btw, On The way Out, I think most individuals would have a hard time affording the legal fees to oppose the WBTS.
Judicial Committee Preparation
by Marvin Shilmer 157 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
PoppyR
Apparently some here believe these individuals should just role over and play dead
I think what is not recognised is many people attend a JC because they want to try and maintain contact with their family, I am certainly in that situation and if called to a JC would lie, cry and roll over so as not to be dF'd as I dont have a single family member who is not a JW, and despite their misguideness I really want to hang on to them. Apart from them I have maybe 3 people I can count on, it's a scary place to be.
Now if I WAS DFed I have already decided I could not attend a meeting and be reinstated, so that would be that, and a certain level of freedom could be attained (ie I could put up christmas lights!!)
I admire the person who would go into a JC and do what you have recommended, but think its very unrealistic to imagine that it would not get you DFd in an instant. I think the cases are very few and far between, where they would back off if you threaten legal action, after all, the only announcement made is you are 'no longer one of Jehovahs witnesses'.
Someone mentioned the UK.. believe me, the police wouldn't be interested here in your civil liberties!!
Poppy
-
karsnow
On the topic of Judical Committees, my husband was an elder, myself a pioneer, know the in and outs, we were recently disfellowshippied, had no meeting, no prior indication, heard it thru mutual friends, had not been to the KH in 10 years. My husband works on a crew with a number of Witnesses, they have now fired him, we hired a lawyer, we have restraining orders not to come to our home. At present he has his job back. We were disfellowshipped for being divorced and living together before we remarried. So far they are in big troble...........
-
Amazing
Soooooo Marvin,
After all your diatribe, you find a neat way of ducking out of my challenge to you by now arguing that you do not know the evidence Code in Oregon. My story is not long, and in fact totals about 40 pages at my end, and likely something smaller at the WTS/Congregation end. But, your fear of a long story is used to also duck out of the challenge. I knew you would because to accept it puts you where you don't want to be ... humbly admitting you are dead wrong about your assertions.
Here is where you really lose it:
Whether your case can be revisited by the courts is an entirely different legal question than whether there was or could have been an opportunity to challenge, in your case, any resistance from the WTS to hand over judicial committee documents pertaining to your case. Assuming Oregon’s penitential communication laws are identical/similar to California’s, this may not be sufficient to have your case reheard by the courts because of other legal reasons, such as legal jeopardy and/or legal prejudice.
My case would first involve turning over WTS correspondence with the local congregation ... that is the part that would make my case. Notice your line above: "Assuming Oregon’s penitential communication laws are identical/similar to California’s, this may not be sufficient to have your case reheard by the courts ..." Now you argue in a way that entirely agrees with what I have been saying all along ... that the California ruling is stuck in California, and that it pertains to child molestation. By the way, my case never made it to the courts, though I would love for it to have gone there. My recent discussions with legal counsel with respect to the California case still leaves my case, like so many others, out in the cold.
Your recommendations sound nice, but had you placed some caution in them using your avove logic, and clarified your comments about calling the police, we woud have avoided a long go around.
Sorry, but you utterly fail on ths one, and have proven inept at best to make your case.
Jim Whitney
PS: I have not commented on your posting just above your last post to me. I will get to it later on, but I have an evening out planned, and will not be back on line until tomorrow some time.
-
hillary_step
Minimus,
Hillary, I choose not to allow you to bully me. Sometimes I'm not in the mood for your acerbity.Sometimes, I find you quite charming though. But lately, I see you as one who simply enjoys to antagonize. As far as the intellectuals on this board, I learn a lot from them, you included. But I find your constant harshness to be very unbecoming. you're better than that, I think. And if it makes you feel better about yourself to do this type of stuff, keep doing it. Not everyone is as dumb as you might think.
You are a hypocrite. You enter threads, often with the sole intent of causing trouble, act like bitchy snapping Wolverine on steriods and then get upset when you are taken to task. It is a repetitive modus operandi with you and why often find yourself restricted in your posting abilities and those that take you to task do not!
Evidence? Well just look your entry into this thread :
First post :
Marvin, usually I think your posts are most useful. But these recommendations are a waste of time since you and I know that as a religious group, they need not accomodate you at this meeting. And if you can produce evidence proving that this interaction could get them in legal problems and that the police will help you (that's actually funny), please show me. Otherwise, you're blowin' smoke up somebody's ass, in my humble opinion.
Second post :
Marvin, I understand a lot more than what you might ASSume. Don't give people false hope without backing it up. Your suppositions are interesting but doing any of your recommendations, esp. with the police is.....oh never mind. You're supposed to be one of the intellects on this board. I almost forgot. And who says they'll have no basis for eccl. privilege?? You????
The you take offense when I asked you to explain your position, describing my requests above as bullying. If bullying is pointing out your lack of logic then that shows more about yourself than you might like to admit. Why not stay out of threads that require more than a facile involvment? I am sure you would not feel 'bullied' then.
I will end this post with the words of the illustrious questionaire :
Not everyone is as dumb as you might think.
Cheers - HS
-
Finally-Free
- Pick your battles. If you're going to start a war, don't do it for free. Make sure there is some kind of reward that justifies the cost and effort.
- Don't make threats, legal or otherwise, unless you have the will and means to back them up. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like an idiot, not to mention possibly going bankrupt.
- Don't fight JWs just to prove that you're right and they're stupid. 99% of the people on earth already know that. That's why they're not members.
- Seriously, who cares if you don't have the approval of people who are prepared to withdraw their affection at a moment's notice, often without even knowing why? Such people are not an asset in your life - they are a liability, and the sooner they are disposed of the better.
- If the elders are prepared to cut you out of everyone's lives, it's safe to assume they don't give a shit about your opinion on any subject. Life is short. Why waste valuable time arguing with idiots?
If I were to go to a JC and endure all that crap, the rewards had better be substantial.
W
-
minimus
I stand by what I earlier said to Marvin. I think that making people think they can just call the cops or a lawyer and make things go away is unrealistic.... You, Hillary, act like a bully and your condescending attitude shines thru. Regarding this thread's conversation between Marvin and Jim, I must say, Jim speaks his mind eloquently and does not keep trying to be heavy handed. He shows himself to be the bigger man. Hmmm, maybe there's a reason why you're like you are, huh?
-
Marvin Shilmer
Jim W writes:
“After all your diatribe, you find a neat way of ducking out of my challenge to you by now arguing that you do not know the evidence Code in Oregon. My story is not long, and in fact totals about 40 pages at my end, and likely something smaller at the WTS/Congregation end. But, your fear of a long story is used to also duck out of the challenge. I knew you would because to accept it puts you where you don't want to be ... humbly admitting you are dead wrong about your assertions.”
Ducking out? Fear? Why should I spend my time reading your forty odd pages when you have not convinced me that the read is even remotely related to my concerns on this thread, let alone that it is worth my time to respond to your personal needs? The Napa Valley court finding at issue speaks for itself, as does its implications for WTS vulnerability in other states with similar statutory language. And, since you apparently do not realize it, the time it takes to read your “story” is but a pittance of the time I’d need to spend to analyze and comment intelligently on your case—I’d also have to read an enormous amount of case law, not to mention Oregon’s black-letter law.
Do you consider it “ducking out” that I refrain from addressing a statute I have not as much as read, let alone studied in light of common law? If you believe my silence related to your “story” asserts something meaningful to your cause then you are sadly mistaken. Need I cite the reproba causa?
As for mistakes in my assertions, I’m still waiting for you to show the words of mistake. So far all you’ve done is copied and pasted my words and then commented on your impression of my words. Guess what? I have no need to respond further to your attempts to refute your impressions of my words when your impression is inconsistent with my words.
Ignorantly, Jim W writes:
“My case would first involve turning over WTS correspondence with the local congregation ... that is the part that would make my case. Notice your line above: "Assuming Oregon’s penitential communication laws are identical/similar to California’s, this may not be sufficient to have your case reheard by the courts ..." Now you argue in a way that entirely agrees with what I have been saying all along ... that the California ruling is stuck in California, and that it pertains to child molestation. By the way, my case never made it to the courts, though I would love for it to have gone there. My recent discussions with legal counsel with respect to the California case still leaves my case, like so many others, out in the cold.”
1. The Napa Valley ruling DOES NOT apply simply to “WTS correspondence with the local congregation,” which is the evidence you say would ‘make your case.’ The Napa Valley ruling at issue here is specific to judicial committee documents.
2. What I wrote (and you quoted above) does not agree with your propositions on this thread for the simple reason that whether a case is subject to court REVIEW after it is already heard is DEPENDANT on MORE than the issue of penitential communication. Need I cite your mistake of reasoning in this instance, too?
3. If your case has not been subject to court discretion already, then whether the Napa Valley finding has any impact depends on the laws of Oregon, which I am unfamiliar with.
Jim W writes:
“Your recommendations sound nice, but had you placed some caution in them using your avove logic, and clarified your comments about calling the police, we woud have avoided a long go around.”
Had you taken the time to ask questions about what you, apparently, failed to comprehend prior to denigrating what was actually said then both of us would have been spared the infantile ramblings we find over and over in your posts above—you from writing them and me from reading them. Consistently you have made more of what I wrote than what I actually wrote and then attacked that misimpression. Competent readers here can see what you have done. I have no need to pretend or respond as though you have behaved with any degree of respectability or honesty in your attempts here, and am left only to wonder what the hell you think you’ve accomplished, other than making a fool of yourself and keeping the subject alive.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
Minimus writes:
“I stand by what I earlier said to Marvin. I think that making people think they can just call the cops or a lawyer and make things go away is unrealistic....”
And with those words the soft underbelly of poor reading comprehension and reasoning is found.
Not once have I as much as suggested that “people”—or anyone—can “just call the cops or a lawyer and make things go away." Such an occurrence has been known to occur, which HS points out from his experience, which experience mirrors my own. But I have never suggested such a notion on this thread. Hence your complaint above is meaningless blather.
The threat of legal action (criminal and civil) tends to let elders know you are not going to roll over and die under the hard bottom of the WTS’ boot of judicial hearing protocol.
Also, as recommended at the outset of this thread, at the very least elders should expect that you are going to force them to go on record—at least verbally—about certain critical protocols of judicial hearing documentation, evidence et al. These questions will not be easy to answer because the WTS has not provided elders with any training whatsoever in how to respond to question such as, “Will I have access to any and all documentation of this meeting? If not, why not?” and “Will I have opportunity to object to any official documentation of the judicial hearing?”
If you think that asking such questions has no impact on honest minded elders then you should look around at all the ex-elders on this very forum who have been moved by facing hard questions of WTS doctrine and protocol, and the results in their case.
Marvin Shilmer
-
hillary_step
Sweetie,
stand by what I earlier said to Marvin. I think that making people think they can just call the cops or a lawyer and make things go away is unrealistic.... You, Hillary, act like a bully and your condescending attitude shines thru. Regarding this thread's conversation between Marvin and Jim, I must say, Jim speaks his mind eloquently and does not keep trying to be heavy handed. He shows himself to be the bigger man. Hmmm, maybe there's a reason why you're like you are, huh?
If you were on the receiving end of the way Jim has spoken to Marvin, or for that matter how Marvin has spoken to Jim you be wailing and snivelling like a child with a broken toy. Then you would go running to the moderators. We have seen this play out so often in the past with you Minimus that it is now part of Board life. You can dish it out, but cannot take it, you can cause trouble but cry when others take you to task..
I am sure that despite the heated debate Jim and Marvin have great respect for each other and each others opinions. You see, they are mature and recognise that we have left behind the Kingdom Hall and that disagreeing with a person, even vehmently is an not unhealthy thing - especially if ones viewpoint is able to be backed up. This respect on both their parts has been earned. I have the greatest respect for the mind and manner of both Jim & Marvin - I know them BOTH to be 'the bigger man'. Unlike you, I am not here for the social tittle-tattle but to learn, and I do so from participating in threads like this.
Now, get back to your embroidering, that's a good boy.
HS