Holding, as usual, makes good on his libelous "warning" by posting yet another defamatory video about me.
This is my reply to various comments James Patrick Holding's followers post to this libelous YouTuBe video. Because they are libelous videos, this is an exceptional situation where I will not give the link to the original video, otherwise in jury trial Holding will simply argue that the jury should reduce the amount of damages he must pay since I, by posting links to his libels, helped the public find such defamatory posts..
First, in most of Holding's prior videos about me, he included a link to his secondary website devoted exclusively to libeling me. But in this current video, which I respond to below, he didn't give that link.
I would be reasonable, even if not infallibly so, to conclude that Holding got schooled the hard painful way when he read my current 97-page complaint, and like a mean dog that has been bapped in the eye with a shovel, has decided that changing his ways is probably going to make life easier for him, and maintaining a steady consistent course of libeling me to the degree he did in the past, can only cause the jury to hate him with great passion.
And since Holding posted this most recent video out of sheer spite and hatred toward me (i.e., he says "I'm not playing anymore"), his followers do not have the option of speculating that Holding voluntarily chose to leave out that link to the secondary libelous website merely because he wished to give me a "break".
Holding's pathological hatred of me is well-known. Unless he had been slapped in the head by me or his own lawyer about the libelous nature of that secondary website, he goddamn sure would have included the link to it with this newly posted video. He has only chosen to break with his recent pattern of libelous activity because he is genuinely frightened that he really is guilty of libel, he is past the point of no return, and the best thing he can do at this point is to act in ways that might motivate the jury to give him some leniency.
And like all stupid guilty people, his prior wrongs are so extensive, the jury will be suspicious that he only changed his ways for the better this recently because he was afraid of the damages a jury would impose, NOT because he was genuinely remorseful for defaming me. People like Holding are incapable of genuine remorse, they are too busy, as Pharisees, trying to morally justify every character flaw they manifest.
Let me know when you find evidence that James Patrick Holding has ever apologized to anybody for anything he ever did in the last 20 years (yeah right, you seriously think Holding, with his 20 years of slandering people, never crossed the line into the actual sin of reviling or slander?). I suggest you get a seat cushion and place about 2 weeks worth of water and food near your computer, you'll be on the internet for quite a while trying to locate things that never existed.
here are my replies to the comments Holding's babies posted to said recent video:
Published on Feb 22, 2019Yup, just like one would expect, a follower of Holding draws quick negative conclusions about somebody's credibility before viewing any source document in full. I also commented there with:
Inari19872 hours ago
I haven’t watched the entire video all the way through, but the thing on John Doe being a fraud is perfectly valid to you. Because it’s an indication of dishonesty. And you can use that to poke holes in his honesty all the way through.
Sorry, but my 97-page Complaint is available for free download from this blog (see here), and you don't make any rebuttal to any of its actual arguments. You just talk shit and posture.
DecKrash34 minutes ago
It just looks like this guy is so desperate for attention that he's trying to pull any & everything out of his backside to try to take you to court just to find something that sticks.
That's the sign of somebody who is mentally deranged.Making you are even dumber than a mentally deranged person, because you obviously cannot refute their legal arguments. I authored 97 pages of legal arguments. Get to work or shut the fuck up.
Can't the courts look over his past suits and find that he's lobbed so many frivolous lawsuits against so many people that they can give him an injunction against making any more lawsuits?You've now committed the civil tort of libel per se, because your accusation that I filed "frivolous" lawsuits in the past, is false, and tends to cause others to view me with contempt, disgrace, etc.
If you don't understand how your comments that my prior lawsuits were "frivolous" constitutes the tort of "libel per se", its probably because you missed the bottom of page 4 of the Complaint. If I really wanted to, your engaging in libel would justify me to file a John Doe Subpoena to force Google to reveal all information. they have about your real name and contact information. Go ahead, keep playing with fire, and maybe you'll get first-hand knowledge of what Holding is currently suffering.
Or at least demand that he have psychiatric evaluation?Unfortunately for you, I've never filed a frivolous lawsuit, so the Courts won't be requiring me to undergo psychiatric evaluation.
Something has to be done to shut down this clown's idiocy for good.And the fact that you cannot think of a way to do it, might caution the reader to consider that my lawsuits in the past and my current one against Holding are not frivolous, and lead to the further conclusion that YOU are the "idiocy" here. Holding cannot think of a way to do it either, that's why he's been scrambling around for the last two weeks unsuccessfully trying to convince his Christian lawyer friends to rally in support of his lost cause. If Holding was smart, he'd realize "Christian" lawyers think him guilty, and he'd use his time more productively finding an non-Christian lawyer who has less more scruples than Christian lawyer. The secular lawyer only cares about winning. The Christian lawyer won't defend the Defendant if they feel he is morally and biblically guilty of sin. They don't want to be defending somebody else's "sin", and of course, Holding's libels of me are the sin of "slander" or "reviling", which require that other Christians expel him from their fellowship:
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.
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. 5:11-6:1 NAU)
The Greek word for "reviler" is loidoros, and The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says it refers to those who verbally abuse others:
449B. W. Powers, Ph.d is Dean of New Testament and Ethics, Tyndale College, The Australasian Open Theological College (20 years). This is from his 2009 Commentary on 1st Corinthians
λοιδορέω loidoreÃoÒ [to revile, abuse],
λοιδορία loidoriÃa [abuse],
λοίδορος loiÃdoros [reviler],
ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]
The biblically literate Christian lawyer would never agree to defend Holding from the civil charges accusing him of what the bible calls "reviling".
tektontv43 minutes ago
His state isn't that interested in shutting down frivolous lawsuits. Florida is, though.
Barry Jones1 second ago
And yet a Florida court already found that the allegations in my Complaint, if true, DO state a legally valid cause of action for libel. I filed this 2019 lawsuit "in forma pauperis", which requires the Court to delay approving the case for filing until they decide that the case is not frivolous. See Figueroa v. Orange County Public Schools, Dist. Court, MD Florida, 2019. That is, IF you really did talk about my prior lawsuits the way my Complaint says you did, that really IS "libel per se". In other words, you either respond by saying you never posted the things the Complaint says you did ( a lie), or you allege that the Complaint misrepresents what you posted (a lie), or you pay a lawyer of lot of money to advise you that you'll be losing the jury trial.
DecKrash33 minutes ago
@tektontv so does Florida have the power to nullify the validity any further lawsuits made by this guy?
Barry Jones1 second ago
Yes, but only if they reach the conclusion that I'm a "vexatious litigant". I'm not, no court has ever found I was, and the fact that a prior court opined I had "abused the discovery process" is about as damaging to my reputation as "we find the lower court judge abused his discretion in excluding this evidence" is damaging to the credibility of the judge whose ruling was overturned. Holding also doesn't tell you that the Washington Court in 2015 ordered him to answer my jurisdictionn and non-jurisdiction related discovery requests before the question of jurisdiction had been settled. So the more Holding chides me for seeking non-jurisdiction discovery before the jurisdiction question was settled, the more he chides the judge.
Peasant Scrublord36 minutes ago
Doscher is a clown.
Barry Jones1 second ago
Yeah, but, can you actually REFUTE any of my ACTUAL legal or factual arguments in the 2019 Complaint? NO. What a fuckhead you must be, you cannot even refute the arguments made by a "clown".
Once again, Holding is a very stupid cocksucker: If, as he admits, his own lawyer in the 2015 case cautioned him to take down a similarly libelous "Internet Predator Alert" he had posted about me, we have to wonder: have any lawyers Holding contacted since then, similarly told him what laywers typically DO tell new clients (i.e, to quit making negative public remarks about the case or the other party)?
