Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Job 38:2
It was May 29, 2017, and in the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night (Pr. 7:9), the Watchers at SocialBlade.com observed a blip on the screen. Something is going on…a shipload of Subs has arrived in the YouTube Galaxy…it’s hovering over Jason Goodman’s New York apartment…!
It was May 29, 2017 and the sudden arrival of 4,260 CrowdSource the TruthiCONS set off the Blip alert at the SocialBlade.com console.
Then on June 4, 2017 alarm bells clanged as the Mother Ship which had been sighted overhead opened its doors and 207,210 zig zagging Rage Walkers descended…All humor aside, the statistical blip shown in the above screen shots is something to ponder. At the end of April 2017, George Webb and Jason Goodman had joined together as a broadcast journalism team, and along with Patricia Negron, they began to look into the Seth Rich story. There were other stories swirling about this YouTube neighborhood at that time, so let’s narrow down our focus to the day prior to the June 14, 2017 shutting down of the Port of Charleston due to a false report from Deep Uranium to George Webb and then to Jason Goodman, which became a public spectacle on YouTube.
So on June 13, 2017, Robert David Steele and George Webb met at a restaurant, and decided to do a spur of the moment live stream fundraiser on the Jason Goodman YouTube channel. According to Document 34 filed March 7, 2018 in the Robert David Steele lawsuit, one of those listeners of that fund-raiser just so happened to be Susan Lutzke (soon after, to become well-known as Queen Tut), who donated $25 to Steele’s nonprofit corporation, Earth Intelligence Network.
Mr. Cati and the Shadow of Death
Also on June 13, 2017, Mr. Cati (pronounced cat-eye) was in a panic, thinking that he was a Targeted Individual by the Shadow of Death. As a precautionary move, he prepared a report called The CYA-To Whom It May Concern-Discussion, which was uploaded the next day on YouTube.
At the .23 mark, Mr. Cati says, “Have I got something for you. Now this report isn’t your typical Mr. Cati report, but it is a report that’s of importance to many of you who are currently confused about many of the things that are going on involving George Webb, Jason Goodman, Dave Acton, Montagraph, Lift the Veil, Defango, all with regard to the Seth Rich investigation and many, even Trish Negron- these people have all been involved in the previous days recently, leading up to today in events that have set certain actions in motion, and since those actions that have been placed into motion are dangerous, I’m going to do this report as a living testimony to leave a record of how these events transpired, because should I die in the immediate future, and I’m going to tell you why…”.
(2.44) “I believe the Shadow of Death was supposed to visit me today and because it didn’t, I need to explain some things and leave a video record should something happen.” At the 23.42 mark, after Mr. Cati has given all of the excruciating details of the previous days, and stated his disclaimers, he says that he believes that Jason Goodman’s angry tirade against Defango might have been inspired by the comment which Mr. Cati had posted on Montagraph’s video…
Ahhh, well, Mr. Cati is still around, and so is George Webb who Mr. Cati thought was going to be done in soon after. Those were strange days, but as I looked around this particular YouTube neighborhood back then, it was not difficult to see the legal problems developing which have resulted in two federal civil lawsuits against Jason Goodman.
Against that backdrop, the focus of today’s article is the anonymous handle, Queen Tut, which was originally created by Jason Goodman to hide the identity of Susan Lutzke, whose research on Robert David Steele was highlighted on Crowdsource the Truth. As a result of those public reports and commentary, Queen Tut, Jason Goodman and Patricia Negron found themselves facing a defamation lawsuit.
Two months ago on September 9, 2018, an entry of default was entered against Susan Lutzke because she declined to answer the civil complaint against her. Her rationale for this was stated in February 2018, when her Queen Tut handle explained, “…because you never take a stand against deception, what you have to do is move around deception. You have to beat them at their own game.”
In an article I wrote on September 29, 2017, I analyzed a Trello board which Queen Tut displayed to back up an assertion which she had made against Robert David Steele. If you want to see one of the methods by which she creates a credible looking dissimulation, you might want to read that article. I am not a fan of Robert David Steele’s political, philosophical and religious opinions, yet Queen Tut’s underhanded method of “proving” her unfounded claim, placed me in the position of having to publicly take a stand on behalf of Steele.
One must remember that shortly after Susan Lutzke donated money to Robert David Steele’s nonprofit corporation, she turned against Steele to publicly revile him, in concert with Jason Goodman. So in essence, Lutzke was an inside operator in this whole peculiar drama.
Recently, under the guise of a different anonymous handle, “Albert of Finland”, Lutzke had the nerve to mock one of my readers, asking him if the name he commented under was his real name. It is, and I know his credentials. She also accusingly asked him, “How come you never talk about the rogue CIA Double Agent RDS…? This she asks, when she herself likes to play both sides of the fence. Susan Lutzke continually promotes unproven accusations while hiding behind various internet handles. She most definitely is not the “persecuted, revealer of truth” which she claims to be.
On September 16, 2018, I wrote an article entitled, THE OATH Above All Oaths of Robert David Steele, Chief Counsel for the International Tribunal for Natural Justice. 12 comments have been left on that post, and in today’s article I am going to address just one of them, by De Vivas. De Vivas replied to a comment by Queen Tut, and she stated, “I have communicated with Queen Tut a number of times”, and ends by saying “I salute you Queen Tut”. Since De Vivas is another anonymous handle emanating from the same IP address as Queen Tut, it would seem that Susan Lutzke enjoys talking to herself in her imaginary world.
Using one IP address, comments have been left on this blog under eight different anonymous names: De Vivas, Albert of Finland, Bissel (Chief Counsel RDS), Harris, Ha Ji Won, Grace, Queen Tut and Avery. I do not mind readers using anonymous names, so long as it is not used as a cover for libel, or to manipulate facts in order to promote a false narrative. On my Contact page, I state, I welcome any comments, even those which disagree with me, as long as you sincerely explain your position.”
Because Tracking the Leopard Meroz is my website, let this serve as notice that I will not allow my blog to be taken over by disingenuous covert manipulators operating in the comment section. I encourage critical thinking based on facts and evidence. Speculations and conclusions, especially when made by anonymous handles, which have no factual basis, and are promoted for the sole purpose of denigrating responsible persons who write under their real name, are not welcome here.
With that said, here is the De Vivas comment under discussion today: In response to De Vivas’ desire that this blog write an expose on attorney Biss, I replied that I had already addressed him (regarding his disciplinary actions) in a September 2017 article on Robert David Steele, called Operation WHIPLASH.
The Queen Tut Summons issue can be divided into two timelines: the initial Complaint filed on September 1, 2017 against Queen Tut/ Carla Howell, and the Amended Complaint filed April 13, 2018 against Queen Tut/Susan Lutzke. So let’s go through the applicable documents, one by one.
I. On September 1, 2017 Robert David Steele and Earth Intelligence Network became plaintiffs in a federal defamation lawsuit against three defendants: Jason Goodman, Patricia A. Negron, and Queen Tut, a person believed to be known as Carla A. Howell. Steven S. Biss (VSB #32972) of Charlottesville, Virginia is counsel for the plaintiffs.
II. The original 37 page complaint was for $15,350,000 in damages. In the introduction, the complaint explained, “This is not a case about First Amendment or protected speech. This is a case about the conscious and deliberate destruction of a man’s untarnished name and impeccable reputation by social media vigilantes and trolls. The Defendants are the poster children of actual malice – stalking the Plaintiffs on the Internet, publishing and republishing videos and enticing their subscribers and confederates to make and publish false and defamatory statements, all calculated to injure the Plaintiff’s reputation and business.”
III. On page 8 sec. 7, under Parties, the Defendant, “Queen Tut”, is described as a person believed to be Carla A. Howell of New Jersey who is a political activist. The Complaint references a Wikipedia page for Howell, but does not provide insight into why Steele thought she was Queen Tut. We are left to speculate that perhaps Steele and Howell were in opposition to each other through their Libertarian Party association in the past. The description of Howell goes on to declare, “At all times relevant to this action, Queen Tut acted in concert with and as an agent, alter ego or instrumentality of Goodman and Negron.” I note that the complaint states that “Goodman and Negron are sophisticated high net worth individuals who have sufficient assets and net worth to pay punitive damages in the maximum amount permitted under Virginia law”. No mention is given with regard to the net worth of Carla A. Howell.
IV. The next reference in the court docket to Queen Tut is Document 5 filed September 8, 2017. In this entry, which is 7 days after the initial complaint was filed, the document represents a Proposed Summons to Queen Tut a/k/a Susan A. Lutzke of Fort Collins, CO. On the same day, Document 6 reflects that 3 summons were issued as to the defendants, including Queen Tut a/k/a Susan A. Lutzke. Also on the same day Document 7 was filed for a proposed summons for Queen Tut a/k/a Carla Howell of Moorestown, NJ. This was followed by a Summons being issued in Document 10 on September 12, 2017 for Queen Tut a/k/a Carla Howell.
Thus within the first week of this lawsuit being filed in federal court, the Plaintiff has identified two different persons as the defendant Queen Tut. But only one of them has been officially declared as a party to the lawsuit, and that is Carla Howell. At that time, the lawsuit had not named Queen Tut a/k/a Susan A. Lutzke as a party to the lawsuit; thus it was improper to issue a summons against Lutzke.
Anyone who has listened to the Queen Tut interviews on Jason Goodman’s YouTube channel knows that there was only one very distinctive voice behind this anonymous persona. Thus, it would be highly improbable that there could be two different women posing as Queen Tut.
V. On November 2, 2017, Document 18 is entered on the docket as “Summons Returned Unexecuted as to Queen Tut”. A letter dated November 1, 2017 is attached from Steven S. Biss’ office to the U. S. District Court Clerk stating, “Enclosed is the Summon and Proof of Service of the Summons and Complaint upon defendant, Queen Tut c/o Carla Howell, which I am returning “Unexecuted” because we have determined through additional research that the person calling herself “Queen Tut” is Susan A. Lutzke.
Note that this letter to the court is dated almost 8 weeks after the September 8, 2017 Document 5 was submitted which first named Queen Tut as Susan A. Lutzke. In this period of time, the Plaintiff and his Counsel did not add Lutzke as a party to this lawsuit, nor did they terminate Carla A. Howell as a defendant.
Next we see Document 19 dated November 6, 2017 “Summons Returned Executed” stating Queen Tut had been served on October 25, 2017 and answer was due November 15, 2017. An Affidavit of Service is attached claiming that documents were left at the door of an address claimed to be the abode of Susan A. Lutzke. At this point we must note that the Summons In A Civil Action to Lutzke contains a false statement, as it begins, “A lawsuit has been filed against you.” That statement is false as Lutzke was not a named defendant in this lawsuit at that point in time; it was Carla A. Howell who was the person identified on the lawsuit as Queen Tut.
VI. 90 days after it was claimed that Susan A. Lutzke was served with a summons, Document 30 dated January 23, 2018 is a Request for Entry of Default as to “Queen Tut” a/k/a Susan A. Lutzke by Earth Intelligence Network and Robert David Steele. In this 7 page document, several claims are made, including that Lutzke was duly served in accordance with Virginia Code. Further, the Plaintiffs complain that after the September 1, 2017 complaint that “defendant’s Lutzke and Goodman continued to publish false and defamatory statements”…and display a video where they discuss the Summons…and the service of process.
On page 4 of Document 30, the plaintiffs complain that “Goodman and Lutzke call Plaintiff’s Complaint “a fake lawsuit from a real idiot”. Then counsel proceeds to delineate a timeline of events to conclude that Lutzke has not answered or otherwise responded to Plaintiffs’ Complaint…therefore she is in default. As we have noted, in agreement with our commenter De Vivas, Susan Lutzke’s name was not even on the lawsuit, and she was therefore not under a legal responsibility to respond.
VII. Next we enter into the Twilight Zone of this lawsuit when a letter was received as Document 31 on February 21, 2018 from Mercia Francis who claimed to be writing on behalf of her mother Queen Tut. This letter provides a birth certificate for a woman born in 1937 who does not live in Colorado, and stating that Queen Tut does not want to give her address because she is fearful that Robert David Steele as a former CIA man, might send someone to harm her.
Document 32 filed February 23, 2018 by Steven S. Biss is a letter addressed to the Judge, the Hon. M. Hannah Lauck, regarding the Mercia Francis letter. He addresses his uneventful research into the identity of Mercia Francis, and observes that Susan A. Lutzke does not suffer from dementia. Biss documents that Lutzke as Queen Tut has set up a Twitter account. Some of the images shown have Queen Tut referring to Robert David Steele as “the greatest plagiarizer and liar on the internet”, etc.
Document 33 filed March 1, 2018 represents a second letter from Mercia Francis on behalf of her mother, Queen Tut. She has included 2 documents which she wants filed with the court which include a statement from the owner of the property where the summons had been served on Lutzke, plus Robert David Steele’s article called, How the Deep State Controls Social Media and Digitally Assassinates Critics. Document 34 is a letter filed on the court docket by the plaintiff and counsel in response to letters 31 and 33.
VIII. Thankfully, on March 9, 2018 in Document 35, United States District Judge M. Hannah Lauck issued an Order addressing the several issues which we have been observing in this lawsuit. Judge Lauck explains Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 (a) to the plaintiffs, noting that their complaint “does not identify Lutzke as a defendant.” She concludes therefore that, “Lutzke is not ‘a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought,’ and entry of default is not appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. p. 55(a). Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion for Entry of Default.”
The Order does not speculate as to why attorney Biss failed to change the identity of Queen Tut to Susan Lutzke on the lawsuit once he became convinced that Carla Howell was misidentified as a defendant. This negligence on the part of seasoned attorney Biss is disturbing, and I do not know if Carla Howell had contacted Biss or the Court about this misidentification. Since Queen Tut, in a Jason Goodman broadcast, had once claimed that she had called Ms. Howell, it would appear that Howell had become aware of the accusations which had been made against her. This error continued for almost eight months before it was corrected on the court docket!
In addition, the Hon. Judge Lauck notes that the Court has received two documents submitted anonymously, explaining that “the Court will not accept documents sent anonymously and in violation of the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern parties -and nonparties- in an action.” It was ordered that these documents remain on the record, but not accessible to the public.” She noted in footnote 2 that the Court was concerned that docket numbers 31 and 33 contain internal inconsistencies suggesting that they were not filed in good faith. The Court also restricted 32 and 34 as “Court Only”, as they represent the responses of attorney Biss to the anonymous claims.
The Judge probably “set aside” as Court Only documents, the Mercia Francis letters and the Plaintiff’s response, so that this case could proceed forward. At some point in the future, these documents may be inserted into the proceedings, if necessary. Although these documents cannot be presently downloaded on PACER, the Judge closed the barn door after the horse was let out. Both this blog, and that of Steele’s had published or referred to those now hidden from public view documents.
IX. On April 13, 2018 an Amended Complaint (rds 413 2018 doc 39) was filed which added Susan A. Lutzke a/k/a Queen Tut as a defendant, and upped the damages another $3 million, on top of the original $15 plus million. Carla Howell’s name was terminated as a party in this lawsuit on April 19, 2018.
Documents 40, 41 regard a new summons to Susan Lutzke at a new address in Fort Collins, CO. Affidavit of Service was shown in Document 61 on July 25, 2018. Document 64-1 filed on August 21, 2018 represents a letter send via email and regular mail to Susan Lutzke stating she had been served with process, and noting the videos which demonstrated that she had “actual knowledge of the pendency of the lawsuit”. The rest of the letter discusses the continuing efforts of Queen Tut to “disparage and defame” the Plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs entered a motion for entry of default against defendant, Susan A. Lutzke a/k/a “Queen Tut”. This was granted in Document 66 on September 6, 2018.
X. In conclusion, Susan A. Lutzke was, in the end, properly served with the Robert David Steele lawsuit. She chose not to respond to the complaint in regard to her own words and actions, despite the fact that the Carla Howell error allowed her an extra eight months to respond to the complaint. Since the other two defendants were properly served in the beginning, they had less time than Queen Tut did, to answer the complaint against them.
In regard to Susan Lutzke’s self imposed martyrdom, one cannot complain about due process while at the same time actively evading the means which our nation’s laws provide for a defendant to respond with a written, reasoned, orderly argument regarding a plaintiff’s complaint.
I am not an attorney, so I am just guessing that one of the reasons for the time delay in the Judge addressing Negron’s motion to dismiss, might be that it has taken months for Queen Tut aka Susan Lutzke to demonstrate that she was not going to plead her case in court. Although each defendant must answer for his/her words and actions individually, it must be noted that in this lawsuit triple damages were requested because the Plaintiff is treating them as a “unit” acting in concert with one another. I am speculating that the Judge would want to have all 3 defendants submit their pleadings prior to her considering how this lawsuit should proceed.
Susan Lutzke is an extroverted person who is comfortable speaking in public, and she claims to be a researcher. The title of this article asks, Who shall plead for Queen Tut? Queen Tut was created by Lutzke and Jason Goodman to act as a kind of golem to avenge them of an adversary. The problem for Lutzke is that her fictional cover has been exposed, and she is legally accountable for the words spoken by her internet handle. She could have pleaded her case in court, presenting evidence and speaking the truth, as a pro se defendant.
However, the federal court system has procedures for evidence and sanctions for perjury. Perhaps the creator of Queen Tut does not want a piercing light to shine on her words and actions.
UPDATE (listen with discernment, but interesting discussion): Steve Outtrim interview of Queen Tut 11/29/2018