Lets try to put this question as to the applicability of the case under question in perspective here.
What you are missing amazing is the nature of common law and stare decisis in american law. First let me say that I am not a lawyer but do have training in the law from both the legal and the social sciece perspectives. So while I cannot give legal advice, I think I can modestly address the issue.
First off let me point out that in the american legal system, the bulk of our law is based on the old English common law system. That is that our law rests firmly on case law more so than a formal law code (legal statutes, most of which are formally codified common law priciples anyway). That is why stare decisis, or case law often has greater weight than statute in the first place and may well be the origin for the "living Constitution" dogma in jurisprudence as well. Under common law, judicial principles are built up through an accumulation of decisions by judges on questions of law through time and court challenge and become firmly established as law only after a sufficient body of cases have built up which demonstrates a sort of consensus over time. The strength of such a system is that it is felxible and able to change to meet changed times and circumstances since yesterdays self-evident truth may well be tommorrows heresy. The weakenss of that system is that it is subject to political ideologies without the benefit of the consent of those governed by it.
So where does the foregoing apply to the question under consideration and where may you be going wrong? You argue too narrow an application for the precedent Jim. You see it as only applicable to California as to jurisdiction and child molestation cases as to scope. While you may be technically correct in what you say, you are ignoring the broader implications for the decision, which are what Schilmer is highlighting. Sure, it is now law in California specifically. However, its status in common law in that state now make it stare decisis, or case law, which can be appealed to and cited just about anywhere in the US, except maybe Lousianna which has Napoleanic law rather than common law as its basis, as a basis for breaching the wall of secrecy in the JC process. Sure, judges elswhere will have the right to decide for themselves whether they will accept it or not until other appelate decisions on the matter are registered, but the real importance here is that the California decision is a crack in the armor and has the potential to become firm principle across the nation in the future.
As to the scope of the decision, you state the limitations which one would have to state if they want to pass the state bar exam Jim. But like so many other things in life the stock answer for that does not reflect reality. You will learn when you come to practice law one day, and I wish you the best in that endeavor, that the scope can be applied mor broadly than you argue. In fact, we may well start to see that case cited as a precedent to breach clerical priviledge outside of the scope of child molestation cases in the not so ditant future. Again, as the scope is widened, judges wiil have the liberty to accept or not accept it, but some will, and appeals will be made to their decisions, and if those decisions hold up under appelate scrutiny, the the scope will be widened as a matter of course. That is how stare decisis works and american common law is built up.
I agree with the comment made by someone that the advise by Schilmer will only be effective in those areas where one might be able to intimidate a JC. One would have to weigh things carefully before throwing that particular roll of the dice. If one doesn't care whether they are intimidated or not and just wants to be confrontational (the old "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" attitude), then by all means do it, that way one goes out with a bang and if they choose to sue the elders then at least the elders can't say they weren't warned. I, personally, don't plan to give them the satisfaction of their delusions of power over me. But then, that is my personal choice if it comes down to that. Anyone who thinks they have a chance of not being DF'd would be wise not to follow Schilmer's advice if they think they have a chance at such a good outcome. Schilmer's advise is best for those who know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of not being DF'd and just want give back to the elders as good as they get.
Respectfully
Forscher