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

by DT 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Band on the Run

  I would not rely on the Internet to ascertain whether a recording is permissible. It should not cost much to consult a local lawyer. If you show up, you are acknowledging their rules. No court can touch a JC b/c of the First Amendment. Your remedies are very limited. In fact, I don't know if there are any remedies. This is a private, religious group not a court of law. No advocacy exists within the Witnesses for targets. It is a penalty imposed by a totalitarian religion.

  What does a recording prove in practical terms? I believe the rush to record is a response to even the playing field when you have absolutely no control.

  This is a group that destroys records on legal advice (where the normal member is NOT represented) and insists on public pay phone calls to report pedophilia, even though they have zero liability in their view. So much evidence against their total lack of due process concerns and fundamental fairness exists in the public record.

  Please I understand the discussion of reasonable expectation of privacy (which would take weeks to research). I indulge in queries, too. The drive to record could land you with serious repercussions far worse than the predictable course of a JW.

  Unless family shunning is blackmailing you, the best way is not to bow to their authority. Don't engage with the elders. They have no power over you. Recording the conversation is still playing by their set of rules. These rules have no power outside of the Witnesses. It is very much like vodoo or Santierra. The belief is what harms you, not any actual magic. Beware the impulse. So much is at stake that a simple legal meeting makes sense.

  If the local lawyer deals with them in a manner of let's make a deal but protect my client's interests, a good solution may result. Recording it shows that you don't belong in the Witnesses.

  All the protections flow in only one direction. A JC may not be all members in the KH business. The far better course is NOT to accpet their legitimacy. If you do, they own you, recording or no recording.

  Society, in general, recognizes more and more privacy rights.
• 

  DT

  Band on the Run,

  Your words of caution are appreciated on this thread and others. It is good advice to consult a lawyer when questions like this arise, especially considering that laws vary by state and that the rights of the religion are often favored over the rights of the individual in this country.

  I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone try to get away with this. I am suggesting that the elders should share in some of the fear of the unknown that the accused experience. Their words in these medieval style witch hunts could come back to haunt them and these state laws might not be a protection (in my nonprofessional opinion).

  I think it would be interesting to hear what a lawyer would say to an elder who asks about his potential liability during judicial committees and whether a certain state law about recording conversations would protect him.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I see that the elders are in the most serious bind. The WT has a legal department which does not represent elders. It hangs up out to dry and exposes them to liability. The Conti case is recent proof. The elders should want a record more than any other party. Few people would assume such potential liability. They need legal representation, as the Conti elders now know. I'm not familiar with the details of ethics anymore but know where to look. There are ethical rules that a lawyer must clarify whom he represents. Sometimes there is a duty to suggest that the other party retain legal counsel.

  Elders work very hard their entire lives to accumulate assets. Goodbye assets if you rely on the WT interests. Few will accept that their interests are opposed to the Society interests. Elders are ordered to do the dirty jobs. I wonder how many elderettes would burst with status if they realized how fragile their economic foundation might be.
• 

  Balaamsass

  "

  Elders work very hard their entire lives to accumulate assets. Goodbye assets if you rely on the WT interests. Few will accept that their interests are opposed to the Society interests. Elders are ordered to do the dirty jobs. I wonder how many elderettes would burst with status if they realized how fragile their economic foundation might be." Well said BOTR
• 

  Diest

  That would be a great law review article. Someone doing a write up on all the liability the WTS lays on the elders.
• 

  Joe Grundy

  This is an interesting discussion. (My comments are based on the law in England & Wales).

  For quite some time now, liability has been firmly placed on individual managers/persons of responsibility in civil proceedings - whether for discrimination/health & safety/employment etc. issues as well as the organisation. The organisation/employer/whatever will have one objective - to minimise its liability, often by attempting to show that it trained its managers properly and that if they did wrong they operated outside instructions or guidelines. The manager or responsible person may often be left in the middle and be 'hung out to dry'.

  This seems to me to be what the WT corporations are doing, and as cases such as Candace's (hopefully) become more frequent I foresee more and more elders becoming personally liable as the WT tries to distance itself further and further.
• 

  Joe Grundy

  In reply to the question in OP (again based on the position in England & Wales) but it is, AFAIK, a fairly general concept.

  'Privilege' - i.e. the absolute confidentiality of certain material and the fact that there can be no enforced disclosure in legal proceedings, applies to specified material, commonly 'legal privilege' (discussion between lawyer and client), medical records, and the confession of a penitent to clergy (note previous discussions on the latter - if the clergy report the confession it loses its confidentiality).

  One point sometimes missed is that in all 'privilege' cases the 'privilege' belongs to the individual, not to the other party.

  So, if the individual willingly discloses the content of the legal discussions, or his medical records, or his confession, etc., the other party has no claim whatsoever to enforce confidentiality - the privilege is not his to claim.

  This, it seems to me, would apply to JCs. If the 'subject' (or 'poor shmuck', in the vernacular) who is the only one who could legally claim the privilege of confidentiality chooses to waive that, no-one else can insist on it.

  Just my thoughts.
• 

  Scully

  The Constitution in Canada allows an individual the right to counsel in any judicial tribunal. Cults try to force you to waive that right by invoking rules that require you to submit to such meetings without representation or witnesses who can corroborate your version of events.

  These judicial tribunals - especially ones like Judicial Committees™ - don't want someone there who can tell you that you are not required to answer such-and-such question or to protect your rights and freedoms. Their starting point is "You are accused of insert DFing offense hereand you are guilty until you prove your innocence."

  In fact, you could very well be innocent, but you are becoming a problem, so we will intimidate you, humiliate you, compel you to answer questions about your underwear, and ultimately make you the subject of malicious gossip among the JWs, including your immediate family, your best friends and everyone you've ever known who is a JW.