by drew sagan 62 Replies latest jw friends
Drew:
I'm dead meat minimus, we all know that!
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you're so certain of the outcome then why bother with the whole thing? Your time could be spent more productively watching TV, having a beer, and munching on cheese and crackers. Why validate their kangaroo court by being present? If you have a statement to make, then make it to people you love, and do it while they may still acknowledge your existence. You may not have another chance.
W
Geez...guys this fellow needs some real help and suggestion, which, he's getting, so-o, what's with the 'pissing' contest ?
2nd...and on topic...someone in your other thread said that recordings were illegal. They are...only according to WT rules, anyone is allowed to record any conversation -- that they are a party to -- if they aren't part of the conversation, that's when wiretapping laws come in. Playing a recording of a conversation - to - someone - not - a part of the original conversation could be illegal.
Look in the front of your phone book...there are usually printed explanations of recording laws. Also, in my only recording attempt with elders, a lot of the tape had poor quality sound due to the 'white noise' caused by my suit coat 'scratching' the microphone, as I moved. Also, my voice was great, but, the Elders was muffled by the cloth. Try to find a concealed external mike at your local 'Spy' store ...and do a rehearsal to check your recording quality.
Good luck !
Rabbit
If The Elders Decide To Get You They Will----is the thread I made today. Check out what was said by one who served on appeal committees and such ones never violated anything to be d'fd over (according to the entire appeals com) .
Rabbit, in Mass. you cannot tape record someone's comments without their approval. You can video but not have sound unbeknownst to them.
There are those that say one vote doesn't make a difference. Sometimes it does.
There are those that say you can't fight City Hall. Sometimes you can.
There are those that say you can't beat the WTS lawyers because they will
drag it out in court for years. Sometimes the class action lawyers will say
"Bring it on, Watchtower."
None of us are Ray Franz, doomed to be found "unrepentant" at a JC meeting because
the Governing Body is gunning for us. Some are being gunned for, maybe that's the
case here, maybe it's not.
There is an appeal process in place and all committees are made up of 3 untrained
legal minds (well, most of them) who can honestly try, occasionally, to do what is
right. They will be on their toes if they know that you wrote every question and
comment, or acted as if you did. If you say "Sorry, the literature wasn't clear that
this is wrong. Show me where it's wrong. Well, I am not fully convinced that the literature
shows me that it's wrong, but I will follow your advice." then they would have a hard
time following a preconceived notion to DF you.
I plan to be a total thorn in their side if I ever see the lonely side of a JC. I will delay and
ask for evidence and tell them I need to look things up and claim that what I said was
misunderstood. I won't stay silent, but I won't give evidence against myself. I will appeal
right away with a 3 or 4 page letter. After that, I will use the Kangaroo Court procedure to
point out how I was treated. Drew, Rock on.
Finally-Free
Read my other posts. Compliance with this process is necessary in order to show my in-laws that we gave it an honest effort. They really feel we will be getting fair treatment. If we walk in and receive very unfair treatment it will be distressing to them (for a number of different reasons mentioned in previous posts.)
For those who want to argue about if we should participate or not, as I stated above if we choose not to participate then we run the risk of our family blaming us for not being cooperative. We could go through this entire process and still have the same result, with the in-laws thinking we where jerks. But what other choice is there? They will not talk with us regarding any of these issues. All we have is the possibility that harsh actions against us may possibly wake them up. In our situation there is no other choice.
For those of you that can make a clean break I advise you to do it. But otherwise the family issues involve make the correct actions to be on a case by case basis.
Undercover,
On a few occasions where I have observed accused JWs begin taking copious notes during their own judicial hearing, the inevitable question coming from one of the sitting elders is, “What are you doing?” When the accused responds that he or she is taking notes just as the Watchtower organization encourages, these elders are immediately taken by surprise; hence put on their heals from second one. When the inexperienced elder balks at this notion and is put on the spot by the accused to show where the Watchtower disallows, or in anyway discourages, taking copious notes of one’s own judicial hearing, he is pushed even farther onto his heals. When the accused further expresses the need for putting such serious matters in writing in order to avoid future confusion and misunderstanding, and that this is based on Watchtower advice, the balking elder is left with his jaw on the floor right alongside his ass.
Of course this tends to push the adversarial aspect of a judicial hearing to the forefront. But this is inevitable; hence it is to the advantage of an accused to initiate this rather than leaving it to the power of the sitting elders. This is a form of taking charge, and taking charge is a form of self-empowerment.
When elders are forced to contemplate that these proceedings are a matter of detailed record they tend to refrain from outrageous accusations and questions and stick to whatever is the specific reason of the meeting. When the accused does not refuse to answer questions but insists on answering in writing this, again, is a form of self-empowerment for the accused and a deflation of elder authority. Though these will probably not like the thought of a written response, it is simple enough to explain that this is how the Watchtower handles its affairs and you see wisdom in acting accordingly, not to mention the Watchtower’s advice to put important matters in writing.
The few occasions where copious note taking was employed the result was dramatic in terms of keeping the meeting short and to the point, which is to the advantage of the accused. It lessens opportunity of self-prosecution. It lessens the opportunity for elders to misconstrue verbal statements and forces them to stick to what is actually said in writing, and what is said in writing is not said under pressure of a hearing. In each instance where this initiative was employed (in my experience) the outcome was favorable to the accused. Each case was dropped for either lack of evidence or by solid refutation of precise accusations. I have not, and do not suggest that this will always be the result. But for those choosing to attend these kangaroo courts it is just as well that they educate themselves about the rules of engagement in order to maximize whatever their advantages, or to minimize whatever their disadvantages.
I doubt the yapping Chihuahua on this thread has ever experienced this in order to know what he or she is talking about. But then, this is not new.
Marvin Shilmer
Marvin,
For me the advice is sound and good. It will be an excellent way for me and my wife to defend ourselves without letting the elders take us into no mans land, which is all they want to do.
This little doggie has seen all sorts of distractions at JC meetings. When someone wanted to take notes, we simply told them that they couldn't. (Now whether or not we had a right to do so is another matter). We've seen persons want to bring observers to witness the proceedings. We said, no. Some people wanted a parent in with them but they were in their 20s. We said , no......Now some dumb elders might be very intimidated by such antics. We would take control and never yield control to the accused one. If we started to ask questions and we got no cooperation that we felt was reasonable, we'd dismiss them, have a discussion and no doubt disfellowship the person based upon whatever info we knew we had. Having the individual there or not---was really not that important---especially if we believed they were guilty.
Once again I suggest you check out my thread and read the real life statement of Seeker who served on appeals. IT DIDN'T MATTER EVEN IF THE PERSONS WERE NOT VIEWED AS GUILTY BY THE APPEALS COM. THE SOCIETY DIDN'T CARE!!!
Drew,
If you choose to attend the, apparently judicial, event, and you choose to respond to questions in writing rather than verbal declaration, then I further recommend softening the ground by expressing you understand the questions asked and you prefer to prepare a response just as those elders had opportunity to prepare for your hearing by knowing beforehand the questions they wanted to ask. This is fair. They had opportunity to prepare questions hence you should have opportunity to prepare a response.
I have observed instances where a judicial committee would try and subvert this by asserting that “The hearing is here and now; hence if you want to speak in your defense then you will have to answer before this hearing.” In this event I recommend that you express it is unfair to force an unprepared defense. If you have accusers these should stand up so you can question them in order to gain the precise basis of whatever is the accusation. Only then do you have opportunity to know what exactly to defend yourself against, and only then can you begin preparing this defense. If they ask for a simple response to “Is this accusation valid or not?” and you would prefer to remain noncommittal for the time being, then reply that you will answer this question in your written response. Do not volunteer anything. Refuse to cooperate with fishing expeditions. Ask to hear the accusation against you and for any witnesses to testify and face whatever questions you have at the moment. You should also state that you may have additional questions after considering an allegations and your response.
In all this it would be good to emphasize that you are interested in fairness and honesty, and that you do not consider it conducive to either to offer ill-considered and/or poorly articulated responses to questions and/or accusations of wrongdoing.
Marvin Shilmer
I know I'm a little late to the party, but I hope Drew & Amber Rose get this before tonight's Kangaroo Court.
You've each made comments to the effect of "we're toast". Is that just because you know they have evidence that you joined the YMCA? Or is there more back story here? The only other story on these threads is Drew's conversation with the elder about 607.
2 or 3 posters have thrown out the idea of doing a 100% Mea Culpa, "I see the light now" routine but I haven't seen Drew respond to that idea.
Just what do you want the outcome to be? If you really don't want to get the axe, terminate your YMCA membership BEFORE the meeting. (That's "works befitting repentance"). Say you've done some more thinking about the 607 thing and now see that the society's view could certainly be correct, and in fact, MUST be correct since you truly do feel now that Jehober, err. Jehovah is directing the F&D blah, blah (Make sure to bring some anti-vomiting medicine).
If you do a total roll over and play sheep routine, I think that's your best bet if your goal is to not get DFed.
Is that your goal?
Open Mind
