This is from JP Holding Tekton Apologetics
https://www.fundedjustice.com/
I don't really know the details but thinking back over the years at things atheists have said to me that I might try to sue for:
*my mother was a heroin addict
*I never went to graduate school]
* I paid someone or plagiarized my Schweitzer article
*called a liar numerous times
*libeled and tried to destroys my reputation in a hundred different says
* said my penis is too little (she didn't know)
*claimed this site is a hate site (because it's exposing the hate of others)
*had the site black listed by some blackmailing premeasure group (their stamp of disapproval as untrustworthy site is just black mail and extortion)
I have never seen JP say anything like this I'm whatever it is, is BS/
I now have a page set up with a Christian version of GoFundMe, at
https://www.fundedjustice.com/
[note I have changed this URL since it's original posting]
Please post where you can and ask others to do the same. I have a brief explanation below you can use as you please.
***This special edition of the Tekton Newsletter will come out of left field, though the reasons for any delay in reporting the matter will become clear.
In July 2015, 20 members of the TheologyWeb forum were named as targets of a “libel” lawsuit by a former atheist member.\
So far only one (me, James Patrick Holding) has been served with complaint and summons, and litigation is in process. Of the remaining 19 people, many are vulnerable because of their limited incomes, or because of serious health issues for themselves or their family. The parties include my ministry partner, Nick Peters, as well as several owners and moderators at TheologyWeb. I was targeted first as the most prominent of the group.
An attorney has been hired, and for the past several months has been working on the case. A win for me in court will help shield the other 19 targeted defendants.
Needless to say, I am not free to share many more details on the matter, other than the obvious point that by fighting the suit, we indicate that we do not believe it to have any merit.
The purpose of this special newsletter is to humbly ask for the assistance of others in defending ourselves from this lawsuit.
Any funds gathered will be used as follows:
1) To defray my attorney expenses. Currently we are working on a motion to dismiss the case based on lack of personal jurisdiction (I do not live in the same state as the Plaintiff). My expenses so far have been $7700, of which $600 was covered by TheologyWeb. The uses for the funding are:
To To fund the jurisdiction defense;
To prepare a similar defense for any of the others in the group, should they be served with a suit.
3) To prepare an alternate defense, should either the jurisdiction motion fail, or should one of us be sued in our own home state.
I have started a page with GiveForward (a sort of Christian variation on GoFundMe) at:
Thank you so much, and I am able to answer some questions about this issue by email if requested.
God bless,
JP
I don't really know the details but thinking back over the years at things atheists have said to me that I might try to sue for:
*my mother was a heroin addict
*I never went to graduate school]
* I paid someone or plagiarized my Schweitzer article
*called a liar numerous times
*libeled and tried to destroys my reputation in a hundred different says
* said my penis is too little (she didn't know)
*claimed this site is a hate site (because it's exposing the hate of others)
*had the site black listed by some blackmailing premeasure group (their stamp of disapproval as untrustworthy site is just black mail and extortion)
I have never seen JP say anything like this I'm whatever it is, is BS/
6 comments:
Oh, brother. What a bunch of babies. They can't win arguments and they don't have truth on their side, so they sue.
yea really. I wonder what they said.
Gee, Metacrock, you are such a bastion of objectivity that you delete my comments attempting to give the other side of the story?
Sounds like you care more about feeling good about your current beliefs more than you do about making sure to assess all of the relevant evidence. Holding is not Pope Innocent III, he is very capable of screwing up royally. But I'm sure you couldn't care less even if am awarded thousands in damages, that will just convince you the devil possessed the jurors. There's no talking to you, you have a mission to defend your buddies no matter how obvious it is that they need the Matthew 18 treatment.
In case you hadn't heard, Holding has been using Context Group work in general and Rohrbaugh in particular to justify his insulting style of apologetics for the last 20 years, but Rohrbaugh has twice disowned Holding in no uncertain terms, and says Holding's use of Context Group work is an "obvious perversion".
Are you on earth to look for truth wherever it may be?
Or are you here to exercise your ability to stick your head in the sand and make yourself believe people disappear when you shut your eyes?
In response to Joe Hinman, I am suing Holding, in part, because he falsely accused me of the crime of identity theft, and the only time he took down his "internet predator alert" on me, which he only took down after he hired a lawyer.
In response to JPsptfn, my lawsuit has nothing to do with me being mad over losing some debate with Holding. I've never lost a debate with Holding. If my lawsuit was based on that, it would have been quickly dismissed for frivolity. Holding has spent $8,000 in the last 7 months defending himself from this suit, so either you are stupid for thinking all frivolous lawsuits require that much money to successfully get dismissed, or that $8,000 is telling you my lawsuit is far harder to get dismissed than Holding says, but you just plug your ears and don't dare ask too many questions. If Holding ends up spending $18,000 to get this suit dismissed, will you then be open to the possibility that it was just a bit more meritorious than Holding originally said?
Holding is a boisterous juvenile delinquent loudmouth pretentious bastard, who would NEVER have taken down his libelous comments from the internet,had not somebody infinitely wiser in the law than he ever will be not smacked him in the head with a legal 2x4. Holding's own backpedaling after I got my legal claws into him and refused to let go, is your best proof that Holding is not being honest with his supporters about just how far in the toilet he really is. He is clamming up because he will lose what little reputation he has if he is just bluntly straightforward with the truth.
It was my purpose in life for years, and still is, to nuke by argument all brainwashed Christians who refuse to learn from their own stupidity. The more you support Holding, the more I make sure my legally and factually meritorious claims cannot be disposed of without costing him bigtime money.
I've already told Holding he is a fool if he thinks winning on personal jurisdiction in Washington means I'll just forget the case and let it go. I'll be filing the case in Florida within one week of him being granted any motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. But I guarantee you he won't prevail on that motion, and he'll be forced to litigate in Washington state. barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com
You aren't seeking out both sides of the story. You are just sticking your head in the sand, worried sick that seeking after the truth here will kill any residual respect you might still accidentally have for Holding.
I suggest you go study libel law...then contact Holding and remind him that two years from now he still won't be done dealing with me.
Holding would never have taken down his Internet Predator Alert on me, unless a lawyer gave him some rather nightmarish news. Back to the sand you go.
Metacrock,
Since you have allowed my post, then if I was wrong in accusing you previously of deleting my post, I apologize. Your support of Holding caused me to automatically think the deleting of my original post was simply out of prejudice in favor of your friend and against me. Your allowing my second post seems to argue you are a bit more objective than I gave you credit for. Again, apologies. Once again, if you will email me,I can refute your contention that this lawsuit is BS...the "First Amended Complaint" spells out all my factual and legal justifications for charging Holding with libel. If you cannot think of a way to refute it, then you'll have to seriously consider that Holding sinned by violating America's libel laws, which under Romans 13:1 are apparently laws that God himself approves of.
And that means making a decision that requires Christian maturity, such as maybe Holding deserves to drown in his own legal bills created by his own wrongful conduct, and that rescuing him from that financial depravity only takes away any deterrent effect on his wrongful conduct that such legal costs might otherwise have had.
Holding's $8,000 legal costs are a big fact question mark that will not go away with his conveniently vague "explanations". Not after you get the right person to ask the right questions.
Such as why he chooses to spend $8,000 contesting personal jurisdiction and never moving for dismissal on the merits, if he still believes, as he expressed at Tweb in 2015, that this suit is so lacking in factual and legal merit that it can be dismissed by a single motion without ever needing to see the inside of a courtroom. Well head's up, friends, Holding is going to see the inside of a courtroom on this matter, and the most he can do to avoid it is provide the judge a link to a website that shows the bible doesn't really contradict itself.
my blog, JP is my friend. It's my prerogative I deo0njot o0we you publicity or anything.
Nobody ever expressed or implied that JP Holding's friends owed me any publicity or anything.
However, your comment about that irrelevant matter seems to indicate you have a greater preference for defending your friends, than you have for knowing whether the accusations against them are true or false.
I've offered to you a substantiation of all of the facts and legal arguments supporting my charge of libel against Holding. If you want to be like a Mormon faced with archaeology, and turn away from obvious truth just because you can, feel free, but consider how your stupidity negatively reflects on Holding.
Is that really what his friends are like? After his 20 years being an internet apologist, his friends think the best way to do battle with those they disagree with, is to turn away and avoid?
You won't be so positively certain Holding is innocent of libel if you dare email me at barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com and request a copy of my First Amended Complaint. I think God would require that you be more concerned about actual 'truth' and less about 'defending your friends'. Just because you really like Holding doesn't mean he is incapable of breaking criminal or civil law.
And if you accurately represent the mentality of most Christians, then no wonder we have no record of Jesus committing a sin...his followers cared more about defending him than they did about actual truth.
Post a Comment