request for removal of a libelous website you are hosting
Barry Jones <email@example.com>
Thu, Jul 16, 3:43 PM
to quality, abuse, legal
Your Acceptable Use Policy prohibits your customers from posting libelous information to the websites you host:
4. Prohibited Uses
---c. Utilize the Services in connection with any tortious or actionable activity. Without limiting the general application of this rule, Customers and Users may not:
Utilize the Services to publish or disseminate information that (A) constitutes slander, libel or defamation, (B) publicizes the personal information or likeness of a person without that person’s consent or (C) otherwise violates the privacy rights of any person. Utilize the Services to threaten persons with bodily harm, to make harassing or abusive statements or messages, or to solicit the performance of acts or services that are illegal under applicable law.
Before that, you said:
The Acceptable Use Policy below defines the actions which IMH considers to be abusive, and thus, strictly prohibited. The examples named in this list are non-exclusive, and are provided solely for guidance to IMH customers. If you are unsure whether any contemplated use or action is permitted, please send mail to abuse@InMotionHosting.com and we will assist you. Please note that the actions listed below are also not permitted from other Internet Service Providers on behalf of, or to advertise, any service hosted by IMH, or connected via the IMH network. Furthermore, such services may not be advertised via deceptive marketing policies, as defined by the Federal Trade Commission Deception Policy Statement.
So one reasonable interpretation of this would be that you will remove any content from any website you host, if you feel that content to be libelous. What else is implied by the phrase "strictly prohibited"?
My name is Christian Doscher. I am suing James Patrick Holding for libel.
Doscher v. Holding, Florida Middle District, 6:19-cv-01322
My prior lawsuit against him proceeded upon many of the same facts published at the same website:
Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, et al, 6:19-cv-00076
That suit is currently being appealed. 11th Circuit: Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, et al, Case No. 20-10736-
The vast bulk of Mr. Holding's libelous statements are found on a website you host:
I initiated the latest lawsuit with a 170-page complaint, see attached. All of the statements about me on that website are libelous either in direct fashion, or by juxtaposition, or by failure to disclose relevant facts thus giving a defamatory impression. You can tell from reading the site that Mr. Holding has perused Court records to gratify his insatiable appetite for spite. While I have not yet sought the sealing of my prior court records, Holding's use of these judicial records is contrary to the Courts' intent:
from Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 440 (Dist. Court, SD New York 2018):
Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes" such as using records "to gratify spite or promote scandals" or where files might serve "as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ("Courts have long declined to allow public access simply to cater to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure.").It appears from your own articles that your company tends to be "Christian" or to view Christianity favorably:
Jesus said slander is a sin that comes from the heart:
19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
20 "These are the things which defile the man; (Matt. 15:19-20 NAU)
The apostle Paul required you to disassociate yourself from any so-called Christian 'brother' who engages in the sin of "reviling":
11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.This is a request that you remove the website http://www.lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.com/ from public access until this suit is resolved.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:11-13 NAU)
I strongly suggest you read the attached Complaint in full before you respond. All of the trifles you might have about ways to spin the website's statements so that they are not necessarily libelous, are false. Holding has no immunity, he cannot use the "opinion" defense, he cannot prove the "truth" of the libels, the libelous statements actually are false in every way that case law says statements can be libelous, and the suit was filed within Florida's two-year statute of limitations. The only reason my prior identical libel lawsuit against Holding didn't go to trial was because the judge falsely accused me of failing to follow the rules, an order that is currently being appealed (but the order of dismissal was "without prejudice" thus allowing me to file the same case again). So not even the prior dismissal can possibly suggest the current suit lacks merit.
Rest assured, Mr. Holding's website contains properly actionable libel, and no trifle of law is going to save him this time. You could not possibly do anything bad, and you could only do good, by removing that website from public access until this case is resolved.
I will be happy to answer any question you might have about the possible truth of the statements. You can become better informed of the best arguments thereto by contacting Mr. Holding's lawyer Scott A. Livingston at:
201 East Pine Street Suite 445 Orlando, Florida 32801
Thank you for your understanding.
[IMH Legal] #3187: Update to 'request for removal of a libelous website you are hosting'
InboxxInMotion Hosting Legal Admin Team <firstname.lastname@example.org>Tue, Jul 21, 4:32 AMto[External] Hello, We have reviewed the account and have confirmed that the material or materials listed in the complaint were still present.
The account has now been suspended.
At this time we have closed this complaint.
-------------------------------------------------------------Our office hours are from 9 AM to 9 PM, Monday through Friday, Eastern time. If you have additional questions or concerns you may respond to this message and we will address those matters. Your correspondence will be responded to in the order that it was received so please allow 1-2 business days to receive your response. Best Regards,InMotion Hosting Legal Admin Team
The "Complaint" with which I've started the new libel lawsuit against Holding (the one which convinced InMotion Hosting that Holding had violated their terms of service, is 170 pages long, and conclusively proves that Holding has committed perjury in Court at least 10 times, as well as shows that all comments about me which Holding uploaded to that website and elsewhere, were indeed libelous "per se". Download Complaint here.
Maybe the world's smartest Christian apologist can now "explain" why InMotion Hosting's law firm are "dumbasses" or "idiots" or "morons" for finding his excuses unpersuasive, you know, the epithets that he hurls against anybody else who dare to disagree with his stupid pretentious trifling bullshit.
Or maybe you should ask him whether he plans to make good on his previous threat to simply move the content on the website to another domain, should the first domain remove the material in question.
Or maybe you should ask him how you can be sure your donations to him aren't being used to pay his lawyer to fight this lawsuit. But read the downloaded Complaint, supra, first, as Holding appears to the be type that will lie about his finances when he thinks he won't get caught.
you can contact Holding at tektonics.org, or his email email@example.com