Marvin Shilmer

Joined

• started 433 topics
• posted 4,004 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Marvin Shilmer

• 
  157

  Judicial Committee Preparation

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  judicial committee preparation.

  recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

  at a minimum i recommend the following:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Humorously, Jim W writes:

  “But, in this you make my point beautifully ... by showing that using the California ruling had complications in each state, and will require an entirely separate set of arguments, all of which could prove fruitless. This has been my point from the beginning, and goes to the point that when you intorduced this ruling in a broader sense, it could be misleading to those who may have considered action against the Elders. My point was to force this to the conclusion that you have now reached. That is why I initially strongly recommended that those considering action against the Society or Elders consult with an attorney in their jurisdiction for proper legal advice.”

  Jim W, if you think there is agreement at this point it can only be because you have looked past your own impressions and decided to take what I have said at face value, something you have failed to do prior. This is because I have said nothing contrary in any of my latest responses to your blather to what I have said from the beginning. Auldsoul is right; you have made an ass of yourself, and you only extend the habit here.
  
  If you believe I have said something contrary then do what I have futilely asked you to do, repeatedly—SHOW THE WORDS, MY WORDS. No reader here will find inconsistency or contradiction in my expressions on this thread. Now, undoubtedly you have inconsistency and contradiction in your personal impressions, because this is ALL you have been arguing against on this thread, so far—your own impressions, which impressions are distinctly at odds with what I have said.

  Furthermore, the self-serving language in you paragraph quoted above and in your earlier response to Auldsoul betrays inappropriate emotional need. I must admit it is distasteful to observe.

  Marvin Shilmer, who has no use for rubbish
• 
  157

  Judicial Committee Preparation

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  judicial committee preparation.

  recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

  at a minimum i recommend the following:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  For Jim W, and whoever else cares to know,

  Jim W writes that his attorney does not believe the Napa Valley ruling in relation to penitential communications has any impact on his case in the State of Oregon, USA.

  A relatively quick comparison of California’s Evidence Code 1032 (re: penitential communication) with Oregon’s Evidence Rule 506 (re: penitential communication) reveals a relevant difference, which difference may have a dramatic affect on how meaningful the Napa Valley ruling could be in terms of demonstrating a vulnerability of WTS judicial committee documentation.

  The California court decided that judicial committee documents were not protected under Code 1032 because 1) a judicial committees purpose is investigatory and 2) the judicial committee is required to communicate information of its hearing with the WTS. Code 1032 stipulates that protected penitential communication is communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware; hence sharing its findings with the WTS disrupts the protected privilege of the Code. Additionally, Code 1032 offers no language suggesting protected status for investigations.

  On the other hand, Oregon’s Rule 506 uses relevantly different language. Unlike California Code 1032, Oregon’s Rule 506 does not stipulate that the communication at issue is “in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware.” Rather, Rule 506 defines the privileged communication as that “made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.” This difference in language presents a wholly different set of legal arguments for the WTS to challenge requests in Oregon for turning over judicial committee documentation.

  Additionally, unlike California’s Code 1032, arguably Oregon’s Rule 506 does address investigatory communications when it uses the broad language of “in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.” The WTS only has to argue, in this case, that investigation was a purpose of the communication, which would be true in relation to judicial committee documents.

  From what I read in Oregon’s black-letter law (Rule 506, in this instance) the only argument to overcome the WTS successfully challenging a request to produce judicial committee documents in the state of Oregon would be to argue that Rule 506 explicitly says protected “confidential communication” is that which is “not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present.” Since the judicial committee discloses its findings to the WTS in cases where disfellowshipping occurs then arguably the communication of the judicial committee does not fit Rule 506’s definition of “confidential communication” and as a result is discoverable. However, as suggested previously in this post, this language is broader than that of Code 1032 of California, and it may well be that common law in Oregon has already settled this broader language of the Rule’s application in favor of the WTS’ policy or one similar to it. That is, common law in Oregon may have settled that under Rule 506 it is within the meaning of the language for “confidential communications” to be sent to and archived at a central location such as the WTS does. I do not have the time to research this aspect of Oregon’s common law in order to offer comment on it. However, common law is not the same as black-letter law. Courts cannot overturn black-letter law unless it is unconstitutional, but courts can overturn common law at its own discretion.

  Marvin Shilmer
  _____________________
  Reference material

  California Evidence Code 1032:
  As used in this article, "penitential communication" means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.

  Oregon Evidence Code 40.260 Rule 506. Member of clergy-penitent privilege:
  (1) As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise:
  (a) “Confidential communication” means a communication made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.
  (b) “Member of the clergy” means a minister of any church, religious denomination or organization or accredited Christian Science practitioner who in the course of the discipline or practice of that church, denomination or organization is authorized or accustomed to hearing confidential communications and, under the discipline or tenets of that church, denomination or organization, has a duty to keep such communications secret.
  (2) A member of the clergy may not be examined as to any confidential communication made to the member of the clergy in the member’s professional character unless consent to the disclosure of the confidential communication is given by the person who made the communication.
  (3) Even though the person who made the communication has given consent to the disclosure, a member of the clergy may not be examined as to any confidential communication made to the member in the member’s professional character if, under the discipline or tenets of the member’s church, denomination or organization, the member has an absolute duty to keep the communication confidential. [1981 c.892 §35; 1999 c.7 §1]

  Napa Valley ruling on California Evidence Code 1032 in relation to WTS judicial committee documents (Charissa et al Vs Watchtower Bible and Tract Society):
  “{The WTS} objects to the production of a number of documents requested by plaintiff on the ground they are protected by the penitential communication privilege contained in Evidence Code section 1032. This court finds that the privilege does not apply to communications between the alleged abusers and the Judicial Committee. The evidence presented by both sides establishes that communications with the Judicial Committee do not fall within the scope of the privilege. First, it is clear that the Judicial Committee’s purpose is to investigate sins for which disfellowship is a potential penalty…. Second, the privilege does not apply because the Judicial Committee was under no obligation to keep the communications private. In fact, the evidence establishes that the Judicial Committee was required to communicate information it obtained regarding potential cases of child molestation to the Watchtower Society headquarters.”
• 
  157

  Judicial Committee Preparation

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  judicial committee preparation.

  recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

  at a minimum i recommend the following:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Minimus writes:

  “I stand by what I earlier said to Marvin. I think that making people think they can just call the cops or a lawyer and make things go away is unrealistic....”

  And with those words the soft underbelly of poor reading comprehension and reasoning is found.

  Not once have I as much as suggested that “people”—or anyone—can “just call the cops or a lawyer and make things go away." Such an occurrence has been known to occur, which HS points out from his experience, which experience mirrors my own. But I have never suggested such a notion on this thread. Hence your complaint above is meaningless blather.

  The threat of legal action (criminal and civil) tends to let elders know you are not going to roll over and die under the hard bottom of the WTS’ boot of judicial hearing protocol.

  Also, as recommended at the outset of this thread, at the very least elders should expect that you are going to force them to go on record—at least verbally—about certain critical protocols of judicial hearing documentation, evidence et al. These questions will not be easy to answer because the WTS has not provided elders with any training whatsoever in how to respond to question such as, “Will I have access to any and all documentation of this meeting? If not, why not?” and “Will I have opportunity to object to any official documentation of the judicial hearing?”

  If you think that asking such questions has no impact on honest minded elders then you should look around at all the ex-elders on this very forum who have been moved by facing hard questions of WTS doctrine and protocol, and the results in their case.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 
  157

  Judicial Committee Preparation

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  judicial committee preparation.

  recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

  at a minimum i recommend the following:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Jim W writes:

  “After all your diatribe, you find a neat way of ducking out of my challenge to you by now arguing that you do not know the evidence Code in Oregon. My story is not long, and in fact totals about 40 pages at my end, and likely something smaller at the WTS/Congregation end. But, your fear of a long story is used to also duck out of the challenge. I knew you would because to accept it puts you where you don't want to be ... humbly admitting you are dead wrong about your assertions.”

  Ducking out? Fear? Why should I spend my time reading your forty odd pages when you have not convinced me that the read is even remotely related to my concerns on this thread, let alone that it is worth my time to respond to your personal needs? The Napa Valley court finding at issue speaks for itself, as does its implications for WTS vulnerability in other states with similar statutory language. And, since you apparently do not realize it, the time it takes to read your “story” is but a pittance of the time I’d need to spend to analyze and comment intelligently on your case—I’d also have to read an enormous amount of case law, not to mention Oregon’s black-letter law.

  Do you consider it “ducking out” that I refrain from addressing a statute I have not as much as read, let alone studied in light of common law? If you believe my silence related to your “story” asserts something meaningful to your cause then you are sadly mistaken. Need I cite the reproba causa?

  As for mistakes in my assertions, I’m still waiting for you to show the words of mistake. So far all you’ve done is copied and pasted my words and then commented on your impression of my words. Guess what? I have no need to respond further to your attempts to refute your impressions of my words when your impression is inconsistent with my words.

  Ignorantly, Jim W writes:

  “My case would first involve turning over WTS correspondence with the local congregation ... that is the part that would make my case. Notice your line above: "Assuming Oregon’s penitential communication laws are identical/similar to California’s, this may not be sufficient to have your case reheard by the courts ..." Now you argue in a way that entirely agrees with what I have been saying all along ... that the California ruling is stuck in California, and that it pertains to child molestation. By the way, my case never made it to the courts, though I would love for it to have gone there. My recent discussions with legal counsel with respect to the California case still leaves my case, like so many others, out in the cold.”

  1. The Napa Valley ruling DOES NOT apply simply to “WTS correspondence with the local congregation,” which is the evidence you say would ‘make your case.’ The Napa Valley ruling at issue here is specific to judicial committee documents.

  2. What I wrote (and you quoted above) does not agree with your propositions on this thread for the simple reason that whether a case is subject to court REVIEW after it is already heard is DEPENDANT on MORE than the issue of penitential communication. Need I cite your mistake of reasoning in this instance, too?

  3. If your case has not been subject to court discretion already, then whether the Napa Valley finding has any impact depends on the laws of Oregon, which I am unfamiliar with.

  Jim W writes:

  “Your recommendations sound nice, but had you placed some caution in them using your avove logic, and clarified your comments about calling the police, we woud have avoided a long go around.”

  Had you taken the time to ask questions about what you, apparently, failed to comprehend prior to denigrating what was actually said then both of us would have been spared the infantile ramblings we find over and over in your posts above—you from writing them and me from reading them. Consistently you have made more of what I wrote than what I actually wrote and then attacked that misimpression. Competent readers here can see what you have done. I have no need to pretend or respond as though you have behaved with any degree of respectability or honesty in your attempts here, and am left only to wonder what the hell you think you’ve accomplished, other than making a fool of yourself and keeping the subject alive.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 
  157

  Judicial Committee Preparation

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  judicial committee preparation.

  recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

  at a minimum i recommend the following:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I am going to address the latter statement by Jim W.

  Jim W wrote:

  “Then, if I apply your legal advice, I should be able to go back to the State of Oregon, where I was forcibly disassociated, and make a case for nullifying that action by aplying a California law on child molestation ... an action that also had strong participation by the Watchtower Society legal department. The story was vividly detailed in my exit series. Will you go off board, contact the legal counsel that told me I could not make a case, and set him straight? Will you show that attorney how wrong he is? Please, do this as I would love to sue the ass off of the Society. If after you have so instructed the attorney I have suggested, and you learn that you are full of it, will you humbly come back to this board and publicly apologize? You may answer by PM if you are interested in the challenge.”

  1. Whether your case can be revisited by the courts is an entirely different legal question than whether there was or could have been an opportunity to challenge, in your case, any resistance from the WTS to hand over judicial committee documents pertaining to your case. Assuming Oregon’s penitential communication laws are identical/similar to California’s, this may not be sufficient to have your case reheard by the courts because of other legal reasons, such as legal jeopardy and/or legal prejudice.

  2. I have not suggested applying a California ruling in Oregon. I have suggested that IF, in this case, Oregon has an evidence code similar to California in respect to penitential communication that prosecutors and/or plaintiffs have every reason to challenge any related resistance on the part of the WTS to hand over relevant judicial documents.

  3. I do not know the evidence code of Oregon, so I have no opinion on whether it is similar to that of California in relation to penitential communications.

  I am not inclined to read your long story.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 
  157

  Judicial Committee Preparation

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  judicial committee preparation.

  recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

  at a minimum i recommend the following:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Jim W writes:

  “Besides child molestation, which is a clear crime, what civil rights violation can one possibly allege against the Watchtower, in which case they could use the California ruling? This you have left glaringly absent from your argument.”

  Any criminal prosecution or civil lawsuit where the WTS attempts to deny access to judicial committee documents on the ground that it is protected penitential communication under statutes reading similar to California’s Evidence Code 1032. Name your cause of action.

  To my response about CALLING police, Jim W writes:

  “Thank you for finally, at last, recognizing what I have been saying all along, which you have ignored up to this time.”

  No one has ignored the value of CALLING the police except when a crime has either been committed or a crime is suspected. This is no news, but it is irrelevant because my recommendations did not assert one should CALL the police. It asserted that one should threaten to call the police. This has been said repeatedly to you, yet you act otherwise.

  Jim W writes:

  “Your original posting, to which I responded, never mentioend calling the police only when crime is involved. You simply stated that one should call the police when dealing with the Elders as an act to intimidate the Elders.”

  Have taken the time to actually read what I wrote? Please show everyone exactly WHERE I recommended that “one should call the police”. Please. Show us all. Please.

  On the other hand, in ANY instance where a crime has either occurred or it is suspected then, naturally, a law abiding individual should call the police, particularly if they are the victim!

  Now. SHOW the words, Jim W. Please!

  Jim W writes:

  “What constitutional right does one demand as a privilege? A right is a right! What "right" do you have in mind when you make this argument?”

  Any constitutional right—name one and you have one.

  Jim W. writes:

  “What crime did you mention of stipulate to which one would call the police? None! Now you claim that you recommended calling the police when a "crime" has been committed, a notion totally absent from your recommendations until I argued for this for several posts until you finally claim it for yourself. How disingenuous can you be?!”

  Where did I tell anyone to actually call the police? Please provide the words, Jim W, since you take such great pains to claim I am disingenuous.

  Jim W writes:

  “You are in error and twisting the sequence of events. I have always argued that the ruling was based on child molestation and child abuse alone.”

  Error? Twisting the sequence? What they hell are you talking about? What you state immediately above these words is nothing but corroboration of what I replied to and refuted. You said the California decision at issue was based purely on child abuse and this is NOT what the actual ruling states. The actual ruling cites the Evidence Code in question (Cal. 1032) and THE REASONS it did not apply to JUDICIAL RECORDS. Neither 1) the Evidence Code nor 2) the REASONS provided in the ruling, nor the relevant nature of JUDICIAL RECORDS pertain to child abuse. Child abuse is the cause of the lawsuit/prosecution. Child abuse is not the cause of the particular court ruling in respect to Evidence Code 1032. On this point, you are simply all wet, and I see no reason to continue wasting my time splainin it to ya. Read. Get educated.

  Jim W writes:
  
  “I have not failed to stipulate or substantiant that the ruling was based on the crime of molestation and abuse. Let's see what I highlighted, which you quoted:
  
  “From Charissa et al Vs Watchtower Bible and Tract Society: ... “{The WTS} objects to the production of a number of documents requested by plaintiff on the ground they are protected by the penitential communication privilege contained in Evidence Code section 1032. This court finds that the privilege does not apply to communications between the alleged abusers and the Judicial Committee. The evidence presented by both sides establishes that communications with the Judicial Committee do not fall within the scope of the privilege. First, it is clear that the Judicial Committee’s purpose is to investigate sins for which disfellowship is a potential penalty…. Second, the privilege does not apply because the Judicial Committee was under no obligation to keep the communications private. In fact, the evidence establishes that the Judicial Committee was required to communicate information it obtained regarding potential cases of child molestation to the Watchtower Society headquarters.”

  “How on earth can you possibly argue that I failed to substantiate that the ruling was based on the crime of child molestation? That was in fact the entire point of the ruling and discussing the communications between the Judicial Committee and the Watchtower Society. That crime cannot be protected in this case, in the State of California, in the manner that the Watchtower Socety wishes to protect it. In my postings I allowed for "other" application all along, but that it would be a long and difficult stretch: First, to get the ruling to apply to other types of issues, including crimes, and Two, to get the ruling accepted outside of California in other State courts.”

  Jim W, it is really, really sad to see such a poor conception of what is stated above. The REASONS GIVEN for the court ruling as it ruled have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the particular crime the case involves. The reasons are, again, the nature of judicial hearings and that the judicial committee is required to share its process with the WTS. Nuff said. Get some education.

  Jim W writes:
  
  “I never stated that the ruling was not serious, but rather not as flexible and open-ended as you have alluded in your discussion. You bank a lot on its application elsewhere, and I think you are the one in error. The onus is on you to demonstrate how this ruling can and will be applied elsewhere, and in what other types of cases, and how ex-JWs may run to their attorneys to start law suits. It was neither my purpose nor within the scope of my commentary to go any further than to challenge the implication of your recommendations. The onus in not on me. Trying to turn it around is intellectually dishonest on your part.”

  The onus is on the courts to apply or not to find similarly to how the California courts found. If the same black-letter law is found in other states then prosecutors and/or plaintiffs have sufficient reason to challenge refusal of the WTS to hand over judicial documents. THIS IS THE POINT.

  Another point is that it PAYS to set the stage for litigation if one thinks it is foreseeable. Thus the recommendations posed at the outset of this thread. THIS IS ALSO THE POINT.

  This is not called intellectual dishonesty, or disengenousness. It is called PREPERATION. And GUESS WHAT is the TITLE of this thread? And GUESS WHO provided the title? Need a clue? Or, is that a silly question to ask at this point?

  The rest of your wordiness and blather neither needs nor deserves rebut. Readers can easily make of it what it is. My crayon is down to a nub.

  Marvin Shilmer, who gives respect as it is earned day by day
• 
  157

  Judicial Committee Preparation

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  judicial committee preparation.

  recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

  at a minimum i recommend the following:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Jim W writes:

  “My argument is that civil rights are not involved.”

  This is only true when it is true, a fact that seems to escape your notice. However, if or when civil rights are violated then what you write is false. I have not stated that civil rights would or would not be violated. I have recommended a stance to better assert and defend such rights when and if they are violated. Hence your argument amounts to nothing more than a complaint in this discussion.

  Jim W writes:

  “Calling the police is a pointless waste of time, and threats to call the police are likewise a waste of time ... unless a crime is involved.”

  “Unless a crime is involved”! BINGO!!!

  My recommendations warn against criminal conduct, and in the event a law is broken a firmer footing is established about the elders rules of engagement, so to speak. Civil courts do expect individuals and organizations to keep their word. It’s called a verbal contract.

  Jim W writes:

  “I also argued that the California case only covers matters of child molestation and abuse or perhaps other crimes.”

  And this “argument” was summarily refuted, which apparently you yield by saying “or perhaps other crimes”. You have 1) utterly failed to substantiate your claim that the particular ruling was based on the sort of crime committed in the instance of that case, and 2) have utterly failed to address the actual black-letter law provided you on this forum.

  Jim W writes:

  “If I get into a snit with the Elders over some lesser issue, I will be hard pressed to use this case law, especially outside of California. That was, and continues to be my argument.”

  No one is talking about getting into a snit. We are talking about going into an unfair process (the WTS judicial hearing) with a firmer foundation for later recourse, should it come to that. As for “outside of California,” we see you have failed to address the gravity of the California ruling in relation to other states with similar black-letter law. You have also failed to address the other complications this poses for the WTS’ uniform judicial procedures throughout the USA.

  Jim W writes:

  “Marvin went off defending other things, and Marvin continues to deliberately ignore my simple and basicv argument because he, like some others I know, are obsessed with being raight at any expense.”

  Elsewhere on this very thread I have addressed every single one of what you call arguments above. Every single one. I have also shown how every single one of them is either wrong of irrelevant to the issue at hand. I have no problem with being wrong. In fact, when I am wrong I am glad it is pointed out to me. Where, exactly, am I wrong here? Where? Please show me the words. That is, my words, not your rendition or impression of my words.

  Jim W writes:

  “In this case, he is giving an impression to ex-JWs that they can willy-nilly take a California ruling and have a go with the Elders over any matter.”

  And so there we see it. It is not my words; it is your impression of my words that you complain about. Your entire line of complaint on this thread is based on your impression of my words. I suggest you stick to what I have actually stated and leave off refuting your own impression of my words. When one complains about their own impressions, it is telling.

  Jim W writes:

  “They are going to find that this may not be as simple as Marvin makes it sound.”

  Here we have it, again. The way I sound, to Jim W. Again you are complaining not about my actual words, but rather how it sounds to your ears. Have you considered that perhaps you have hearing problems, or misimpression? Again your complaints are Jim W centric and not toward the actual words provided on this forum.

  Jim W writes:

  “Marvin has done anything but aptly illustrate how the WTS has been legally weakened in matters outside the child molestation issue ... which issue we are all well aware has been a serious blow to the Watchtower Society.”

  Marvin has only repeated what others have attained, which is that penitential communication laws like the one in California leaves the WTS’ judicial processes vulnerable under the law. You have avoided this basic fact over and over again, despite that several Crayola pictures have been drawn for your personal benefit.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 
  157

  Judicial Committee Preparation

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  judicial committee preparation.

  recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

  at a minimum i recommend the following:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Alas, Jim W! What is to be done with you?

  The WTS is constantly tinkering with its judicial policies and procedures! So what? The constant and relevant point is what I have stipulated: across the United States branch the WTS has consistently instructed a uniform judicial procedure related to documentation, which is the point in relation to the WTS’ policy. This has not changed over the period in question, or in the period you cite.

  As to the specifics you assert, you are wrong in stating that WTS policy was for the congregation to retain only a copy of “the card” sent to the WTS (i.e., the s-79b document). The WTS has instructed elders to retain a file containing 1) necessary notes and documents, 2) a summary of the judicial case, 3) the S-77 form (filled out of course), and when it was returned from the WTS 3) the S-79b card. These documents are held in the congregation file until some time (I forget off hand how many years) after a person is reinstated or until the individual’s death, except for cases of child abuse/molestation in which case the files are never to be discarded.

  As for your conclusion about the potential vulnerability of judicial documents, the California court has already decided this for that jurisdiction. In cases where disfellowshipping occurs it applies because both stipulations cited by the court apply. That is, again, 1) the judicial committee is investigatory by its nature and 2) the WTS requirement for judicial committees to share its communications with the WTS. Furthermore, other states with similar laws of evidence related to penitential communication have similar black-letter law and therefore similar likelihood of WTS vulnerability.

  As for what you say I “insist,” I have no idea what you speak of. I have recommended actions that neither bind nor hinder a person who chooses to follow them. I have nowhere insisted anything whatsoever about the results of following the recommendations I’ve set forth. The recommendations are as they have been explained, and none have been explained as to be insisted upon. Furthermore, unlike you, I have not insisted on points of law yet unsettled. Rather, I have commented about the nature of what the Napa Valley ruling presents in the way of WTS vulnerability. If there is vulnerability then it deserves exploitation when it comes to the WTS’ Star Chamber judicial proceedings.

  Marvin Shilmer, who believes respect is either earned or lost with every sounding of the vocal cords
• 
  157

  Judicial Committee Preparation

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  judicial committee preparation.

  recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

  at a minimum i recommend the following:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I will add something what I wrote above for Jim W’s sake.

  Not only is the WTS’ ecclesiastical privilege dependency at risk in California and states with similar statutory language, but the WTS has the added problem of trying to keep its judicial committee record keeping policies consistent across the United States.

  If the WTS chooses to issue documentation policies to elders depending on what state the congregation is in then the risk becomes huge that the WTS will open up a Pandora’s box of problems for a wide array of reasons.

  What will elders do with their training when they move to another state?

  Who will write all these state-based policies in the first place? How thorough will they be?

  What happens when laws change?

  How will the WTS doctrinally justify treating judicial documentation differently from state to state?

  What happens if a publisher lives in one state and attends a congregation in another state?

  What happens when a publisher moves to another congregation and/or state 1) during the judicial process, 2) after the judicial process, or 3) before the judicial process?

  What happens when publishers involved in the judicial process are from different states?

  By itself, the California ruling will in all likelihood generate changes in WTS judicial policy across the United States in relation to documentation.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 
  157

  Judicial Committee Preparation

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  judicial committee preparation.

  recently a friend inquired about how to best prepare for a judicial committee hearing from the prospective of the subject individual.

  at a minimum i recommend the following:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Jim W writes:

  “Notice that the term "alleged abusers" and "potential cases of child molestation" I have highlighted in red? The case law decision arises out of child abuse issues just as I have stated.”

  You really do not get it; do you? The court ruled based on the merit of circumstances as those circumstances compare to the statue at issue, which statute has nothing whatsoever to do with child abuse or child molestation. (California Evidence Code 1032) Let me make this even plainer for you: the ruling was made based on black-letter law and the two circumstances relevant to that law, not on the alleged crime and/or civil offense. Please seek and attain an education on this. My crayon is getting shorter every time I reply to you.

  It is true that the ruling at issue was based on a California law. But, guess what? The ruling means any other state with similar worded law in relation to penitential communications is set to have the same ruling. Not only this, but legislative bodies are forever tinkering with their laws, and if these see a means to tweak laws to better protect their constituency from clergy abuses then, guess what? They legislators will do the politically correct thing and change the law to read like one that has already survived appeal, which is precisely what has happened in the Napa Valley case. Do you know that the WTS has not appealed the California ruling to the federal court? Do you know why?

  The WTS knows these things, and this is precisely why the WTS has taken pains over the years to surreptitiously educate elders about how to handle court orders to hand over judicial documents and/or search warrants for congregation records.

  The Napa Valley case has the distinction of highlighting a grave weakness in the WTS’ dependency on ecclesiastical privilege, and then drawing a big red circle around it.

  The rest of your specific complaints have already been answered in previous of my posts. There is no need to respond to the other you write, which is nothing more than rambling whines. If you want to write on the subject at least think through what you write, and make at least a small attempt to address the issue rather than the person.

  Auldsoul writes:

  “This statement of finding is not predicated on the nature of the case at law. Period.”

  Precisely!

  Marvin Shilmer