, your recommendations have nothing to do with fighting disfellowshipping, but with
  establishing precedents or evidence for future court action

  Since I do have considerable JC experience(1968-95), I considered your suggestions from the
  standpoint of how they would be received by the committee and the effect on the hearings.

  Questions 1-7 might test the patience of the chairman, but should be answered respectfully.
  The request made in question 8 to have an advisor would of course be denied as per Society
  policy. The request in question 9 for the elder to initial the written record of his responses
  would be denied.

  Your next series of suggestions would likely cause the hearing to be aborted. Once the defendant/
  publisher/attendee refused to answer a direct question, the meeting would be over. The elders
  would have to decide the case on the "evidence" they have or "wait on Jehovah" if they do not
  have enough evidence.

  The suggestions that I find most intriguing and workable in the jc setting are those with respect
  to witnesses. Insisting on the testimony of eyewitnesses, not to the elders, but in front of the
  defendant in the hearing is an obvious, but often ignored right. The normal ploy is for elders
  to listen to charges against you by two or more witnesses, talk with the rest of the committee about what they've
  been told and then collectively use that information to try to trap the defendant into a misstatement
  or confession. The elders, of course, play the role of hostile witness, prosecutor and judge.

  Your suggestion to be allowed to take copious notes should be allowed by reasonable elders, however
  exasperating and tedious it would be. It will not only slow the proceedings down to a crawl, but it
  should curtail needless pontificating and scripture-reading by the "shepherds".

  The mention of notifying your attorney and the police may not strike fear in the elders, but it would
  prompt a "How to proceed" call to Brooklyn.

  I will take your word for it that this approach might give one legal recourse, but regardless, your
  suggestions reinforce how unjust the whole setup is. It would take a very strong-minded, confident,
  fearless JW to follow your program. Someone like that would probably already be gone.
  

  tms
• 

  Forscher

  Forsher: I understand common law verses legislative or statutory and legal history, etc. You made some good points, but I disagree with some of your conclusions.

  No problem, I can live with that Amazing.

  TMS makes some pretty good observations. I agree with him on the tactics which are used by elders to deny their victims the right to confront their accusers directly, a right which is documented in the Flock book. They rely on the ignorance of their flock which arises from the secret nature of that book and other documentation of policies to mold the hearing to their own benefit. I once had an elder wave that book under my nose and tell me that the way he wanted to procede was WTBTS policy. When I demanded to see the relavent passage, I was denied it on the basis that the flock book was secret and mere publishers were not allowed to read any part of it. I later found out that the elder had lied about what the book said.

  As I have mentioned elswhere, the best defense if one plans to go to a JC is to get a copy of that book (I personally have a PDF of the annotated copy which Richie Rich purloined and arranged to be made public) and be very familiar with its provisions. I see where Shilmer is going just as TMS does with this thing, he is wanting to inspire people to make a conscious effort to expand both the reach and the scope of the precedent which has been set in California. By posting the information he is hoping that attorneys doing their research or having this brought to their attention by members here will take the step of invoking the precedent in their jurisdictions and cases. For all the argument here that is what his core purpose is and it is a good play on his part as the argument with Amazing is keeping this thread at the head of the line where it can be read by more people. I salute him for that and would like to encourage him to bump this thread to the front periodically and rpovide complete citation of the case when he does. As more cases are decided on the issue it would be good for him to keep us up to date as well.

  Respectfully

  Forscher
• 

  outoftheorg

  AMAZING

  If your post to OUTOFTHEBORG Is directed to me Outoftheorg you have the wrong man.

  Although I would like to take credit for the post you refer to, It wasn't me.

  Outoftheorg' still reading this rather odd back and forth Discussion??
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, TMS

  Yes, I know WTS policy precludes elders from allowing/doing certain things in my recommendations. But, on the other hand, more than a few bodies of elders are known to have ineptness up to their eyeballs. Hence, if a person makes these requests they might get the nod to do as they request. On the other hand, even in cases where the elders reject requests, such as asking for initialing of documents or for having an advisor present for the hearing, as least the individual has went on record with the requests in the event that such a request is helpful down the road in the event of court proceedings.

  As you know there are several items in the recommendations that are not against WTS judicial policy, such as copious note taking by the accused, asking and demanding to have exact information of what documentation the judicial committee will generate (in detail), and having witnesses testify in person. If a judicial committee denies these requests then it has acted contrary to the WTS judicial policy, which opens up a whole can of worms in terms of ecclesiastical privilege because the WTS has defended its right to keep judicial documentation from courts on the basis that its judicial policy is its religious procedure and hence unavailable to the courts. So, if a victim of a judicial hearing is able to demonstrate that a judicial committee acted contrary to WTS judicial policy then the judicial hearing and its associated documents and proceedings are not protected under ecclesiastical privileges, or at least that is the vulnerability under law.

  By mixing request together (some that should be denied under WTS policy and others that should not be denied under WTS policy, and yet others that may serve some purpose but in reality is smoke-screening) a victim lays something of a trap even for trained elders whereby the accused can later show the judicial hearing was conducted outside the WTS’ religous procedure and hence an unprotected process. The recommendation lays a set of ‘on the record’ requests that the elders must be very, very careful to answer “no” to the right ones and “yes” to the right ones or else they are not engaging in a procedure recognized by WTS religious policy.

  I do not agree with you that a judicial hearing will come to an abrupt halt if the accused refuses to give an opening statement or otherwise testify. Though the committee can proceed without this testimony, the accused still has every right under WTS policy to attend and observe their own judicial hearing, including demanding that any testimonial evidence be presented in their presence. Even in this instance the accused should still take copious notes of the hearing, should they choose to attend. Also, if the decision is to disfellowship then the accused should ask lots of questions to pin down exact/precise reasons for the decision, and of course keep copious notes the whole time. Among the questions they should ask is to poll the elders individually and ask them if each of them agrees with the decision. Judicial committee do not need a unanimous vote to disfellowship, and the odd voter might just fess up under questioning. Potentially this could be useful information, too.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Old Goat

  Well, I don’t understand the point of much of this discussion. Association with Jehovah’s Witnesses is voluntary. A little observation tells one that becoming a Witness cuts you off from most non-Witness associations. You are isolated in a small group, and your associations come from that group. When you "dedicate" your life to Jehovah, you’re cutting yourself off from most of humanity. If you wish to leave, the real problem is reintroducing yourself into a society you came to view as hostile and "worldly."

  If one wishes to leave, why make an issue out of the Judicial process. True, the "judicial committee" arrangement is a Star-Chamber process. There is little similarity to how congregations in the first century handled these matters. But, if you wish to remain a member of a sect with high behaviour expectations, then you will follow their procedures. You will meet with the committee. If you do not wish to remain associated, simply decline their invitation to meet. If you have doctrinal or other issues, state them clearly if you must state them at all.

  What is the point of "going out in a blaze of glory"? If you are being wronged by the elders, state your case and follow procedures. If you want to leave, just leave. If you want to explain, you do it to the wrong audience if you explain to a committee. You really wish to make your explanations public, do you not? Post it on a blog, web-site, or forum.

  I was an elder for many years, and I was a congregation servant before that. Most elders wish to do right. However, the governing body provides poor and inadequate training. You cannot rely on good-wishes and intent alone for a righteous and fair decision.

  I have some sympathies for those who wish to sue. I don’t see that as an effective use of time. I don’t see going through the Judicial process as an effective way to state one’s case either, unless one is not-guilty or repentant.

  The judicial committee arrangement is open to abuse. The elders seldom prepare, and those who do prepare seldom prepare well. Being judged by under-educated, untrained, ill-disposed men is not my vision of divine justice. Yet, my experience as an elder (probably more years than many who read this board have lived) is that this is too often exactly the circumstance. The Governing Body knows this. Preparation and qualification are constant problems and are the problems most often considered in Kingdom Ministry School training sessions and in private letters. Why would one wish to put themselves in an abusive situation?

  Leave or stay. If you leave, take your fight to a more public and more effective forum than a courtroom or a judicial hearing. If you intend to protest, take the protest to people who will listen. A judicial committee will not listen to you, except to find in your words justification for their acts.

  One last note. If you protest, stick to the facts. Don’t invent things. A clearly stated objection carries more weight than contrived nonsense.