Judicial Committee Preparation

by Marvin Shilmer 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Judicial Committee Preparation

  Today I added a new article to my blog offering practical recommendations for individuals invited to attend a judicial committee hearing as an accused, and for those who then choose to attend. It offers an approach that is completely within Watchtower policy yet will give reason for any elder or potential witness to take great care moving forward.

  Many persons will choose to ignore these hearings, and there is often good reason to do so. But for their own reasons others will feel compelled to attend. Particularly for the latter is why my recommendations are offered. Just the act of asking the questions presented in my article has been known to turn light bulbs on for more than a few elders and/or witnesses

  My article is titled Judicial Committee Preparation and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/03/judicial-committee-preparation.html

  Forms provided for convenience.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Marvin,

  Thanks for all you contribute here.

  I was under the impression that the new Shepherd the Flock book (or whatever its title) prohibited the accused from taking notes and ONLY the JC Chairman was allowed to take notes, which are to be sealed in an envelope in the Congo's Confidential File.

  I'll try to find time to review the DFing chapter later when I have more time.

  Thanks.

  Doc
• 

  00DAD

  Marvin, I always enjoy your posts and your blogspot. Thank you.

  In reference to your Item #15:

  Can I record the meeting with a voice or video recorder? If not, why not?

  Have you seen this thread:

  How to Record a Judicial Meeting

  Or, in reference to the subject in general, this one:

  How About A Preparing For A Judicial Committee Booklet?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  DesirousOfChange,

  Watchtower policy does not proscribe accused persons from taking written notes during their own judicial hearing.

  The information you recall is probably that related to elders sitting on the judicial committee. Any and all notes taken by members of the committee are to be handed over to the chairman at the end of the hearing. If the hearing is adjourned for another time the notes taken by each elder are to be redistributed when the committee reconvenes.

  Taking detailed record of questions asked to oneself and to witnesses is known to have a profound affect on individuals.

  In more than a few cases individuals will find themselves wondering why Watchtower holds certain policies with a result that they have started to think objectively about those policies and whether they are reliable and/or scriptural. More than a few elders have come to realize, for example, that the ancient Jewish method of hearing judicial cases in public view at the city gates is a far, far cry from what Watchtower policy dictates.

  Among witnesses making accusations, they are far more apt to admit to paraphrasing things they allege you have said in the face of meticulous note-taking and questioning.

  More to the point, by taking advantage of what Watchtower policy does not disallow a person can leverage judicial hearings to maximum advantage, if they choose to attend at all.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  00DAD,

  I read part of the former post but none of the latter.

  In my experience most presentations on the subject of Watchtower’s judicial committee hearings are from the perspective of what “the rules” say. This is an essential part of the story, but it tends to omit some information that is at least equally important.

  My article approaches the subject of Watchtower’s judicial committee hearings from the perspective of what “the rules” do not say. This aspect of Watchtower policy is too often neglected, and to detrimental effect.

  If a person chooses to attend one of the farces they should at least leverage what they can, and hopefully make a few folks think along the way.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  00DAD

  Marvin, great perspective. When a person plays by the WT Rule Book, they have the odds stacked against them. That's why I advocate:

  • Don't play along
  • If you DO decide to attend a JC meeting, play by YOUR rules, not theirs.

  00DAD
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  When a person plays by the WT Rule Book, they have the odds stacked against them.

  00DAD,

  I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.

  A prime example is that under Watchtower policy local elders can have as many of its members present in the hearing as they wish by having them comprise the judicial committee. But the accused is not afforded the luxury of even a single advocate to be present for the whole hearing.

  Another example is that members of the judicial committee will sign their own documents to authenticate notes were taken during the hearing, but they will not sign notes taken by an accused to authenticate those notes were taken during the hearing.

  Another example is members of the judicial committee are permitted to share their notes/reports with persons who were not present in the hearing (such as members of Watchtower headquarters’ service department) but are categorically prohibited from sharing the same documents with the person they took action against.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  DT

  Thank you for providing this useful guide. I thought that the elder book specifically states that the accused can't take notes. I could be wrong, and would be happy if I am.

  I thought his quote was interesting.

  "Though religious organizations have a great deal of latitude with internal judicial proceedings, some courts have found that if internal policies are not followed there is exposure to civil liability. Watchtower is well acquainted with these civil court findings and fears them. "

  Does anybody have any additional information about this? I was under the impression that courts in the U.S. at least are generally prohibited from even investigating a religion's internal policies.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  I was under the impression that courts in the U.S. at least are generally prohibited from even investigating a religion's internal policies.

  State Courts have found in favor of victims penalized by a religious order the result of lower internal judiciaries acting contrary to Church policy. When the US Supreme Court ruled on this matter (Serbian Easter Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich) it pointed out that decisions upheld by the highest judicial review in the Church were not subject to Court intrusion whether the decision was disconcordant with Church policy or not. But the Supreme Court did not grant the same exemption to lesser Church judiciaries. Hence, if a local judicial committee takes adverse action toward a JW (action that inflicts measurable harm) and that action is the result of action contrary to policy demonstrated by it being overturned on appeal by higher Church judicial review, then elders on the original committee have a liability.

  Then there is action that is always subject to civil liability, such as character assassination. No Church policy protects a religious order from conduct that is defined as libelous under black-letter law.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  ziddina

  Bump!!