A few days ago I noticed Servus Christi aka Joshua Chavez’s inside ‘woman’ Sierra Mahina posting in fits and starts against the Pulpit & Pen Chavez exposé articles and video. She seemed to outline the probable defence strategy Chavez would employ against the allegations made (those allegations being that he wasn’t called to the ministry; was associated with Jacob Prasch; taught falsehood; attacked the innocent; lacks accountability; has no church connection; had engaged in human trafficking by having faked a marriage to a white South African, slept with her, then sent her packing back to South Africa when she didn’t pay for his upkeep). Sierra’s defence seemed geared predominantly towards attacking the Pulpit & Pen allegation that Chavez engaged in “human trafficking”, apparently because this one allegation out of the long list of allegations, appeared on the surface to be the weakest.
Now when someone faces a series of allegations and that someone (or a proxy or sock-puppet of that someone) actively only defends against one charge, especially the one highlighted in first examination as the purportedly weakest allegation, this either means
- The targeted allegation is an Achilles Heel which is so vitally connected to the other allegations that if defeated, all the connected allegations would collapse also, or…
- …all the other allegations are largely true and the defence is attempting to highlight one inaccuracy to attempt to cast doubt on the other allegations without defending against them directly since they can’t.
Achilles Heels and Monty Python Feet
If you consider the track record of Chavez’s in attacking various Christian leaders in his so far 71 unwatchable videos on YouTube which seem to involve him filming himself reacting to reason by pulling a series of ‘gurns’ that conceal briefly his apparently constant anger, then you’ll find his common strategy is to attempt to locate an Achilles Heel and then attack it, then expect his target to come crashing down. The Achilles Heel to him is commonly someone’s association with some teacher who said something dubious once, or who is friends with someone who’s uncle once was at a Rick Warren conference. So in other words, Chavez’s system is to declare something to be an Achilles Heel which obviously isn’t an Achilles Heel, and then spend hours attacking a non issue. Whilst this is very funny to observe because it is as ridiculous as it sounds (especially with the gurning), it is also a sad sign of possible mental illness for to repeatedly see and state an object/person to be what it is not—and build the presentation of that system into an Limited Liability Company as Chavez did a few months ago—is what is known as a categorisation error, or the result of non Aristotelean thinking. It’s sad as well because a lot of stupid people are attracted to the categorisation error, not because they are mentally ill necessarily, but because they appreciate the end result of the bungling of information, that being the resulting witch-hunt that is sparked on whoever Chavez is attacking that week, especially if that audience are church rejects like Chavez and want to take out their anger on real Christians like Chavez does.
I’ve not watched much of any of Chavez’s output because it is just painful viewing, but I do get he is incapable of systematically debunking charges levelled against him by Christians in response, such as Justin Peters; Chavez responds by either doubling down in his failed categorisation of an Achilles Heel, or will identify a second Achilles Heel which is more feeble than the last. See his videos about Justin Peters and then Justin’s responses to observe this in action, and you’ll find that quite from identifying an Achilles Heel, Chavez has created a Monty Python cartoon foot on a stick which he points out and is then crushed by comically.
Human Trafficking: Achilles Heel or Monty Python Foot?
So with Chavez’s dubious track record outlined of functioning on the fringes of reality in selecting wannabe Achilles Heels to attack to bring down his targets of venom, I thought it would be worthwhile to consider whether Chavez’s apparent object of attack against the Pulpit & Pen article exposé about him is indeed the Achilles Heel his friend/sock-puppet/moll Sierra thinks it is, or whether it is merely another Monty Python foot that will ultimately crush him.
Firstly, I should point out that an Achilles Heel is the weak part of a wholly connected body of work that if successfully attacked brings everything connected to it down in defeat, yet consider in Chavez’s case how if the human trafficking claim was argued to be wrong, then what else is wholly connected to it? The article deals with a faked or legitimate marriage (or sexual immorality outside of marriage), a split from that marriage, continual godless attacks made by Chavez on the innocent, his association with the cult leader Jacob Prasch, and his absolute lack of accountability and lack of having any legitimate calling to the ministry from God, all of which are ultimately standalone giants he is facing, so felling one makes no difference in regards to the others—meaning if the human trafficking charge can be defeated by Chavez, it would merely be a lone win in an otherwise large loss, unless of course he then uses that one win and turns it into a faux Achilles Heel presenting it via non Aristotelean thinking as the decisive victory (which I believe his mentality would drive him to do). But I digress.
The debated allegation made by Pulpit & Pen was that Chavez appeared to have engaged in human trafficking in arranging a marriage to a white South African woman, by apparently faking the marriage or invalidating it by not making it legal (by not submitting paperwork), expecting the woman to have a good amount of savings, and then expecting her to go out and work to support him financially when it turned out she didn’t have that much, and then becoming enraged when she didn’t have a work visa to enable that work to happen, and then sending her back to South Africa, but telling her she could come back to America again at his expense if she found a job (to support his ministry and him financially, logically if he was consistent).
So was this alleged series of unfortunate events human trafficking? Just the term “human trafficking” causes association to Hollywood films like Taken or documentaries about prostitution-based human trafficking, but the reality is only 20% of what is documented as “human trafficking” is associated with the sex industry, as 80% of it is labour-related, according to a 2020 report (page 2) issued by The United States Department of Homeland Security which you can read here on their website. Here is the page:
The highlighted text states [with my bold emphases that meet the criteria of the allegations levelled against Chavez] “Traffickers use various forms of force, fraud, and coercion to control and exploit victims. This might include imposing debt, fraudulent employment opportunities, false promises of marriage or a better life, psychological coercion, and violence or threats of violence. Some human trafficking occurs entirely within the United States, while in other instances, victims move across out borders unaware that they will become trafficking victims. Human trafficking occurs in both legal and illegal industries.”
The Pulpit & Pen exposé on Chavez alleges Chavez created promise of a marriage as a means of getting a woman to fund his lifestyle, allegations which appear to be backed up both by the woman’s claims to friends about it and her asking on a Facebook group she frequented whether marriage to a human trafficker was a valid marriage—with a context being that all her questions in the Facebook marriage forum seemed to be directed at the difficulties arising from her own ‘marriage’ to Chavez, questions that maintained her concern that in spite of the way she had been treated, sent packing, and ghosted by him, it still was a valid marriage that she should fight for:
If the general breakdown of the J. Chavez-J. Doe marriage was due to her inability to provide financially for Mr. Chavez (and the financial expectation was imposed upon her after arriving in America, after the lure of marriage was allegedly used), and the promise was made that she’d be welcomed back in America at Mr. Chavez’s cost if she found a good job, then it would be largely undeniable that the central motive of Mr. Chavez bringing J. Doe over to America was for financial benefits to himself, and was itself not part of the expectation of what the promised marriage would be for to J. Doe, thus this would logically be reasonably declared to be human trafficking by the DOS as it met their stated criteria and as well as their suggested common progression of events.
The evidence presented by Pulpit & Pen was sourced from the woman indirectly through her posts and communications with friends, and directly from her with regards to a picture of the pair (and post-publication she provided a second picture of her and Chavez in bride and groom togs in a bedroom, which it can be assumed reasonably was their wedding night), and the exposé’s claims in general were said to be confirmed by the bride in the days after its release.
This all means if Chavez is doing as his lady friend Sierra is suggesting—attacking the human trafficking claim as the Achilles Heel of the exposé as a means of bringing the whole thing down—then it seems, according to his form, he is merely pointing out another Monty Python foot which will trample him, for quite from being the weakest point of the expose, it appears presently, without his side yet presented, it may potentially be one of its strongest.