This is how I imagine it can work: The baptized JW first gets the elders to acknowledge in written form that his previous baptism was in fact null and void.* Then later, coming close to baptism - preferably, the day of rebaptism - he changes his mind about being rebaptized (maybe he says no or remains silent when the questions are being asked, with this being video recorded). So legally, he never was a legitimately baptized JW and therefore should not be anounced as "Bro. So and so is NO LONGER one of Jehovah's Witnesses". They can only legally say: "Bro. So and so was NEVER one of Jehovah's Witnesses". But will they? Given that the JW was never legally a baptized JW his "status" in exiting the group is not much different to that of a bible student who regularly attended meetings for a while but never got baptized and subsequently stopped attending meetings. His documentation of the organization's written or other acknowledgement of the invalidity of his previous baptism, and the fact that he never was legally baptized, can then be forwarded to the elders along with a letter from his lawyer warning them not to announce him as "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" since he never was one and thus exempt from the group's authority to "handle" members and that furthermore, legal action will be taken if they proceed to do that. Can something like this work? What do you think?
For those wondering about what I'm talking about re rebaptism and who can stomach reading Watchtower material, here is an article on the subject of rebaptism:
"*** w102/15p.22QuestionsFromReaders***
Under
whatcircumstancesmightrebaptismbeconsidered?
Under certain circumstances, a baptized person may want to give thought to the validity of his baptism and may consider rebaptism. At the time of baptism, for instance, an individual may secretly have been living in a situation or engaging in a practice that could have resulted in his being disfellowshipped if he had already been validly baptized. Could he make a dedication to God in such circumstances? Such an individual would have been in a position to make a valid dedication to Jehovah only if the unscriptural conduct had been discontinued. Therefore, a person baptized while such a serious impediment existed may appropriately consider the necessity of rebaptism.
What about an individual who was not practicing sin at the time of his baptism but whose subsequent wrongdoing required the formation of a judicial committee? Suppose he then claimed that he did not fully understand what he was doing at the time of his baptism and said that his baptism was not truly a valid one. When meeting with a wrongdoer, the elders should not raise questions about his baptism and ask whether he feels that his dedication and baptism were valid. After all, he heard a Scriptural discourse about the significance of baptism. He answered affirmatively questions regarding dedication and baptism. Then he changed his clothing and was physically immersed in water. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that he fully understood the seriousness of what he was doing. The elders would thus treat him as a baptized person.
If the individual raises the issue of the validity of his baptism, the elders may direct his attention to TheWatchtower of March 1, 1960, pages 159 and 160, and February 15, 1964, pages 123 to 126, where the matter of rebaptism is discussed in detail. Eventual rebaptism under certain circumstances (such as a lack of sufficient Bible understanding when one was baptized) is a personal matter."
__________________________
* I know you might be thinking the elders would first contact legal dept. regarding this and they wouldn't agree to it. An alternative record of acknowledgement of previous baptism being null and void, can be the mere fact that the JW on the day of his supposed rebaptism, sits in the baptism section as a candidate for baptism and his name is called out from the stage as a candidate. This can be video recorded as evidence of the organization having recognized his previous baptism as being null and void.