SBCheezits Judicial Hearing - My EPIC FAIL (REPOST for IE users)

by SweetBabyCheezits 98 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Did the whole meeting consist of them asking you about your beliefs? Did they not mention any of the evidence against you? What your parents said, emails and so on?

  Yeah, we were mostly questioned about how we see things now. They didn't really bring up the emails because we'd *more or less* indicated we didn't agree with the WT BS on their first visit. (We were kinda ambushed... and somewhat ignorant to the investigative committee's intent.) That constitutes apostasy - adequate rope for a lynching if necessary. But I still don't think that was their goal.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  You know, I just realized something: the techie elder must have performed a hard reset on my iPhone! That means they didn't just find my iPhone recording and immediately bring it out to me but they attempted to get into it and when they realized it was locked, they held down the power button until the power off slider appeared on the screen. They wanted to shut off the recording! That explains why the Voice Memo app wasn't on the screen when he handed it to me - they rebooted it!

  Does anyone know if there really is legal action that could be pursued for that? Seems kinda petty but..... would that constitute a true invasion or privacy and can you press charges for that?

  If nothing else, they acted hastily and complicated the matter for themselves because now they will HAVE to report that fact to the branch and/or CO. If they stepped over the legal line by touching my personal effects, this could end up working in our favor. Again, it's not that I expected to avoid a DF verdict but we did want to buy a little time.
• 

  CuriousButterfly

  That's pretty ballsy to actually try and look at your phone. Not surprised...
• 

  undercover

  If nothing else, they acted hastily and complicated the matter for themselves because now they will HAVE to report that fact to the branch and/or CO. If they stepped over the legal line by touching my personal effects, this could end up working in our favor.

  Not really. You subjected yourself to their tribunal. You were told no recording devices. You left one out in the open and were out of the room when it was discovered.

  Kudos for trying to record it on the sly, but in the end, by just showing up you're playing by their rules and have to deal with the consequences if your spy game is discovered.
• 

  donuthole

  SBC,

  Before you get legally entangled I would double-check what the wire-tapping laws are like in your jurisdiction. In Illinois, where I live, it would be legally questionable for you to secretly record the meeting like you did unless all parties were informed of the recording, across the river in Missouri it is perfectly legal, as I understand. So the laws vary.

  -Anthony
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Trueone: Never really got it clear why you wanted to record the event anyway, seems like simple notes would have sufficed wouldn't it?

  No. Notes are insufficient evidence when you're misquoted. I wanted an accurate, reproducible record. Also, if anything ludicrous is said, I want the option to share that with JW friends who my be skeptical that an injustice has been committed. Notes don't cut it.

  That reminds me, though.... for a very brief period, I failed to maintain the "we have doubts" position and drifted into a discussion of god slaughtering children in the OT. (I know, my mistake!) During that time, I mentioned the account of Elisha calling down evil upon the jeering children, 42 of which were 'torn to pieces', and told them that it raised doubts in my mind as to how infallible the bible could be if it describes him as a God of love in one place but attributes such bloody retribution to him in so many OT accounts. (Also brought up kids dying in flood, S&G, Caananites, Amalekites, etc...) The elder who misquoted me earlier piped up and said, "Without a doubt, Jehovah is going to resurrect all those he personally killed back then! You've been baptized for over 20 years and you didn't know that??" No, I didn't. In fact, I looked around the room and saw some blank expressions so I asked the others if that was their understanding as well. [crickets]

  I haven't looked this up in the WT Lib yet but I'm wondering if anyone here is familiar with that teaching. Sounded like BS to me. Anyway, that's also on the recording so if he's way off, I'm hoping they'll remember he said that and be even more concerned about it possibly going public.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Sounds like BS to me, also. WTS goes back and forth so I don't know what their current position is, BUT it seems to me that their last general statements were that anyone Jehovah put to death (killed) received their final judgement and it was done and over with without a resurrection.

  That still allows them to say that Jehohah only killed people at the flood, in isolated cases such as opening the earth and swallowing rebellious sons of Korah, and the upcoming Armageddon. They will say that people were used or animals were used in other cases, so it would be a case-by-case basis.

  That would simply be a smokescreen for refusing to completely answer the question.
• 

  Cadellin

  SBCheezits, thanks for posting all of this--very eyeopening. As far as your question, while I haven't looked it up, I think OTWO is correct. It would be a case of those children receiving "Jehovah's judgment" directly and so, because his judgments are always reflective of perfect justice, no resurrection would be necessary. Yikes! Anyway, hang in there and keep us posted...
• 

  leavingwt

  This question may have already been asked: Did you get a recording?
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  DH: Before you get legally entangled I would double-check what the wire-tapping laws are like in your jurisdiction.

  Yeah, and I didn't explain myself very well: When I ask if legal action could be pursued, I mean hypothetically. I'm just wondering if the WT attorneys have to consider that possibility. I have no intention of going that route whatsoever but would like to see a 4-6 week delay while they figure out how to proceed.

  SBC: If nothing else, they acted hastily and complicated the matter for themselves because now they will HAVE to report that fact to the branch and/or CO. If they stepped over the legal line by touching my personal effects, this could end up working in our favor.

  UC: Not really. You subjected yourself to their tribunal. You were told no recording devices. You left one out in the open and were out of the room when it was discovered.

  By saying "this could end up working in our favor" I mean that it may give us the delay in judgment that we needed, not that we'd get out of a DF ruling entirely. I'm guessing right now that they ARE having to ask for further direction from the higher-ups, especially since it's taking so long. In that case, despite the fact that I got busted for the recording, my goal may be achieved. It was worth the risk.