Marvin,
As to the specifics you assert, you are wrong in stating that WTS policy was for the congregation to retain only a copy of “the card” sent to the WTS (i.e., the s-79b document). The WTS has instructed elders to retain a file containing 1) necessary notes and documents, 2) a summary of the judicial case, 3) the S-77 form (filled out of course), and when it was returned from the WTS 3) the S-79b card. These documents are held in the congregation file until some time (I forget off hand how many years) after a person is reinstated or until the individual’s death, except for cases of child abuse/molestation in which case the files are never to be discarded.
If they are now instructing notes be retained, then they are the fools. When they ended note retention in the early 1990s it was specifically to avoid legal wrangling. So, if now they have restored this, then they will get burned in cases of crimes, and possibly other civil litigation.
As for your conclusion about the potential vulnerability of judicial documents, the California court has already decided this for that jurisdiction.
I never argued against this, but instead stated that the ruling applies only in California, and only in child molestation and abuse cases, as I highlighted in red in the citation that you quoted.
In cases where disfellowshipping occurs it applies because both stipulations cited by the court apply. That is, again, 1) the judicial committee is investigatory by its nature and 2) the WTS requirement for judicial committees to share its communications with the WTS. Furthermore, other states with similar laws of evidence related to penitential communication have similar black-letter law and therefore similar likelihood of WTS vulnerability.
Then, if I apply your legal advice, I should be able to go back to the State of Oregon, where I was forcibly disassociated, and make a case for nullifying that action by aplying a California law on child molestation ... an action that also had strong participation by the Watchtower Society legal department. The story was vividly detailed in my exit series. Will you go off board, contact the legal counsel that told me I could not make a case, and set him straight? Will you show that attorney how wrong he is? Please, do this as I would love to sue the ass off of the Society. If after you have so instructed the attorney I have suggested, and you learn that you are full of it, will you humbly come back to this board and publicly apologize? You may answer by PM if you are interested in the challenge.
As for what you say I “insist,” I have no idea what you speak of.
You did not employ the word, "insist." Your repeated responses demonstrate a level of insistence on your position, just as my responses demonstrate a level of insistence on my position.
I have recommended actions that neither bind nor hinder a person who chooses to follow them. I have nowhere insisted anything whatsoever about the results of following the recommendations I’ve set forth. The recommendations are as they have been explained, and none have been explained as to be insisted upon.
No one suggested that your recommendations bind anyone. You are using a red herring argument in making such a claim. I have only argued against certain aspects of your recommendations as ineffective or cockeyed, such as calling the police or threatening to call the police in matters that do not involve crimes. I also question your implication that a person may have a legal case in such JW juducial matters unless a crime is involved. The only civil matter that has much standing is that if libel or slander. The Society long ago learned how to employ tactics to avoid this charge. This is not to say that some charges are not successful, as I am sure local Elders can and do muck things up ... but it is much more difficult these days to get by with such legal actions.
Furthermore, unlike you, I have not insisted on points of law yet unsettled. Rather, I have commented about the nature of what the Napa Valley ruling presents in the way of WTS vulnerability. If there is vulnerability then it deserves exploitation when it comes to the WTS’ Star Chamber judicial proceedings
I have not insisted on points of law unsettled. I have merely stated that the California case ruling only applies to California and may not work in cases outside the child molestation and abuse cases where it was used. There is nothing "unsettled" in what I presented. Your comment above "If there is vulnerability" is a greatly moderated departure from your intial recommendations. Yes, I agree that it deserves exploitation ... but no ex-JW on this board should walk away from these discussions thinking that this will be an easy application of case law. I have strongly recommended that ex-JWs or JWs talk to an attorney in their own jurisdiction to see what, if anything, can be done. My entire focus is to endorse lower expectations and caution, because I think JWs and ex-JWs have been way over-hyped as to the potential of what they can get done in the courts ... not just by your thread, but in other threads in the past.
The child molestation issue has taken seven years to get to where is it at now from the days I first introduced these issues, and almost seven years since Bill Bowen entered the scene. Yet, in spite of these very recent rulings, there is a ways to go in pre-trial actions before this matter makes it to trial in California. If an ex-JW decided to take a civil action using this California ruling in some way, in order to over-turn his/her disfellowshipping, it will be a long time and a lot of money down the road before they will see results.
Marvin Shilmer, who believes respect is either earned or lost with every sounding of the vocal cords
If you show respect, and terminate the condescension and disrespectful remarks then I will show you all the respect in the world. Fore example, references to your level of "education" and how I need to be "shown by drawing pictures with crayons" are not the remarks of the Marvin I thought I knew. Regarding the "vocal cords," I find that many posters imput emotions upon the written word that are often not present. Even HS, for all his normal objectivity, stated above that I was getting emotionally invested in this issue ... I am anything but emotional ... I am concerned about misleading people with recommendations that may not work. Again, some of your recommendations are fine IF that is what trips a person's trigger, to imtimidate Elders, take copious notes, and involve witnesses. Just some of your recommendations are not sound and suggest more hope than reality offers.
Jim Whitney
