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

by DT 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Phizzy

  It is a basic right of the accused to have a copy of a transcript in most courts, there are other basic rights that a JC by JW's denies, such as representation by a lawyer or "friend at Court" and pre-trial access to the evidence against the accused.

  I would ask for a copy of their notes for preparing my appeal, I know this would be denied, but it makes them look what they are, a secret star-chamber kangaroo court where justice is virtually impossible.

  Here in the U.K priest-penitent confidentiality is not enshrined in law, is it in the USA ? in which case, if it is, it is really incumbent upon the Elders to maintain confidentiality. (Not in the case of a confession of criminal behaviour, such as child abuse, I would think)

  As to recording the proceedings, I would personally go ahead ,without telling them, and record their private deliberations. As to the latter, I would not splatter them all over the Internet, but the rest of the procedure I would, for the world to hear how un-christian this cult is.

  I doubt they would take any action in law against you after the event, there are already some recordings on the Net of J.C's, they didn't do anything about those to my knowledge, but you/I would be taking a small chance, I suppose.
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  I really wish it went as fas as them going after a savvy person for recording without explicit prior consent. One can turn around, coutersue and put in a subpoena for a heck of a dicsovery procedings asking for all kind of records - now made public for all interested to see. I am sure the process is not as simple or streamlined as I envision, but you get the idea. They get it too.

  How's that for a brunch?
• 

  00DAD

  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?

  Because the elders say you can't because the WTBTS says you can't. That's the ONLY reason.

  Phizzy: It is a basic right of the accused to have a copy of a transcript in most courts, there are other basic rights that a JC by JW's denies, such as representation by a lawyer ... and pre-trial access to the evidence against the accused.

  I would ask for a copy of their notes for preparing my appeal, I know this would be denied, but it makes them look what they are, a secret star-chamber kangaroo court where justice is virtually impossible.

  Excellent points Phizzy! Have you seen this recent thread discussing these very points?

  Judicial Hearing Procedures of Jehovah's Witnesses are Bible Based

  Phizzy: As to recording the proceedings, I would personally go ahead ,without telling them, and record their private deliberations.

  There's been a recent thread on that subject as well. It's referenced in this thread already but here's the link again for your convenience:

  How to Record a Judicial Meeting
• 

  Balaamsass
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I don't know about reasonable expectation or legality. I would simply state at the beginning that I will take notes of my own JC. I don't care what objections they raise. If they take notes then I take notes. Idoubt they would proceed with that stipulation, but if they did, that would be why my recollection was so good. It would not be because of the recording device I denied having. I would leave plenty of space in my notedls to fill in the important. Stuff from my device later.

  I know its never gunna happen, but I would insist and letthat be the reason the JC never took place.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Query? What if the issue is posed as someone recording their conversation for their own records, to refresh their recollection, rather than as evidence of the conversation takiing place?

  If you submit to a JC, you are accepting their legitimacy. If you accept their legitimacy, why record them?

  I fail to see what a recording gets you. They can say that the recording was altered in some manner. You would need a chain of evidence and special custodial procedures to authenticate any such recording.

  Are they going to sue you, if you record? It is possible. You may be found liable. What is the proper measure of damages? Do these statutes impose fines/penalties/fees? Suing you will mean the conversaton is published yet again. /clThe only reason I can see particpating in such a kangaroo court is fear of shunning by family. There must be some point when "enough" is "enough."

  Why don't they want recordings? Administrative hearings, trials, etc. must be recorded to preserve a record so there can be no dispute as to what occurred. An honest person would demand a recording, not forbid it.

  This would make an interesting law school paper.
• 

  Anony Mous

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

  Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) . This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation.

  Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington (Hawai'i is also in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place). Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent.

  And yes, both criminal and civil damages can be assessed if you violate the laws. This does not hold for public meetings but any meeting where there can be an expectation of privacy and JC's would definitely be included in that. To work around the law, you could call in from another state with one-party consent (if they'll allow that) but it gets sticky quickly (Federal vs. State)
• 

  inbetween

  wha happened said: "To invoke clerical priviledge, the individual confessing cannot be sanctioned in any way"

  I think, this is a brilliant statement, because the society when its convinient, always likes to compare elders with clergy,

  How is the situation really in countries, where the clergy possesses such a privilege, is it bound legally to the fact, that confessions cannot be sanctioned ? If that is the case, then sorry, WTS, no privilege for you guys, since confessing a serious sin to elders ends up in a judicial comitee, and that always will have snactions (reprove or dfd !)
• 

  DT

  I think this would usually be a gray area. Recording a judicial commitee in one of those states could be dangerous legally. A lawsuit or criminal case could be devastating, even if the person wins. However, I believe it would also be dangerous for the elders to assume that they are protected by state law. It's quite possible that a judge would view judicial committees as an exception or that the constitutional rights of the accused trump the state law.

  "And yes, both criminal and civil damages can be assessed if you violate the laws. This does not hold for public meetings but any meeting where there can be an expectation of privacy and JC's would definitely be included in that."

  I frankly don't see what is definite about judicial committees. Here is an interesting link about a case in Florida http://www.ocala.com/article/20101225/articles/101229821?p=1&tc=pg

  Here is an interesting quote. "The courts have gone on to say that in addition to a party expecting privacy at a location, the expectation must include a ‘societal recognition that the expectation is reasonable,' " Haldin quoted from a court decision."

  The elders can ask for privacy during a JC but I doubt that society would agree that it is wrong to record a JC for the protection of the accused. Our society values due process and protection of the weak. Most people would be horrified at what goes on in judicial committees and would be in favor of the accused recording it if it helps to protect him in a process that could result in a violation of his religious rights, a breakup of his family and destruction of his reputation.

  Furthermore, the elders realize that the results of the JC may be sent to headquarters and possible announced to the congregation. They also know that their statements may later be discussed in an appeal. I don't see how they can claim that they have an expectation of privacy.
• 

  nugget

  I take notes for discipinary hearings and often record and then transcribe. This protects both parties since they can be confident that the notes accurately refelect the questions nd responses. Often evidence can turn on a single word and what you thought was said is not what was actually said.

  Considering a JC is there to determine whether or not to throw you off the symbolic Ark of salvation then you would assume that it is more important than ever that the decisions are based on accurate reflection of the evidence.

  However a JC is not there really to establish guilt or innocence , it starts with the assumption of guilt. It is there to establish a subjective level of repentance. The elders do not examine the validity of the points of the accused so what they say is irrelevent and in the case of apostacy elders do not want to hear their point of view. The fact that the accused holds such views is condemnation in itself. In the case of a Jc the onlu person who benefits from a recording is the accused since outside of the witness environment the proceedings are shown to be bizarre and unjust.