Mr. Holding,
You are hereby requested to preserve in full unedited unredacted form any and all internet posts, chats articles that you author which refer to me directly or indirectly, regardless of whether those communications occurred on the internet, on paper, over the phone or otherwise.
If you have deleted any such communications on or after the date you first appended the above-cited quote to your online article, you must make an effort to recover them, because I'll be asking for all such efforts to be documented.-------------------
I'm going to sue you for libel in a Florida Federal Court, and this time, there's no technicality you can invoke to do what you do best, and avoid the merits.
I would offer settlement, but because you say Jesus' mandate to agree to settlement doesn't apply to my situation, there will be no settlement. I will be pursuing full discovery, including deposition. I'm also probably going to be evicted before the federal case comes to trial, which means I'll probably have the money to travel to Florida to pay for, and conduct, a full video deposition of you.
And this time, the original complaint is not going to name you as Defendant, but only "Apologetics Afield, Inc", so at my demand, you WILL hire a lawyer, and make your libel insurance company wonder whether it's worth keeping you on as a customer.
Have a nice day.
Christian Doscher
Update, January 11, 2018:
I just posted the following to one of Holding's videos about me:, just to make sure he didn't conveniently forget his legal duty to preserve all of his communications about me with third parties. I'm also emailing him the same:
Mr. Holding, You are still requested to keep full unedited unabridged copies of any and all correspondence you have with third parties, electronic, paper, phone or otherwise, where either of you directly or indirectly mentioned me by name, nick-name or by implication. I will be having you soon served by federal Marshal with summons and complaint filed in Florida's Middle District Court, because of obviously libelous language you posted about me in 2017.
No movement on the new lawsuit, eh? Hmm.
ReplyDeleteMr. Holding, if you wish to know the true basis of the lawsuit, why I haven't filed it yet, and whether it is still possible to file it within Florida's required two-year statute of limitations for libel, you might be a bit more honest about your intentions and your identity.
ReplyDeleteBring it on, "Barry."
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteMr. Holding,
As you well know, the court I'll be filing the third lawsuit in will be the federal Court, Florida Middle District, as before.
The Florida federal courts are governed by the 11th Circuit, as you are well aware.
The 11th Circuit has twice insisted in the past that, even where the sued corporation was dissolved before or during the litigation, it must still hire a lawyer to represent it.
See Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F. 2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985), which is quoted as follows:
“In National Independent Theater Distributors, Inc. v. Buena Vista Distribution Co., 748 F.2d 602 (11th Cir.1984), we rejected a similar argument by a corporate shareholder seeking to represent his corporation pro se. There, the plaintiff dissolved the corporation, and moved to substitute himself as the party plaintiff in place of the corporation. In upholding the district court's denial of the motion, we relied on the rule requiring corporate representation by counsel, and recognized the disruptive effect that lay representation can have on the litigation process. Id. at 609-10.”
In addition, Florida Statute 607.1405 says
Effect of dissolution.—
(1) A dissolved corporation continues its corporate existence but may not carry on any business except that appropriate to wind up and liquidate its business and affairs, including:
(e) Prevent commencement of a proceeding by or against the corporation in its corporate name;
Notice: “a dissolved corporation continues its corporate existence…”
So the state law doesn’t allow you to duck corporate liability by simply dissolving your corporation after you libel me.
The libelous language you used, for which I will sue you this third time, you posted to the internet before the September 22, 2017 administrative dissolution of your Apologetics Afield Corporation.
Hopefully now you realize that under Florida’s binding case law, if you libeled me as part of your Apologetics Afield ministry back when it was still active, and if I file a lawsuit on such matter before the two-year Florida statute of limitations expires, the fact that your corporation was dissolved before the case came to court does NOT relieve you of the requirement to hire a lawyer.
Do your followers really not care that you already wasted $8,000 of their money seeking a solution to the last case that would allow you to avoid the merits of my accusations?
What, do you have some sort of fairy-godmother than just never asks questions, never requires you to spend your own money to get out of your own messes, and simply hands over cash to bail you out of whatever problems you create for yourself? No wonder your followers are mostly anonymous nobodies.
Also, you shouldn’t forget that because your libels were obviously and intentionally false, whoever your alleged libel insurance carrier is, if any, will not likely cover your legal costs here. I don’t know who your alleged libel insurance carrier is, but a google search indicates that standard libel insurance contracts contain a clause allowing the carrier to deny payment of legal expenses, if the libel that landed you in court was intentional. And what you said about me this third time around was clearly false and thus intentionally libelous. So unless you plan to plead not guilty by reason of insantiy, or some other biblical defense such as "the devil made me do it", tell your tithers to brace for financial impact.
So…Mr. Holding…are you willing to try and resolve this matter without paying what looks to be another $10,000 in legal fees (I wouldn't offer this if my primary purpose was to cost you money)?
Or does the fact that a few people in the world still donate money to your dogshit ministry cause you to be all boastful about your expected legal victories?
If you are so concerned about Holding's "abusive language," how do you account for this when a court called YOU out for being abusive to the clerical staff?
ReplyDelete"The Court has been informed by Clerk's Office staff that plaintiff has been abusive in his dealings with them. Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court expects Mr. Doscher to conduct himself in the manner of the attorneys who practice before it. Mr. Doscher shall treat the court staff and opposing counsel with respect and in a professional manner. If Mr. Doscher continues to be abusive of those he deals with in this matter, the Court will take further actions up to and including the dismissal of this case."
http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100916_0002196.WWA.htm/qx
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhy are you still refusing to correctly identify yourself? Gee, you wouldn't have anything to hide, would you?
DeleteAre you interested in the facts that gave rise to that judge's comments?
Or did you suddenly discover that the hearsay opinions of judges in modern American courts constitute the 67th book of your inerrant bible?
Most of Holding's followers automatically began donating money to his legal fund as soon as they found out he was being sued for libel. Not one of those fools held off donating until they could examine the charges and alleged merits thereto. Despite the high likelihood that a guy with a defamatory mouth like Holding might actually have crossed the line into actionable tort, no, his followers just couldn't imagine any other scenario except that the charges were false.
If you fancy yourself somewhat more objective than a blindly salivating dedicated follower, you'd more than likely admit that judges can and often do get things wrong, and abuse their power, and therefore would ask for the facts that led up to this judge making those comments about me.
I don't know who you are, but the fact that you would toss up such a trifling attempt to impeach my credibility and pretend this somehow brings me down to Holding's level, is truly indicative how hasty you are to draw conclusions before you've seen ANY of the relevant evidence. If that doesn't describe the way you conduct your Christian apologetics, why are you so closed minded about ME? Gee, SPITE would have nothing to do with it, would it?
You'll forgive me and understand, therefore, why I think you are either Holding himself, or one of his juvenile delinquent followers.
When you discover that you don't actually know what circumstances led up to this judge falsely accusing me, let me know.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYour comment was deleted because you refuse to honestly identify yourself, which tells me that you fear your own immature tendency to libel, and so you stay hidden just in case you cross the line. Well fuck you. Be a man and post under your real name, or you won’t be posting here. But I answer your other concerns as follows:
Delete-Because you have a track record of threatening to sue almost anything that moves, if you'll forgive the slight exaggeration.
-------If you are a smart guy, you certainly know how to talk to others without libeling them. Sorry Charlie, but your excuse is total bullshit. The truth is you are keeping your identity hidden because you aren’t sure whether you can keep on communicating with me without engaging in libel. You also are quite stupid given that, if you libeled me, I would be able to unmask you anyway with a John Doe subpoena, and Google would be telling the court all the information that leads straight back to your residence address.
But nice attempt trying to bait me into making comments you can use against me later. Gee, a person like you would never bait anybody, would they?
“If you spoke to the clerical staff in the same manner you post here, I think I already know them. But sure, what's your side of the story?”
------I complained to the clerk that I hadn’t received a court notification I had signed up for. Instead of simply resending it, the clerk continued calling me a liar and insisting that I had received it, when the only way he could know this is if he hacked into my email, or could read my mind. What his email service told him about the allegedly sent notification was not infallible, computers often screw up. I asked why he was so sure I was lying when he couldn’t possibly know this, and why he thinks I’d lie about something as simple as not receiving an emailed court notification. He took offense and hung up.
What you also probably failed to notice: the judge neither expresses nor implies that he attempted to get the other side of the story. That's a rather worthless judge. Yeah, there ARE problems with judges and their integrity, especially in a job where they are, for all practical purposes, immune from punishment for all but the most wildly egregious offenses, especially federal judges. It is an exceptionally rare human being who can possess great power and avoid abusing it.
“...Judge Leighton once noted that your "complaint appears to lack merit on its face."”
-------Did you look at the complaint, or did you do what Christians typically do, and automatically assume whatever the judge said, was gospel? The truly objective person would look at the complaint and motions I filed to assess their merits independently, they wouldn’t just automatically assume the judge was right. If you knew half as much about the legal system as you pretend, you wouldn’t make the mistake of pretending that finding judges who disagree me with does something to hurt the legal arguments I made in those cases.
I stand my each and every argument I ever made in any case I filed. Since you appear to be the type of person who judges books by their covers, your post was deleted.
When you start acting like an actual man actually concerned for the actual merits of a proposition, instead of just saying “lookee those people thought you were wrong!”, you can post here again.
“Again when you sued Betty Gould, Judge Leighton found that the "Plaintiff has failed to establish any genuine issues of material fact and the Defendants are entitled to dismissal of the claims against them as a matter of law."
-------The truly objective person will evaluate the arguments I actually made, they will not simply hide behind authority.
You will not be posting here again until you correctly identify yourself AND you show that your posts have to do with the ACTUAL MERIT of my lawsuits and bible arguments. You will not be permitted to hide behind authority. Man up or fuck off.
"Your comment was deleted because you refuse to honestly identify yourself"
ReplyDelete-It's more likely you deleted it because you don't like links to records of your many, many court losses being proliferated on the Internet.
"You also are quite stupid given that, if you libeled me, I would be able to unmask you anyway with a John Doe subpoena, and Google would be telling the court all the information that leads straight back to your residence address."
-You mean like how based on your ISP you are probably posting from the Tumwater WA branch of the Timberland Regional Library?
"I stand my each and every argument I ever made in any case I filed."
--I think you have a vastly over-inflated sense of your legal acumen. How many of your 20+ lawsuits have resulted in jury awards or judge's awards in your favor? I'm guessing zero? You might want to honestly take stock of how astute a litigant you are. Your record isn't good.
Anyway, I've had my fun here. Hope you can find peace in whatever it is you believe in.
Thank you for classifying your comments here as "fun". It was clear from the beginning that nothing you had to say was serious.
DeleteI already challenged you to man-up and show any factual or legal inadequacy in anything I've ever filed in any case. You packed up and went home. You might try getting a job at the National Inquirer. Like you, they also prioritize superficial study and salacious gossip far above scholarly consideration of both sides of the story.
And your own desire to stay anonymous seems to indicate that I'm not the only person in the world who would rather have previous skirmishes stay buried in the past.
Go ask your hero Mr. Holding, I caused the few legitimate Christian scholars who once supported him, to withdraw that support. I did Christianity a bit of good by exposing one of its teachers as a biblically disqualified miscreant.
He's been reduced to creating cartoons apparently geared toward ADHD afflicted 20 something adolescents who have trouble worrying about the merits of a matter longer than about 2 minutes. He began church hopping after I sued him.
Oh, did I mention? He paid a lawyer more than $21,000 to get my cases against him dismissed for reasons having nothing to do with the merits of my accusations.
Even if my prior lawsuits were frivolous, which they certainly were not, my cases against Mr. Holding were so ironclad that he didn't dare go to the merits. Yet escaping on technicalities is exactly what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for. Holding had to conveniently "discover", AFTER I sued him and threw Matthew 5:25, 40 in his face, that those verses are not telling modern-day Christians to seek settlement...a view that no other Christian scholar accepts.
You might wish to ask why the average person should not conclude something negative about him from the fact that he functioned as a 501(c)(3) non-profit for 16 years, then suddenly dissolved it right after I sued him, then allowed the Apologetics Afield corporation he created thereafter to also be administratively dissolved.
I think somebody told him that since he cannot control his filthy libelous mouth, the shit he talks can be attributed to his corporation...which means if the corporation is sued for libel, he is not allowed to represent himself, he MUST hire a board-certified lawyer.
Go ahead, ask him. There is no other reason why he would just let his non-profit status disappear. And when churches do this, it is usually because of some big scandal or because they are going out of business, not for mere personal reasons.
If you were a man instead of an internally conflicted homosexual clown, you'd have taken the challenge to disprove any of the facts or legal theories I ever advocated in any of my lawsuits. Nope, you are just a juvenile delinquent, real quick to talk shit, real quick to disappear when challenged on the merits.
Man up, or stay lost.