full text versions of the files in Doscher v. Holding

 See here.

Update: December 3, 2018, more files were added to the archive.


UPDATE:  December 3, 2018

Somebody, likely Mr. Holding since very few people actually give a shit enough his life or mine as to try and keep tabs, challenged me as follows:

Anonymous

December 2, 2018 at 11:37 AM

How do you account for the fact that none of these motions and petitions succeeded in court?

Oh, hello again, Mr. Holding, the fearless warrior whose idea of spiritual battle is uploading defamatory cartoons to YouTube for his juvenile delinquent followers to laugh at, while every legitimately credentialed Christian scholar, including Licona, Habermas, Bowman, Rohrbaugh, Geisler, Archer, Wallace, Blomberg, and basically the big voices for modern evangelicalism from whom you seek support, strongly disagree with your sinful tendency to mistake filthy jesting and slander thrill-fests for spiritually mature "rebuke".

Since you are a smarter and more mature person than me, should I follow your example, and ban your comments here the way you ban my comments from your youtube videos?

Or should I do the stupid immature thing that only frightened losers would do, and address your question comprehensively on the merits?

I'll choose the latter.   If that makes me stupid, all the better.

Here's how I "account for the fact that none of these motions and petitions succeeded in court”.  The "reason" is very close to the way YOU account for most Christian scholars (and indeed most of the laity) seeing NO justification from the bible for YOUR belief that today's Christians have biblical license to hurl insults at their critics. 

The vast majority of Christian scholars disagree with your view on this.

You have not, and never will dare, give the name of any legitimately credentialed Christian scholar who agrees with you on this.

Yet you expect your followers to believe that this tide of expert opinion against means exactly nothing except that the vast majority of Christian scholars are profoundly ignorant about what the bible actually teaches.

You would agree with me also that lots of people are too governed by their false presuppositions and their emotions to correctly understand the issues, or to care about being wrong in their assessments of evidence.  You are quick to accuse all Christians in the world of this defect (with exception, of course, for your infallible followers, those infallible water-walkers who give you money, and the idiots at theologyweb who mistake their sinful jesting and ceaseless entertaining of foolish controversies for God's own presence), and I am quick to similarly claim there’s a good reason why the higher courts often reverse the lower courts and impose discipline on lower-court judges for unprofessional conduct or unjustified ignorance of the law.

Furthermore, the argument is stronger with regard to judges.  Christians, if they misunderstand a biblical thing, this likely isn’t because they are on a power trip.

But judges obviously have great power, and the tendency for them to allow this power to go to their heads and start departing from common sense simply because of personal animosity or proud incompetence is conclusively proven to be a routine plague on the judicial system, given how many times the higher courts reverse the lower courts...or how many times the state Supreme Courts impose discipline on judges for unprofessional conduct or unjustified ignorance of the law. 

The fact that lawyers often disagree vigorously with each other about the law, ought to give your followers significant pause before they automatically assume that YOUR legal arguments are beyond criticism.   And the stupidity that infects the vast majority of your followers makes me suspicious that they care less about whether you are correct, and more about the juvenile thrill they get from your superficial cocky insulting demeanor.

KJV Onlyist Peter Ruckman was as stupid as any prosperity gospel preacher, but his followers, like yours, would just laugh all confidently at anything his critics had to say. 

Your followers might wish to pause a bit before they continue mistaking your cocky confidence for your accuracy.  They are human beings, and therefore legitimately subject to making this mistake as often as millions of other stupid Christians do.

There’s a very good reason why you aren’t allowing the public to view the legal motions we’ve filed against each other.  If you wish to keep up the deception, while looking like you can “argue” something, best to limit your audience’s source material to just bits and pieces. 

But common sense says if you have nothing to hide, you’d allow the public to view all those motions in full for themselves just as much as you allow them to see your videos.

If your followers weren’t born yesterday, then they surely know there’s always two sides to every story, which means it isn’t very smart to automatically assume your best friend’s version of events is the truth.

Since you implicitly challenge the legal correctness of the arguments in my motions in court, here's something for your adoring followers to chew on

In the federal case, the magistrate recommended full dismissal based on his belief that my failure to list that lawsuit properly in my prior bankruptcy left me without standing to sue on any of your libelous comments.  He ordered me to show cause why the entire case should not be dismissed.

I objected, showing that even if some of the libels couldn’t be sued on, many of them, by having been published only AFTER I filed for bankruptcy, therefore remained free of the estate and therefore were not exclusively under the control of the bankruptcy trustee, and thus I could sue on them in my personal capacity.

You replied to my objections, and you replied to that objection specifically, but you admitted that some of the libels might have escaped the bankruptcy.  You cited no case law saying I was required to list in my bankruptcy any potential lawsuits based on actions that you hadn’t even committed yet.  The most you could do to help the post-bankruptcy libels get dismissed along with the others, is to tell the court you were leaving it to the court's discretion.  Translation:  “I have no argument to refute Doscher on this point, but I sure wouldn’t disagree if you chose to turn away from binding legal precedent and use your ‘discretion’ to get rid of this whole thing”.

You are an asshole who likes to stomp his critics unmercifully while boasting about his great level of legal acumen.  If you COULD have "stomped" my argument for preserving some of those libels from dismissal, you surely would have. But you did no such thing. 

Therefore, your followers will have to objectively admit there's a very real and viable possibility that while dismissal of some of the federal lawsuit might have been legally justified, dismissing the entire suit was a miscarriage of justice.

Yes, I have comprehensive replies to your videos in the works.  While I couldn't care less about your stupid uncritical thinking juvenile delinquent followers who mistake cartoons for scholarship, the fact is there are more people in the world, who are respectable, who are likely to find those videos.  Because they are respectable people, they will no doubt google my name, and therefore find my replies at this blog.

Does that answer your question?  Or did the Ritlan disappear from your body 5 seconds after you started reading this?