Why be a weenie? If you did it, own up to it. If you don't feel bad about it, then playing "legal" games is STUPID. If you do feel bad about it, then repent. Why be a two-face?
Judicial Committee Preparation
by Marvin Shilmer 157 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
TheBundo,
No one is suggesting anyone should be a weenie. In fact just the opposite is true.
If you believe it “STUPID” to leverage legal means in response to the social raping and emotional pillaging a judicial committee has at its disposal then please refrain from civil action if ever your good name and character are assassinated to a point that it severely affects your quality of life and person, including your ability to earn a living.
Marvin Shilmer, who wonders about the social sphere of this forum
-
Justice-One
Why be a weenie? If you did it, own up to it. If you don't feel bad about it, then playing "legal" games is STUPID. If you do feel bad about it, then repent. Why be a two-face?
Another one who just does not get it. - Or understand the power this cult has over peoples lives and families.
-
Amazing
Shilmer,
How does it feel to be so wrong?
I will let you know when it happens.
The Napa Valley ruling at issue here was not because of the cause of the case (i.e., child abuse). The Napa Valley ruling stemmed from the nature of judicial hearings as directed by the WTS. Apparently you have either not read the whole ruling, or else failed to understand what the court stated.
From Charissa et al Vs Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:
“{The WTS} objects to the production of a number of documents requested by plaintiff on the ground they are protected by the penitential communication privilege contained in Evidence Code section 1032. This court finds that the privilege does not apply to communications between the alleged abusers and the Judicial Committee. The evidence presented by both sides establishes that communications with the Judicial Committee do not fall within the scope of the privilege. First, it is clear that the Judicial Committee’s purpose is to investigate sins for which disfellowship is a potential penalty…. Second, the privilege does not apply because the Judicial Committee was under no obligation to keep the communications private. In fact, the evidence establishes that the Judicial Committee was required to communicate information it obtained regarding potential cases of child molestation to the Watchtower Society headquarters.”
The two applicable items are, 1) the judicial committee is investigatory by its nature and 2) the WTS requirement for judicial committees to share its communications with the WTS.
Shilmer, you are getting funny. Notice that the term "alleged abusers" and "potential cases of child molestation" I have highlighted in red? The case law decision arises out of child abuse issues just as I have stated. Yes these are the rulings and I read them, but apparantly, you fail to understand United States law and how courts operate. The code stipulated is California Code. Thus it does not apply to the other 49 states. Even IF the matter is appealed to the federal level, it will still only apply in that case, and has to be argued again in other state court cases. Then, to take it outside the scope of child abuse, one has to show the court similar issues that make the California ruling applicable in their case. Then the court, if not a California court, is not bound by California case law, but may take it into consideration.
Please note, Jim W, that when a congregation judicial committee disfellowships an individual both items above apply. At this point if you fail to understand the potential for this ruling (which held up on appeal) then I suppose I’ll have to get my crayons out to draw a picture.
I understand it very well ... but you are the one who introduced the nonsense about calling police in any matter one wishes that involves the Judicial Committee. Go ahead, call the police and tell them that the JW Elders are about to have a judicial meeting, and see how far you get. You are the one who needs pictures drawn, but crayons will not help you ... you need you hand held.
It is not a mistake to consult with an attorney prior to engaging a judicial committee hearing. But why on earth you deem it advisable in relation to recommendations I have offered is unknown, and you have not given any reason for this, either. What about my recommendations could possibly place an individual in legal jeopardy to warrant expending fees to an attorney for consultation? Please explain yourself.
I never once stated it was a mistake to consult with an attorney on these issues. I have done it many times with respect to the JWs. You are beijng dishonest to make any such claim. I never said that your recommendations would place a person in legal jeopardy. You are twisting the facts, a typical JW trait. I said that calling the police was silly. And that some of your advice was misleading. I strongly recommended that people contact an attorney in their area of jurisdiction and get informed on how the law applies in their state ... before running off at the mouth making threats to the Elders.
I see no reason to respond to any of your other whining.
Of course you don't want to respond, because you are getting nervous that you are being exposed. Rather than whining, I am exposing your moronic claptrap recommendations to try and intimidate Elders by such tactics as calling the police on matters that do not involve crimes. You are simply not man enough to admit that you are wrong.
Marvin Shilmer, who has balls sufficient to say what he thinks and sufficient education to think before he speaks
Then you need more education in matters of law before you run around with nonsense advice. Your balls are a very insifficient in matters of giving legal advice, unless you are now claiming to be an attorney, licensed to practice law in the United States. If so, which state is that Shilmer?
Jim Whitney
-
toreador
I think the suggestions made by Marvin are good in that they at the very least will intimidate the elders into possibly leaving you alone. In the event they do disfellowship you and in the process slander ones name in the community etc, it will afford more of an opportunity for legal action by documenting the process by the taking of extensive notes. It is a win win situation either way. The more elders run into this sort of thing the more it will make them think and reconsider just what in the name of God they think they are doing.
Tor
-
AuldSoul
Jim,
The evidence presented by both sides establishes that communications with the Judicial Committee do not fall within the scope of the privilege.
This statement of finding is not predicated on the nature of the case at law. Period. Marvin's point is legally sound.
If "communications with the Judicial Committee do not fall within the scope of privilege" then they don't ever fall within that scope.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
Honesty
I can't cite the case, but somebody took a congregation of the Worldwide Church of God to court over their practice at the time of announcing the reason behind disfellowshipping to the whole congregation. The local church lost big according to what I've heard because the announcment had the effect of blemishing that person's otherwise shinning character in the community. I do reember hearing shortly thereafter that the WTBTS sent strict instructions to the local BOEs that all such information from JCs was to be kept strictyl confidential. Forsher
Having been raised in the WWCoG cult and still having family members still trapped by this demon group, I can affirm what Forsher has posted is true. I remember some friend's dad who was dF'd by these control freaks and during a church sermon the minister told the entire congregation the reason he was DF'd. I stopped attending within 3 years.
If I had known the Watchtower's DF'ng policy before I was baptised I never would have joined the JW cult. Out of sheer stupidity I thought they were different. I learned thay are like all other cults. It took a long time.
The only reason the JW congregations do not announce the reasons for DF'ng is because the WTBTS knows they would go bankrupt from all the lawsuits that would be filed and won.
-
Marvin Shilmer
Jim W writes:
“Notice that the term "alleged abusers" and "potential cases of child molestation" I have highlighted in red? The case law decision arises out of child abuse issues just as I have stated.”
You really do not get it; do you? The court ruled based on the merit of circumstances as those circumstances compare to the statue at issue, which statute has nothing whatsoever to do with child abuse or child molestation. (California Evidence Code 1032) Let me make this even plainer for you: the ruling was made based on black-letter law and the two circumstances relevant to that law, not on the alleged crime and/or civil offense. Please seek and attain an education on this. My crayon is getting shorter every time I reply to you.
It is true that the ruling at issue was based on a California law. But, guess what? The ruling means any other state with similar worded law in relation to penitential communications is set to have the same ruling. Not only this, but legislative bodies are forever tinkering with their laws, and if these see a means to tweak laws to better protect their constituency from clergy abuses then, guess what? They legislators will do the politically correct thing and change the law to read like one that has already survived appeal, which is precisely what has happened in the Napa Valley case. Do you know that the WTS has not appealed the California ruling to the federal court? Do you know why?
The WTS knows these things, and this is precisely why the WTS has taken pains over the years to surreptitiously educate elders about how to handle court orders to hand over judicial documents and/or search warrants for congregation records.
The Napa Valley case has the distinction of highlighting a grave weakness in the WTS’ dependency on ecclesiastical privilege, and then drawing a big red circle around it.
The rest of your specific complaints have already been answered in previous of my posts. There is no need to respond to the other you write, which is nothing more than rambling whines. If you want to write on the subject at least think through what you write, and make at least a small attempt to address the issue rather than the person.
Auldsoul writes:
“This statement of finding is not predicated on the nature of the case at law. Period.”
Precisely!
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
I will add something what I wrote above for Jim W’s sake.
Not only is the WTS’ ecclesiastical privilege dependency at risk in California and states with similar statutory language, but the WTS has the added problem of trying to keep its judicial committee record keeping policies consistent across the United States.
If the WTS chooses to issue documentation policies to elders depending on what state the congregation is in then the risk becomes huge that the WTS will open up a Pandora’s box of problems for a wide array of reasons.
What will elders do with their training when they move to another state?
Who will write all these state-based policies in the first place? How thorough will they be?
What happens when laws change?
How will the WTS doctrinally justify treating judicial documentation differently from state to state?
What happens if a publisher lives in one state and attends a congregation in another state?
What happens when a publisher moves to another congregation and/or state 1) during the judicial process, 2) after the judicial process, or 3) before the judicial process?
What happens when publishers involved in the judicial process are from different states?
By itself, the California ruling will in all likelihood generate changes in WTS judicial policy across the United States in relation to documentation.
Marvin Shilmer