“Plaintiff Steele and Intervenor Applicant Sweigert have been conspiring together and with intermediaries for more than one year and in an ongoing fashion to create and monetize a harassment campaign (The Campaign) intended to disrupt the Defendant’s business, personal life and world wide reputation, and chill Defendant’s journalistic endeavors which have revealed evidence of felony crimes by Plaintiff, Intervenor Applicant and third-party co-conspirators.” [Document 78 filed March 8, 2019 by Jason Goodman as “Defendant’s Opposition to the Motion to Intervene”.]
A little background history
As readers of Tracking the Leopard Meroz blog know, Jason Goodman accused this author of being part of a co-conspiracy which had committed “felony crimes” in Document 78 in the Robert David Steele, et. al. vs. Jason Goodman, et. al. defamation lawsuit.
On March 15, 2019, in Document 79, I responded to those false allegations by submitting a Declaration, which included two exhibits to the Court.
In my Declaration to the Court, I described the content of this blog for the past four years, denied all of the allegations of Jason Goodman as being false and unsupported by ANY evidence, and noted that in the past 20 months of writing articles that involved Crowdsource the Truth, not once had Jason Goodman written this blog to challenge the numerous screenshots, transcriptions of videos, references to court documents or any other documentation I provide to support my commentary. That is, not until Goodman commented on my blog on March 9, 2019; displayed as Exhibit B of Document 79, The Declaration of Jacquelyn Weaver.
That comment which was left by Jason Goodman on Tracking the Leopard Meroz, stated in part, ” If you believe the biased propaganda presented on this blog, you might ask yourself why Weaver has refrained from editorializing her latest post regarding the docket entry 78. She has merely presented the court documents without her usual grossly slanted commentary, which is coincidentally continually lauding the very individuals behind the alleged conspiracy to create a harassment for pay operation, I would suggest, that may be due to the fact that any further comments she makes, may in fact, not be helpful to her in defending her actions should the court find my conclusions in this matter to be correct.”
This blog is free and has never solicited donations. The conclusions which Jason Goodman wants the Court to endorse are his allegations that I, along with others, have committed felony crimes.
What are felony crimes?
Justice.gov states that “felonies are offenses that may result in prison sentences of more than one year…”, and they define such criminal acts as those that violate state or federal law.
As inferred in the comment left by Jason Goodman on this blog, he had inserted my name in a court document to which I am a non-party, as a warning to intimidate this writer into silence.
Other False Allegations made anonymously
Around April 3, 2019, an internet handle Avi Avi posted insinuating questions on the Kevin Alan Marsden YouTube channel comment section, saying, “Did anyone notice that so called Jacqueline (sp) Weaver from Meroz doesn’t really live at her court filed address? How come “Weaver” is trashing everyone that supported Dave Acton? How come Dave Acton ‘hangs out’ anyone that helped him & has ‘Weaver’ do all his dirty work? How is that CIA scumbag Robert David Steele, Dave Acton, NSA, Homeland Security & ‘Weaver’ are such good friends? And u all think Goodman is the bad guy…funny.”
The first thing to notice in the above comment is that the anonymous liar implied that I had submitted a court affidavit using a false address of record, when a check of the Lamar County, Mississippi property records proves that I, along with my husband, am the owner of the house at that address. There are 3 reasonable guesses as to who is behind the Avi Avi insinuations, and 2 of those possibilities are parties to the Robert David Steele defamation lawsuit.
Document 109: Hidden Messages to subvert civil legal procedures?
In the most recent court document (109) submitted by Jason Goodman on May 7, 2019, he again declares, “Defendant has alleged a conspiracy between Plaintiff, Intervenor Applicant, co-Defendant Queen Tut aka Susan Lutzke aka Susan Holmes (herein after HOLMES) and non-party co-conspirators.”
On page 5 and 6 of Document 109, Jason Goodman declares, “Plaintiff and Intervenor Applicant, by their own admission, are both retired members of the military and clandestine services with specialties in deceptive psychological and information/disinformation operations. Defendant has repeated the allegation that both parties are cooperating to use this instant legal action as a burdensome weapon of harassment against Defendant and to chill Defendant’s journalistic investigations into alleged criminal activity. Plaintiff has asserted that “no evidence” exists to support Defendant’s claim.”
Goodman continues, “It is Defendant’s belief that the coordinated effort between the Plaintiff, Intervenor Applicant, Holmes and third parties has been carefully crafted in a specific manner so as to circumvent standard civil legal procedures and has been executed in absence of any overt, discoverable communications. Coded messages sent in public via steganographic techniques, including YouTube videos and social media comments and the use of third-party intermediaries, deliberately avoid leaving a discoverable trail of evidence and sufficiently frustrate civil legal procedures.”
Jason Goodman provided no evidence to the Court to support this allegation. What is more, Goodman had declared in Document 109 that “Defendant is entitled to an order protecting him from responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.” With regard to his situation, his argument was that ample public information was available. But when it comes to others, he accuses them of subverting the legal process by hiding secret messages in plain sight.
What are steganographic techniques, and how are they to be discovered?
Steganographic techniques involve hiding messages in plain sight, such as in digital images, or spam messages. If one is concerned about such matters, there exists software which can be purchased to analyze possible sources where steganographic techniques have been employed. In one advertisement, McAfee.com asks, Are you protecting yourself from Stegware? And they offer a free “Try It Out” mechanism that allows for an image file to be dropped in their trial example, and analyzed for steganography.
If Jason Goodman wants to declare that steganographic techniques have been used as claimed in Document 109, certainly he could have also provided evidence of such, using a software program that detects stegware. He provides no such software analysis as supporting evidence.
[There are numerous articles on the internet on steganography, if one is interested in this topic. Semanticsscholar.org has published a 2013 thesis by Aimie Chee titled, Steganographic Techniques on Social Media: Investigative Guidelines which provides sound research on this subject.]
Felony Crimes and Non-Parties of a Civil Lawsuit
In Document 78 which identifies by name, the accused participants in a co-conspiracy, all are NON PARTIES to the Robert David Steele lawsuit with the exception of Robert David Steele, the Plaintiff and Queen Tut, one of the Co-Defendants. Jason Goodman asserted that he has “revealed evidence of felony crimes by Plaintiff, Intervenor Applicant and third-party co-conspirators.”
Not only has Jason Goodman failed to provide evidence to support his allegations, he fails to document that he has provided this so-called proof of felony crimes to the state or federal law enforcement agencies responsible for investigating and for procuring indictments for illegal conduct. Felony offenses are to be tried in a Criminal Court, not in a civil defamation case by a defendant who appears to regard himself as having the same standing as a state or federal law enforcement investigator.
Not only has Jason Goodman undertaken a role not belonging to him, but he disingenuously makes his false allegations in a Federal Civil Court proceeding where most of the accused do not have legal standing in which to exonerate their reputations. Four of those accused by Goodman submitted Declarations to the Court as interested persons, NOT as parties in this defamation lawsuit.
I apologize for being redundant, but this nail needs to be driven in with several strikes of the hammer
Again, let me repeat: The Robert David Steele, et. al. vs Jason Goodman, et. al. lawsuit is a defamation complaint filed in Federal Civil Court. It is not a court which is a trier of felony criminal offenses. Yet Jason Goodman, as a defendant in this case, has the temerity to cast felony criminal aspersions against several non-parties. Is such a means of slander and libel to be tolerated in a civil court proceeding?
Justice.gov in discussing the role of a grand jury, references Section 9.11.130 Limitation on Naming Persons as Unindicted Co-Conspirators. The first paragraph reads, “In the absence of some significant justification, federal prosecutors generally should not identify co-conspirators in conspiracy indictments. The practice of naming individuals as unindicted co-conspirators in an indictment charging a criminal conspiracy has been severely criticized in United States v. Briggs, 514 F. 2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975).
Thus we see that persons accused of being unindicted co-conspirators have been acknowledged as having certain rights in Criminal Court proceedings. Do persons accused of being unindicted co-conspirators have any rights in Civil Court proceedings, where they lack legal standing as non-parties to defend themselves against false allegations from a Defendant in a defamation lawsuit? Does a Defendant in a defamation case have the right to commit DEFAMATION in a civil court matter against non-parties?
United States vs. Briggs and the Rights of Unindicted co-conspirators
I am not an attorney, nor am I an expert in legal theory. However, the Department of Justice has cited United States v. Briggs as an authority in governing how unindicted co-conspirators in criminal matters are to be addressed. United States v. Briggs
For the sake of discussion, let’s see what points were presented in United States v. Briggs. As background, this case was decided June 13, 1975, almost 44 years ago. The original case dealt with a five-count indictment by a federal Grand Jury in the Northern District of Florida against a number of persons involved in political demonstrations and disruptions at the Republican Party National Convention in 1972.
“The alleged conspirators included ten named persons plus others not named. Of the ten named, seven were made defendants and three were not. The latter three, although accused of participation in the criminal conspiracy, were determined in the indictment as ‘unindicted co-conspirators’.”
“Prior to the trial of the seven named defendants, two of the three named but unindicted persons…filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, seeking entry of an order expunging the references to them in Count One of the indictment. The United States Attorney appeared and contested the application. The named defendants did not object to expunction of references to Beverly and Chambers. The District Judge denied the petition without opinion or statement of reasons. The petitioners appealed. Pending appeal and following a month-long trial before a jury, the indicted conspirators were acquitted.”
The government had argued that “since the petitioners were not named as defendants they lacked standing to object to the contents of the indictment.”
On appeal, the Court stated, “We hold that there is a case or controversy, that the appellants have standing, and that the acquittal of the persons named as defendants does not moot the case. The government’s position to the contrary on each of these points is founded upon its argument that since the appellants were not indicted, and particularly since those names as defendants were acquitted, the formal branding of appellants as alleged felons and as participants in a distasteful conspiracy is a mere chimera, neither substantial nor injurious. This is at least disingenuous.”
“Beverly and Chambers complain of injury to their good names and reputations and impairment of their ability to obtain employment. The courts have recognized in many contexts that these are substantial and legally cognizable interests entitled to constitutional protection against official action that debases them.”
Tort Law Quoted in United States v. Briggs
The United States v. Briggs opinion is extensive, but an interesting reference cited which is appropriate to today’s post, says, “In tort law, slanderous publication imputing to another a criminal offense subjects the defamer to liability without proof of special harm. Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 570 (Tent. Draft No. 20, 1974).”
Following this quote, the Court Opinion continued, “The government defies common sense with its theory that one’s interests are not adversely affected to any extent by being publicly branded as a felon so long as he is not named as a defendant for trial. We reject as frivolous the contention that if appellants have suffered injury it is at the hand of only the news media to whom they should repair for relief…”.
Unindicted co-conspirators in criminal trials have rights…what about civil court proceedings?
The point I am addressing is that in a criminal case which is prosecuted by the government, the Court has ruled that those named as unindicted co-conspirators have rights which must be respected, in spite of the fact that these persons lack standing in a criminal proceeding. Jason Goodman, one of three defendants in a federal civil defamation lawsuit, has cast aspersions on several non-parties whose only common bond is an interest in this case.
It is a danger to a civilized society, when slanderous publications impute to another a criminal offense, is committed by a defamer on social media.
How much more is that danger, when that same defamer can with apparent impunity in a civil proceeding, allege that non-parties to the lawsuit have committed unindicted felony crimes?