Update on my JC situation

by drew sagan 62 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Minimus,

  You give bad advice.

  Whether anyone likes it or not, the Watchtower judiciary does have procedural and evidentiary standards. The Watchtower’s legal department has taken care of that! Of course these standards are stacked in favor of the Watchtower. Nevertheless, if one understands these standards then they have an above average chance of beating the system.

  For example, in a large majority of cases where apostasy is either the charge or the suspicion, it is the accused that ends up self-prosecuting by letting themselves be pressured into answering questions where otherwise the Watchtower evidentiary standards would not allow a decision to disfellowship to stand upon appeal. Hence my second piece of advice to opt for a written response to questions rather than answering on the spot. (This is precisely what the Watchtower does for itself, isn’t it? Do you think this is by accident?) The accused then has opportunity to give just as much a weasel worded response as one would get from the Watchtower under conditions where it is accused (rightly or wrongly). Or, at the very least, this procedure (a written response) provides the accused to better articulate their response, and to do so in a way not to condemn themselves according to Watchtower policy.

  Otherwise, if one chooses to submit themselves to a Watchtower style tribunal, then it is absurd for the accused to leave all the entire judicial proceeding to the elder court when one has options to remind these men what they say is becoming a matter of record. If the accused (or suspect) gives these kangaroo courts enough reason for pause, the scales are closer to balanced, though still not evenly.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  minimus

  Minimus certainly does get it and doesn't give bad advice. Marvin gives bad advice. Does your suggestion actually help? It doesn't. It just delays the outcome. You could recommend anyone to prolong the meeting by asking, writing down, re-checking and so forth and ultimately it's not going to matter. If this is just about playing a game to show what the elders are all about, then go for it.

  You don't think the Society has every loophole covered?? Do you honestly think that your suggestions will "beat the system". You think way too much of yourself. You always have, nonetheless, I find some of your opinions to be interesting.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  OnTheWayOut,

  Your experience is typical. It is extremely rare for the accused JW to take copious notes during their own judicial hearing. There are many reasons for this, but among them are 1) the accused is under an illusion that the elders are ‘there for them’ and would never dream of acting hastily or, God forbid, dishonestly, 2) the accused is intimidated by a previous and constant bombardment to ‘submit or die at Armageddon,’ 3) the accused is inexperienced with the often ridiculous misconstrual made by wacko elders, 4) the accused has no idea that copious records will be kept of the hearing (by elders) without challenge if not for their own detailed notes. And, finally, hardly any accused JW takes copious notes during their own hearing because they do not know they can.

  Ironically, the Watchtower otherwise encourages note-taking by JWs for other meetings. The absence of this encouragement in relation to Watchtower judicial proceedings is conspicuous by its absence! But it is allowed nevertheless.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  undercover

  minimouse:

  All you guys (or gals) are doing is delaying the process a bit. It sounds clever and totally irritatingly distracting but they could easily reason that you are not going to respond to their questions, right then and there so you are being uncooperative (in their opinion). Let's say they let you write Q&As all night long, then what?? I'll tellya what.

  Then they're going to sink their teeth in you. You can't win when the deck is stacked against you. The ONLY way these elder's tactics could stop is by there being a legal precedent showing they CANNOT do what they do. We know there's nothing that legally prevents them from practicing their religion in the way they do.Otherwise, a new policy would occur. (Although their saying that YOU disassociate yourself by YOUR actions is clever bullshit).

  Ms. Shilmer:

  Whether anyone likes it or not, the Watchtower judiciary does have procedural and evidentiary standards. The Watchtower’s legal department has taken care of that! Of course these standards are stacked in favor of the Watchtower. Nevertheless, if one understands these standards then they have an above average chance of beating the system.

  ...

  ...if one chooses to submit themselves to a Watchtower style tribunal, then it is absurd for the accused to leave all the entire judicial proceeding to the elder court when one has options to remind these men what they say is becoming a matter of record. If the accused (or suspect) gives these kangaroo courts enough reason for pause, the scales are closer to balanced, though still not evenly.

  According to mini, just showing up at a JC meeting is pretty much a waste of time if you're going to try to reason with the elders or beat them at their own game.

  According to Marv, one can play the game and maybe balance the scales of (in)justice a bit, if still not perfectly balanced.

  But...in the end, will the accused win? Will the elders realize that maybe the accused has a point and no further action will be taken? Will an elder be convinced that the accused is right and the WTS is wrong?

  I like the note taking idea, if for nothing else to help you remeber exactly what was said, by who and while you're at it, post it here . But minimus is right, I think...you're not going to be able to tilt the scales enough to benefit yourself from getting in deeper. In effect, you're delaying the inevitable.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Minimus,

  If, as you assert, the Watchtower “covered every loophole” then it would not be up to its ass in lawsuits, which it is. Hence this assertion of yours is false, not to mention stupid. Because the Watchtower has a battery of lawyers does not mean it covers its butt as well as it should. Big corporations get caught with their pants down all the time, particularly when employees/members use their own rules against them. Even a cursory review of case law demonstrates this!

  When you say the advice given “just delays the outcome” and that it does not help, you are doing nothing short of patting your own opinion on the back. I’m sure this makes you feel better. But it does not make you correct. Assuming you have honestly expressed real personal experience, do you then think it logical to transpose your own experience onto everyone else? If so then you are falling prey to the allure of anecdotal evidence. Or, alternately, do you think your experience is, somehow, more valuable than the experience of others with contrary experience. Honestly, you blather on with your but-but-but replies whilst spitting nonsense like saliva.

  Your responses are self-serving editorials, lacking any underpinning I must add. I don’t think you’ll understand the former statement, and probably not the latter. And, so what?

  Marvin Shilmer, who has little patience with wind bags
• 

  minimus

  Hey Marvin, are you and Hillary one in the same??

  If you read Undercover's comment, I think you can see that not everyone agrees with you.

  Regarding losing lawsuits, I am specifically talking about how the Society has covered itself when it comes to judicial matters. Your method does nothing for anybody. You are giving false hope to someone who might think now, that they might be able to correct the scales of balance.....It ain't gonna happen your way.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Undercover,

  In many cases showing up at a judicial hearing is a complete waste of time. Whether it is or is not depends on force of circumstance, including whatever personal needs of the accused. This is why my advice is prefaced by whether a person chooses to attend these gatherings, and the needs of the individual.

  As for beating elders at their own game, it happens all the time by savvy persons who refuses to be intimidated.

  In the end it is the Watchtower who decides whether a decision of a local judicial committee stands. The Watchtower looks at whether a particular case measures up to its (Watchtower’s) judicial protocol and evidentiary standards and if it does not then it will refuse the decision of the local judicial committee in order to keep its own butt out of a sling. It is this self-serving nature of Watchtower policy that lends some advantage to the savvy person finding themselves the object of a Watchtower style hunt.

  That minimus is wrong is testified to each time an appeal committee rejects a decision to disfellowship and/or each time the Watchtower branch office likewise rejects the original committees decision to disfellowship. If minimus were correct these appeals would never be successful. My recommendations increase the likelihood of a successful appeal, should it be needed and should the individual choose to submit to the process in the first place.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Minimus,

  I don’t want you to wonder. Until you say something more than nonsensical blather I see no reason to respond. There is no reason to oblige idiocy. There is every reason to respond to sound reason and evidence.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  minimus

  Your recommendations do not increase the likelihood of a successful appeal if the elders followed direction from the Flock book. To prove how easy it is to see that your recommendations are silly, why would anyone not go to a JC and simply follow the steps written by "Marvin"?.....Let's see what the success rate will be then and who will show themselves to be the idiot.
• 

  undercover

  In many cases showing up at a judicial hearing is a complete waste of time. Whether it is or is not depends on force of circumstance, including whatever personal needs of the accused.

  Agreed.

  As for beating elders at their own game, it happens all the time by savvy persons who refuses to be intimidated.

  I'm sure that it can be done by certain individuals, but I doubt that it "happens all the time". Unfortunately, not all of us are savvy enough to do it...in fact, I'd be willing to bet that most of us aren't. More power to those who are and can do it, I hope it works for them, but for the rest of us, I think it might be as we agreed above...it's a waste of time showing up.

  In the end it is the Watchtower who decides whether a decision of a local judicial committee stands. The Watchtower looks at whether a particular case measures up to its (Watchtower’s) judicial protocol and evidentiary standards and if it does not then it will refuse the decision of the local judicial committee in order to keep its own butt out of a sling. It is this self-serving nature of Watchtower policy that lends some advantage to the savvy person finding themselves the object of a Watchtower style hunt.

  I'm not an expert on this but as I remember appeals working, it didn't go to the Legal Dept. or to anything "Watchtower" but to another group of elders from another hall or even another city if necessary. Usually the city overseer was involved with the appeal process. Maybe it wasn't done properly where I came from or the rules have changed.

  I do agree that anyone who agrees to meet with the elders in a JC to bone up on all the rules and protocol of JC meetings and be prepared to use it as an advantage if possible.