Recording a Judicial Committee Hearing

Olin Moyles Ghost

I was reading the thread about HoboKen's JC meeting and started thinking about the rule prohibiting recording devices in such meetings. Has anyone on the board tried to challenge this rule?

On its face, the rule is absurd. The meeting is called a Judicial Committee hearing. The word "Judicial" means related to judges or courts. Has anyone ever heard of a court that doesn't allow some sort of recording (typically a court reporter/stenographer) of its proceedings? Sure, such courts exist--in North Korea!

So, it seems to me that if a Witness is brought before a JC, he should state his intention to record the proceedings. Of course, the elders will say that's not allowed (as I recall, this is explicitly forbidden per the Flock book).

So, what would happen if the Witness stands his ground and insists on recording the proceedings? Would the elders refuse to allow him to participate? This could be an interesting game of "chicken." Would they DF him in absentia?

Such a situation could make for a "teachable moment." I imagine a conversation going thusly:

Accused Witness (AW): Good afternoon, I'm here for my JC meeting. I just wanted to say up-front that I'll be recording the proceedings.

Elder: No you won't. Recording JC meetings is not permitted.

AW: Really? That doesn't make much sense; where does it say that in the Bible or the publications.

Elder: We don't want these recordings getting into the public, this is a confidential private matter. The elders have specific instructions from the FDS not to allow recording of JC meetings.

AW: With all due respect, brother, I am shocked. How would you feel if you were accused of, say, embezzlement, in a court of law, and the entire trial was held behind closed doors with no way for you to have a record of what really happened there? Does that seem fair to you?

Elder: Well...this is different...this is a theocratic arrangement and we have holy spirit.

AW: Ok, but isn't it called a "judicial" committee--and doesn't "judicial" mean something related to a trial or court?

Elder: Sure, but it's theocratic, not a worldly court. We're all brothers here.

AW: Ok, so then you would agree that the Nation of Israel as described in the Hebrew Scriptures was theocratic, right?

Elder: Of course.

AW: How were trials held in the Nation of Israel? Were they secret or public? I'll answer that for you. They were public. See the Insight Book page 198 under "Assembly" and 475 under "City." So, where do the scriptures command you brothers to try me in secret without even allowing me to record what is said? What are you trying to hide?

Elder: Brother, we are following the direction from the FDS. I appreciate your feelings on the matter, but we cannot allow you to record the meeting.

AW: With all due respect, I insist on recording the meeting. I have seen nothing in the scriptures or publications that forbids or counsels against such a thing. Thus, I must respectfully make a stand and insist that I will record the meeting.

*****End of hypothetical conversation*****

At this point, the Accused Witness and the Elder are at an impasse. I would like to see whether a JC would really DF someone in absentia simply for insisting on recording the meeting.

It would not surprise me if the elders called the Society about this. I wonder if the Society would buckle. I kind of doubt it. But it would make a point, especially if the Accused Witness recorded the conversation in which the elders tell him that he is not allowed to defend himself against the accusations if he insists on recording the meeting.

Anyone tried something like this?

sir82

So, what would happen if the Witness stands his ground and insists on recording the proceedings? Would the elders refuse to allow him to participate? This could be an interesting game of "chicken." Would they DF him in absentia?

There would only be an impasse for about 30 seconds. The elders would adjourn the meeting and meet privately afterward. They would then almost 100% certainly disfellowship the person - his obstinance would definitely be seen as a sign he is "not repentent".

I've never seen this situation happen, but I suspect the Society would fully support the elders' handling it this way.

It would be pretty dumb, IMO, to do this - if you really want to record the meeting, there are all kinds of small, disguised recording devices that can easily be hidden away.

If you just want to "make a statement" by insisting on doing soemthing that would never be allowed, well, I guess you could, but to what end? The 3 elders on the committee are not going to be moved - you will have just made their decision extremely easy.

In fact they'd probably be grateful - committees can sometimes last 2 or 3 hours - your stubbornness has just cut the meeting down to 10 minutes. Now they can go back home earlier and catch Monday Night Football.

koolaid-man

I recored my judicial committee hearings, including the appeal. A YouTube video talked about this and got over 183,000 clicks. So these recordings obviously get Witnesses attention. Check out the video and then hit the link below to listen to the recording and how I got the recorder in to the meeting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR7tsA0Nng4 http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/5flyonthewall.html

Heaven

JW Judicial Committee Meetings = Kangaroo Courts.

koolaid-man... Thank you for recording your JC. It took great courage to do what you did. I was one of those who viewed your video. Just one more reason I could never sign-up to this organization.

isaacaustin

Rick, I listened to your JC as well as your appeal. Although you were still probably mentally working your way out of the WT at that time you were a real tropper. I was proud to hear you stand up to their self-proclaimed authority. Great job, and you continue to do a great job!

alanv

It must be so much easier now to disfellowship someone since they changed the baptism vows in the eighties.

After all, part of your vow is to agree to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with his earthly organisation, ie the governing body.

As soon as you say you disagree with something they have said, they can quite reasonably chuck you out. You are breaking the agreement.

undercover

Elders are just following rules themselves, they don't have the authority to allow a change in procedure even if they wanted to...not that they would want to because most of them have lost their ability of free thought and free will.

Most rank and file dubs are the same. They're told how to think, what to think and they usually go along without ever questioning the procedure, the trial or the results.

I agree about the use of the word "judicial". There is no true "judicial" element to JC meetings. There is no "innocent until proven guilty"...it's more of a "how guilty are they and how will we punish them" scenerio. That's why most JWs are deathly afraid of ever being called into a JC. Most of them pray, er, hope, that it will end up in only a private reproof.

If one has come to the point to want to stand up for their right to take notes, record the meeting or even bring legal counsel, then instead of forcing the issue, it would probably be better to just be a no-show. If you have no respect for the arrangement, and you allow them no authority as your judge and executioner, then why bother going through such a farce to begin with?

passwordprotected

The stance of the elders - and many JWs I've spoken to - is that when you join a club you agree to abide by the rules. And yes, if you were baptised after 1986 (?) you publicly stated you were a Jehovah's Witnesses under the authority of the Watch Tower Society (although not in so many words). If you don't want to play by the rules, they put you out of the club.

Insisting on recording the hearing would result in you being disfellowshipped for having an unrepentant attitude.

Olin Moyles Ghost

Thanks for the comments. I am one of the 144,000 or so that watched Rick's Youtube video about his DF-ing and I appreciate folks like Rick and Hoboken who put this material out for us to see.

And I agree with the commenters who think my idea would not be successful. You're almost certainly correct. My point is that pressing the issue highlights the absurdity and "star chamber" nature of a JC. If you know you're going to be DF'd anyway, it might be an interesting route to take.

Also, is there anything in print--that a regular, non-elder, JW has access to--stating that JC meetings can't be recorded? I'm not aware of WT literature that addresses this other than the Flock book, which non-elders are not allowed to possess. So, isn't there a problem of notice? I understand that post-1986 baptisms are "into the organization" and this implicitly includes an agreement to follow the rules; but does this include secret rules that members are not informed about? I guess in practice it means whatever the WTS says it means...

I think it would be enlightening to the public if someone recorded and posted the conversation in which the elders refuse to let you defend yourself unless you submit to the no-recording rule. This would add to the body of material (such as the recorded JC hearings of folks such as Rick and Hoboken) highlighting the absurdity of the JC procedure.

While many folks may not have the time or inclination to listen to 3 hours of JC hearing testimony, they may listen to a 10 minute conversation where an elder refuses to allow an accused person to defend himself against judicial charges unless he turns the tape recorder off. For some people, that might have an impact.

civicsi00

Wow, recording a conversation like this would be priceless! My JC is coming up sometime in the next few months (they're already starting to hound me), so I'm going to try this.

Recording a Judicial Committee Hearing

Share this