Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman Document 110: Dave Sweigert’s Reply to Jason Goodman’s Opposition to Intervenor-Applicant Motion

On May 8, 2019, Document 110 was filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, in the Robert David Steele, et. al. vs. Jason Goodman, et. al. lawsuit.

Document 110  (43 pages)  Reply in Opposition to Defendant’s Opposition By Intervenor-Applicant    rds doc 110 5 8 2019


2 thoughts on “Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman Document 110: Dave Sweigert’s Reply to Jason Goodman’s Opposition to Intervenor-Applicant Motion

  1. I understand the reasons why the defendants (those that responded) and the plaintiff are opposed to allowing Mr. Sweigert to intervene in this case, but if I was in the plaintiff’s position, I would reconsider the strength of my case at this time.

    First, the plaintiff’s lawsuit is beyond ripe, and by that I mean the claimed damages are more than a year old, and more importantly, Mr. Steele does not seem to have suffered any permanent or long-lasting effects from the claimed defamation. Thus, even though he may be able to persuade a jury that he was defamed, the amount of any award is likely diminishing each day as long as his YouTube presence and other public appearances cannot be shown to have been significantly impaired at the present time.

    However, if Mr. Sweigert is allowed to intervene, it not only establishes a current and ongoing defamation campaign against him, but it also establishes a pattern of ongoing defamation by the defendant (Goodman) that can be successfully argued to be expected to continue into the future, not only involving Mr. Sweigert but potentially to new targets of the defendant’s “investigations”. I am not an attorney, but without Mr. Sweigert’s intervention, can the plaintiff bring in other parties who have been similarly damaged? If not, the idea of a pattern of defamation will be that much harder to demonstrate.

    Lastly, there is no question of Mr. Sweigert’s commitment to rigorously defending himself given his voluminous (and well-researched) filings to date. In short, to have someone with his commitment and dedication to help in prosecuting this case should be welcomed. I think he makes a very persuasive and compelling argument for intervention, and in my non-attorney view, should be fully utilized for whatever services he is able to provide, which from what I have seen to date, appear to be substantial.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.