Judicial Committee Preparation

by Marvin Shilmer 157 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  Marvin,

  Marvin, I understand a lot more than what you might ASSume. Don't give people false hope without backing it up. Your suppositions are interesting but doing any of your recommendations, esp. with the police is.....oh never mind. You're supposed to be one of the intellects on this board. I almost forgot. And who says they'll have no basis for eccl. privilege?? You????
  

  Don't worry too much about Minimus. He is trying to mimic the behavioral cliche that uninformed men tend to attribute to menopausal women - a bulbous red face followed by ten yards of hormonal bitch.

  HS
• 

  hillary_step

  Drew,

  From what I understand local Elders usually allways shy away from an individual who wants his personal rights protected by legal means.

  Yes, exactly. I believe that this is the issue that Marvin is addressing.

  I know of many who have threatened to use legal constraints in such situations and the Branch has told the elders to leave well alone. Most elders would immediately call their C.O's if such actions were taken by a person on a JC. The CO would contact the Branch, and the Branch will often tell its elders to back off - preferring to avoid any bad publicity.

  The process of course has to be done properly, and this is perhaps what Marvin is trying to achieve here.

  On my own case I told the CO that I had copies of letters from the congregations files that would be made public if any action was taken against me. I was left alone despite an unexpected a visit from the CO, the local PO and a pale and withered representative of WTS legal, though the little runt has tried his best to muddy my name, apparently accusing me publicly of virtually single-handedly depressing the publisher figures for the whole West Coast of the US, Canada and Taiwan....lol

  HS
• 

  No Apologies

  Gary wrote:

  Those elders sit in a room and the victim walks in to face them through the only door. It'd be like shooting fish in a barrel.

  So, taking this approach, only two questions are needed:

  How many exits are there?

  Will any of the elders be armed?

  Ask those two questions and I think your problems are solved.

  No Apologies
• 

  No Apologies

  dup post, nevermind
• 

  sass_my_frass

  Tell them that because your memory is faulty and because your family will want to know the specifics of your judicial hearing, that you would rather have one or two members of your family present to hear a public judicial meeting (in harmony with God's written will). That way, you won't have to remember everything that is stated in the hearing and your family will see and hear the star tactics of the committee.

  You can't - from the Flock book:

  If the accused wishes to bring witnesses who can speak
  in his defense regarding the matter, he may do so. However, observers are not permitted.
• 

  Forscher

  Marvin is quite interesting here.

  There are a few things to think about which are both direct and anciliary to the issues and the advice he gave. First, and foremost in the advice is that it is centered around intimidating those elders who might be intimidated by the posibility of their actions being reviewed by powers not friendly to them. Just the thought that outside authorities might become involved might be enough in some instances as witnessed by one poster on this forum that such a threat was enough to stop the Disfellowshipping process.

  Just because the Witnesses have successfully invoked ecclesiastical priviledge in the past is no garauntee of future success as child molestation issues appear to be chipping away at that form of protection. Sure, one can say that it is just for that one issue, but believe me that once thast section of the wall comes down the precedents are there to weaken the rest of the structure. That is what the process of stare decisis ends up doing, it builds steadily on what went before towards an end. Anyone other than our lawyer heard of the Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education? It is famous for being the case from 1947 which first used the quotation from Thomas Jefferson about the Constitution raising a "wall of separation between church and state." That decision is accepted as the beginning of the elimination of the Christian religion from the public sphere. Yet, ironically, it upheld a form of public financial support for private religious schooling. Within two decades of that decision being handed down the pendulum swung the other way and the phrase it introduced into American jurisprudence is now used as the justification for the removal of prayer, christmas celebrations in schools, Christian holiday presentations from public land, Creationism from the schools, teaching of any evidence contrary to secular evolutionist dogma, and a host of other similar anti-christian actions in the public sphere. That is what stare decisis does. so it is entirely possible that what appears a slight crack in the armor today may very well become an opening wide enough to sail a battleship through tomorrow for those who are persistent enough to pursue it.

  The last issue I am going to mention is one which is no doubt somewhere back in Marvin's mind if not consciously prominent. There is a very good reason why the WTBTS legal division has made it clear time and again that all aspects of the JC hearing, including what is or is not discussed is to be kept strictly confidential with only the legal department to be included if necesary, to protect the WTBTS! Both the Olyne Miles case and a case invoving a congregation of the Worldwide Church of God succeeded because the injured parties were publically smeared. Since we all know that elders ignore the directions on confidentiality anyway, they are quite vunerable to that sort of a thing.

  Sorry, my only JW relative has just knocked on my door, so I have to cut it off and get back later!

  Forscher
• 

  BluesBrother

  I sat on committees in the UK up to the late 90's.

  Any threat of legal action was shrugged off because the Society always told us that we were in the clear. Any attempt to "appear clever" and beat the system would have been a sure fire d/f..

  When we thought that a young 'Sister' (20 ish) wanted her mother present, we pre agreed not to allow it.- she never asked actually.
• 

  Justice-One

  Personally, IF I ever submitted to one of these Kangaroo courts, I would just repeat "I have no clear recollection of that" over and over. - Hey, it worked for Oliver North.
• 

  95stormfront

  If I was ever asked to one of these kangaroo courts, they'd probably be staring down the barrel of my Glock if they came to my home trying to push it.
• 

  M.J.

  I'm no expert here by any stretch...but people keep saying that a crime must be committed in order for the state to intervene.

  Isn't Marvin's point that character assassination is the crime being committed, which may merit intervention?

  Edited:

  Just found a link for Defamation: Libel and Slander Law