Poking the Bear or Provoking God? Rudy Davis Justifies Murder In the First Degree by his Endorsement of the Falsehoods of Patrick Hoffman

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.  Proverbs 17:15

In the above  February 26, 2019 Lonestar 1776 video, at the 8.28 mark, Rudy Davis says to incarcerated first degree murderer Patrick Hoffman, in a recorded jail conversation, “…these cowards who’d like to walk up to the bear and because there’s a, they think there’s a huge piece of glass between them and the bear and they make faces at the bear and they poke at the bear and they make fun of the bear and they all say this disparaging comments if that glass was removed they wouldn’t be saying the things that they’re saying and these are big-time cowards for anybody that picks upon the prisoner and wants to make his life even more hell than it already is, I got no respect for them.  They’re just the biggest cowards I’ve ever seen in my life.” (8.56)

Poking the Bear…?

Over the years I have heard the poking the bear warning in many different contexts. The Bear has been referred to as the Russian bear, or the Great Bear Constellation which represents the Luciferian Priesthood, or as a reference to a person who when provoked, becomes dangerous.  Interestingly on the same day, Jason Goodman of Crowdsource the Truth used the same expression in his February 26, 2019 video shown below to describe poking a Legal Bear.In the live chatroom of the Jason Goodman Legal Bear video was Darrell McClanahan, who is a regular commenter on the Lonestar 1776 video channel. As seen in the screenshot below of the Crowdsource the Truth channel, McClanahan was promoting Rudy Davis as a good man, as well as Davis’ prison ministry’s Lonestar videos and yearofjubile/I hate the FBI website.  And someone who calls himself the AR-10 Bear replied, “amen Darrell”.  I guess the 3rd quarter moon of February 26th marked the day of the Bear.Rudy Davis has been called out numerous times by persons who object to his  falsification of facts and his reframing of the histories of  felons in order to declare them  innocent of the crimes which they were charged with. One of the results of this revisionism is that  he has defamed the victims of criminal acts,  judges, juries, witness statements made under oath, and American jurisprudence.  And should a viewer question the false narratives of Rudy Davis, they are labeled as devils and hyenas who are going to hell.

So it is no great surprise that one of Rudy Davis’ fans was promoting his videos to the kindred spirits in the chatroom of Crowdsource the Truth. Jason Goodman, the owner of the CSTT YouTube channel presently has two open federal civil lawsuits against him involving defamation and RICO complaints.

But before Rudy Davis accuses others of foolishly poking the bear, perhaps he ought to consider in what manner he is provoking God when he sets forth a false narrative which exonerates Patrick Hoffman, who is serving life without parole for aggravated murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree.

The Washington State Appeals Decision on State vs. Hoffman

The document which I will be quoting from in the following discussion is a 57 page Appeals document of the Supreme Court of Washington regarding State vs. Hoffman.

Numerous false statements have been made by both Patrick Hoffman and Rudy Davis regarding the murder of tribal police officer Louis Millard while in the line of duty. A small sample can be heard at the 14.58 mark of the February 26, 2019 video, when Rudy Davis says to Hoffman, “… you were at home, you were at your home with your father.  You didn’t like go out and plan anything with your father.  You’re just living your life at your home, they came to your house at 2:30 in the morning and the shootout you know ensued and they broke their orders they were ordered not to go to your house and they broke their supervisor orders to even go out there and your father ends up shot. You think your father’s going to die so I don’t agree with their analysis….”.

To begin with, Hoffman and his father were NOT in the home at the time of the shootout, as the person who had the only key to the house was not present to open the door. After the shootout, Hoffman abandoned his father who had been shot in the out-of-doors near a chicken coop, and he escaped to a friend’s house in another town, leaving his wounded father to be found by the police.

So what is the context of this incident?

In the January 10, 1991, Appeals document linked above, the Facts of the Case begin:  “Patrick Gene Hoffman and his father, Elmer Edward McGinnis seek reversals of their convictions for aggravated murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree.  The convictions were based on charges filed after the August 27, 1986, shooting death of tribal police officer Louis Millard and wounding of tribal police officer John Dick.”

Trial had commenced on February 17, 1987, and years after the conviction of these two defendants, Elmer McGinnis passed away in prison in 2001.  The focal point of this post will be on McGinnis’ son Patrick Hoffman; however, this story begins with the actions of Elmer McGinnis.

The Appeals document, page 2, relates, “On August 25, 1986, 2 days before the shooting, several tribal police officers arrested McGinnis at the Tribal Council headquarters pursuant to an outstanding arrest warrant which had been issued by the chief judge of the Tribal Court.  The arrest warrant was issued on a trespass-lands charge.  It was issued after a Mr. Ferguson had complained to the prosecutor that McGinnis had trespassed on his land several times and had threatened and intimidated Mr. Ferguson, his wife, and his daughter.”

“The Tribal Court had originally mailed a criminal summons to McGinnis on the trespass charge but it was returned unopened with his refusal marked thereon.  The warrant for his arrest then issued from the Tribal Court based upon the trespass-lands criminal charge and on the judge’s determination that McGinnis was an immediate threat to the community.”

“McGinnis physically resisted the arrest and assaulted tribal police officers and the ambulance attendants who were called after McGinnis complained of chest pains. McGinnis was taken to the Tribal Health Clinic and the Coulee Community Health Facility where he was booked on the Tribal Court trespass-lands warrant and placed on a tribal police hold for resisting arrest and assaulting the tribal police officers and ambulance crew.  McGinnis continued to complain of pain and, therefore, was ultimately taken to the Mid-Valley Hospital.”

Did Patrick Hoffman have a prior police record?

At this point, I want to introduce a fact sheet which is not found in the Appeals document, which is posted at everytownresearch.org on Washington state law enforcement deaths and illegal guns.  It would appear that the age of Hoffman at the time of the murder of Millard is incorrect, as he was born in 1949, making him 37 years old. But the prior convictions of Hoffman are of interest in considering his overall character.


On page 30 of the Appeals document, an interesting comment is made, saying, “Furthermore, the fact that the trial court refused to admit into evidence the outstanding arrest warrant for defendant Hoffman (because of its potential for creating prejudice) did not prohibit the trial court from considering the warrant in making the determination it did regarding the legality of the search for the defendants.”  Thus we can see that Hoffman had a history with police prior to the August 27, 1986 shootout.

Back to our story…

So returning to our story when McGinnis was in the hospital attached to a heart monitor, the tribal police did not post a guard because of a personnel shortage. According to the Appeals document, “The tribal prosecutor informed McGinnis’ attorney and his daughters that McGinnis was still under arrest and gave McGinnis’ children permission to visit their father in the hospital.  McGinnis was unexpectedly discharged on August 26, the evening before the shooting.  When one of the nurses realized that he was on tribal hold, she attempted to detain him and told him to wait or the police would come after him.  However, McGinnis, in the company of his son (the defendant Patrick Gene Hoffman) and his four daughters, drove away from the hospital.”

Hoffman was the driver of the automobile, and a tribal police officer chased them, at times accelerating 75-80 m.p.h. with the emergency red and blue rotating lights on.  “Hoffman later admitted to knowing that a police car was following him and that he accelerated to get away from it.”  After eluding the police, McGinnis and Hoffman decided to walk the 6-8 miles back to their house. “Hoffman removed a gym bag from the trunk of the car which contained a loaded .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol with 40 rounds of ammunition, a holster and holster belt for the .45 pistol, a loaded .22 caliber revolver, an Interdynamics KG 99 9 mm. semiautomatic pistol with two magazines of ammunition, at least one and possibly two Olin flare guns with flare rounds, a knife, a can of mace and a set of nunchucka sticks.  Hoffman testified that it was his habit to carry these weapons at all times.”

“Upon arriving at the McGinnis’ residence, McGinnis and Hoffman hid behind a chicken coop and armed themselves with the guns from Hoffman’s gym bag.  The police had earlier placed an officer on surveillance of the McGinnis property. An officer also testified that the police believed McGinnis kept a large arsenal of weapons in his house…At approximately 1:30 a.m. on August 27, shortly before the shooting, the officer watching the property observed two individuals whom he could not identify.  Pursuant to his orders, the officer on surveillance radioed the police dispatcher for assistance.  Five marked police cars and a rescue truck arrived at the scene within a short time.  The officers used their patrol car headlights and spotlights and the searchlights on the rescue truck to illuminate and search the property…for approximately 15 minutes.”

As we can see from the Appeals document, the summary of events which Rudy Davis presented is inexcusably inaccurate, because these court tested facts are readily available on the internet.

The Appeals document on page 4 states, “At trial, Hoffman admitted to firing the .22 caliber revolver, the .45 pistol and a flare gun from his position behind the chicken coop.  Two ejected 9 mm. cartridges were found behind the chicken coop near the .22 revolver and a flare gun.  McGinnis was discovered by police early the next morning near the scene of the shooting.  He had been shot with a bullet which was later identified as consistent with Officer Dick’s police revolver and ammunition.  Hoffman escaped, to appear 2 days later at the home of one Jeff Epperson in Keller, Washington. Hoffman told Epperson that McGinnis had fired the 9 mm. gun.  Epperson testified at trial that when told that an officer had been killed, Hoffman replied, ‘good deal’.”

On page 25 of the Appeals document, it was noted that “Defendants also object to the argument, ‘Now, what happened to this gun is that Hoffman knew a police officer had been shot with it and he took it up in the hills and got rid of it.  He hid it where nobody would ever find it.’  This argument was supported by evidence.  Hoffman admitted the gun was at the scene; the gun was never found after an exhaustive search of the area, and Hoffman admitted to the witness Epperson that he had disposed of the gun.”

Another argument Hoffman made in his Appeal on page 13 is that “Hoffman maintains that he was prejudiced because the prosecution was allowed to impeach him with this statement when he testified that he did not know if McGinnis had fired a gun.  This argument, however, does not withstand scrutiny.  Only if a defendant has the right to lie on the stand would such an effort at impeachment unfairly prejudice him, but that is not the law.  The prosecution had the right on cross-examination to impeach the witness with the witness’ own prior inconsistent statement.  The trial court offered to allow Hoffman to recall Epperson to allow him to testify regarding Hoffman’s statement that McGinnis had fired the 9mm.gun, but Hoffman elected not to recall Epperson.”

The Appeals document addresses 20 issues which Hoffman and McGinnis wanted the Court to review. Let’s look at excerpts of  just 3 of these issues.

Issue Seven:  Was sufficient evidence presented from which the jury could find premeditation and intent to kill, as it did?

Conclusion of the Court:  The State produced substantial evidence at trial showing that the killing of police officer Millard was both intended and premeditated.

On page 18 of the Appeals document, several statements are made including, “Premeditation is an essential element of murder in the first degree as charged herein. Premeditation must involve more than a moment in time…the factual record in this case contains evidence which would allow the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendants each premeditated the killing.  There was evidence of prior threats by the defendant McGinnis regarding tribal officers; a number of deadly weapons were brought to the scene of the shooting by the defendant Hoffman; multiple shots were fired by each defendant; one of the victims of the shooting was shot from behind; and several statements indicating premeditation were made by each defendant.”

In addition, it was noted in Issue Seven that “There is substantial evidence from which the jury might reasonably have found that both defendants armed themselves, hid and waited for the officers to approach and then opened fire on the officers.  Evidence from a number of witnesses indicated that it was the officers who were fired upon, rather than the other way around, and that the officers were not the ones who initiated the gunfire…Eight .45 caliber shell casings, eight .22 caliber shell casings and two 9 mm. shell casings were recovered near the chicken coop behind which the defendants were hiding, and all of the expended shells were consistent with having been fired from guns owned by Hoffman.”

“Hoffman also admitted reloading the .45 caliber pistol.  Evidence of multiple acts of violence also supports an inference of premeditation. After both officers were shot, and Officer Dick was crawling and attempting to drag Officer Millard to cover, the defendants continued to coordinate their gunfire with the flares they fired to illuminate the scene of the shooting.  Such conduct is evidence of calculated actions and premeditated intent to kill.”

Issue Seventeen:  Were the trial court’s accomplice liability instructions to the jury erroneous?

Conclusion of the Court: The accomplice instructions given to the jury correctly declared the law of accomplice liability and did not violate defendants’ rights to jury unanimity.

“On the accomplice liability issues, the trial court instructed the jury as follows:  A person who is an accomplice in the commission of a crime is guilty of that crime whether present at the scene or not.  A person is an accomplice in the commission of a crime if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she either (1) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to commit the crime; or (2) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing the crime….”.

“Defendant Hoffman argues that the jury must find that he had knowledge of his father’s premeditation in order for him to be convicted of murder in the first degree….”.

“Accomplice liability represents a legislative decision that one who participates in a crime is guilty as a principal, regardless of the degree of participation.  Additionally, as discussed above, there was substantial evidence in this case from which the jury could reasonably find that each of the defendants premeditated the officer’s killing…the jury in this case need not have decided whether it was Hoffman or McGinnis who actually shot and killed Officer Millard so long as both participated in the crime.  The accomplice instructions were not erroneous.”

Issue Nineteen:  Did the jury instructions regarding self-defense and defense of others correctly state the law and allow defendants to argue their theory of the case?

Conclusion of the Court:  The trial court’s justifiable homicide and self-defense instructions correctly stated the law and allowed defendants to argue the defense theories to the jury.

“The trial court gave the following instructions to the jury on self-defense. To convict a Defendant of the crime of Murder in the First Degree, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That on or about the 27th day of August, 1986, the Defendant shot Louis A. Millard; (2) That the Defendant acted with intent to cause the death of Louis A. Millard; (3) That the intent to cause the death was premeditated; (4) That Louis A. Millard died as a result of Defendant’s acts; and (5) That the acts occurred in Okanogan County, Washington.  If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.  On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.”

Several instructions were given to the jury to explain the law.  Instruction 17 is interesting because it ties in with the poking the bear theme of this article.

Instruction 17 stated, “No person may, by any intentional act reasonably likely to provide a belligerent response, create a necessity for acting in self-defense or defense of another and thereupon kill or use, offer, or attempt to use force upon or toward another person.  Therefore, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the aggressor, and the defendant’s acts and conduct provoked or commenced the fight, then self-defense or defense of another is not available as a defense. One who acts in defense of another, reasonably believing the other to be the innocent party and in danger, is justified in using force necessary to protect that person even if, in fact, the person whom the actor is defending is the aggressor.”

“The briefs and record herein show that the argument defendants wanted to make was that the police had provoked the event and that the defendants were therefore justified in shooting the officers.  Any such theory could be, and was, argued under the self-defense and justifiable homicide instructions to the jury.”

The Court Record is 6,000 pages long.  However, the Appeals Document summarizes the facts and legal arguments in 57 pages, and it is readable on the internet.  It is inexcusable that Rudy Davis, who claims to be an ordained chaplain of the Christian faith, would alter the details of a story involving murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree, in order to falsely assert that Patrick Hoffman is innocent of the charges brought against him. 

Proverbs 17:15:  He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.


Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman Document 75: Unauthorized Ghost Writing Complaint

On February 19, 2019, D. George Sweigert wrote to the State Bar of Texas in regard to a ghost writing affidavit filed by Jason Goodman in the Robert David Steele defamation lawsuit.

Since Sweigert had not filed this letter with the Clerk of Court, it appears that one of the recipients of a copy of this letter felt it was important enough to submit it as Document 75 of the R. D. Steele lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond, VA).

The letter can be read at this link:  rds doc 75 ghostwriting form

Larry Klayman Sues Pete Santilli for Libel and Slander

On February 9, 2019 Larry Klayman filed a 174 page complaint against Pete Santilli with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division, case no. 2019 CA 000896 B.  See link below:

larry klayman vs pete santilli 2 9 2019


Why Rudy Davis’ “Francis Schaeffer Cox” Business Cards Cause Others to Want to Dial the Police

On February 19, 2019,  LoneStar1776 published a YouTube video called, Buc-ee’s Is Going To Call Police if You Put More Schaeffer Cox Cards On Their Gas Pumps. In this short 2 minute audio, a woman representing Buc-ee’s in Itaska, Illinois called Rudy Davis to inquire into the origin of LoneStar1776’s Schaeffer Cox business cards which had been left on their gas pumps.

Rudy Davis explained to Buc-cee’s that, “I don’t have any control over that, you realize I do print the business cards and I distribute-, they’re all over the country, but I don’t have any control over what people do with them…even, even if you call the police, I mean I’m just the guy who prints the cards…”.

Rudy Davis is correct that he cannot control where another person leaves these cards. But he incorrectly states his responsibility for the CONTENT of these cards.  In truth, Vista Print is the printer of these cards; not Rudy Davis, – and it was his wife,  Erin Davis, who created the design on Vista Print’s website.  The purpose of these cards is to provide three resources which recipients of the business card can  research, to find out Schaeffer Cox’s version of the events which lead to his incarceration in a federal prison.

Based on the simple fact that the sole phone number on these business cards belongs to Rudy Davis, it is apparent that  these cards are an advertisement for his LoneStar 1776 video channel featuring his prison ministry’s phone calls. Schaeffer Cox is just Davis’ favorite poster child for his roster of self-described American Political Prisoners.  The Buc-cee’s employee called Rudy Davis because his phone number is on the card.

Rudy Davis once again gives Christianity a bad reputation

The caller from Buc-cee’s was under the impression that these cards originated from a Christian church, most likely because Davis had termed  Schaeffer Cox a Christian American Political Prisoner.  When  Davis avoided naming his wife as the creator of the content of these cards, the Buc-cee’s employee wanted to know the identity of the church distributing them.

Although Schaeffer Cox was raised in a Christian family and his father is a pastor, he departed from that path when he entered into the world of sovereign citizen styled militias and purchased illegal weapons and silencers. Rudy Davis is fond of issuing imprecatory prayers commanding destruction and death on anyone who disagrees with his mission of covering over the crimes of the felons he promotes.

Rudy Davis showing off his gun

What are these “resources”?

Regular readers of this blog are probably familiar with FreeSchaefferCox.com, as I had referred to that website in connection with a Schaeffer Cox defamation lawsuit written by attorney Larry Klayman and his nonprofit Freedom Watch, Inc. against BenBella Books and William Fulton.

In another Schaeffer Cox lawsuit filed pro se on February 5, 2018, but terminated on October 5, 2018 when the Plaintiff filed for a voluntary dismissal based on a jurisdiction issue, the defendants named were Terry Dodd, Stitching Trust for Two, Inc., the Estate of Steward Skrill, Maria Rensel, Eberle, Inc., Tami Cali, Ryan Mobly, DMP, Inc. dba Free Schaeffer Cox, Edward Snook dba US Observer, Ron Lee, James E. Leuenberger, and James E. Leuenberger, PC. (Leuenberger is Edward Snook’s attorney, and Ron Lee is a reporter for the US Observer). Those defendants marked in bold represent the two resources, in addition to LoneStar 1776, that are referenced on Rudy Davis’ Schaeffer Cox cards.

In respect to that February 5, 2018 lawsuit,  MadisonRecord.com published an article on March 16, 2018, Alaskan Man Convicted on Conspiracy Charges Sues Individuals Over Money Collected for Legal Defense, written by Noddy A. Fernandez. This article stated that “The plaintiff alleges that ‘there were ongoing efforts from multiple parties to assist’ his legal defense and the defendants intended to take possession of any funds collected by the partnership by fraud.  The plaintiff alleges the defendants used his identity to collect more than $3 million dollars under the false pretense that the money would be used for his legal defense.”

This is awkward, as the go-to resources for background information on Cox are the very same defendants accused of fraud in a Cox lawsuit!  Although Cox dropped his February 5, 2018 lawsuit, he reworked his complaint into a new lawsuit in a different jurisdiction,  naming fewer defendants.

The US Observer is a premier example of  Checkbook Journalism

The US Observer publication is owned by Ed Snook of Grant’s Pass, Oregon. Here is a Justicia.com reference to a complaint which Schaeffer Cox had made regarding Snook.  Ed Snook, for a hefty price, writes “investigative journalist” reports which he publishes in the US Observer to create a one-sided narrative to the liking of his clientele.  These reports are financed by persons who are either accused of crimes or are incarcerated felons, or their supporters.Someone had financed the US Observer to write two articles on The Federal Framing of Schaeffer Cox.

Shown below is Rudy Davis’ recommendation of this article as a “must read”.

From another perspective, let’s consider an interesting November 13, 2010 Bendsource.com article discussing an entirely different party that was in need of laundering their legal narrative, and so they purchased an investigative report from the US Observer.  Written by The Wandering Eye, this article discusses Tami and Kevin Sawyer, who “were high flyers during Bend’s real estate bubble era but were shot down in flames last month when a federal grand jury in Eugene indicted them on 21 criminal counts including wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and false statements to a financial institution.  They’re also facing civil suits by about 20 former investors in their various business enterprises.”

The Bendsource article continues, “But now a publication called US-Observer is painting the Sawyer’s in a new light- as innocent victims of a vast, sinister conspiracy involving The Bulletin, the FBI, the U. S. Attorney’s Office and, yes, President Barak Obama himself.” The US-Observer article was written by Joseph Snook and Edward Snook, “Investigative Journalists”, and The Wandering Eye notes, “…I need to explain that Edward Snook, who lives in Grants Pass and is the editor of US-Observer, practices checkbook journalismThat means, in his case, that if you’re accused of a crime and you take out your checkbook and write him a check, he’ll write a story “proving” your “innocence.”

And Rudy Davis has no problem with this form of journalism; in fact, you might say that LoneStar1776 is a kindred spirit with the US Observer’s approach to turning the guilty into innocent victims of a vast conspiracy.

A new lawsuit filed by Schaeffer Cox in connection with “Free Schaeffer Cox” fundraising

But let’s see….Francis Schaeffer Cox filed his “reworked” lawsuit in the United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division on November 7, 2018 against Eberle Associates, Tami Cali, President/CEO, William D. Griffins, Vice President, and Mike Murray, President Direct Mail Processors, Inc. It has taken awhile, but it looks like Cox was able to make his final installment on the $400 filing fee as of February 5, 2019.

This lawsuit begins, “Plaintiff is the sole principal of Free Schaeffer Cox, because he is in fact the Schaeffer Cox targeted by the fraudulent Free Schaeffer Cox “Project”. The complaint has yet to be served on the defendants; however, as a judgment,  the Plaintiff wants $38,000 for the funds raised on his behalf by the test mailing conducted by the defendants.  In addition Cox desires the entire $3 million dollars raised by the defendants as a result of the direct mail program that was conducted by the defendants on behalf of plaintiff.  And then Cox wants a list of the persons who made donations, and $1 million for the loss of the comfort and society of his supporters.

How many embarrassing legal issues can one discover on a LoneStar1776 “Schaeffer Cox” business card?

Check out all three resources, and you will descend into a deep abyss of sovereign citizen styled militia groups and politics, illegal weapons, threats against government officials, fraud, lies, pseudo Christianity, checkbook journalism,  lawyers that have had  their fair share of Bar complaints…and on and on!  Is it any wonder that a legitimate business would not want these cards distributed on their private property?

UPDATE 2/23/2019:  Bondo77 made an interesting comment today about the fact that there are no Buc-cee’s in Illinois.  The woman caller claimed to be from Itasca, IL.  However, I just checked and there is a gas station called Bucky’s in Itasca, IL. Rudy Davis posted the graphics from the wrong gas station, it would appear.






D. George Sweigert Submits Motion To Intervene as a Plaintiff in the Robert David Steele v. Jason Goodman Lawsuit

On February 19, 2019, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond, Virginia) added 3 documents to the docket of the Robert David Steele v. Jason Goodman defamation lawsuit.  Documents 72, 73, and 74 represent a Motion to Intervene-Applicant Sweigert which can be read in full in the links provided below.

Document 72 (2 pages) Notice of Motion, Motion to Intervene, Memorandum of Law and Argument summarizes a notice of motion to intervene and certificate of service.

rds doc 72

Document 73 (13 pages) Motion to Intervene by Intervenor-Applicant Sweigert

rds doc 73

Document 74 (17 pages) Memorandum of Law to Support Intervenor Applicant’s Motion to Intervene

rds doc 74

Field McConnell’s Flirtation With Paper Terrorism Tactics

Field McConnell, retired Delta Airlines pilot and retired USAF & F16 pilot

Whenever I research the topic of the Sovereign Citizen Movement, I often run into familiar names, such as Field McConnell of Abel Danger or Robert David Steele, who have associated themselves with the pseudo-legal philosophy of the fake Alaskan “judge” Anna Von Reitz and the Victurus Libertas website who are “unveiling the Freedom Revolution”.

About two and a half years ago, Field McConnell had interviewed Anna Von Reitz in a September 15, 2016 Abel Danger video.  And when I wrote a January 19, 2018 articleThe Context, The Whole Context, and Nothing But the Context?, which discussed who was promoting the website Victurus Libertas, I noted that Field McConnell’s name was mentioned in the membership fees Gold Level- Insider Engagement as shown below:

Victurus Libertas also had interviewed the fake Alaskan judge Anna Von Reitz, and was selling products associated with Sherry Peel Jackson, a former IRS agent who went to jail for 4 years as a Tax Protestor.  So by being an inside political expert enticement for the Gold patrons of the VL website, Field McConnell is by inference also supporting the Sovereign Citizen philosophy this website promotes.

[As an aside, I had also written on Robert David Steele’s association with Sovereign Citizen concepts in this September 16, 2018 article, THE OATH Above All Oaths of Robert David Steele, Chief Counsel for the International Tribunal For Natural Justice.]

Field McConnell has loosely attempted to engage the American court system for his purposes as far back as 2007, when he filed amateurish handwritten complaints in the U. S. District Court-District of North Dakota.  The first lawsuit,  Field McConnell vs. Boeing Company and Air Line Pilots Association was filed February 27, 2007 [link:field mcconnell boeing alpa 2007], and the second,  Field McConnell, David Hawkins and 98 fellow plaintiffs vs. Global Guardians listed in “Preamble” was filed May 1, 2007 [link:  field mcconnell global guardians lawsuit].

Both lawsuits failed for lack of prosecution, as apparently the plaintiff(s) never served the defendants.

In 2016, Field McConnell was involved in divorce proceedings in Wisconsin. We are going to look at certain aspects of this case, as he attempted to make use of several  sovereign citizen paper terrorist tactics.  The two documents under discussion in today’s post can be located here:  [Field McConnell affidavit of truth 2016 ]  and [Field McConnell divorce 2016 ].

First, in viewing these documents, I am not going to be addressing who is right and who is wrong as far as this dispute concerns a private divorce judgment; however, it needs to be noted that a dispute arose because the Petitioner, Alison McConnell, had asserted that Field McConnell had not made certain maintenance payments, real estate tax payments, and provided proof of home loan payments or homestead insurance payments.  The attorneys for Alison McConnell filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for Divorce Judgment, Contempt Findings, and Further Relief with the Pierce County, Wisconsin Clerk of Circuit Court on March 1, 2016.


In response, the Abeldanger.org website displays a document dated March 3, 2016,  written by Field McConnell titled, Wisconsin Law Firm Ignorant of SEC Tracer #2640220  Implicates County Officials.

In the above referenced document, 27 statements are laid out.  #5 explains that Field McConnell had been “targeted by a ‘weaponized IRS’ beginning in December of 2014, and that “The targeting could only have been initiated by my sibling Kristine Marcy, and the person for whom she created a passport in 1994 utilizing the National Visa Center controlled by Serco, a British corporation.”

#6 refers to the IRS as a private corporation who “has threatened to steal or cause harm to my property after I advised them on 22 May, 2015 that I was revoking my election to participate in their fraud.” Thus it appears that the IRS probably is viewing Field McConnell as a potential Tax Protestor, which could lead to serious consequences, if that should be the case.

#8 states that “On 16 October, 2015 I became a Lien Claimant of an international commercial lien.  As a commercial instrument it has an S. E. C. Tracer Number of #2640220.”  You can read about this sovereign citizen commercial lien in this pdf taken from the Anna Von Reitz website. [link:  sec tracer 2640220].  To understand what some of the consequences, such as incarceration, are for the fraudulent use of such liens, read this article at pseudolaw.com , Is filing a UCC commercial lien a good way to enforce rights?

#10 explains that Field McConnell asked Alison to become familiar with “An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” written by Judge Anna Maria Riezinger.  Alison did not become familiar.”  This is one of several names which Anna Von Reitz uses in promoting her fraudulent schemes. For background information on this fake judge, the YouTube channel Virgo Triad has several videos which can be seen at this link: Fake “Judge”  Anna Von Reitz.


In this document written by Field McConnell, 20 statements are made.  [Field McConnell affidavit of truth 2016]

#4 says, “The Plaintiff in this fraudulent divorce proceeding has claimed ignorance of my duties as Global Operations Director for Abel Danger Global Private Intelligence Agency.  To help the Court understand the Truth, I submit these 5 items of my efforts to enhance the safety of global travelers in time frame 4 December, 2006 until present day, 28 June, 2016.  The Abel Danger Global Private Intelligence Agency will this day, 28 June 2016, be posting a Threat Warning regarding an aviation threat to Hillary Clinton.”

Field McConnell likes to wear many hats. He claims to be the Global Operations Director for Abel Danger Global Private Intelligence Agency.

After reading several pages which follow, I also claim ignorance of his duties.  So Abel Danger is a Global Private Intelligence Agency?

That title encompasses a rather grandiose objective.  However, if one looks into sovereign citizen “agencies” which are created by various persons who consider themselves as above the law and anti-government, it is not all that unusual.  It is not wise to laugh out loud at such pretensive titles, as I found out when I critiqued another global sovereign citizen. They responded by putting out an international notice of protest against my article.

#7 is Field McConnell’s “Lawful Notice to all Bar Registrants” which begins, “Hear ye, Hear ye, Hear ye, I am the Natural Man, and I am calling out your soul to hold you accountable for the many crimes you may have committed against me.”  The lengthy lecture which follows as well as the rest of this document is straight out of the Sovereign Citizen playbook.

Google Paper Terrorism

There are numerous individuals who have attempted to use sovereign citizen “legal” instruments who found themselves convicted and incarcerated for fraud. Most persons who attempt to use these types of legal claims in civil or criminal lawsuits are cited at minimum for promoting frivolous arguments.

If you are interested in what this pseudo-legal maneuvering is all about, please read the links provided in this article, which are a starting point in understanding this form of paper terrorism against the courts and government institutions.  Increasingly, people who have degrees in higher education, or are highly skilled, are turning to these fraudulent legal schemes to escape personal property or tax issues in their life, without reflection on what the real life consequences are for fraud or failure to pay taxes, etc.  Please don’t become one of these, who later regret their actions when it is too late.









Jason Goodman’s Strangely Concocted Explanation of the Ghost Writings of Document 14 in the Robert David Steele Defamation Lawsuit

On September 1, 2017, Robert David Steele and Earth Intelligence Network filed a federal civil lawsuit for defamation against Jason Goodman of Crowdsource the Truth, Patricia Negron, and Queen Tut, a woman believed to be known as Carla A. Howell. Jason Goodman is representing himself as a Pro Se Defendant in this lawsuit.

On October 6, 2017, the court filed Defendant Jason Goodman’s Original Answer as Document 14. (see link rds doc 14 goodman response to complaint 1).

In the cover letter to the U. S. District Court Clerk, Jason Goodman stated, “Enclosed is a copy of my answer to the frivolous suit brought by Steven S. Biss on behalf of his client Robert David Steele.  No claims in this suit have any evidentiary value…”.  These conclusions have been repeatedly expressed by the defendant elsewhere as a general complaint, without addressing the underlying details of this ongoing conflict.

On January 31, 2019, the Honorable U. S. District Judge  M. Hannah Lauck filed the Order shown below, which is linked here:  Robert David Steele lawsuit doc 69

Notice that five forms were requested to be returned for Documents 14, 44, 45,46, and 52, representing Jason Goodman’s certification under penalty of perjury regarding the identification of who had written these court filings.  The Order provided a deadline of ten days to submit these affidavits to the Court, warning that “failure to comply with this Order will result in the Court disregarding Goodman’s filings.”

On February 4, 2019, Jason Goodman prepared four out of five of the required affidavits and the court filed these certifications as Document 70 on February 8, 2019.  A certification for Document 14 is not included in Document 70.  (link to  rds doc 70).

On February 11, 2019, Jason Goodman submitted the missing Local Rule 83.1 (M) Certification with his explanation under the title, Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Substitute Corrected Ghost Writing Form.  The court clerk filed this 6 page document as Document 71 on February 13, 2019. (see link rds v goodman doc 71).

The mysterious “attorney” William McGill

Regarding his Answer filed as Document 14, Jason Goodman certified that an attorney named William McGill, with an unknown address, and phone number of 214-276-6004 had “prepared or assisted me in preparation of Answer (ECF No. 14)”.

I attempted to look up this Addison, Texas phone number on the internet, as well as the name of attorney William McGill.  I could not locate any information to verify the identity of this person.  I was listening to a video published by Dave Acton ( aka David G. Sweigert), and apparently someone on his end had called the phone number and discovered it belonged to a 71-year-old woman.  The name of William McGill could not be found on the Texas State Bar records.

What happened to the original affidavit on Document 14?

So let’s review the explanation given by Jason Goodman for his Defendant’s Motion for Leave To Substitute Corrected Ghost Writing Form.  He begins by stating, “Comes now Defendant Jason Goodman, Pro Se, with this Motion For Leave to Substitute Corrected Ghost Writing Form.  Due to the deliberately convoluted, defamatory and obstructionist nature of Plaintiff’s numerous filings, coupled with the long period of recent activity in this suit, and comparatively short 10 day period given to respond to the Court’s Order, Defendant Goodman improperly recalled certain details related to the filing of the Answer (ECF No. 14).”

Tracking the Leopard Meroz:  Jason Goodman is asking to “substitute (a) corrected ghost writing form”. But normally a substitution would be required if the original certification form requiring correction,  had been sent with the other 4 documents.  Document 70 does not show  that a “ghost writing” form on Document 14 had been sent to the Court.  Had such an affidavit been sent, it would have represented a document which represents perjury, as it did not represent the truth.  So all this language of explanation in Document 71 is rather curious.

It’s all Dave Sweigert’s fault?

Jason Goodman explains to the court that the state of his present confusion can be laid at the feet of D. George Sweigert, for he states, “Defendant’s Answer was originally filed more than one year ago on October 6, 2017.  Since that time, and in addition to filing seven Declarations in this action, D. George Sweigert has initiated a remarkably similar SLAPP action based largely on Plaintiff’s same false actions….Upon further consideration and review of emails from October 2017 related to the filing of Defendant’s Answer (ECF No.14), Defendant would like to amend the Ghost Writing Form associated with the filing of the Defendant’s Answer (ECF No. 14).”

Tracking the Leopard Meroz:  While Jason Goodman may indeed by confused, it is not true that there is a similarity between Robert David Steele’s lawsuit, and that of D. George Sweigert’s.  Steele’s lawsuit is a complaint  of defamation against three individuals connected with the Crowdsource the Truth broadcasts from mid June 2017 to September 1, 2017. ( RDS filed an amended complaint because of continuing defamatory remarks made after he filed his lawsuit.)

The 7 Declarations filed by D. George Sweigert in the Steele lawsuit regarded defamation issues concerning himself only, and not those of Robert David Steele, arising from Jason Goodman’s actions. The June 14, 2018 complaint against Jason Goodman filed by D.George Sweigert is a RICO lawsuit involving the Port of Charleston dirty bomb incident, and an ongoing racketeering operation involving a defamation campaign by Goodman and his CSTT guests against Sweigert.  

At the time of Jason Goodman’s Answer, which was filed October 6, 2017, the Steele lawsuit still named Queen Tut as a Woman Believed to be Known as Carla A. Howell. Susan Lutzke had not yet been identified in the lawsuit as Queen Tut.   Jason Goodman claims in the Document 71 under discussion that, “Defendant had communications via telephone and email with Susan Lutzke, aka Susan Holmes, aka Queen Tut (Lutzke).  Lutzke worked with Defendant Goodman to formulate and write the Answer (ECF No. 14)…to the best of Defendant’s knowledge Lutzke is not an attorney and Lutzke never told Defendant she was an attorney.  To the contrary, Lutzke specifically told Defendant she was not an attorney.”

I am aware that some regard this narration of Jason Goodman’s in Document 71 as another example of Jason Goodman throwing one of his past guests/researchers “under the bus”.  I concur. Although I have had major differences of opinion with Queen Tut aka Susan Lutzke, I consider her to have been taken advantage of by Jason Goodman. I hold this opinion because her first CSTT show with Jason Goodman was just a few days before her son was shot to death in a tragic incident.  There is no one who, standing in Susan Lutzke’s shoes, would not have been in severe shock from that irreversible event if it had happened to them.  Lutzke appears to have a naturally outgoing personality and despite this terrible event of her son’s death, she continued on with Jason Goodman providing her research on Robert David Steele.

She was then sued along with Jason Goodman and Patricia Negron  2 months after the death of her son. 

Document 14, which Jason Goodman now seeks to transfer responsibility for writing the major portion of to Susan Lutzke, was filed with the court about 5 days prior to Lutzke’s leaving the show.  She left apparently due to a conflict involving another regular CSTT guest,  Mr. Hudson aka Okey Marshall Richards, who was the primary instigator of the Port of Charleston incident.

For these reasons, I find Jason Goodman’s efforts to distance himself from the responsibility for the contents of Document 14 to be unconscionable.

Jason Goodman also stated in Document 71, “In addition to Lutzke, an individual known to Defendant as William McGill (McGill) also communicated by email and telephone with regard to writing the Answer (ECF No. 14)…McGill did tell Defendant by email and/or telephone that he was an attorney, but Defendant did not verify this nor did retain McGill as his attorney in any matter at any time.  No retainer agreement oral or written has been entered or signed.  No money has been exchanged between Defendant and McGill.  To the best of Defendant’s knowledge, McGill does not practice law in VA.  McGill offered his time and input as mere suggestions and he did so of his own free will with no expectation or demand of any form of compensation in return.”

Tracking the Leopard Meroz:  As noted at the beginning of this post, this mysterious attorney named William McGill cannot be located using internet search engines, and the phone number shown by Goodman in his affidavit belongs to an older woman.  Goodman mentions emails, and I would hope that the Court or the Plaintiff’s attorney would request a copy of those as part of an inquiry into this strange story.  How many adults would not ask for the credentials and location of someone claiming to be an attorney and giving out legal counsel?

Jason Goodman states, “McGill’s input in writing the Answer (ECF No. 14) was limited to corrections in the document written by Lutzke and Goodman formatting, suggestions and syntax.  The substantial majority of the Answer (ECF No. 14) was written by Lutzke with additional input from Goodman.”

He adds, “The Answer (ECF No. 14) was originally filed on October 6, 2017.  Between this time and the April 13, 2018 filing of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s tactics had become clear to Defendant.  For the Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 44) filed April 30, 2018, Defendant did not seek or utilize assistance from Lutzke, McGill or any other Attorney.”

Tracking the Leopard Meroz:  Of course not!  As noted before, Susan Lutzke left Crowdsource the Truth about October 11, 2017.  As for McGill, I would love to read those emails.

If you have ever viewed Crowdsource the Truth, recall the voice of false humility which Jason Goodman intones when he graciously condescends to interact with his guests.  He explains in Document 71, “Defendant humbly apologizes to the court for the inadvertent error which necessitates this Motion for Leave.  Due to the excessive, defamatory, baseless and voluminous filings from both Steele and Sweigert, requiring an inordinate amount of time, attention, and effort from Defendant, the detail of this inconsequential communication with McGill was temporarily overlooked.  Upon closer review of communications, and this substitute corrected Ghost Writing form, the docket will now be correct, and the record will reflect a fully accurate portrayal of events related to the filing of the initial Answer (ECF No 14).”

Tracking the Leopard Meroz:  It could not have been stated any better if Jason Goodman had employed as his Ghost Counsellor, the Chief Prince Leopard himself.  Bravo!  Let’s all give him a standing ovation.