Showing posts with label Apologetics Afield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apologetics Afield. Show all posts
Sunday, March 7, 2021
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, Plaintiff's 1st Amended Complaint and Motion for reconsideration
Update: May 6, 2019: A higher judge disagreed with the Magistrate's threat of dismissal. The higher judge "granted" my motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See update below.
Update: April 12, 2019: See at the end of this article my challenge to Holding, which I posted to his youtube channel, a few seconds ago.
A few days ago, I received in the mail an Order from the Magistrate Judge in my current lawsuit against
James Patrick Holding "Doscher v. Apologetics Afield".
The order threatened to file a Recommendation for Dismissal because the original Complaint was allegedly defective in its pleading. What exactly was defective? The place the Order stated what was wrong with the Complaint, was on page 5, and Court documented the pleading-defects in the Complaint with two-sentences. Two whole sentences! I'm not worthy!
------------------------------------------
In case you were wondering, yes, this type of conveniently non-specific accusation appears calculated to make sure that no matter what modifications to the Complaint I make, there will be no way to absolutely prove that I sufficiently "corrected" these unspecified "deficiencies". So therefore, there will always be a way for the Court to pretend that even the best modifications "failed to correct" said unspecified "deficiencies".
That's the whole reason lawyers will use ambiguous language. It enables them to stay in the game even if the other side effectively assuages their concerns. If they get too specific, they risk the other party specifically rebutting them, and the legal claim based on those facts gets thrown out. By being subtle, you can always go back and claim that the other party hasn't reasonably disproved your contentions.
For example, suppose I have a problem with my girlfriend constantly inviting her friends over to my house without my permission.
If I said "I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't be constantly inviting your friends over to my house without my permission", she would be able to discern exactly what the problem was, at least enough to know how she must change her ways if she wishes to attempt alleviating the problem. With such specific language I'm taking a risk that she knows enough to successfully correct the problem and thus successfully deprive me of a reason to bitch at her.
But suppose I notified her of this problem, by using conclusory ambiguous language such as "you've been doing things that I don't really like." (!?) How the fuck is she supposed to pinpoint the problem with a "warning" having that level of ambiguity? Wouldn't it be rational to expect her to ask for a more definite statement? Of course. She'd mostly likely ask 'what things?' in an effort to pinpoint the basis of the problem.
I've also always wondered why car manufacturers create "warning" lights so you can "tell" when the "engine" needs "service". The warning saying "engine needs service", is no more helpful than if it simply said "whoops!".
Needless to say, I responded to the Court in two ways:
a) A motion for reconsideration. I outline exactly how this Order is in "clear" error and runs afoul of Florida's Middle District precedent on notice-pleading, and I show how the Complaint's wording easily passes the liberal standard of review Florida requires Judges to employ when reviewing Complaints like mine. Not only this, I cite recent 11th Circuit and Florida Middle District case law which the Magistrate clearly contravened.
b) Since it appears inevitable from the Order's ambiguous language that no type of "correction" of any pleading "deficiencies , short of excising 90% of the claims, would satisfy this Magistrate's clearly illegal standard of review, I also filed a 1st Amended version of the Complaint, reducing it from 97 to 53 pages, and making more specific allegations as to how Holding's internet-based comments about me were actionably libelous. I have no faith, whatsoever, that this sufficiently pled amended Complaint will satisfy the Magistrate, but in litigation, sometimes you do all that you can, not because you think the Judge will change his mind, but because you need to develop a record of the Judge's legal errors in order to make an appeal more successful.
If the Magistrate ignores the motion for reconsideration and dismisses the amended complaint, he will likely say so in his Report and Recommendation. And since it is unlikely that his superior Judge who makes the final determination to dismiss would disagree with him, it appears that I'm going to have to file an appeal to the 11th Circuit. As I conclude at the end of my motion, the idea that the corporate attorney Holding would have to hire, would read the Complaint and be left guessing at what the claims are and their factual and legal bases, is a perfect absurdity.
So in case you are wondering just how far astray from Florida law this Magistrate's intentionally conclusory language actually got, you can download the Order, the Motion to Reconsider and the 1st Amended Complaint, which I mailed to the Court yesterday, at the following link.
See here. (you'll need winrar or similar zip utility, which you can get for free here)
You can download the original Complaint and other relevant documents from the link over here.
Once again, for the people who think the Magistrate was being consistent with Florida law in threatening such dismissal, the challenge to them is to demonstrate that my rebuttal-position in the Motion for Reconsideration somehow doesn't apply Florida law correctly to the facts in this case.
Once again, there's a very good reason why only mentally retarded yet safely anonymous YouTube and theologyweb nobodies comprise the vast bulk of Holding's current fan-base.
Don't forget though, that I forced Holding to dissolve his two non-profit corporations. He would hardly have done this, had he seriously believed that my biblical and legal attacks on him were "frivolous". He recognizes his mouth has foreclosed him from ever making any significant money in the future despite his plan to write books and conduct speaking engagements.
Perhaps he limits himself to "Indonesian" churches, whose specific address he refuses to publicly disclose, because they are mostly filled with people not fluent in English and thus they are most unlikely to discover my English-language biblical and legal rebuttals to him available at this blog. So when he speaks at their church, they have no idea that he has an extensively documented history of willful sin between 1998 and up to the present, NONE of which he ever repented of, nor likely ever will. Apparently, the prosperity gospel follower isn't the only type of Christian that can be so horrifically blind that they mistake sin for holy conduct.
Update April 12, 2019:
Here's the challenge to Holding I posted at his YouTube channel. He's gone all quiet and smug because he is a pussy, and he cares more about winning at any cost, than he does about winning in legally acceptable fashion.
Holding has made these posts invisible to his babies, so that he can continue giving the false impression that I don't have any answers to such threats.
posted to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lJ6JYdrXT8
--------------------------------------
Update May 6, 2019:
(here's what I posted to Holding's tekton tv youtube channel)
Holding will probably create a new video about how America's court system is run by the devil. After all, the Court just granted my motion to proceed in forma pauperis. That is, the magistrate judge's threat of dismissal was overridden by a higher judge, and Holding will now be served and my 3rd libel lawsuit against him will get started. See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26884971/Doscher_v_Apologetics_Afield,_Inc
if you are concerned that the judge also "denied" my "motion for reconsideration", you might wish to read that motion yourself. It contains clues as to why the higher judge disagreed with the Magistrate and allowed this case to proceed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w1dthEys5xr_HVkntR2nhFalfYuZkyqS/view?usp=sharing
------------end up update.
Update: April 12, 2019: See at the end of this article my challenge to Holding, which I posted to his youtube channel, a few seconds ago.
A few days ago, I received in the mail an Order from the Magistrate Judge in my current lawsuit against
James Patrick Holding "Doscher v. Apologetics Afield".
The order threatened to file a Recommendation for Dismissal because the original Complaint was allegedly defective in its pleading. What exactly was defective? The place the Order stated what was wrong with the Complaint, was on page 5, and Court documented the pleading-defects in the Complaint with two-sentences. Two whole sentences! I'm not worthy!
------------------------------------------
In case you were wondering, yes, this type of conveniently non-specific accusation appears calculated to make sure that no matter what modifications to the Complaint I make, there will be no way to absolutely prove that I sufficiently "corrected" these unspecified "deficiencies". So therefore, there will always be a way for the Court to pretend that even the best modifications "failed to correct" said unspecified "deficiencies".
That's the whole reason lawyers will use ambiguous language. It enables them to stay in the game even if the other side effectively assuages their concerns. If they get too specific, they risk the other party specifically rebutting them, and the legal claim based on those facts gets thrown out. By being subtle, you can always go back and claim that the other party hasn't reasonably disproved your contentions.
For example, suppose I have a problem with my girlfriend constantly inviting her friends over to my house without my permission.
If I said "I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't be constantly inviting your friends over to my house without my permission", she would be able to discern exactly what the problem was, at least enough to know how she must change her ways if she wishes to attempt alleviating the problem. With such specific language I'm taking a risk that she knows enough to successfully correct the problem and thus successfully deprive me of a reason to bitch at her.
But suppose I notified her of this problem, by using conclusory ambiguous language such as "you've been doing things that I don't really like." (!?) How the fuck is she supposed to pinpoint the problem with a "warning" having that level of ambiguity? Wouldn't it be rational to expect her to ask for a more definite statement? Of course. She'd mostly likely ask 'what things?' in an effort to pinpoint the basis of the problem.
I've also always wondered why car manufacturers create "warning" lights so you can "tell" when the "engine" needs "service". The warning saying "engine needs service", is no more helpful than if it simply said "whoops!".
Needless to say, I responded to the Court in two ways:
a) A motion for reconsideration. I outline exactly how this Order is in "clear" error and runs afoul of Florida's Middle District precedent on notice-pleading, and I show how the Complaint's wording easily passes the liberal standard of review Florida requires Judges to employ when reviewing Complaints like mine. Not only this, I cite recent 11th Circuit and Florida Middle District case law which the Magistrate clearly contravened.
b) Since it appears inevitable from the Order's ambiguous language that no type of "correction" of any pleading "deficiencies , short of excising 90% of the claims, would satisfy this Magistrate's clearly illegal standard of review, I also filed a 1st Amended version of the Complaint, reducing it from 97 to 53 pages, and making more specific allegations as to how Holding's internet-based comments about me were actionably libelous. I have no faith, whatsoever, that this sufficiently pled amended Complaint will satisfy the Magistrate, but in litigation, sometimes you do all that you can, not because you think the Judge will change his mind, but because you need to develop a record of the Judge's legal errors in order to make an appeal more successful.
If the Magistrate ignores the motion for reconsideration and dismisses the amended complaint, he will likely say so in his Report and Recommendation. And since it is unlikely that his superior Judge who makes the final determination to dismiss would disagree with him, it appears that I'm going to have to file an appeal to the 11th Circuit. As I conclude at the end of my motion, the idea that the corporate attorney Holding would have to hire, would read the Complaint and be left guessing at what the claims are and their factual and legal bases, is a perfect absurdity.
So in case you are wondering just how far astray from Florida law this Magistrate's intentionally conclusory language actually got, you can download the Order, the Motion to Reconsider and the 1st Amended Complaint, which I mailed to the Court yesterday, at the following link.
See here. (you'll need winrar or similar zip utility, which you can get for free here)
You can download the original Complaint and other relevant documents from the link over here.
Once again, for the people who think the Magistrate was being consistent with Florida law in threatening such dismissal, the challenge to them is to demonstrate that my rebuttal-position in the Motion for Reconsideration somehow doesn't apply Florida law correctly to the facts in this case.
Once again, there's a very good reason why only mentally retarded yet safely anonymous YouTube and theologyweb nobodies comprise the vast bulk of Holding's current fan-base.
Don't forget though, that I forced Holding to dissolve his two non-profit corporations. He would hardly have done this, had he seriously believed that my biblical and legal attacks on him were "frivolous". He recognizes his mouth has foreclosed him from ever making any significant money in the future despite his plan to write books and conduct speaking engagements.
Perhaps he limits himself to "Indonesian" churches, whose specific address he refuses to publicly disclose, because they are mostly filled with people not fluent in English and thus they are most unlikely to discover my English-language biblical and legal rebuttals to him available at this blog. So when he speaks at their church, they have no idea that he has an extensively documented history of willful sin between 1998 and up to the present, NONE of which he ever repented of, nor likely ever will. Apparently, the prosperity gospel follower isn't the only type of Christian that can be so horrifically blind that they mistake sin for holy conduct.
Update April 12, 2019:
Here's the challenge to Holding I posted at his YouTube channel. He's gone all quiet and smug because he is a pussy, and he cares more about winning at any cost, than he does about winning in legally acceptable fashion.
Holding has made these posts invisible to his babies, so that he can continue giving the false impression that I don't have any answers to such threats.
posted to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lJ6JYdrXT8
--------------------------------------
This is Christian Doscher, I've refuted the magistrate's threat of dismissal, See-------------------------
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/04/doscher-v-apologetics-afield-plaintiffs.html
If you are so sure the Magistrate's recommendation of dismissal is in accord with Florida's minimal pleading requirements for pro se litigants, let's see you do something you've never done: refute my rebuttal arguments ON THE MERITS. Any comments at my blog that amount to less than this, and they get deleted. FUCK YOU.
If the magistrate continues foisting an unlawfully high burden on me, I will timely file a long list of legal and factual objections to any Report and Recommendation for dismissal. It will be fun watching the higher Judge try to fulfill his legal obligation to review the objections "de novo" and pretend they lack substance, in his predictable effort to agree with the Magistrate.
And if the case is entirely dismissed, I'll be timely filing an appeal to the 11th Circuit. FUCK YOU. You haven't been served process yet. My obligation to treat trash in respectable fashion hasn't begun yet. So in exercise of my 1st Amendment right, which has not been inhibited by any operation of law, FUCK YOU.
Update May 6, 2019:
(here's what I posted to Holding's tekton tv youtube channel)
Holding will probably create a new video about how America's court system is run by the devil. After all, the Court just granted my motion to proceed in forma pauperis. That is, the magistrate judge's threat of dismissal was overridden by a higher judge, and Holding will now be served and my 3rd libel lawsuit against him will get started. See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26884971/Doscher_v_Apologetics_Afield,_Inc
if you are concerned that the judge also "denied" my "motion for reconsideration", you might wish to read that motion yourself. It contains clues as to why the higher judge disagreed with the Magistrate and allowed this case to proceed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w1dthEys5xr_HVkntR2nhFalfYuZkyqS/view?usp=sharing
------------end up update.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My reply to Bellator Christi's "Three Dangerous Forms of Modern Idolatry"
I received this in my email, but the page it was hosted on appears to have been removed ===================== Bellator Christi Read on blo...
-
I challenged "annoyed pinoy" at his blog as follows: 1 comment: barry November 7, 2019 at 4:01 PM I'd like to d...
-
"Annoyed Pinoy" regularly posts at Triablogue. See here . He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs. I posted t...
-
https://twitter.com/barry35962347 #lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding
