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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

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

    • This personal injury lawyer goes by Billy McGill and can be contacted at 214 301 5007. Jason Goodman referred to a William McGill @ 214 276 6004 with no known address. Goodman needs to explain the disparity, if this is the same person he talked to. One gets tired of Goodman’s guessing games which he plays on CSTT and in two federal civil lawsuits.

  1. Pingback: Jason Goodman’s Conspiracy Theory | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

Leave a Reply to Jacquelyn Weaver Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.