Can Lawyers assist on Judicial Committees?

by bj 16 Replies latest jw friends

  • ianao
    ianao

    Then I would say:

    "No announcement, no lawsuit".

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    If they won't allow you to bring a lawyer, get that in writing. Then go to the media.

    --
    "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794.

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Hi BJ, et al....

    Lawyers are to judicial committess what crosses are to vampires and garlic is to werewolves... anathema!

    I don't know whether the policies have changed in the fifteen years since I resigned as an elder, but at that time we were told to suspend proceedings against someone if he/she raised the prospect of legal representation. ``Call a time-out and contact the Society'' was the way it was handled in one case that I was involved in.

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    Send them a certified letter saying, "I agree to be present at the judicial meeting at XXXX on XXXX. However, I must receive in writing what the charges are against me and who the witnesses are .... I will be bringing my lawyer who will be taking notes.... ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS MATTER must be in writing...."

    Then they will either a) have to allow you your lawyer or b) have to put it in writing that they wont.

    If they try to call you or visit you, you can say, "Since I requested all communications to be in writing and you disregarded my request, I will only talk to you if you allow me to tape record our conversation."

    They wont be caught dead telling you that you cannot bring your lawyer on tape!

    I think they might leave you alone after this. They can't DF you in absentia because you agreed to go to the meeting and they cancelled it. Now how do you think a judge would respond to them saying they DFd you in absentia because THEY cancelled the meeting because you wanted to bring a lawyer?

    Not too good, I think.

    I can't imagine anybody, anywhere who is on the up and up refusing legal counsel. They would be shown to have something to hide, doncha think?

  • Eyebrow
    Eyebrow

    You cannot really enforce your right to counsel in the US if it is not a criminal matter. Unless they are breaking any laws or violate civil rights, the courts don't have any say over how the witnesses run their roost.

    Not that I agree with that....I think you should be allowed to have a witness, no matter whom you choose, be it a lawyer or a relative or a friend.

  • Scully
    Scully

    I think the point of not allowing the person who is being subjected to a Judicial Committee to have someone there as a moral support or as a representative serves multiple purposes.

    First of all, the person can be easily intimidated. It's three against one.

    Secondly, the person is assumed guilty before the proceedings begin. You are in effect expected to prove your innocence, rather than having them prove your guilt.

    Third, if the committee chooses to fabricate or distort something that you've said, you have no witnesses on your side to back you up. They can collude between themselves and decide that when you said "such and such" you really meant "this and that", and you can be railroaded all the way to Timbuktu if that's what they want to do to you.

    Fourth, bringing in an outsider opens the way for public scrutiny, which is the LAST thing the WTS wants. Especially someone who is well acquainted with the legal system.

    Personally, I would not agree to meeting with a committee without legal representation AND moral support (to even out the ratio). I would also stipulate that my accusers be present, and that the meeting be documented with audio or video recordings. If they do not wish to meet under those circumstances, each member of the committee and body of elders will be faced with a lawsuit for defamation of character in the event an announcement is made regarding my status as a JW. They'll drop it like a hot potato, because none of them can afford to lose their house and car and bank account. The WTS won't touch it with a barge pole because they do NOT want negative publicity.

    Just my 2 cents' worth.

    Love, Scully

    It is not persecution for an informed person
    to expose a certain religion as being false.     - WT 11/15/63

    A religion that teaches lies cannot be true. - WT 12/1/91

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    That's kind of my point, Scully. It doesn't matter if they don't want legal counsel there. What will matter is that THEY are the ones who choose not to have the judicial meeting and thus cannot DF you in absentia for not showing up. Say you show up with your lawyer and they turn you away, what are they gonna do?

    If they announce anything, they could be legally sued because they didn't follow their own rules of having the tribunal. The Society will not touch it and the elders will not want to lose their ass-ets.

    I think the best way to respond to judicial committees is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS demand it in writing and demand your lawyer be present. It will tie their hands. If they write to you that your lawyer cannot be present, you have that as proof when they violate your civil liberties. Yet, they can't allow you to have your lawyer.

    Tie their hands is what I say. Of course, I'm not a legal expert.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit