Christian Behrend Doscher: "Abusing the Discovery Process"

December 1, 2018

For today's entry, we have an extended account to deliver regarding a mid-point event in the proceedings in Doscher's home state. I'll lay in out chronologically. It was a period between December 2015 and Janauary 2016. It concerned questions of discovery, which is the process whereby parties exchange information in a lawsuit to see what kind of case the oter side has.

 

December 4, 2015

We turn over to Doscher answers to the nearly 100 interrogatories, which includes a copy of one of my bank statements and retirement account statements. The total legal cost for this portion of the proceeding: $2500.

Among the materials Doscher is sent are emails of mine showing that I am aware of his bankruptcy. He also gets emails showing that I told others about it.

 

December 6, 2015

Using her email address gained from the discovery I turned over, Doscher sends an email to one of the other proposed co-defendants, Amy Garner (aka "Christianbookworm" on TheologyWeb), saying he will soon file suit against her. The email:


 

Hello,

 

My name is Christian Doscher.  I'm the "B&H" who had started that theologyweb thread some months ago about "Does your God approve of pedophilia" before I got banned from there.

 

I am the person who was mocked and defamed also in that other tweb thread "The secret identity of Skepticbud" as well as in his website article "Internet Predator Alert".

 

I have sued Mr. Holding in civil court for libel (the written form of defamation).

 

His prior boasting about how he can get this suit dismissed real easy, is bullshit, he has hired a lawyer, and for whatever, reason, the lawyer has decided that answering my discovery requests (which sought personal contact information on you and other tweb members) was better than simply getting the case dismissed as quickly as possible.

 

I just received a big packet of evidence from Mr. Holding, and that's how I learned your email address, as well as similar contact information and real life names of many other tweb members.  If you believe Holding is very obstinate and protective when it comes to his Christian friends, then you have no other option but to believe that Holding did not willingly hand over that evidence, it was forced out of him by a lawyer who knew the law better, and who likely told him resistance to discovery would get his ass in real trouble.  Today is the day you stopped being impressed by Holding's boastful lies.  If it was so damn easy to get this case dismissed, then why didn't he do that real quick so that he wouldn't have to be the one to unmask his anonymous friends at tweb? 

 

You might wish to email Holding and ask why he foolishly delayed getting this case dismissed, if in fact it was as simple to get dismissed as he had boasted months ago at Tweb.   It can only be that a real lawyer, and not Holding, recognize my lawsuit is far more serious than Holding boasted about months ago.

 

My lawsuit puts front and center Holding's "internet predator alert" on me.  You'll be disappointed to know that Holding took down that Alert after hiring a lawyer.  WHY WOULD HOLDING TAKE THAT ALERT DOWN, IF HE SERIOUSLY BELIEVED HIS ALLEGATIONS THEREIN WERE ALL TRUE OR OTHERWISE IN GOOD FAITH?

 

It can only be that Holding does NOT seriously believe his Internet Predator Alert contained only truth.  His lawyer likely told him that the Alert was actionable in court, thus taking it down was the only way to prepare to convince the jury that he was sorry for what he did.   Obstinate pricks like Holding do not reform their ways unless cracked across the head with a 2x4, legally speaking of course.

 

You have two days to email me back with an apology and a settlement offer of your choice, or I will supply the name amygarner85 to both Facebook and Yahoo! in a subpoena and request any information that leads to your personal contact information, and I will eventually find out where you live for the purpose of having a process server deliver documents to you in the up-coming lawsuit Doscher v. Garner. 

 

Don't waste your time fantasizing about how I cannot sue you in my state, I may decide to file the lawsuit in YOUR home state.

 

You have the option to cease playing hardball whenever you decide that genuine repentance and a mature attitude to these serious matters is more important to your spiritual growth than the dismissive stupid childish mockery you reveled in months ago.

 

Do I have your attention now?  Or will you make me go away by shutting your eyes? 

 

Now think of exactly how stupid you are forwarding this email to Holding and Sparko, when the facts show that their legal advice isn't worth a shit and only gets Holding in so much trouble, he has to go hire a lawyer just to clean up his mess.  You are much better off seeking advice from a real attorney, not a mouthy impostor.

 

Don't like these threats of lawsuit?  You should have thought of that before you so belligerently libeled me.  You ain't laughing now, you stupid bitch.


 As an aside, though she is quite intelligent and a very sweet person, Amy has physical and mental disabilities.

 

December 9, 2015

Doscher sends a critical email about me to about 40 people, including 12 whose email addresses he learned only by way of my discovery answers. (See link to document below.) The same day he also sends a similar message to Lee Strobel. I get no responses or reactions from any of them, other than a couple of people on the list of 40 asking if I am aware of the email, and this message from one of my overseas contacts:

"Any idea who this nutcase is?  It's a nasty (but probably utterly ineffective) attempt to intimidate you by damaging your reputation ... probably best ignored."

 

December 11, 2015

Doscher emails "Sparko" with this message, cc'ing my attorney and (for reasons we cannot fathom) John Loftus as well as Gary Habermas:

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 23:01:23 +0000
From: barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com
To: pixelator99@hotmail.com; ghabermas@liberty.edu; *****law.com; loftusjohnw@gmail.com
Subject: Now I know where the Tweb John Sparks works and lives

For the record,

 

Google cache for the theologyweb.com "whois" gives the name "John Sparks" who gave the 400 Market Street address in Louisville KY as his work address.  So Sparks' attempt to hide that stuff under privacyprotector was a big waste of money.

 

Google also gave

 

John Sparks 

Senior Litigation Examiner

at The Underwriters Group     

Louisville, Kentucky Area    

 

The address of which is  1700 EASTPOINT PKWY, LOUISVILLE,KY 40223

 

Which is perfectly consistent with Sparks' claim on the now-hidden skepticbud thread at Tweb that he is a paralegal.

 

Since I've correctly identified the John Sparks of Tweb who libeled me, and I know where he works, I can now successfully have him served with summons and complaint at his place of work.  I don't care if he no longer works there either.  I can simply show I tried serving him at his last known addresses, it didn't work, and then motion the court for service by certified mail or publication.  Don't stupidly pretend you'll stay out of court, Sparks.  You keep hiding and I'll be sending a default judgment to your local sheriff, and you'll be making your local Uhaul very happy.

 

How does it feel when somebody else goes hunting on the internet for your personal contact information?  What goes around, comes around.

 

And for what its worth, I apologized to the elderly John Sparks who wrote books on Kentucky history, as well as to the Janine Sprague, for having concluded they were the same as the Sparks of Tweb and the Christianbookworm of Tweb.  Don't make fun of me for that mistake unless you are positively certain YOU didn't make a mistake in identifying me with Richard Wozinya and all the other names I've consistently denied being.  Holding's paranoia could not be made clearer than his choice to file a police report on me falsely claiming I spammed him.  If Holding had a single ounce of integrity, he would have worked with me to try and ferret out exactly who Wozinya is, instead of blindly assuming we are the same just because he is also an atheist who likes bible debates and thrash metal and any number of other affinities that any two people could possibly have by sheer coincidence.

 

here is a copy of the message I sent to Spark's work "Underwriters":

========================

 

Please forward to Senior Litigation Examiner "John Sparks"

My name is Christian Doscher, the person who is currently suing your friend Sheila Rangslinger.  I'm sure you know who she is.  She loved the internet predator alert she posted about me, and would never have taken it down unless her lawyer forced her to under threat of recusing from her defense.  Actually Sheila is a very conflicted man named James Patrick Holding, whose filthy mouth is all over the internet, see http://the-anointed-one.com/quotes.htm

See his sick "explanation" for such language at http://www.theskepticalreview.com/bobbyjerryskids.html

You are the "sparko" who posts all that defamatory stuff about me over at theologyweb.com.  You removed that forum from public access.  Good move, but not quite enough.  And Holding's lawyer just disclosed to me in discovery many private emails/Tweb messages between you and Holding and others where you each defame me more and more.

I got a good laugh out of your messages where you start backing off and pretending you were just "opining" about me.  Save your breath, you can tell it to the jury.

I've sent a copy of this to your pixelator99@hotmail.com address.

Please email a response indicating which of the below addresses and phone numbers correctly represent your most current contact information.  I'll need those so I can properly direct the process server.

If you do not respond, I'll be forced to have you served summon and complaint at Underwriters.

Thank you for your attention,

Christian Doscher

(list of addresses deleted)

As an aside, Doscher is incorrect about the identity of the John Sparks in question.

 

 

December 13, 2015

Doscher finds a place on Amazon.com where Nick Peters (another of his proposed defendants) has posted, and leaves a message. Notable quote: "Holding's lawyer just disclosed to me all those private emails and Tweb messages you exchanged with Holding and others. Holding told you to tell Habermas that I was a cyberstalker. Then you did exactly that. That's libel per se. I'm not a cyberstalker. That's a lawsuit against you personally. Please confirm that you and your wife Allie live at (address given) Corryton, TN 37721-2812, the process server needs your correct address. Have a nice day."

The same day, Doscher sends an email to "Sparko", TheologyWeb co-owner and yet another proposed defendant, which is also sent to Gary Habermas. Notable quote: "Now that I have correctly identified you, it might behoove you to seek the advice of a more mature Christian on how to act when your faith is actually tested, since you seem to think walking in Christ involves little more than buying debate forums and talking yourself into a lawsuit.  You know perfectly well I won't give up pursuing you and the other Tweb goons until I have run out of legal justification to do so.  You mess with the wrong victim, you get hauled around by a legal hook in your nose until the victim decides to extend you some mercy...Let's find out just how far in the toilet you can wedge yourself before you start bleeting like the piece of shit you are."

The same day, he also sends an email to the North American Mission Board about me. Notable quote: "You might wish to have a private discussion with Mr. Holding and remind him that failure in the moral arena biblically disqualifies him from the teaching ministry (James 3:1, he should be judged more severely), regardless of how consistently he posts his reviews of books.  His spreading of lies about me on the internet and to other scholars such as Gary Habermas indicate that Holding is less like a mature seasoned Christian ripe for ministry and more like an ADHD toddler with a loaded shotgun."

I am not contacted by NAMB at any time about any of this.

December 28, 2015

Doscher sends an email to the process server who bought me his lawsuit and his business partner, saying he plans to sue them for $75,000 or more over concerns they expressed to me about him that he was stalking them. Notable quotes (full email in PDF document linked):

"I don't have a clue what Mr. Holding is talking about, since I've never stalked [the process server and his business partner].  The most I ever did was email you a few times more than usual solely because Holding, in the beginning of this case, asserted that you had failed to include the summons in the documents you served on him.  I did not stalk anybody, and I certainly did not ever say or do anything to express or imply I'd be some type of danger to anybody's kids

"Somebody is going to pay dearly in court for this.  The context of Mr. Holding's third-party communication in Exhibit 1 makes clear the 'stalker' stuff you allegedly said about me was about me violating criminal law.  Hence, if Holding is telling the truth, you accused me of criminal stalking, and since that factual claim is false, that is defamation per se, (i.e., false imputation of criminal conduct, so jury can award presumed damages even if no actual damages are proven).  If Holding is lying here, then he just destroyed his credibility even more.

 

"If Holding is telling the truth, however, you have two choices:  a) offer me a reasonable settlement amount so this never goes to court and your reputation in the legal world is not tarnished, or b) fight me in court, and you'll spend plenty before we ever get to trial, since I make full use of my right as a litigant to file required motions so as to narrow the issues for trial. 

 

"As you can tell from Exhibit 1, discovery in a civil lawsuit can be quite invasive, so if Holding was telling the truth, offering a settlement would probably be cheaper than the costs associated with answering comprehensive discovery requests...

 

"I would hardly give you this pre-suit opportunity to clear your name and avoid lawsuit, if I was a mere vexatious litigant eager to exploit any opportunity to drag somebody into court.  I recognize I have enough of a cause of action against you that I can force you into court and you'll end up spending about $5,000 in legal fees just to get to the point of summary judgment or jury trial.  So why am bothering with giving you a way to save money when I know I can do that the hard expensive way?"

Doscher files a motion for sanctions because we have not answered his 2nd set of interrogatories, which he sent in December. About this time he also files an ethics complaint against my attorney, with the state's Bar, which is denied. He also sends a third set of interrogatories around this time, with 57 interrogatories and 21 requests for production. He had sent nearly 100 of each earlier, so we now have over 200 interrogatories.

By this time Doscher has been aware for a while that we plan to use a jurisdiction defense, and has indicated that he plans to sue me in Florida, several thousand miles away. Notable quotes from the third set of interrogatories: "Plaintiff will endure two weeks on a Greyhound bus just to make sure those nearest to you physically have advertised to them that you are an unconscionable liar." And: "You have also defamed Plaintiff anew according to your answers to Plaintiff's first discovery requests, and under Florida's single publication rule, they are separately actionable. Yes, Plaintiff has decided that living for two weeks on a Greyhound bus is worth the trouble of suing you in Florida just to make sure punitive damages for these new torts are available. And suing you in your own locale for non-frivolous claims of libel will further Plaintiff's goal of destroying your credibility more than Richard Rohrbaugh's comments ever could. You were very boisterous and belligerent in your loudmouthing of false things about Plaintiff, and you are so incorrigible, your lawyer had to force you, no doubt at gunpoint, to lower your damages by removing the [libelous statements]. "

January 15, 2016

My attorney files a response to Doscher's motion for sanctions. My attorney also argues that discovery should halt until we get to present our jurisdiction motion, in part because Doscher has abused the discovery process by sending threatening emails to people. These emails are attached as a multi-page appendix to the motion (pages 59-89). I save some money, and some work for my attorney, by compiling these.

Sometime after that, Doscher files a counter-reply. He describes his emails to people like Amy Garner as "utterly irrelevant" to our failure to respond to discovery and calls these notations a "red herring distraction fallacy" that is "calculated to get the Court to dislike [him]."

January 22, 2016

 

The judge denies Doscher's motion for sanctions and orders all discovery halted (except for eight interrogatories on jurisdiction issues) until our dismissal motion can be heard. The judge states: "In this case, in this posture, however, it is my conclusion that Mr. Doscher is abusing the discovery process." Doscher writes below his signature on the order: "This order is patently frivolous."

 

During the hearing, the judge reprimands Doscher twice, once for recording proceedings with his own equipment (I am not sure what kind of equipment) and once for making faces and rude comments to the Court. Concerning the number of interrogatories propounded, she states: "By my rudimentary math skills, that is approximately 200 interrogatories and over 150 requests for production of documents. Frankly, by any wild stretch of my imagination, that appears to be excessive. Given the issues involved in this case, I can't imagine the need for that many interrogatories." And: "I am finding that the proposed approximately 200 interrogatories and 150 requests for production are overly burdensome and oppressive and expensive."

 

Regarding his sending of harassing and threatening messages, Doscher says: "Counsel has not provided any reason why he delayed. All he did in his rebuttal material was talk about how I was mouthy with a few non-parties or non-witnesses in my emails to people that are not parties," and, "He just talks about how I mouthed off to non-parties. That's completely irrelevant."

Documents:

  • My attorney's response to Doscher's motion for sanctions
  • Doscher's reply
  • Transcript of hearing
  • Order Page 1 and Page 2

    [ Go To Top Of This Page ]