James Seidel 
John Paul Miller Denies Allegations, Fires Back with Countersuit Against Jane Doe #1 – More Coming for Jane DOE #2
By James Seidel | CC News Network
MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. –South Carolina pastor John Paul Miller is hitting back against Jane Doe #1’s sexual abuse lawsuit, denying all allegations and filing a countersuit for defamation. The legal battle is now shifting focus, as Miller’s attorneys argue that Jane Doe’s own words contradict her lawsuit’s key claims—including her assertion that she only recently recovered memories of the alleged abuse.
New legal filings obtained by CC News Network reveal that Miller’s legal team is moving aggressively to dismiss the case and hold Jane Doe accountable for false and damaging allegations.
Key Evidence: A Deleted Facebook Post Could Unravel the Case
⚖️ Miller’s Countersuit Seeks Damages for Reputational Harm
Legal Filings Show Push for Injunction Against Jane Doe
The high-profile sexual abuse lawsuit filed in Horry County by Jane Doe #1 against Myrtle Beach pastor John Paul Miller and his church could collapse before it truly begins—not because of the allegations themselves, but because of the timeline at the center of the case and Jane Doe’s own words in a now-deleted Facebook/YouTube post.
At the heart of the lawsuit is Jane Doe #1’s claim that John Paul Miller sexually assaulted her in 1998 when she was 15 years old and he was 19. Her attorneys argue that South Carolina’s 2019 repressed memory law allows her to file suit now—more than two decades later—because she only recently recovered memories of the abuse in 2023.
However, a deleted Facebook post—along with Jane Doe’s own admissions—raises serious questions about whether her memory was ever truly repressed.
Deleted Facebook Post Raises Red Flags
The now-deleted post contradicts her lawsuit’s central claim that she had no memory of the abuse until 2023. In the post, Jane Doe admits that she told a cousin about the assault in 1999, who then told her parents and grandparents—revealing that she was fully aware of the incident at the time.
Jane Doe’s Words: (Deleted Facebook Post)
“I did end up telling a cousin of mine in confidentiality that I was raped a year later. She told my parents and ruined that trust I had with her. In turn, my grandparents knew and the rest of the family as well. And as it usually goes, the reason why so many victims don’t speak up is because no one believed me. And that hurt just as bad as the incident itself.”
This statement is critical because it legally triggers South Carolina’s discovery rule—which starts the statute of limitations clock when a survivor is aware of their abuse.
Key Legal Issues With Jane Doe’s Lawsuit
1. Admission That She Disclosed the Abuse in 1999
By stating that she told her family about the abuse at age 16, Jane Doe contradicts her lawsuit’s claim that her memory was repressed until 2023.
Legal Impact: Under South Carolina law, if a survivor acknowledges abuse, the statute of limitations begins ticking—even if they later suppress or avoid the memory.
2. She Blamed Herself and Sought Psychological Healing Years Ago
In the same post, Jane Doe wrote:
“I spent years blaming myself for the actions of this man. And then I had a shift. I started studying psychology, learning, growing, and healing.”
Legal Impact: This contradicts her legal argument that her memory was completely repressed. Seeking therapy and studying psychology indicates an active awareness of trauma, which challenges the credibility of a repressed memory claim.
3. She Voluntarily Reconnected With John Paul Miller on Facebook
In the same post, Jane Doe describes adding John Paul Miller as a friend on Facebook and meeting him in person in Myrtle Beach, where they discussed the past:
“We had a good conversation, and he apologized for some pretty rotten things, but he said he didn’t remember that specific situation the same way I did.”
(May 1, 2023 | Instagram Post from Jane Doe #1, one of her last days in Myrtle Beach) “Because Myrtle Beach is HOME! It’s my heart and soul home. It’s where I belong. It’s everything I love. It’s all my firsts… first loves, first kiss, first drink… first everything — the good, the bad, the ugly. It is home and it is perfect. And I am here loving my life. And most importantly I got to cook dinner for the greatest man in the entire world… my papaw! ❤️❤️❤️” (Papaw is Ray Cornett, former principal at Cathedral School).
Legal Impact: Courts closely examine survivor behavior in repressed memory cases. If she engaged in discussions about the abuse before 2023, it undermines her claim that she had no memory of it until last year.
@crimeandcask EXCLUSIVE: THE TRUTH ABOUT JOHN PAUL MILLER & JANE DOE! You’ve heard the allegations. Now, get ready for the receipts. John Paul Miller is fighting back against Jane Doe’s claims, and we have the inside story on the countersuit that’s about to change EVERYTHING. The lies, the motives, the real story—it’s all coming out. This isn’t just another case. This is the fight for truth in a world that thrives on deception. Who do YOU believe? Drop your thoughts in the comments and let’s break the internet with this one. #ForCrimeCask #TrueCrime #Exposed #Justice #CrimeCaskExclusive #Lawsuit #Scandal #crimeandcask ♬ original sound – Crime and Cask
The Grandparents Jane Doe Forgot to Sue
One glaring omission in Jane Doe #1’s lawsuit is her failure to name her own grandparents—who were in charge of the Sunday school where she claims the abuse took place and held the #2 leadership position at the church—as defendants.
If she was truly assaulted on church grounds, her grandparents would have been directly responsible for overseeing the staff, maintaining a safe environment, and handling any reports of misconduct. Yet, they are completely absent from the lawsuit.
This raises serious legal questions: Did Jane Doe selectively exclude them to avoid exposing contradictions in her story? Were they aware of the allegations at the time, and if so, why did they continue working under the same leadership? If the church and its leadership failed her, why would she omit the two individuals who had the most authority and oversight over the Sunday school?
This omission weakens her legal argument and gives Miller’s defense team a strong opening to question the credibility and intent of her claims.
Statute of Limitations: The Case’s Biggest Hurdle
South Carolina law has strict deadlines for filing lawsuits related to childhood sexual abuse:
Pre-2001 Law → Jane Doe had until 2004 (age 21) to file a claim.
2001 Law Change → Extended the deadline to age 27 (until 2010).
2019 Repressed Memory Law → Only applies if the memory was fully repressed until 2023.
⚠️ Key Problem: Jane Doe’s own social media post proves she remembered, disclosed, and processed the abuse for years before 2023—which disqualifies her from using the 2019 law to extend her filing deadline.
Court Documents Reveal Defamation Concerns
As part of this case, CC News Network obtained legal filings showing that the defendant is seeking an injunction against Jane Doe #1 for defamation. The lawsuit claims:
Jane Doe made false allegations to harm Miller’s reputation.
The lawsuit aims to force her to remove defamatory social media posts.
The defendant is seeking monetary damages for reputational harm.
[SEE COURT DOCUMENTS BELOW]
Prayer for Relief (Legal Filings):
Slander/Defamation Allegations:
Attorney Signature Page:
The Defense’s Likely Argument
Miller’s attorneys are expected to file a motion to dismiss, arguing that:
1️⃣ Jane Doe disclosed the abuse in 1999, triggering the legal deadline.
2️⃣ She actively processed the trauma and sought healing before 2023—contradicting the repressed memory claim.
3️⃣ Her voluntary contact with Miller years before filing shows she always remembered the events.
4️⃣ The lawsuit violates the statute of limitations and should be thrown out.
What Happens Next?
Jane Doe’s legal team will fight to keep the case alive, likely arguing:
✔ That her disclosure in 1999 wasn’t full acknowledgment, but rather a vague or suppressed memory that worsened over time.
✔ That the court should allow expert testimony on how memory repression works, to justify applying the 2019 law.
✔ That the emotional and psychological pressure from family and church leaders led her to mentally suppress the abuse, meaning she didn’t fully remember until 2023.
However, the burden of proof is on Jane Doe’s attorneys to show true memory repression, which is a high bar to clear in South Carolina courts.
Final Takeaway: Can the Lawsuit Against John Paul Miller Survive?
This case boils down to one critical question:
Was Jane Doe #1’s memory truly repressed, or did she always remember but only choose to take legal action now?
If the judge finds her own past statements contradict her repressed memory claim, the case could be dismissed outright.
This is now a legal race against the clock, and the defense holds the upper hand with strong evidence challenging the lawsuit’s credibility.
There’s more evidence that the CC News Network has uncovered concerning this case and how it may not stand up. We are sifting through it quickly and are fact checking it. More to come.
Stay with CC News Network for exclusive updates on this developing case.
Connect with CC News Network
Over 1,500,000 Million likes of Tiktok alone!
Join Our 100,000+ Social Media Fans:
- Follow Us on X: @CCNewsNetwork
- Follow Us on TikTok: @CCNewsNetwork
- Facebook: CC News Network
- Talk Radio: 97.7FM WVFF – Listen to Our Hit True Crime Talk Radio Show
- Follow Us on Amazon Books: Click here to follow
- Hire Us on Cameo: @CC News Network
- Follow Us on Spotify: @CC Records
- Follow Us on Bluesky: @ccnewsnetwork.bsky.social
- Follow Us on Mastadon: @CrimeandCask
- New Book: Trumped Up, by Josh Pruitt and James Seidel
James Seidel is an investigative journalist, bestselling author, and founder of CC News Network, known for breaking major stories in South Carolina.
About the Author
Jim,
This is Cindy that is in Susanne Andrews group on X. Question for you. Have you heard that Jane Doe 1 has dropped her lawsuit against JP? Thank you
As of today, I see nothing in the court case files that would indicate that. Where did you see this?