|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A new court filing by an unnamed petitioner known as Jane Doe 1 took aim at embattled South Carolina pastor John-Paul Miller — accusing the Myrtle Beach-based church founder of weaponizing the legal system to silence alleged victims of sexual abuse.
The April 8, 2025 response, filed in Horry County, argued that Miller — founder of Solid Rock Church — is abusing the judicial process to intimidate Jane Doe 1 and suppress her voice. In addition to asking the court to dismiss John-Paul Miller’s defamation counterclaims, the filing introduces a new abuse of process claim against the pastor.
Jane Doe 1 originally filed suit on February 25, 2025 – naming both John-Paul Miller and his father, Rev. Reginald Wayne Miller – as defendants, along with the religious organizations they founded: Solid Rock Church, Cathedral Baptist Church, and All Nations Seminary and Bible College. The complaint accused John-Paul Miller of raping her in July 1998 when she was fifteen years old – and of sexually assaulting her again in 2023.
Miller has been under international scrutiny since the death of his estranged wife, Mica Francis Miller, on April 27, 2024. His father, Reginald Wayne Miller, who is also named as a defendant, has a controversial history of his own.
***
In a counterclaim filed on March 19, 2025, John-Paul Miller accused Jane Doe 1 of engaging in a public smear campaign designed to defame him. Filed by his attorney, Russell Long, the pleading alleged that her statements on social media and in other public forums were false, defamatory, and intended to inflict reputational damage.
“The defendant has been subjected to a sustained pattern of slander and libel,” the counterclaim stated. “These unfounded attacks have damaged his standing in the community and caused severe emotional distress.”
Jane Doe 1’s attorneys – Randall Hood and Mark Tinsley – denied those allegations entirely, arguing the defamation counterclaim should be dismissed under South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a valid claim.
The response called the allegations against Jane Doe 1 “vague, ambiguous, and lacking the specificity required to form a proper defense.”
The filing further argued that John-Paul Miller’s counterclaim failed to identify the precise language, timing, or audience of the allegedly defamatory statements. Without that detail, her attorneys argued, they cannot prepare a meaningful defense. They requested a court order compelling John-Paul Miller to provide a more definite statement — clarifying whether the remarks were spoken or written, when and where they were made, and to whom they were communicated.
***
RELATED | SEXUAL ABUSE, COVERUPS ALLEGED IN NEW LAWSUIT
***
ABUSE OF PROCESS: A NEW CLAIM
In a notable twist, Jane Doe 1’s filing also asserted a new counterclaim: abuse of process. Her attorneys argued that John-Paul Miller filed his defamation suit not in good faith, but as a tool of intimidation to discourage her from pursuing her sexual abuse claims.
“Defendant Miller’s filing of counterclaims was done with an ulterior purpose,” the filing stated, “specifically to intimidate, harass, and coerce Plaintiff Jane Doe into abandoning her legitimate claims of sexual assault.”
They argued the primary goal of the counterclaim was to silence protected speech, not to seek genuine legal redress.
The document referenced several alleged prior admissions by John-Paul Miller – including confessions made to a former church employee and in text messages – where he allegedly acknowledged engaging in sexual activity with minors. One such message reportedly described taking “the virginity of a young girl in his truck… parked outside the church,” mirroring allegations in Jane Doe 1’s original complaint.
“Defendant Miller knew the truthfulness of Plaintiff’s statements and, consequently, knew his counterclaims for defamation, libel, and slander lacked legal merit,” the filing alleges. “Truth is an absolute defense.”
***
***
FIRST AMENDMENT AND PUBLIC FIGURE CONSIDERATIONS
Jane Doe 1’s legal team also raised constitutional concerns — arguing any order restricting her from speaking publicly would violate her First Amendment rights.
“Plaintiff Jane Doe 1’s statements are protected by the First Amendment… which guarantees freedom of speech,” the response reads. “An injunction would unlawfully restrict Plaintiff’s right to free expression.”
The filing argued thatJohn-Paul Miller, due to his role as the leader of a high-profile religious institution, qualifies as a public figure under defamation law. As such, he must meet the heightened legal burden of proving that the statements were made knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth.
“He must prove that the statements were not only false, but made with actual malice,” the filing states. “This standard applies because public figures have voluntarily placed themselves into the public spotlight.”
It will be up to the court to determine whether John-Paul Miller’s defamation claims meet the legal threshold or must be refiled with greater factual clarity. Meanwhile, Jane Doe 1 is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for abuse of process — as well as attorney’s fees and court costs.
The court’s decision on the matter could impact the other case filed against the Millers and their religious organizations over sexual abuse.
In March 2025, a second plaintiff – identified in court records as Jane Doe 2 – filed a complaint alleging abuse that began in 1999 when she was was 14 years old. At the time, she was a student at Cathedral Hall Academy – a religious school operated by Reginald Wayne Miller where John-Paul Miller was a teacher. The lawsuit claimed the institutions founded by the Millers functioned as a single enterprise that failed to protect minors and enabled abuse. Jane Doe 2 stated that her memories of the abuse were repressed for years and resurfaced only after media coverage in 2024 related to the death of Mica Francis Miller.
***
THE COUNTERCLAIM…
(Horry County)
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Callie Lyons is a journalist, researcher and author. Her 2007 book ‘Stain-Resistant, Nonstick, Waterproof and Lethal’ was the first to cover forever chemicals and their impact on communities – a story later told in the movie ‘Dark Waters.’ Her investigative work has been featured in media outlets, publications, and documentaries all over the world. Lyons also appears in ‘Citizen Sleuth’ – a 2023 documentary exploring the genre of true crime.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
1 comment
Blah, blah, blah…he said, she said, blah, blah, blah…
Who cares? Does anyone, other than those involved, truly give a white rat’s red ass? While it sounds highly likely that the right reverend Miller is a total piece of work, one has to seriously question the intelligence, and veracity, of someone claiming that a man did bad things to her when she was 15, then put herself in a position where she was alone with him 25 years later so he could do it again. This sounds like one of the Bill Cosby accusers. “Well, I went to his home and we had drinks. When I woke up a few hours later, it felt like somebody had sex with me. The next night I went to his home and had drinks with him. I woke up a few hours later and it felt like somebody had sex with me. The night after that, I went to his home and had drinks with him. I woke up a few hours later and it felt like someone had sex with me. The following night…” Obviously, for her to keep going back to Bill’s home and having drinks with him, she had no major problems with whatever might have been happening. Then, literal decades later, she saw an opportunity for publicity and to make a few bucks off of her “victimhood”.
Why does Callie Lyons pander to this kind of thing? The sob-sister hand-wringer, thing is not a good or even interesting look for her.
She did a great service in writing about the deadly chemicals that are still being put into household items and to this day, being dumped into our waterways. This is a serious issue for all of us that is very real, unlike many of these so-called victims who make their own path with people common sense would tell most to avoid.