Posted by well put [1] on November 25, 1999 at 01:53:17 {yaNwUlwC5coLB7Y6H2dwO5mu/o1Vh.}:
In Reply to: **The Watchtower Never Lies posted by easy1 on November 24, 1999 at 05:47:46:
wt has always washed it's hands of what the elders do this is why they instruct as follows, :
http://www.star.net/People/~docbob/df_forms.html
What Not To Put On Disfellowshipping
Forms
During the Kingdom Ministry Schools that were held during November and December of
1994, elders in the United States were given information that was to be written into their
"Pay Attention To Yourselves And To All The Flock" book. This information concerned the
S77 and S79 forms that local judicial committees use to report disfellowshippings to the
branch office in Brooklyn. The following was read to the elders, twice, for them to write
word for word into their books.
Six Expressions That Should Not Be Used on S77 and S79 Forms
1. Anything alluding to or naming one of the Society's attorneys
2. Any mention of the Legal Department
3. Any comments referring to direction from the Society
4. Any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as a
possible influence in the decision reached
5. Any comments that might suggest to someone with a critical eye that the
committee did not reach its decision on its own but, instead, somehow
yielded to the influence of an outside party
6. Any comments indicating that the elders mishandled the case or committed
any error in the investigation or the judicial committee process.
I will now take these points one at a time and pose some questions and make some
comments about them.
1. Anything alluding to or naming one of the Society's attorneys 2. Any
mention of the Legal Department
The first two points are closely related, so I will take them together. Normally, the Society's
Legal Department would be consulted only under very unusual circumstances. There
would not likely be any inclination for the judicial committee to mention either the Society's
Legal Department or their attorneys by name on the S77 or S79 forms unless they had
been consulted on that case. If the Legal Department had been consulted, then it would
have had some effect on the conduct and possibly the outcome of the judicial hearing.
That being so, why is the Society telling the elders on the judicial committee not to mention
them if they had to be consulted?
3. Any comments referring to direction from the Society
Why are the elders told not to mention it when every aspect of the judicial process is
conducted according to direction from the Society?
Go to Watchtower Observer , press the button for "Pay Attention to Yourself and all the
Flock" and look at Units 5a and 5b to see how precisely the Watchtower Society directs the
elders in their conducting judicial matters. Having been an elder for many years, I can
attest to the accuracy of what is presented there.
LATE BREAKING NEWS!! - Since this page was first developed, it seems that a
lawyer from the Watchtower Society contacted the Internet Service Provider of the
man who had the "Pay Attention" book on his web page and threatened them with a
lawsuit if they did not remove those portions of the "Pay Attention" book.
This proscription against mentioning and direction from the Society, presumably includes
not referring to any comments referring to direction from the Society not to mention
direction from the Society. But I have to ask, why does the Society not want the judicial
committee to mention this direction from the Society?
4. Any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as
a possible influence in the decision reached
Notice that there is nothing that says that the committee cannot be influenced by someone
else when trying to come to a decision. The elders are just told not to mention it if there
was any such influence. I would think that the most likely sources of outside influence
would be elders who were not serving on the committee who might be related to, or be
especially close friends with, the accused, or perhaps the circuit of district overseer.
This leaves the way open for circuit or district overseers, who are directly appointed by the
Society and thus are its direct representatives, to exercise influence in a judicial situation
and never be called to task for it. At that point, the local elders are left with total
responsibility for their decision.
Why doesn't the Society admonish the elder not to allow anyone outside the committee to
influence them rather than tell them not to report it if such influence was exercised?
5. Any comments that might suggest to someone with a critical eye that
the committee did not reach its decision on its own but, instead,
somehow yielded to the influence of an outside party
Who, with a critical eye, would have access to these forms? They are for internal use only.
Even the local elders who were not on the judicial committee that handled the case in
question are not supposed to see them. One possibility is that a friend within the
congregation would somehow gain access to them and call the committee to task for
yielding to an outside influence. Another possibility is that the Society is worried about
these forms either being seized or subpoenaed.
Again, the judicial committee members are not told to disallow any outside influence, but
just not to put it on the report if it occurs.
6. Any comments indicating that the elders mishandled the case or
committed any error in the investigation or the judicial committee
process.
Is this a problem? Does the Society receive disfellowshipping forms that say "We
disfellowshipped this person, despite the fact that we mishandled his case."?
Of course, on the other hand why would a body of elders appoint a brother to be an elder,
much less to a judicial committee, if he had no better sense than to put that he had
mishandled a judicial case on forms that go to Brooklyn?
Other Related Information
Here are some items from my notes from various meetings that were conducted from
outlines supplied by the Society.:
September 1987 meeting with circuit and district overseer in connection with circuit
assembly. "Protect the organization from 'legal exposure' by adhering to organizational
procedure in judicial affairs."
From the same meeting: "Confidentiality - failure to keep can cause loss of respect, legal
problems, may destroy claims of ecclesiastical privilege in court."
Jan 1988 KM school - Similar admonition about preserving ecclesiastical privilege by
maintaining confidentiality in judicial and shepherding situations
September 1989 meeting with circuit and district overseer in connection with circuit
assembly: "Confidentiality - don't make statements to secular authorities without direction
from the Society. If subpoenaed - contact Society. In cases of child abuse or serious
criminal offense, contact the Society."
Some Observations
It appears to me that legal concerns have become a very high priority for the Watchtower
Society despite the fact that, as far as I have been able to ascertain, there has not been a
successful lawsuit over a disfellowshipping since Olin Moyle in the 1940's. From the six
items mentioned above, and from other indications, I get the impression that the Society is
trying to establish some kind of legal firewall between the local judicial committees and the
Society.
This would keep any potential legal action at the local level where the pockets are shallow
and out of Brooklyn where they are extremely deep.
The Society encourages congregations and circuits to put their excess funds "on deposit"
with the Society so they can be used. I know that our circuit had about $10,000 on deposit
with the Society as of a couple of years ago. This makes funds available to the Society to
use (at no interest, by the way) but it also has the effect to making artificially shallow
pockets at the local level where any legal action would likely be confined.
Many Kingdom Halls are mortgaged with the Society (with interest). This makes the Society
the primary lienholder. If a local congregation was successfully sued and a lien was placed
on the Kingdom Hall, it would be second to the primary lien held by the Society.
So it appears to me that the Society want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want
to closely control every aspect of the operation of the congregations. On the other, if any
legal difficulties occur, they expect the local congregation to absorb them.
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me by e-mail at:
docbob@star.net
Return to Doctor Bob's Home Page