Nice attempt to discredit or miminize 'my testimony' The type of 'evidence' you are looking for will never be found. You want something on Society letterhead advising that this booklet was created to deceive the court? They aren't THAT stupid.
I have proven myself and my claims over the years, from H20 through to the child abuse issue (have gone on television and given testimony) to now. I too have 'defended' the Borg against wrongful/bogus attacks. I have long insisted that there is enough honest evidence against them that stuff does not need to be made up to prove they cannot be representatives of god.
Where we differ is that I am not a disfellowshipped person trying to weasel my way into the proverbial grey area 'just in case' the JW's are right. Imitating the worst of the lawyer stereotype, you are so caught up in the loopholes thinking that somehow you may still warrant salvation/ divine acceptance, with your luke-warm cowardice. "be either cold or hot but luke warm, I will vomit you out of my mouth."
I however recognized the faults of the JW, walked away from it on my own and unlike yourself am not a mealy-mouthed ego-maniac as is evidenced by your online biography. To quote a lawyer "sometimes a good man has to stand up for what is right, even if it is not popular amongst one's peers." Have you ever taken a stand on anything without covering your ass... oops I mean hedge you bets with a bunch of legal loopholes? Taking a stand on principal alone and being willing to take a hit on that firm stance?
JW lawyers regularly attempt to deceive the courts. For example, Bethany Hughes. To have a Bethelite Lawyer (Shane Brady) claim to represent the best interests of the child as the child's attorney is an outright lie. Should a minor child represented by a Bethel attorney, make the personal choice to accept blood, would that lawyer continue representing the child? No. The child and the family would be left high and dry.
During a divorce hearing, the JW attorney is not representing the JW parent but protecting the JW religion. Yet they continue to be the sole representation in some JW custody cases. They are not filing for Amicus status, they are claiming to represent the individual.
When preparing elders, expert witnesses and children to give testimony in court they encourage deceitful practices tantamount to and including outright lying. That is the purpose of the booklet under discussion.
I have heard elders testify in court (per their coaching) that family relationships are not affected by the act of disfellowshipping. How is that for teaching people to lie under oath? It is justified using the 'Theocratic war strategy' of bending the truth. Disfellowshipping does not end the relationship, 'he will always be your father.' You don't need to elaborate any further to the court. But with rare exception, anyone disfellowshipped has had their familial relationships negatively altered as a result. That is but one example.
How do you slant your answers (slant as in alter from your normal pattern of truthful response) in order to get what is best for the religion, NOT what is in the best interests of the child. No-where in those publications does it discuss that element. What is best for the child. In some cases the non-JW parent IS the better parent in other cases it may be the JW parent.
That point is lost to the JW's. It is all about protecting their religion. It has nothing to do with their clients nor the children. That in and of itself shows the deceit. I am hopeful that even you as a lawyer can recognize that fact.