On July 21, 2017 Dave Sweigert published a Draft of his article entitled, The application of racketeering and wire fraud laws to combat Crowdstalking hoax news sites. (See end of this post to read full article). As the author, he describes himself as Dave Sweigert, M. Sci. -Non attorney engaged in scholarly cyber-legal research. This paper is a draft, so we must understand that it may not represent a finalized version; however, what is stated in his first section,” ABSTRACT”, introduces concepts which need to be seriously considered.
Sweigert’s Abstract states, Racketeering Laws can be used to suppress Crowdstalking cyber harassment, one of the favorite operational vectors upon to distribute cognitive threats that are based upon deception. Hoax news sites use these techniques to attack critical infrastructure operators, federal employees, and infrastructure security advisors to create chaos in critical sectors.
From his beginning discussion of crowd stalking/cyber harassment, Sweigert narrows this broad field down to a personal example, which centers on himself as the target. Some of the information he provides in that situation helps to clarify a few questions I had raised in my prior post where I was reviewing a Suspicious Activity Report which Sweigert had written.
In this article, his final paragraph reads: “About the author: Dave Sweigert became the target of crowdstalkers shortly after his estranged brother (George Webb Sweigert) was linked to the Port of Charleston dirty bomb hoax on 6/14/17. The author’s background in computer security was seized upon as “proof” that he was an agent for government surveillance and espionage against YouTube “truth tellers” like Stolpman and Moorefield.”
It is interesting that in this “about” scenario, one major fact was left out, which would appear to be the main reason why Dave Sweigert’s name had been brought into the dirty bomb hoax story in the first place. A couple of days prior to the Charleston incident, Nathan Stolpman of Lift The Veil, had brought up the question as to whether George Webb and Dave Acton were one and the same person. This led to several Youtubers going down the road of trying to find out what the true relationship between these names is.
As noted by numerous persons, it was Dave Acton AKA Dave Sweigert, who then responded publically by stating that he and George Webb are brothers. And when the Charleston incident was linked with his brother, George Webb, it was Dave Acton who made several videos addressing his brother’s personal history. However, these videos were pulled quickly by Dave Acton after airing them on YouTube; but not before various commenters had viewed them and discussed their content publically.
This “hit and run” method of Dave Acton is also seen on Dave Sweigert’s slideshare.net account. Many of those slideshare.net documents were links inserted into Sweigert’s Twitter account. By later pulling the document off of the link, he has hurt his own credibility.
Because the actual timeline of the internet discussion of “the identity of the person behind the fake name Dave Acton”, was prior to the actual dirty bomb incident, a disinterested observer would be inclined to ask whether the drama which subsequently played out was: (1) a scripted play with several persons playing assigned roles, or (2) a true life example of individual juvenile boys trapped in adult male bodies, awaiting some 400 pound Mommy to come along to ground them for life, for their squabbling. One cannot help to notice that the participants in this drama dropped words about each other, such as Mossad, CIA, NSA, gamers, hackers, schizophrenia, Hollywood movie actors, 3D cameramen, RICO, financial market manipulation through hoaxes…etc.; words which feed the Suspicious Mindset, particularly when one finds out that the participants made their living in such occupations.
Because of the partiality of Dave Sweigert/Dave Acton in this entire drama, and his grasping at laws to “ground for life” those who have driven him to distraction, we must continue to wonder what on earth is really going on here? In the past, Dave Sweigert has been the plaintiff in lawsuits, which includes the Pro Se approach to solving a problem through the civil court system. There are several important elements of American law which are interesting in the world of internet free speech rights, and Dave Sweigert taps into them in his July 21, 2017 Abstract.
Sweigert is correct in raising the alarm as to the dangers of critical decisions which are based on a deceptive personal email or mass audience targeted video tape. He says, “Social media stalkers can combine information about hobbies, professional associations, fraternal organizations, etc. to craft deceptive and false messages for the purpose of supporting cyber intrusions and social engineering. In the previous example, random bites of information are coalesced into a modern cyber weapon- the cognitive threat. Cyber stalking gangs, encouraged by financial gain, have begun experimenting with Crowd stalking as a valid attack vector. Armies of social media vandals, well trained in areas like reputational destruction, are guided by paid social media personalities to attack targets.”
In his section entitled, Suppression of the cognitive threat, the second paragraph, Sweigert says, “The closure of the Port of Charleston by a dirty bomb hoax is the latest example.” As I noted in my previous post, Trapped in A RICO Chamber, Dave Acton AKA Dave Sweigert had accused Crowdsource The Truth of attempting to manipulate the financial markets via false stories, and he brought up the RICO laws as applying to their words and actions.
One of the problems of Dave Sweigert’s credibility, besides his “hit and run” manner of reporting his viewpoint, is his combining a discussion of generalized cyber crowd stalking behavior with his own individualized personal complaints. In the latter, it would appear that he is building civil and criminal cases against certain individuals who he claims have defamed his reputation, and that of another family member. At the same time he is trying to build a RICO/wire fraud case which also includes some of the same targets with other persons. There are flaws in throwing all of these persons into the same so-called network, which will ultimately undermine his arguments , should all of these individuals have to “lawyer up”.
In Dave Sweigert’s Abstract, first paragraph summary, he focuses on the attack against federal employees, infrastructure security advisors, etc. by hoax news sites. I agree with him that there is a problem that needs addressing here. But there is another real problem, and it would appear that Sweigert likes to play both sides of the fence.
On the one side of this Fence, there are persons journalistically targeting the actions of the American government and its individual representatives. But on the other side are those government agencies with their paid operatives who are set up on the internet to introduce false stories which target the American public, whose hard earnings fund these very same government deceptions.
Dave Sweigert has a dual nature: he was employed as an agent of the government in various capacities, CIA, NSA, Air Force, government contractor, while at the same time he enjoys certain Constitutional rights as an American private citizen. He seems to think he can freely move between these two positions, and put forth whatever argument best suits him. What is at risk here is the freedom of the press of the genuine, truthful investigative journalist, as well as the free speech rights of the individual American who publically expresses an opinion within the legal boundaries of Constitutional law.
On the internet, there are reasonable arguments put forth by individual bloggers and Youtubers who attempt to discuss these covert PSYOPS, who are countered not by facts and evidence, but by professional cons trying to draw these individuals into a wider net of the false accusation that they are acting in concert as a Cabal.
Therein lies the trap which is being set when professional liars are seeking to use RICO as a basis to shut down the freedom of the press, and of personal speech which has been established by Constitutional and case law.
Is it any wonder that there are comments made on the internet that question the motivations and work histories of certain persons, and wonder whose side they are really on?
It is important for the reader to do their own critical thinking on the matters raised here. Below are screenshots of the July 21, 2017 Draft copy of The Application of racketeering and wire fraud laws to combat CrowdStalking Hoax news sites, by Dave Sweigert, M. Sci.
Related to this matter are the following documents, as well.