I disassociated so I was never involved in a judicial committee. I have a few questions.
1. The accused is not allowed to take notes. However, I have heard that the elders sometimes take notes. Is this common? Is this required? I wonder if it would be useful for the accused to refuse to talk unless he was also allowed to take notes or unless the elders don't take notes. I know it probably wouldn't go anywhere, but it might make the elders think. At least it might be fun to see how they try to explain this double standard. It might also be fun to get them to explain what your appeal rights are. It could be pointed out that there has to be two or more witnesses to establish a matter. How can it be said that the accused has any meaningful appeal rights if he is denied anyway way of proving what went on during the first judicial committee?
2. A recent court case in California established that judicial committees are not privileged and the elders can be required to testify about it in court. This raises a lot of interesting questions. What if the elders don't want to hear about certain details that could have legal consequences? What would happen if someone protests his innocence, but refuses to discuss any matter that could have legal implications? What if someone insists on having a lawyer present because of this? What if the accused insists that the proceedings be recorded to insure that the elders don't distort what is said in the judicial committee? Could someone sue for being disfellowshipped because he exercised his constitutional right to remain silent?
3. My other questions are based on the baptism questions?
(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?
Baptism is often seen as a contract between the individual and the organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses. This has been used as a legal defense to justify punishing a person because they have agreed to follow the rules of Jehovah's Witnesses and be subject to their disciplinary policies. Of course, those questions don't state that. It promises a "reward" for the payment of meeting certain conditions in the past. The payment involves repenting and dedicating yourself to a god. That dedication implies future actions in behalf of a third party, but this contract isn't specific about what that involves and doesn't grant the organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses the privilege of interpreting what that involves. Also, the contract only requires that the dedication be made. It doesn't require that it be fulfilled. The "reward" is being identified as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no indication that this agreement can be nullified by either party. Jehovah's Witnesses actually teach that baptism is permanent. Yet, if you are disfellowshipped. They announce that you are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Could this be considered a breach of contract?
I look forward to your comments.