Do Elders Have A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy During Judicial Committees?

by DT 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DT

  I should point out that I'm not a lawyer and I'm not qualified to give legal advice.

  There has been much discussion about judicial committees lately and how to handle and possibly record them.

  Naturally, the question of the legality of recording judicial committees is a concern. My understanding of the law in the U.S. is that it is legal to record private conversations in most states provided at least one party consents to the recording. In the other states, it is required to get the consent of all parties to record a private conversation.

  However, it would be reasonable to ask whether or not a judicial committee is a private conversation and whether the elders have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the elders don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then it might not be illegal to record them, even in states that normally require consent from all parties.

  I will make some observations and then ask for your comments.

  1. Most judicial hearings outside the Witness world are public

  2. Appeals sometimes take place where others review the events of the judicial committee.

  3. An elder takes notes during the proceedings.

  4. The Watchtower Society has resisted any attempts by courts to interfere or rule on the legality of their internal procedures. It would be unusual if they asked a court to investigate one of their judicial committees in an attempt to prosecute someone for recording it. Doing this could set a dangerous precedent that could result in courts ruling on the legality of other aspects of judicial committees.

  5. Jehovah's Witnesses claim to follow the Bible and the precedent in the Bible is for these types of judicial matters to be public. It could be considered an unconstitutional interference with religion for a court to investigate and rule on whether these committees are public or private.

  6. The judicial committees generally take place in buildings that are open to the public.

  7. I believe some courts have ruled that clergy penitent privilege doesn't apply to judicial committees and that elders may occasionally have to testify about the proceedings of a judicial committee.

  8. The results of a Judicial committee often get communicated to the Watchtower Society and the congregation.

  9. Judicial committees involve implied and or explicit threats that could involve violations of the accused's civil rights. ( I don't know if this is relevant legally, but I have a hard time imagining a person being prosecuted for recording threats to himself.)

  It appears to me that elders might not have a reasonable expectation of privacy during judicial committees. I welcome your comments and observations.
• 

  ziddina

  Gooooooood question....
• 

  wha happened?

  7. I believe some courts have ruled that clergy penitent privilege doesn't apply to judicial committees and that elders may occasionally have to testify about the proceedings of a judicial committee.

  This was ruled on in Murrieta, CA. A number of elders were called in on a pedophile trial. They invoked clerical priviledge. The judge slapped it down as it did not meet the criteris such as:

  It was not a confession of an individual to an individual. The meeting is held with 3 elders.

  It resulted in sanctions. The elders make a decison to reprove or df. This information is then sent to NY, (again touching on the confession from an individual to an individual), and it may be announced in the KH. To invoke clerical priviledge, the individual confessing cannot be sanctioned in any way.

  The elders were called in for face contempt charges. They testified
• 

  00DAD

  Apparently you've seen my thread:

  How to Record a Judicial Meeting

  I believe that elders and anyone else involved in a Judicial Hearing do have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy during such a hearing. But therein lies the rub. The WTBTS obscures the meaning of "confidentiality" by suggesting that it precludes recording it.

  It's just ridiculous. Think about it. How many confidential documents exist in the world? Each and every congregation keeps a Confidential File. There is nothing about the word "confidential" that precludes make a record of a confidential meeting, nothing. It's completely illogical. More WTBTS Doublespeak.

  The elders are directed: "Recording devices should not be allowed." - STFOG, Chapter 7, "Judicial Hearing Procedures", p. 90, #3 [Emphasis in original]

  However, only elders would know this going into a Judicial Committee meeting. The R&F would not. I am of the opinion that it is completely wrong to oblige individuals to judicial procedures which they could not possibly know unless they are a current elder.

  And realistically, how many JWs are going to stand up for their basic human rights and say, "I disagree with that policy. I'm going to record it for my protection."? Not many.

  They are/(we were) indoctrinated to unquestioningly follow the dictates of the elders.
• 

  Blind_Of_Lies

  I believe that they waive any reasonable expectation of privacy when a few key things take place:

  1. It is not a meeting between 2 people, but instead 4.

  2. Notes are taken and a report is typed/written and sent HQ

  3. A public announcement is made regarding the individual, this in itself would blast the privacy thing. It would also put a serious pinch on any claims that they are “clergy” and therefore are exempt.

  4. Elders are now encouraged to push any victims of abuse to report it to the authorities. I would have to consult my copy of the secret elders book for details but I do know there are very exact rules on record and legal implications.

  5. Regarding #3, any notes that are taken and any documents are not to be destroyed but instead put into a sealed envelope and labeled then put in the publisher’s file. Why do they need to do this? Your guess is as good as mine

  6. Unless they make you sign a confidentiality agreement, there really is no “implied privacy” on their part.

  Now, on the flip side… If you as a publisher have agreed to subject yourself to them and sit down for some sort of JC then YOU have can expect some sort of confidentiality not because that’s the moral thing to do, but because they claim the issue will be handled privately and confidentially.

  The funny thing is, even in cases where no one knows the situation… people always find out… usually within days of a JC taking place.

  I am no lawyer but That is how I understand privacy laws regarding the clergy in general.
• 

  james_woods

  What I am wondering is why anybody would want to record a judicial committee meeting in the first place (or even attend it) - provided they were already to the point of leaving this religion.
• 

  00DAD

  Marvin Shilmer started this related thread:

  Judicial Committee Preparation
• 

  ziddina

  Okay...

  This first site is actually for news reporters, who would probably have a bit more leeway than the average person - at least, in theory.

  However, it does have a state-by-state listing of the laws on recording private conversations...

  http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape/state-state-guide

  Here's a "Citizens Media Law" website - it may address the concerns of the average citizen...

  http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

  Here's one that discusses the situation in Canada - and be sure to drop down to "The One Party Consent Exception to the Rule Against Interception" section...

  http://www.legaltree.ca/node/908

  And here's an interesting comment from that same site:

  "Consent to interception of a conversation involving many people:

  If many people are involved in a single conversation, it can lawfully be recorded so long as any one of the parties to the conversation consents to it being recorded. That rule is set out in s. 183.1 of the Criminal Code:
  
  Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part.

  And nearly all of these sites state that you should check with an attorney before taping any conversations....

  Like the people who really NEED to have some evidence of wrongdoing, have the time and/or the bucks to consult an attorney beforehand....

  ********************************* About Phone Calls ********************************

  Here are a couple of sites on recording phone calls...

  http://lifehacker.com/5491190/is-it-legal-to-record-phone-calls

  http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.tel.tape.law.html
• 

  WTWizard

  If they can send a transcription (which may or may not be altered or corrupted) to headquarters, then why can't I make a recording (which is guaranteed accurate and unadulterated) and post it online?
• 

  TD

  Why would privacy be a question here at all? The proceeding is not private insofar as you (The accused) are concerned. What would be on a recording that you had not already heard?

  Now if you recorded their private deliberation that you were not a party to, that might be a different story.