Judicial Committee Preparation

by Marvin Shilmer 157 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Forscher

  Well, I am back.

  Now the Dubs have my address because some idiot ignored a confidentiality clause in the rent agreements here and gave one my apt. number. Oh well!

  Now to get back to where I was before I was interrupted so rudely. I can't cite the case, but somebody took a congregation of the Worldwide Church of God to court over their practice at the time of announcing the reason behind disfellowshipping to the whole congregation. The local church lost big according to what I've heard because the announcment had the effect of blemishing that person's otherwise shinning character in the community. I do reember hearing shortly thereafter that the WTBTS sent strict instructions to the local BOEs that all such information from JCs was to be kept strictyl confidential.

  There is a problem, though, that many elders that I know of just can't keep their mouths shut. I recall hearing details of a committee hearing I had been present at from the mouth of the son of an elder who had absolutely no business being privy to any of the information within days of that hearing. In that case, the elder's son wasn't even a Witness, but he knew all the intimate details of a rape case in which the girl was DF'd for fornication! I also know of cases where local elders told details of hearings to local gossips to be spread around in order to further humiliate and defame the tvictim of their action. What these elders are too arogant to see is that "ecclesiastical priviledge" can't be invoked when they spread it around for all to hear and they can find themselves liable for defamation in a big way, like Rutherford found out when he published the attack on Mr Miles. Therein lies a weakness in the practice among the Dubs which lawyers would be wise to look into and exploit.

  By taking the measures Marvin suggests when confronted by a JC, one puts them on notice that one will not just rollover and let them have their way unchallenged. One also reserves one's right's, whatever they may be, to oneself if one plans to bare their claws. The best defense against any action is to be well-informed and insist on one's rights as outlined in the elder's manual. So before going into any hearing, if one plans to go, is to download a copy and be as familiar with it as the elders themselves. One can always make it look like they gone to another elder and found out what those rights were, that would set a fox among the hens!

  So far, Barbara Anderson's case has had unexpected success because she is pursuing her action along lines the WTBTS's policies are vunerable, the defamation angle. To prevail she has to show that the action not only came from the top, but was also done maliciously, rather than simply in accord with "ecclesiastical law." That is the key, when one warns the elders that they could face consequences if they don't follow the rules to the letter and they go ahead and vindictively break those rules anyway, then they well and truly had. That takes, as the man siad in his title, PREPARATION!

  Forscher
• 

  BCZAR2ME

  What is the purpose of doing the steps Marvin outlined?

  To get them to not take action against you; to prepare for a possible lawsuit?

  The elders can simply state that they cannot meet under those circumstances and still take action due to your "brazen" attitude.

  Brazen is a term they have been throwing around a lot lately.

  So what is the purpose? If you are going to all this trouble to prepare then likely you've reached the point where you no longer wish to be associated with the JW's. Other than the shotgun approach, better ways to go out in a blaze of glory have been suggested.

  bczar
• 

  BCZAR2ME

  Has anyone ever heard of an appeal where the original decision was reversed?

  They are few and far between.
  
  Many appeal according to secular court standards. Stating they were not given a fair hearing; whatever that means to their case.

  These are usually heard but have little bearing on a reversal.

  bczar
• 

  willyloman

  The problem with suggestions like Marvin's is this:

  In a well-defined judicial situation, they would work perfectly. However, the dub judicial system is seriously flawed. One reason is that it is practiced differently from congo to congo. What might work in one location would flat fail in another. Elders in the Metrotown congregation are likely to be better educated and more serious company men. They'd welcome the challenge and push the envelope. The guys in Ruralville would shit bricks if this happened in their JC and they'd cease and desist and call "Mother."

  It's a nice checklist, though. It would be nicer still if the average dub had the guts to use it when confronted with a JC. As we all know, the average dub would rather eat worms than prepare something this disciplined and present it in the face of three guys who think they are God.

  I like the suggestion, above, that went like this: "No, thanks, you are no longer my spiritual advisors." Tell them they are irrelevant and inconsequential to your life. Dub elders just hate that.
• 

  AuldSoul

  If disfellowshippings always occurred in a vaccuum Marvin's wonderful suggestions would be pretty useless for affecting the proceedings.

  However, disfellowshippings have resulting ancillary impacts that often create situations where having preemptively protected your civil interests against a claim of ecclesiastical privilege will be extremely helpful.

  In not just a few circumstances such a claim can restrict your ability to compel trial testimony from elders; they will claim ecclesiastical privilege and can therefore be protected from testifying.

  The more precedent we establish for rulings similar to the ruling in California, the more we establish that in fact there is no clergy among JWs. Which would eliminate this protection for any testimony they may have ... not just in criminal but also in civil proceedings ... can anyone say Hospital Liason conversations with patients regarding blood transfusion?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  AuldSoul, I am not scholarly, but I think I understand what you are saying. We need to call a spade a spade. These are not ministers giving privileged counsel to a member of their flock. They are a JW Gestapo extracting information. They want to use the information in any way they and their Governing Body see fit, and refrain from even allowing you to get a consensus of what was done or said, later denying any violation of your rights.

  A person who demands his rights, beforehand, has made it clear that he is aware of his rights, and does not recognize the privilege of confidentiality in a one-way direction but not the other. Denying his rights under those circumstances can lead to civil or possibly criminal (dare I dream) action against such a Gestapo.

  Is this close to what you said?
• 

  Amazing

  Marvin Shilmer wrote

  First, I have recommended threat of calling local law enforcement. Whether or when a person actually makes such a call is another matter.

  Thanks for that small clarification of a "threat." That changes the nature of your recommendations. But, a threat without substance will eventually become exposed for what it is and become meaningless.

  Second, no religion or religious policy is above the law. Church and State separation theories and legal arguments do not change this.

  When no "crime" has been committed, then religion is separated from the interference of the law. You are confusing civil verses criminal activity. There is no law that requires a religion function and apply policies in a certain way. Religious government is protected by the Second Amendment.

  Third, recent court rulings have successfully overturned the Watchtower Society’s long held contention that records of judicial hearings are party to penitential communications. This finding is not married to allegations of criminal conduct.

  You are leaving out the reasons for these rulings which is germane to the issue at hand, and afect your recommendations. First, criminal conduct is the underlying basis, even though this is a civil liability action. Second, the courts are not saying that the JWs cannot have their judicial proceedings, they simply are stating that their style of Church Government is not protected because of the "nature" of the judicial proceedings. If the JWs used the Catholic style of "confession" then it would still be protected.

  An attorney can do a great deal with de facto public repudiation of an individual’s name and character when the repudiation results from acts contrary to internal religious policy and/or contrary to public sensibilities embodied in law. The Watchtower has been successfully sued for character assassination under these circumstances. The recommended questions and record keeping only set the stage to drive the dagger deeper into the Watchtower’s bank account.

  Yes, I agree with your recommendation if one is documenting a series of events that involves civil liability and/or slander. But, the Elders are trained enough by the Society to spot this most of the time, and will not allow anything in writing or recording media from them. Once a person starts talking in the fashion that you have recommended, the Elders are going to call the Society, and they will know that something is up.

  More recent JC style is to have no notes in the file. The child abuse cases involve some very old issues where it is posible that file notes still exist or that the Society has retained some level of correspondence. that the courts have ordered to be turned over. Again this would not happen unless a serious criminal act were involved as the underlying basis of the civil suit. Were those cases involving only slander, I doubt that the courts would have ruled as they did.

  Your premise, however, is that the person refuse a JC meeting in the first place. But, until a person meets with the Elders in private, it is very rare that the Elders will disclose the nature of the accusations. Unless a person is good at sneaking in a recorder, the Elders will not permit anthing in writing, or witnesses, or recordings. The Society has learned enough from libel cases to avoid this trap most of the time. One almost has to "lure" the Elders into a trap to get this kind of good information that an attorney can use. The Society does hire good attorneys who can fight against such tactics.

  Jim Whitney
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  It’s an amazing observation to read replies on this thread.

  Some individuals have a need to address congregation elders on terms important to them, including being a witness to their own judicial hearing.

  Apparently some here believe these individuals should just role over and play dead. I do not understand this. If someone needs to confront something for their future well being then they should. When asked what measures to recommend for these individuals the suggestions offered at the outset can carry a great deal of weight for a variety of reasons.

  For some, what is important for them is helping elders they have known from birth gain a sense of the injustice laced in the WTS’ judicial process. Asking questions as recommended is one way to make elders think outside the canned protocols the WTS issues in letters and at KM schools for elders. More than a few have had their eyes opened by the simple act of answering the question, “Will I have full access to any and all documentation of my OWN judicial hearing? If not , WHY not”

  Others have a need to show the intimidation has ended. Taking meticulous notes during a judicial hearing, including of every word uttered by every witness, has intimidated more than a few elders and witnesses. Since there is no WTS policy barring this note-taking then elders have no basis to prohibit it. Witnesses can also take meticulous notes of their experience with a judicial hearing, and the WTS has no policy to bar this.

  As for legal action, both civil and criminal liabilities loom over the WTS’ judicial process. The WTS has been successfully sued in the USA for character assassination. Though the WTS has went to great lengths to educate its appointed elders in the fine art of exercising its judicial arm, the fact remains that many elder bodies remain woefully inept at carrying this responsibility.

  Recent court rulings in California have demonstrated serious cracks in the WTS’ long held position that its records have safe harbor in ecclesiastical privilege and freedom of religion. As usual, the Devil is in the details. The last thing the WTS wants to see before their judicial committees is defendants asking hard and legitimate questions. The WTS knows how precarious is its perch atop laws of the land. It knows that how elders answer such questions can have serious repercussions in the minds of legislatures.

  But as critical as these issue may be to some (many or few), it is still amazing to observe how adults here react to the subject and recommendations accordingly.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  cindylouhou

  This is just a silly post. Why on earth would you bother going to a judicial committee meeting with such a bad attitude?

  Just write a letter and disassociate yourself if you feel that way. No sense in having any meeting.

  For anyone who sincerely wants to know what to do in a judicial committee:

  1) If you did in fact do something wrong, admit it, show that you are truly sorry, be humble, expect the worst punishment and hope and pray to god that they are merciful.

  Are elders perfect? NO

  Do they have some sort of power to ascertain the truth? NO

  Could they disfellowship you by accident even when you really are repentent and have changed? Yep. they make mistakes. But it only takes about 6 months to get back, and chalk it up to a lesson learned.

  2) If you are wrongfully accused of something. They need two witnesses. If they have two people lying ....oh you could be in trouble. Satan may have you on the run. But like I said its not the end of the world. Write a letter after you are disfellowshipped explaining why the elders are making their decision on incorrect information. If that doesn't work....do the 6 months and realize that we are just human and the elders thought they were making the right decision. Forgive and get back to the meetings. Satan is one sneaky guy. Oh how he can make a mess that seems like Jehovah is not with you. IF YOU HAVE TRIALS......BLAME SATAN....not imperfect humans who for the most part believe they are trying to do the right thing.

  Think about this too...Why are all these wierd problems happening in our congregations. THAT IS WHERE SATAN IS WORKING THE HARDEST. Its all him!!!!! Don't let go of your faith please.
• 

  jst2laws

  Marvin,

  Don't give up. Your dealing with a new generation of rebels.

  INTIMIDATION works. If you are in their court you are already in heap of trouble. You can't record or bring in an attorney but you can take lots of notes and scare the he** out of them. Their reaction to their own fear may work against them. Why not go for it.

  Jim W. How are you?

  Steve