The story which the brother has described to us has all the typical features: as can be seen from the actions of the "judges" and also from the brother's feelings and consequences.
There is always a presumption of guilt. The accused/defendant is obliged to prove his "innocence". The "judges" are not concerned with the content of his heresy, or more accurately: only to the extent that they find a contradiction between the JW-doctrine and the accused/defendant's opinion. Judges judge fundamentally, and sooner or later in the "process", what relationship the heretic has to GB. Does he acknowledge the "leading role" of the GB - yes or no? And if he formally claims to recognize the authority of the GB, then why does he not submit to that authority and still assert his ideas? By questioning the authority of the GB, he questions the authority of the "judges", so unless the heretic brings sufficient arguments in favor of his innocence, the initial charge of heresy remains on him...
So the procedural rules are clear, all the advantages are on the side of the accusers, who are often also your judges, and the "logic" of the JW-procedural rules cannot be challenged.
Either you accept GB, then you have no other views than those of GB, or, you have your own view, but incompatible with GB, and thus, you cannot be a JW. If you are not a GB yourself, then you cannot a priori be the source of the "new light", or even be the one to correct the light source... it is safe to say, even necessary to admit that "they" know you have no aces and are just bluffing...
As the brother himself writes, he felt his head hit the wall. The question may be, how to avoid it? If I leave out the situation of spontaneous decision: enough is enough!, then it should be a well thought out decision in order to gain time for yourself (your family). To buy time for what? Not only to get more arguments for criticizing JW-doctrine, but e.g. to establish other contexts, to reflect more deeply on the historical role of churches, different doctrines and views of salvation.
I think the example of Jesus himself is a good one for this: he knew very well that there would soon be an open confrontation between him and the world. That's why he tried to be as unobtrusive as possible until the conflict escalated. That's why he went to lonely places, why he was always on the move.
In practice, I think that means the best thing to do is to move somewhere else (if you can) and not visit KH in the new place. Start a new life.
If moving is not an option - the most common case - then what is needed is "internal emigration". One withdraws into oneself: gradually(!) one stops participating in JW activities until 0. But how does he justify this? By a simple and true statement: I don't feel comfortable there. He will not reveal his theological or other motives, but will sum it all up in one sentence: I don't feel good there. This statement is unchallengeable, or rather, they will begin to ask why this is so, but here self-control is necessary and you must constantly repeat only what you feel. Otherwise you will "hit your head against the wall" and not have time. If you can stand it, you will leave (relatively) quietly...
Why do I prefer to leave quietly? My answer implies criticism of some former JWs. In the departure of some JW's, one can see and not overlook that there is a visible share of their personal narcissism, a certain exhibitionism or "messiah complex", no matter how bad the JW doctrines are. My point is that if someone is "against" it, they are not automatically right.
