Marvin,
This is only true when it is true, a fact that seems to escape your notice. However, if or when civil rights are violated then what you write is false. I have not stated that civil rights would or would not be violated. I have recommended a stance to better assert and defend such rights when and if they are violated. Hence your argument amounts to nothing more than a complaint in this discussion.
You introduced "civil rights" which led to my response. Your comments above are rather senseless. Violation of civil rights is normally a criminal matter, and one so victimized may seek "additional" remedy in civil actions, usually for some monetary award. Besides child molestation, which is a clear crime, what civil rights violation can one possibly allege against the Watchtower, in which case they could use the California ruling? This you have left glaringly absent from your argument.
I stated, "Calling the police is a pointless waste of time, and threats to call the police are likewise a waste of time ... unless a crime is involved.”
To which Marvin replies:
“Unless a crime is involved”! BINGO!!!
Thank you for finally, at last, recognizing what I have been saying all along, which you have ignored up to this time. All of your earlier commentary either failed to address this point, or when mentioned, failed to stipulate that crime must be involved. We can now agree.
My recommendations warn against criminal conduct, and in the event a law is broken a firmer footing is established about the elders rules of engagement, so to speak. Civil courts do expect individuals and organizations to keep
their word. It’s called a verbal contract.
Your original posting, to which I responded, never mentioend calling the police only when crime is involved. You simply stated that one should call the police when dealing with the Elders as an act to intimidate the Elders. Here is a copy for your convenience:
Judicial Committee Preparation ... Recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual. At a minimum I recommend the following: ... When invited to the hearing (or to any “meeting” with local elders) make damn sure you question whether this is for a judicial hearing. If it is stated that this is the purpose of the “meeting” then ask: ...
1. Will any documents of record be made of this meeting?
2. Who will make/produce the documentation?
3. Who will have access to the documents of record?
4. Will this documentation contain information about my person, including my name and details discussed during the meeting?
5. Will I have access to any and all documentation of this meeting? If not, why not?
6. Will I have opportunity to object to any official documentation of the judicial hearing?
7. Can you record the meeting with a voice or video recorder? If not, why not?
8. Ask to have a personal advisor present during your judicial hearing. Reject any notion that sitting judiciaries (elders) will give any advice you might need during the process.
9. Make notes of answers to these questions and have the elder(s) initial it as an authentic record of thein invitation to your judicial hearing. If they refuse this then just include this refusal in your note.
Make these men go on record on these issues. ... If you choose to attend the judicial hearing then, at a minimum, I recommend that you bring a friend along to sit and wait for you immediately outside the hearing room, and:
1. Do not answer any questions whatsoever, including making an opening statement.
2. Ask for proof of any accusations made against your person.
3. Insist that any witnesses testify in person.
4. Reject testimony given by elders who are also serving as members of the judiciary.
5. Keep meticulous records. Go with paper and pen in hand. Insist on writing down any questions asked, word for word. Insist on writing down any answers given, word for word. This will be time consuming and laborious. But insist on it. If you are told such documentation is disallowed then ask why, and write down what you are told. Hand this record over to your friend immediately as you leave the room as a witness to your record keeping.
Any witnesses who testify in your behalf should likewise take meticulous notes. If elders deny this then these witnesses should demand the privilege as a constitutional right. If they continue to be denied then they should state that they are reporting the incident to the police and their attorney.
If you are told that you are disallowed from meticulously documenting your own judicial hearing then refuse to be involved with the process and state that you are calling the police and your attorney to report a violation of your constitutional rights. Announce that your lawsuit will seek damages from the Watchtower Society, the local congregation and each elder on the judicial committee.
Marvin Shilmer
What constitutional right does one demand as a privilege? A right is a right! What "right" do you have in mind when you make this argument? What crime did you mention of stipulate to which one would call the police? None! Now you claim that you recommended calling the police when a "crime" has been committed, a notion totally absent from your recommendations until I argued for this for several posts until you finally claim it for yourself. How disingenuous can you be?!
I stated, “I also argued that the California case only covers matters of child molestation and abuse or perhaps other crimes.”
And this “argument” was summarily refuted, which apparently you yield by saying “or perhaps other crimes”. You have 1) utterly failed to substantiate your claim that the particular ruling was based on the sort of crime committed in the instance of that case, and 2) have utterly failed to address the actual black-letter law provided you on this forum.
You are in error and twisting the sequence of events. I have always argued that the ruling was based on child molestation and child abuse alone. If it were to be applied, hence, "perhaps" to other "crimes" then yes, it may be applied. There is no yielding, as this has been my arguement. You, on the other hand, presented in more loosly, in a willy-nilly fashion without stipulating confinement to California or to certain specific crimes. I have not failed to stipulate or substantiant that the ruling was based on the crime of molestation and abuse. Let's see what I highlighted, which you quoted:
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.”
How on earth can you possibly argue that I failed to substantiate that the ruling was based on the crime of child molestation? That was in fact the entire point of the ruling and discussing the communications between the Judicial Committee and the Watchtower Society. That crime cannot be protected in this case, in the State of California, in the manner that the Watchtower Socety wishes to protect it. In my postings I allowed for "other" application all along, but that it would be a long and difficult stretch: First, to get the ruling to apply to other types of issues, including crimes, and Two, to get the ruling accepted outside of California in other State courts.
We are talking about going into an unfair process (the WTS judicial hearing) with a firmer foundation for later recourse, should it come to that. As for “outside of California,” we see you have failed to address the gravity of the California ruling in relation to other states with similar black-letter law. You have also failed to address the other complications this poses for the WTS’ uniform judicial procedures throughout the USA.
Jim W writes: “If I get into a snit with the Elders over some lesser issue, I will be hard pressed to use this case law, especially outside of California. That was, and continues to be my argument.”
No one is talking about getting into a snit. We are talking about going into an unfair process (the WTS judicial hearing) with a firmer foundation for later recourse, should it come to that.
I think you are straining over my use of the word "snit." Nothing more needs to be said.
As for “outside of California,” we see you have failed to address the gravity of the California ruling in relation to other states with similar black-letter law. You have also failed to address the other complications this poses for the WTS’ uniform judicial procedures throughout the USA.
I never stated that the ruling was not serious, but rather not as flexible and open-ended as you have alluded in your discussion. You bank a lot on its application elsewhere, and I think you are the one in error. The onus is on you to demonstrate how this ruling can and will be applied elsewhere, and in what other types of cases, and how ex-JWs may run to their attorneys to start law suits. It was neither my purpose nor within the scope of my commentary to go any further than to challenge the implication of your recommendations. The onus in not on me. Trying to turn it around is intellectually dishonest on your part.
Elsewhere on this very thread I have addressed every single one of what you call arguments above. Every single one. I have also shown how every single one of them is either wrong of irrelevant to the issue at hand. I have no problem with being wrong. In fact, when I am wrong I am glad it is pointed out to me. Where, exactly, am I wrong here? Where? Please show me the words. That is, my words, not your rendition or impression of my words.
You may thing you have, but you have not. You have used a lot of false argumentation to side-step the few and brief points I made in the opening and continued to hold to up to this posting. You have the onus of showing where you have addressed every one of my points ... and do so with your postings up to you last one above. I think if you really read what I have written, you will see what you missed. Go ahead, go through every one of my postings here and then show how yours addressed, and refuted my points. Just above, I showed how you finally came around to my argument that one should not call the police unless a crime was committed. I showed how your opening post did not mention crime. You take my position witout recognizing your error, and act as though it was always your own. That is intellectually dishonest!
Jim W writes: “In this case, he is giving an impression to ex-JWs that they can willy-nilly take a California ruling and have a go with the Elders over any matter.”
And so there we see it. It is not my words; it is your impression of my words that you complain about. Your entire line of complaint on this thread is based on your impression of my words. I suggest you stick to what I have actually stated and leave off refuting your own impression of my words. When one complains about their own impressions, it is telling.
You ORIGINAL POSTING as I quoted entirely above, says nothing about crime being involved as the basis to call the police. You have neglected this topic until this latest go around. It is not an impression ... it is a fact of your own writing which you now trying to escape by engaging in my alleged impressions. I merely took you at your exact word, and you are now uncomfortable with that and seek escape.
Here we have it, again. The way I sound, to Jim W. Again you are complaining not about my actual words, but rather how it sounds to your ears. Have you considered that perhaps you have hearing problems, or misimpression? Again your complaints are Jim W centric and not toward the actual words provided on this forum.
I agree, I dislike the use of the word "sound" when dealing entirely with the written word. I will give you that one as a slip on my part. Nontheless, your recommendations are simplistic as one can see by reading them in the original post, either pn page one or here above within this post. That was, and continues to be the basis of my responses to you. Your arguments about my impressions are merely an effort to side-step your own weak, unclear, and generalized recommendations.
Jim W writes: “Marvin has done anything but aptly illustrate how the WTS has been legally weakened in matters outside the child molestation issue ... which issue we are all well aware has been a serious blow to the Watchtower Society.”
Marvin has only repeated what others have attained, which is that penitential communication laws like the one in California leaves the WTS’ judicial processes vulnerable under the law. You have avoided this basic fact over and over again, despite that several Crayola pictures have been drawn for your personal benefit.
There you go again with your crayon remarks. You fail to show respect. You will receive none until you knock it off. Okay, let's see how I have NOT avoided this issue:
I stated on Nov. 22nd:
"You are leaving out the reasons for these rulings which is germane to the issue at hand, and afect your recommendations. First, criminal conduct is the underlying basis, even though this is a civil liability action. Second, the courts are not saying that the JWs cannot have their judicial proceedings, they simply are stating that their style of Church Government is not protected because of the "nature" of the judicial proceedings. If the JWs used the Catholic style of "confession" then it would still be protected." - Jim W.
I further stated on Nov. 23rd.
These rulings have much to do with the child abuse issue. These same rulings may not necessarily work in other situations where the Elders want to meet with a person who, for example, has been inactive, and known to not be in harmony with the organization. Shilmer is making a serious leap that could mislead people on this board into thinking that the case law decisions made in the child abuse cases will now be applicable in other kinds of cases in the JW system. - Jim W.
In another posting on Nov. 23rd I stated similarly:
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. - Jim W.
Then, earlier this morning, I gave a case example applying this ruling your way:
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. - Jim W.
There were over thirty pages of dicumentation that I wrote in this case, all of which the Society has. The Society and the local Elders all have plenty of documentation of this own, some of which I have, but most of which is held back from me. So, now again, you tell me, by using your legal interpretation of the California ruling, advise the attorney I spoke with as to how this ruling can be used to obtain that documentation and help me build a case to sue the Watchtower Society. Let's hear it, and stop alleging that I have avoided some issue. Let put your legal expertise to the test!
As I have asserted above, time and again, the Watchtower judicial process was rendered vulnerable in the cases involving child molestation. That is its application in matters of case law in California. Go back and read my postings to date and you will see this line of reasoning. Without directly saying it, you argue for a much broader application outside the crime of child molestation. I argued that for now it applies to this crime and "perhaps" other crimes. My emphasis throughout the discussion was about crime, in particular child molestation, and not just any civil matter one might have with the Watchtrower Society. I have avoided nothing, and your claim is intellectually dishonest as I have demonstrated with several quotes from my earlier postings. I simply argue that your application is too broad and could be misleading to ex-JWs who want to sue the Society for other reasons. It is you that deliberately side-steps this clearly stated position throughout my postings in your silly attempt to prove your own rightness, which is not right.
You ignored my first challenge ... even though you say you addressed all of my points. Will you now accept or decline my challenge to talk to the attorney and explain how I can apply this California ruling to my own Disassociation such that I can sue the Society?
Jim Whitney
