I have reported James Patrick Holding's sins to Kris Jordan of scripturesubjects.net

James Patrick Holding, the guy I'm suing for libel for about the 4th time, has at his tektonics.org advertised the link to another apologetics ministry website.  I found out who published that site and sent them the following email.  

Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com>

to office

Hello,

At his website tektonics.org James Patrick Holding has provided links to your scripturesubjects.net site.  

Tekton Website Updates
January 10, 2021
The site review continuies. Meanwhile here are some external notes:
An up and coming apologetics website; sample here and here.
Special notice: Nick Peters now has a Patreon account.
---------------------------------------from ---http://www.tektonics.org/newstuff.php

Even assuming you don't "partner" with or otherwise work with Holding in any Christian activity, the apostle Paul requires you to disassociate yourself from so-called Christian 'brothers" who commit certain sins, one of them being "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.
 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)

The Greek word for "reviler" there is λοίδορος / loidoros.  BDAG says it means "abusive person".  

TDNT explains:

 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]

("calumny" means using misrepresentations used for the purpose of harming another's reputation. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calumny)

DANKER says loidoros means "insolent person".

In English "reviler" means a person who subjects another to "verbal abuse"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revile

Chrysostom thought those who committed the sins Paul listed there were dishonoring God:

Chrysostom: The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Timothy, Titus, and Philemon: Homilies on 1 Timothy
And, "If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater" (1 Cor. v. 11.), such a man honors not God.

Origen says the person who reviles is not a true brother:

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, ch. 30
as the Apostle says, "If any one that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, etc., with such an one not to eat;"¹⁴ for no one who is an idolater, or a fornicator, or covetous, is a brother; for if he, who seems to bear the name of Christ, though he is named a brother, has something of the features of these, he would not rightly be called a brother.

 

Clement of Alexandria noted that you shouldn't even eat with a reviler:

Clement of Alexandria: The Instructor, book 2, ch. 1
Thus the apostle, in his solicitude for us, discriminates in the case of entertainments, saying, that "if any one called a brother be found a fornicator, or an adulterer, or an idolater, with such an one not to eat;"⁵ neither in discourse or food are we to join, looking with suspicion on the pollution thence proceeding, as on the tables of the demons.

Apostle Paul says abusive speech indicates the speaker is acting according to their old unredeemed nature:

 6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,
 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.
 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.
 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--   (Col. 3:6-10 NAU)

Paul says filthy talk is a sign that the speaker is under the wrath of God:

 3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Eph. 5:3-6 NAU)

Jesus said slanders defile the person who speaks them:

 18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
 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. 15:18-20 NAU)  

The bible forbids you from associating with a person who gossips or otherwise "reveals secrets":

 19 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip. (Prov. 20:19 NAU)

Why did I give you all that biblical precedent?

Because since 1998, James Patrick Holding has engaged consistently in filthy speech, insults, abusive talk, gossip and slander, and he has never stopped, including into the present.  I have sued Holding for libel, that lawsuit is currently pending, and his slanders of me were so extensive, my Complaint had to be 534 pages long just to document it all.

That Complaint is attached to this email as a pdf for your convenience.

Ever since 2015, Holding has posted to the internet numerous libelous comments and videos about me.  He even got hold of the video of my bus accident, photoshopped it, replaced the original audio with a fast-paced comedy song, then looped it so that the viewer would see me getting injured repeatedly about 500 times in a single minute. He posted that to YouTube.

When I complained that this video was libelous and caused me emotional distress, YouTube refused to take it down, and Holding refused to remove it.

My Complaint also documents Holding's tax scams.  When I sued him in 2015, he dissolved his Tekton Apologetics corporation.  When I sued him in 2016, he dissolved his Apologetics Afield corporation.  And yet he has, ever since, been asking for "tax-deductible" donations at his website.  For a couple of years he said he works with other 501(c)(3) organizations, but he never identifies these, and recently he changed the statement so that whether he still does or doesn't work with third-party ministries is ambiguous, and yet up until recently he said the donations would be used to support the "urgent work that we do here" (i.e., at tektonics.org... which to my knowledge Holding doesn't have tax-exempt status for, and which to my knowledge is not claimed by any legitimately tax-exempt organization to be their own ministry work product).

For years I tried to get the few Christian scholars that ever publicly endorsed Holding to engage in a Matthew 18 discussion since he was clearly committing sin toward me and was clearly unrepentant of it.  While none of them cared to do this, they have stopped publicly endorsing him.  

It gets worse.  Holding does not merely repeatedly commit the sin of slander...he has posted a long article attempting to show biblical justification for it.  And yes, in 2016 he libelously redacted a frivolous court order and appended it to this article.  Holding cannot be satisfied to stab me, he finds it necessary to twist the knife.

It gets worse:  During my 2015 lawsuit against Holding, he stated under oath that he has never deliberately intended to insult anybody.  That was his "tenth act of  perjury"  See Complaint pp. 451 ff.  My blog page explaining this, including link to free download of said Complaint, is:

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/06/james-patrick-holding-has-committed.html

It gets worse:  since 2015, Holding has repeatedly communicated to multiple people his allegedly good-faith belief that I have a very serious emotional disorder.  In other words, when Holding was posting all the libels about me between 2015 and 2021, he strongly believed that I was particularly susceptible to emotional distress.  A recent manifestation of his ill-will and hostility toward me (which the State of Florida says will make him liable for slander even if the comment he published about me was factually truthful) was his creating several websites each exclusively devoted to slandering me by means of libelously photoshopped court documents.  Just google "Christian Behrend Doscher" and/or

"Doscherleaks".  My lawsuit accuses him of misrepresenting my prior court cases.

Holding might know a lot about the bible, but in my 35 years of reading it, I cannot find any verse that says there is ever a time when it would be spiritually virtuous to use lies and gossip to subject severely emotionally disabled people to severe emotional distress.  For all of Holding's endless screeds about how "Jesus insulted the Pharisees, so we have automatica license to insult people too!", he appears to have overlooked, or else to not care about,  "thou shalt not lie".  Lies are not only direct falsehoods.  It is also lying to knowingly give somebody a false impression.

It gets worse:  Holding had to create the DoscherLeaks website several times, because every time I complained to the domain host that the site contained libelous material, they suspended the site.  The first host was a Christian company InMotion Hosting, the provider that Holding had used for nearly 20 years to also host his tektonics.org website.  After finding a Canadian host company that doesn't care about libelous content, he switched his tektonics.org site over to another and non-Christian host.

One might say those actions bespeak a mentally unstable individual who has a pathologically obsessive need to slander his critics.

You may contact Holding at jphold99@gmail.com, the address he gives the readers who might want to give him tax-deductible donations, even though he doesn't ever name the 501(c)(3) organizations that he is required to work with before that tax-exempt status can be lawful.

You may contact his lawyer Scott Livingstson at slivingston@cplspa.com.  Livingston used to be equally as boistriously mouthy and insulting toward me as Holding was, and didn't simmer down until the court entered an order admonishing him to quit using childish and stupid comments.

Perhaps the worst part is that Holding first paid a lawyer more than $20,000 to get my original lawsuit dismissed on the technicality of lack of jurisdiction, which means that he continued slandering me between 2016 and the present despite losing most of his life-savings to answer the legal action.  I have a reasonable belief that if the jury in the currently pending case awards me nothing, Holding will boast that this is because God made them see the light.  And if they award me substantial damages, Holding will merely insist the judicial system is controlled by the devil.  All of the consequences that would otherwise motivate mature adults guilty of libel to cease slandering mentally ill people, happened to Holding, yet these events did nothing but embolden him to increase his libelous harassment of me.  So because his spite and ill-will toward me are so clear, my lawsuit is asking for substantial punitive damages.

My current lawsuit has so far cost Holding what I conservatively estimate to be about $10,000, if his attorney's latest fee-disclosure is truthful.  And yet Holding refuses to remove any of the libelous postings about me.  Holding has thus spent nearly $30,000 answering my legal actions, and shows not the slightest hint that he might perhaps be in the wrong.

If in your opinion Holding's comments about me as documented in the Complaint did at some point transfer from "justified rebuke" over to "sinful slander", I would ask you to either ask him to stop advertising your ministry at his website (I'm assuming you agree with the bible, supra?) or demand that he participate in a Matthew 18 meeting.  He is, without any doubts whatsoever, that "reviler" from whom the apostle Paul says you must disassociate yourself.  

Every legitimately credentialed bible scholar that ever endorsed Holding in the past says there is ZERO biblical justification to either use insults to react to those who publicly criticize the gospel, or to use insult to repay insult.  Even Gary Habermas rebuked him for it.  Holding will have none of it.  Nope, if Jesus insulted the Pharisees, Holding thinks this grants automatic carte blanche to modern-day Christians to slanderously hiss and spit at anything they disagree with. 

The language of Holding that the Complaint documents as slanderous is also sexually filthy and sounds like it came from a demented juvenile delinquent, so make sure no children are with you when you read the Complaint.

Sincerely,

Christian Doscher

=====end of email=====================

Holding once commented on one of his YouTube videos that if he ever found out I had spoke disparagingly about him to anybody else, he would send them links to his posted comments about me.  So here's the stakes:

---- if Holding makes good on that promise in reaction to the above-quoted email, the jury will most certainly conclude that Holding's spiteful ill-will toward me is flying at truly pathological heights, thus motivating them to think only a higher amount of punitive damages has the slightest prayer of successfully deterring Holding from libeling me in the future.

---- If he doesn't make good on that promise in reaction to the above-quoted email, I will be arguing to the jury that 

a) Holding more than likely came to believe during this litigation that his posted comments about me were libelous, but 

b) because he has never removed his comments about me from the internet, it must be that Holding intentionally left up comments that he knew were libelous...thus motivating the jury to think only a higher amount of punitive damages has the slightest prayer of successfully deterring Holding from libeling me in the future. 

Once again, Holding lives in Florida, and that state has a peculiar law:  if you live there and publish comments about somebody to the internet, you could still be sued for libel even if the comment was factually and legally truthful.  Florida holds that truthful comments constitute actionable libel, if the person who posted them did so with motive to harm:

Publication of a true statement if done with ill will can be defamatory. See Fla. Const. Art. I § 4 (statement not libelous if true and published with good motive); Lewis v. Evans, 406 So.2d 489, 492 n. 2 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) ("In Florida, truth is not always an absolute defense to defamation.  In order to avoid liability, a `good motive' must also be shown."). Armstrong does not assert that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude he acted with ill will.

Finch v. City of Vernon, 877 F. 2d 1497, 1504 (11th Cir. 1989)

 The parties argue over whether truth is an absolute defense to defamation under Florida law. Florida's Constitution provides, "In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for defamation the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as defamatory is true and was published with good motives, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated." Fla. Const. art. 1 § 4 (emphasis added). Florida courts, as we have previously noted, have interpreted this provision to mean that truth is not an absolute defense in a defamation action; "good motives" are also required. Finch v. City of Vernon, 877 F.2d 1497, 1504 (11th Cir. 1989) ("In Florida, truth is not always an absolute defense to defamation. In order to avoid liability, a `good motive' must also be shown." (quoting Lewis v. Evans, 406 So.2d 489, 492 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)); see also id. ("Armstrong does not assert that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude he acted with ill will."). Schiano responds pointing to an unpublished federal district court case in which the court opined that "[s]ubstantial truth is a complete defense to defamation, regardless of the motives of the defamer. It is a common tenet of First Amendment law that true statements are inactionable." Carroll v. TheStreet.com, Inc., No. 11-CV-81173, 2014 WL 5474061, at *11 (S.D. Fla. July 10, 2014). In light of Finch, the Carroll court incorrectly remarked that the "good motive" requirement "is not recognized" by the federal courts.

Friedman v. Schiano, Court of Appeals, fn. 16 (11^th Cir. 2019)

 

U]nder Florida law, truth is only a defense to defamation when the truth has been coupled with good motive."

Lispig v. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170, 183-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) 

For the people who are thinking about donating money to Holding, you'd rightly fear that your money might go not for ministry work but to pay me damages.  Yes, I sued Holdings corporation, but Florida law is explicit that where the corporation has been found guilty of wrong-doing, the corporation's officers and agents who committed the wrongs will be personally liable to pay the damages even if the Plaintiff doesn't ask the Court to pierce the corporate veil:

Under Florida law, "officers or agents of corporations may be individually liable in tort if they commit or participate in a tort, even if their acts are within the course and scope of their employment." White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 918 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (citations omitted). The same rule applies to limited liability companies. Cannon v. Fournier, 57 So. 3d 875, 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); see also Candyman Kitchens Inc. v. Sandcrafters LLC, 2018 WL 6434058, *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2018) ("Under Florida law, a member or manager of a limited liability company is personally liable for torts committed within the scope of the employment."). "Liability will attach `even if no argument is advanced that the corporate form should be disregarded.'" Bradenton Motorsports Park, Inc. v. Long, 2011 WL 13244036, *1 (M.D. Fla. June 21, 2011) (quoting Fla. Speciality, Inc. v. H 2 Ology, Inc., 742 So. 2d 523, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)).

Skypoint Advisors, LLC v. 3 Amigos Productions LLC (D.C. MD Florida 2020)

The smart person doesn't donate jack shit to Holding.  The smart person demands that Holding either repent of his obvious sins of slander, or tells Holding to consign himself to be viewed by other Christian ministries to be just as corrupt as 1st century Jews thought tax-collectors were: 

15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17 NAU)

Download my 534-page Complaint against Holding  here.  Holding's lawyer has already told him that there is no meritorious defense against my charges.

Remember, I filed my Complaint in November 2020, so that was the time when Holding first started reading it.  Due to the Court not ruling on my case and due to the Corona virus epidemic causing the Florida court litigation to slow down, this means these events caused Holding to be given what is now about 8 extra months to review the Complaint, when in fact in normal circumstances he'd be required to file an Answer to Complaint within 30 days of it being served on him. 

So Holding's followers need to listen up: If the jury awards me any damages, you will not be able to trifle that maybe Holding was somehow prevented from making rebuttal arguments as powerful as he possibly could have.  No, Holding and his lawyer have been working together trying to brainstorm how they will answer my charges on the merits, and they've been given 8 extra months beyond the normal 30 day responsive window required in the Court rules.  If then Holding loses this lawsuit, it will only be AFTER he brought to bear on it all arguments he and his lawyer of 20+ years of corporate litigation experience thought would most powerfully exonerate him of the charges.  

Which would probably lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is only one reason Holding lost:  there simply ISN'T any possible defense on the merits, and Holding was undeniably guilty as charged.

The reasonable Christian at that point would insist that Holding has been committing the sin of slander for more than 20 years, and was so spiritually blind, he seriously thought a sinful act was a holy act.  Sure, authentically born-again Christians can sin, but if you wouldn't think Holding truly possessing salvation if he committed adultery every day for the last 20 years, why would you think he could possibly be saved in spite of his sins of slander every day for the last 20 years?

YOU might think reviling is "less evil" than adultery, but NT theology says commission of any type of sin makes you guilty of breaking ALL the commandments:

9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

 11 For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT REVILE." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do revile other people, you have become a transgressor of the law. (Jas. 2:9-11 NAU)

Inerrantist K. A. Richardson:

2:11 ...every sin constitutes a state of opposition to God. Sin is never a question of breaking a single command but of violating the integrity of the whole law. Each command is integral to the whole law.... We offend the whole through every single trespass because we are actually refusing submission to the being and person of God rather than simply the instrument itself (cf. 4:11f.).

Richardson, K. A. (2001, c1997). Vol. 36: James (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; 

The New American Commentary (Page 122). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.