The other day someone thought it was suspicious that I knew about Marcus Conte, and put forth the odd theory that I could not have known about him apart from Dave Sweigert. Uhhh, I found out about Marcus because Jason Goodman promoted him on a Crowdsource the Court Jester show.
On June 16, 2017, I became interested in a breaking story headlined How a Conspiracy Theory Closed Part of a Major U. S. Seaport. Subsequently, I wrote several articles on guests who were featured on Jason Goodman’s Crowdsource the Truth broadcasts.
After two months, on September 1, 2017, one of those guests, Robert David Steele and his nonprofit corporation Earth Intelligence Network filed a federal civil court defamation complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia against Jason Goodman, Patricia Negron and Queen Tut. That lawsuit is scheduled for trial in March of 2020.
About two weeks after that, on September 17, 2017, Jason Goodman featured Marcus Conte on CSTT as a “whistle blower” because Conte had sued his former employer, the New York Department of Sanitation. (see Tracking the Leopard Meroz July 4, 2019, article “Marcus Conte Clueless in New Yuck City“.)
Sweigert vs. Goodman
One year after the Port of Charleston dirty bomb hoax incident, a second but separate federal civil lawsuit was filed June 14, 2018 as D. George Sweigert vs. Jason Goodman. This lawsuit was formatted as a RICO complaint and was originally filed in the Charleston, South Carolina federal court, but was later reassigned to the Southern District of New York, where defendant Jason Goodman resides.
On August 20, 2019, United States District Judge Valerie Caproni of the SDNY court filed a Memorandum Order which severely critiqued the legal arguments of both the plaintiff and the defendant. One of the complexities of this case involved the fact that RICO can be treated as either a civil or a criminal complaint. However, only government prosecutors are permitted to charge an individual with a criminal act; whereas a private citizen may file a RICO lawsuit that is exclusively a civil complaint. (see sweigert v goodman doc 87 August 20 2019).
In response to this critique, Plaintiff D. George Sweigert submitted Plaintiff’s Verified Second Amended Complaint (2AC) to the court on September 10, 2019. This amended complaint has eliminated anything to do with criminal actions, and is now focused on defamation. (see sweigert v goodman doc 88 september 10 2019)
Marcus Conte Attempts to Intervene in Sweigert vs. Goodman
The day after Document 88 became public, YouTube broadcaster, Marcus Conte created a video titled Dave Acton Sweigert Charged With Cyber Bullying, Harassment & Perjury Before SDNY Judge Valerie E. Caproni 1:18-cv-08653-VEC. In addition he provided a link to a letter dated September 12, 2019 to U. S. District Judge Valerie Caproni offering to come to court and give sworn testimony. see( Sweigert v. Goodman CONTE LETTER).
What is in that letter?
The first thing to observe about this attempted intervention is that no one seems to be able to locate Marcus Conte’s name in the Second Amended Complaint, either as a defendant or as a named non-party. Even Marcus Conte does not identify in his letter how he fits into the four corners of the lawsuit complaint. It would appear that his “intervening” into this lawsuit via a letter and an hour long video of his “evidence” is a fantasy which he has concocted, which stands outside the boundaries of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
An inappropriate informality
A brief survey of Marcus Conte’s two page letter reveals an overall tone of informality in addressing the Court. Although he does address the recipient in the address line as Hon. Valerie E. Caproni, he fails to extend this formality throughout, preferring the casual Dear Judge, to the commonly used Dear Judge Caproni or Your Honor.
In addition, the subject line is a quote from someone named “Judge” stating “This is a frivolous dispute between two litigants whose voluminous court filings rehash their incomprehensible and illogical online conspiracy theories.” Conte’s failure to identify the actual quoted document as the August 20, 2019, Memorandum Order of Judge Valerie Caproni, adds to the overall impression that he considers himself to be on a familiar footing with a United States District Judge. Even seasoned attorneys dare not approach the bench with such casualness.
Normal protocol for writing a formal letter addressed to a Judge recommends that the first line introduce the writer’s name and residence, followed by a short description of the purpose of the letter. Marcus Conte reverses this order and presumptuously begins, ” Dear Judge, It is hard to imagine a more frivolous dispute between 2-crackpot online conspiracy theorist’ than this one. Not only is Plaintiff a documented conspiracy kook, he engages in routine online Cyber Bullying, Harassment & Perjury.”
In line three, the author of the letter then describes who he is, saying, “My name is Marcus Conte, an independent journalist, whistleblower and YouTube personality familiar with both party’s on & offline shenanigans. I am also one of plaintiff’s many Cyber Bully victims. I would like to place my personal experience on the record. I live in Brooklyn NY and would like to come to court and give sworn testimony”.
Marcus Conte’s personal experiences are irrelevant to the actual complaint in this particular lawsuit, so one wonders at what stage of this lawsuit does Conte think that his “evidence” and sworn testimony would intersect with the actual legal argument and facts of Sweigert vs. Goodman?
United States District Judge Caproni is not swayed by YouTube speculations as a replacement for concise argumentation
It may have been unwise for Marcus Conte to boast that he is a YouTube personality. Did he not observe what Judge Caproni remarked on page 5 of Document 88, which is a general indicator of her low opinion of YouTube? She stated, “Such conspiratorial speculation, applying a standard that could lead to the disqualification of virtually every judge in the district, may be fit for YouTube’s comment section, but it is not sufficient to cause the recusal of the undersigned.” (bold added).
While Judge Caproni’s statement applies to a particular legal issue brought forth by the Plaintiff, it is obvious from those words that Judge Caproni holds in high regard federal civil court rules which have been honed over time to ensure that a plaintiff clearly states how his legal arguments uphold his complaint. Obviously, speculative reasoning such as is regularly seen in YouTube comment sections does not belong in a courtroom. Yet, despite this, Marcus Conte’s entire letter is nothing but speculation and conclusions such as befitting an ill mannered YouTube personality. So how about his video evidence?
Are you kidding?
In a further affront to the American judiciary, Marcus Conte has made a video which he refers to at the 1.10 mark as “an evidence video”. To expect a federal judge, who is managing several cases, including jury trials, to reserve an hour of her valuable time to view a non-party’s one hour YouTube video is preposterous.
Marc Conte has filed a pro se lawsuit before, so why does he not just file his own case against Sweigert? Perhaps he fears being showed up for what he is, or perhaps for what he is not. An example of his lazy thinking style is found in his letter to Judge Caproni where he declares in this statement that, “Plaintiff Dave Sweigert is a YouTube video celebrity with a subscriber base of 17,000 viewers. However, Sweigert falsely claims he is a ‘private citizen’. He is not.”
Two weaknesses can be noted in those assertions. First, most of Dave Acton’s YouTube subscribers were added around 2017 after the Port of Charleston incident. But if we look at present day views of his videos, the range of views averages far below the subscriber base, about 200-800 per video. Those low numbers are an indicator that Sweigert aka Acton is neither a celebrity, nor a public figure.
Secondly, Marcus Conte displays ignorance of the legal definition of what constitutes a public, limited public, or private figure in defamation law.
Overall, Marcus Conte’s letter to the Court does not fit within the four corners of Sweigert’s defamation complaint against Jason Goodman. And in addition, he fails to identify in his letter any particular statement made by Sweigert in the Second Amended Complaint that represents an example of perjury.
On Public Menaces
Conte concludes his argument by saying, “Plaintiff is no “knight in shining armor.” He is an online menace and should be barred by the court from online discourse and from further discussing this case in public. Plaintiff should also be severely fined for filing one frivolous motion after another at the expense of the People, and for making a mockery of this court- and this country.”
Those allegations of being an online menace could easily be leveled at Marcus Conte.
I am growing weary of the ever increasing slander, cruel humor and threats being made by various YouTubers, which is considered a form of vengeance entertainment. And for Marcus Conte to make a mockery of the court by starring as a Court Jester in a YouTube video which is then submitted to a United States District Judge, should be condemned. If a YouTuber has a valid complaint against another party, why not document it with sound evidence in a blog? Or file a civil lawsuit as a pro se plaintiff against your opponent, and show us all just how smart you are in pleading your case in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Anything less is just a cheap publicity stunt. And by the way, that suggestion is for all of you YouTubers, without exception.