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
--------------------------------------

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.

My latest messages to homosexual Christian James Patrick Holding

from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIOe0qfXnQ

Sent April 5, 2019

Barry Jones3 hours ago

Mr. Holding,

I didn't talk slanderous about you to Evan Minton, but after you posted to his blog a cut and paste of the libels for which I'm currently suing you, I convinced him in my final post to delete your slanders.  

http://cerebralfaith.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-evidence-for-jesus-resurrection_2.html

So had to delete from my blog the post I was authoring at the same time Minton was deleting your crap:

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/04/cerebral-faith-plea-for-evan-minton-to.html

You shouldn't do another video on me on this account, since everything I said about you was factually and legally true.  But if you disagree, all I ask is that your video not be libelous.  Yes, I recognize, from your past history, that is probably asking too much of you.

If you cease libeling me, the jury in our current lawsuit will be told that when you really want to, you know what libel is and how to keep it out of your online screeds about me.  Therefore any other posts or videos you ever made about me, which were libelous, you posted with the INTENT to lie about me and unfairly hurt my reputation...thus justifying a much higher award of punitive damages.

If you continue libeling me in future posts/videos, the jury will be told that because you were sued twice for libel in the past, and because you hold yourself out as a smart guy, your continuing to libel me in your online screeds is not due to mistaken legal knowledge on your part, but due to an INTENT to libel me.  "Smart" assholes like you are forever foreclosed from employing the "wow I didn't know that was wrong" excuse.  When you libel me, you KNOW what you are doing...thus justifying a much higher award of punitive damages.

In other words, the only thing you could possibly do to lower the amount of damages the jury will award, is to just shut the fuck about me, completely...which would make the jury suspicious that the ONLY reason you ceased your illegal conduct was mere fear of the consequences, not because you were genuinely remorseful...thus justifying a higher award of punitive damages.

If you take down your other online posts about me, the jury will have to decide whether this indicates you came to your senses and showed true remorse for obvious wrongs, or if you are just a scared asshole criminal trying to give the false appearance of contrition, now that he knows he cannot do anything to avoid legal consequences completely.

If you don't take down any of your other posts about me, the jury will remember that you knew well enough those posts were libelous, so your refusal to take them down cannot be explained with a "wow I just didn't know they were libelous", but only explained with "I committed myself to being a smart guy, and if I fold up shop now, my babies will give up on their faith, and I'd rather engage in libel than risk having my babies view me as a real sinner in need of actually serious repentance"

And just in case you think the Court's latest ruling somehow means my current lawsuit against you is frivolous, the Court would hardly give me leave to amend the Complaint, as it obviously did, if it was "frivolous" (i.e., if the alleged facts could not possibly support any legally justified tort claim against you).  

Christianity's most belligerent cocksucker lives in the one state that has the toughest libel laws.  God works in mysterious ways. 

So you think everything is currently going great? That's what the Jews said to Jeremiah, before disaster struck.  FUCK YOU.
==============

I sent a later message too, but like the previous, Holding made it unviewable:

The Authorship of John 8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lJ6JYdrXT8

April 9, 2019

Barry Jones 1 day ago

And Mr. Holding continues, straining himself to the point of hernia, throwing dust and ashes on his head, and praying like mad that something happens, somehow, to prevent Doscher from timely filing a 1st Amended Complaint + a motion for reconsideration.

Cerebral Faith: A plea for Evan Minton to be realistic...and the plea was successful

 Update April 5, 2019, 1:50 p.m.

This was a comprehensive post addressing Mr. Minton's allowing legally actionable slanders of me at his blog.  I had noticed Minton classified as "slander" speech toward him from YECs that was even less abusive and libelous than what Holding posted at his blog about me.  I argued that under Minton's understanding of slander, he surely thinks Holding's mouth is even more out of control than the YECs.

Apparently, at the exact same time that I was authoring this post in the last few minutes, Evan Minton was deleting from his blog that post from James Patrick Holding that was so slanderous.  That is, Mr. Minton granted my request that he remove Holding's libelous post.

Thank you, Mr. Minton.  You did the right thing.  At the end of the day, there really isn't any serious arguing about what "reviler" means in 1st Corinthians 5:11-13 means, nor what that passage compels true Christians to do.  You've shown a level of spiritual maturity I never see in Holding's own followers.  Hopefully you aren't one of his followers.

So while I had completed a full post on this very subject, I've chosen to delete it.  Minton did the right thing, so continued criticism of him on that count is unwarranted.  I will simply remind the Christian reader of biblical truths that Holding has never had the slightest interest in obeying:

Christians are to disassociate themselves from "Christians" who constantly "revile" others:

 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)

 Don't know what "reviler" means in v. 11?  I already addressed that in a prior blog post here. I said:

"Reviler" in the Greek is  λοίδορος---loidoros, and several lexicons make clear it is talking about the person who goes around insulting and slandering others.  From TDNT:

449 
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]---------Source: here.

Danker:

4004  λοίδορος
λοίδορος,ου,ὁ [fr. a source shared by Lat. ludus ‘game’] insolent person 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10. 
Source:  here.

Don't know what "insolent" means?

in•so•lent \-s(ə-)lənt\ adj

1           : insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct :  overbearing

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary.
Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 Paul was very clear that Christians who manifest ceaseless anger and abusive speech are only showing they aren't truly transformed by Christ:

 1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children;
 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
 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.
 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them;
 8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (Eph. 5:1-8 NAU)

 4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.
 5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
 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. 3:4-10 NAU)

...And he who spreads slander is a fool. (Prov. 10:18 NAU)

Jesus said slanders are something from within a man that defiles him:

 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."   (Mk. 7:21-23 NAU)

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

 19. Gossips are treacherous; cf. Instruction of Amen-em-ope: “Spread not thy words to the common people, nor associate to thyself one too outgoing of heart” (ANET 424a).20.

ANET J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (rev. ed.; Princeton, 1955)

Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E.
The Jerome Biblical commentary (electronic ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.