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 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 , 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.







Robert David Steele v. Jason Goodman: Doc. 71 – Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Substitute Corrected Ghost Writing Form

Previously the Judge in the Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman lawsuit ordered that this Pro Se defendant fill out standardized court forms describing whether any of his court filings were ghost written by an attorney.  Goodman returned the forms attesting that he had not used an attorney in that capacity.

Document 71 (6 pages), filed on the court docket on February 13, 2019, represents Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Substitute Corrected Ghost Writing Form.

Of interest was the reliance of Jason Goodman on Susan Lutzke aka Queen Tut for the court filing in question.

rds v goodman doc 71

Steve Outtrim’s Burners.Me Article on the Credentials of David Hawkins

Steve Outtrim has done an excellent rundown on the bona fides of David Hawkins, a  regular guest on Jason Goodman’s Crowdsource the Truth.

The link to Outtrim’s February 13, 2019 article:   Reverse CSBS Investigation: David Hawkins

Just One or Two Observations on this David Hawkins/Jason Goodman Scheme


I had a few minutes in a busy day to take a quick look at the chat room comments on today’s Jason Goodman’s video, Was Sweigert the EVL BAT CAVE Custodian or Key Holder for BAE  Bit-Spread Pentagon Bomb.

In this first screenshot shown above, Joe Napoli commented:  “Wonder if my innocent comments will be screen shotted and posted on chase the leopard Meroz?!! (5 teethy smile faces).

Sure, why not, Joe.  Maybe one day you will demonstrate to us just how innocent your comments really are. 

Another Screenshot of Jason Goodman complaining about spoliation of evidence

Hmmm, I see in the comment below that Jason Goodman was complaining that, “he is attempting to SPOLIATE evidence of harassment (sp)”.  Who is “he”, by the way?But speaking of spoliating evidence, hey David Hawkins, did you catch Kevin Alan Marsden’s YouTube channel today?  It is called, Agent Serco reveals the real David Hawkins.  Marsden reviews the research he has done on your employment and education background, including information received from someone who formerly worked with you. It seems you have tampered with your own history.

However, my favorite part of this video expose was the conclusion.  At the 17.58 mark, Kevin Marsden speaks directly to David Hawkins, saying, “so you did your degree in two years; no, you didn’t.  I have an MA.  No you haven’t.  I went to Oxford.  No, you didn’t.  These are all fictitious embellishments to make yourself something you’re not.” (18.15)

He continues, (18.52) … “evidence is there now.  I’m starting to find even more footprints and yet you have the audacity to turn around and say, well, yes the, the communications are this and this and this without expert knowledge in any of it.  You’ve accused people of the worst crimes in the world with no evidence, no fact-based thing….(19.38) absolutely despicable…”.

Oh no, look at this screenshot!  Michael Barden is making a threat!  Why wasn’t he blocked?  Oh yeah, he is a source of income as a frequent guest on CSTT.

Michael Barden, who identifies himself as a Targeted Individual, left a threat in the chat room of Jason Goodman’s Crowdsource the Truth, saying  “Some day I’m going to have the chance to look Sweigert in the eye.  He’s going to be held responsible for his domestic terrorism.”

What domestic terrorism?  You mean the false accusations of David Hawkins and Jason Goodman?  Recall that Michael Barden  was arrested for “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and disorderly conduct with a weapon”. 

This type of threat needs to be taken seriously, and I hope someone filed a police report on that statement. 

Last screenshot showing today’s advertising of how to pay both David Hawkins and Jason Goodman if you want to partake in the continuance of their false accusations. 

You know, this reminds me of a situation that I addressed back in 2016 about another YouTube Alt Media channel. I reminded my readers that 941.18 U. S. C. on the elements of wire fraud includes (1) a scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses, and (2) the defendant’s knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) the use of interstate wire communication to further the scheme (example: the internet).

942 “The Scheme and Artifice to Defraud”, is according to a Department of Justice memo, “to be measured by nontechnical standards and is not restricted by any common-law definition of false pretenses.  “[T]he words to defraud … have the ‘common understanding’ of “wrongdoing one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes,” and “usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching.”

So let’s see: knowingly creating false credentials for the purposes of false accusation and defamation and asking for money on the internet…wire fraud…and oh, that nasty little terroristic threat…all in a day’s work for Crowdsource the Truth and Reverse Engineering CSI.



The Law of the Trapezoid and the Law of Self-Entrapment: Exhibit One-David Hawkins. Exhibit Two-Jason Goodman.

On February 8, 2019, Jason Goodman of Crowdsource the Truth asked two questions in the description section of his video titled, Did Sweigert hack the EVL BAT CAVE & Switch Pentagon Attack To Live Fire? David Hawkins.   He wrote, There has been no more aggressive opponent to Reverse CSI than David Sweigert.  He’s literally written the book on ethical hacking, but the question is, who determines the ethics that guide him?  Considering Sweigert’s experience in marketing Public Key Infrastructure, like that of the Federal Bridge, and his former employment with Entrust, could Sweigert be attempting to spoliate evidence of crimes?

In this screenshot I capture a transitional moment when Jason Goodman overlays two images to show Hawkins in his typical Edgar Cayce Sleeping Prophet position, as he receives inductive utterances from the GHOST LAWYERS GUILD, which are  beyond the comprehension of rational people.

While it may be true that there is no more aggressive opponent to the Reverse CSI process than David Sweigert, Kevin Alan Marsden has been quickly rounding the laps and catching up with Sweigert in his YouTube videos as he explores the facts, or lack thereof,  behind the questionable bona fides of David Hawkins.  I follow from afar, but since this February 8th video of Goodman and Hawkins is largely just another volume forming a legal tome being put together by these two agent provocateurs, I am going to level the playing field by offering my own non-attorney layman legal expertise.

David Hawkins:  The Frustrum Personified

My first observation is that the title of this video, Did Sweigert hack the Evil Batcave and switch Pentagon attack simulation to live fire? was asked solely to provoke frustration in their intended target. All this reverse engineering a crime scene investigation is the fruit of David Hawkins’ snuffling, passive aggressive style of applying the law of the Trapezoid against his critics.

What is the Law of the Trapezoid?  To answer that, I turn to the 1990 pamphlet Whited Sepulchers:  the Hidden Language of the Mormon Temple, jointly written by William J. Schnoebelen and James R. Spencer. In Appendix II: The Law of the Trapezoid, the authors discuss an occult principle which Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, had spoken of to “underscore the existence of a magical science of geometric angles and spaces” to “create a sense of terror in the same way music can”.  In LaVey’s  discussion of the trapezoidal pyramid, an interesting term is used to identify a pyramid which has the top cut off.  It is called the frustrum, derived from the Latin root word “to frustrate”.

Anton LaVey had once worked as a crime scene photographer, and he became “obsessed with the environments of the many suicides, murders and other grisly phenomena he had to photograph”.  In short, he realized from actual crime scenes that many of the houses in which fatal crimes took place had “angles that violated either topographical or architectural symmetry” to create a strong sense of terror.  He observed “that the most tranquil and stoical person can be drawn into a chaotic situation if his surroundings are sufficiently disturbing.”

We see David Hawkins, similarly drawn to grisly crime scenes, whether it be the Jon Benet Ramsey murder, the British Columbia pig farm murders,  or the 911 disaster resulting in the sudden death of thousands of innocent victims.  David Hawkins displays no real understanding of the culpability of persons for an actual crime, and he loves to frustrate the reasoning of the common man by implicating innocent persons in the guilt for the criminal actions of others in futuristic events.

Reverse Engineering CSI is based on inductive, not deductive logic

Hawkins, who claims to be a mathematician and scientist of extraordinary abilities seems to be unable to understand the definition of simple words such as deductive and inductive logic. And Jason Goodman does no better.

For example, at the 10.11 mark of this video, Jason Goodman is speaking, and he asserts “it’s this deductive reasoning process that has really brought so much evidence to the fore and you and I aren’t necessarily accusing people of things.  There are some people who we have leveled some pretty strong accusations against, and we invite those people to come to the show or to have their lawyers send a letter explaining how we’ve got it wrong.  Certainly it would seem that Mr. Sweigert is doing this as an effort to somehow frustrate our progress or something, but it’s really just silly. [the two men then discuss Serco, Inc.]

As a continuation of this train wreck of reasoning, at the 11:30 mark, David Hawkins comes behind as the caboose to add, “Yeah, well, that would be, I guess, fairly common just like Access Graphics which employed as Chief Executive Officer, Jon Benet Ramsey’s father, was the wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin where apparently directors of Lockheed Martin gave Jon Benet’s father a bonus of a $118,000 and that was the amount requested in the ransom note.  So going back through this deductive, or reverse engineering computing chain, I interpret that ransom note as a threat or an extortion threat to Lockheed Martin because Lockheed Martin’s directors at the time of the bonus included Lynne Cheney,…etc.”

David Hawkins claims that his reverse engineering chain is Deductive reasoning. WRONG!  According to this article at on Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning, “Deductive reasoning starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion.”  Whereas, “Inductive Reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning.  Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations.”

When David Hawkins turns upside down the meanings of commonly understood words such as deductive, to describe his CSI methods which employs the use of inductive logic, we can grasp why he frustrates other researchers, such as 911 Truthers.

Laying the Sacrificial Victim upon the Frustrum

Going back to the initial view of this latest Hawkins interview, Jason Goodman asked  three questions, one in the title, and the other two in the video description.  These loaded questions enter into the viewer’s mind,  before they even push the play button on the video.

All three questions concern David Sweigert, who is the plaintiff in a federal civil RICO lawsuit against Jason Goodman.  More recently Sweigert had sent a letter to Serco, inform them of certain defamatory statements made against their company on the Crowdsource the Truth channel. Jason Goodman displayed the front page of Sweigert’s Serco  letter on a prior show with Hawkins, but not the second page, so his audience was left in the dark about the entire contents.

Question One asked by Jason Goodman:  Who determines the ethics that guide him (i.e. Dave Sweigert)?

Dave Sweigert says he is a Christian.  Therefore one might look to the Bible as the Master under which Sweigert stands or falls.  The Scriptures are in written form and can be studied as a whole, just as American laws are in written form, and can be used as a measuring stick to analyze the conduct of U. S. citizens. Ethics are often codified in law, but generally this word is understood to apply to the internal principles that govern a  person’s behavior.  We can also call it the conscience of a person, that is constantly weighing things in the balance, judging between good and evil.

The Bible states that in the Garden of Eden, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil had been planted, and it was that tree that became the focal point of the story of the fall of mankind into sin.  So if a person rejects the law of God, what becomes “the final authority” over that person? Himself? The fallible laws of the land? An overbearing  mother-in-law?  Romans 2:1 answers that question, saying, Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest:  for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

A number of persons have noted that Jason Goodman often speaks rightly about proper conduct, while at the same time he ignores the public evidence that he does not  follow that same rule himself. In truth, double standards become the self judgment upon the hypocrite.  I am designating this situation as The Law of Self-Entrapment.  There is also a psychological element as well, as James 1:8 declares, “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”

Question Two asked by Jason Goodman hypothesizes that Dave Sweigert’s past employment has created a viable legal context for Sweigert’s possible involvement in spoliating  the evidence of crimes; in particular those committed on September 11, 2001, including the attack upon the Pentagon.

I had never considered the legal concept of Spoliation of Evidence until mid 2017 when I began to look at the YouTube community that was discussing Dave Sweigert’s identity, and also that of his brother George Webb (Sweigert), around the time of the Port of Charleston incident.  As Dave Sweigert began his issuance of spoliation letters to various persons who had made false statements affecting him and his family, I nitpicked his actions in an attempt to get to the heart of his motives. I became acquainted with most of the readily located public details of Dave Sweigert, from the PACER dockets of his qui tam lawsuits from the early 1990’s, to his resume which is parceled out through several websites, to his published books and white papers. Eventually I began to see a continuing thread of a love of justice which is woven throughout Dave Sweigert’s actions.

Understanding what an Affirmative Defense is.  Can a defendant accuse the plaintiff of Spoliation of Evidence as an affirmative defense?

One of the ways which Jason Goodman has attempted to turn attention away from his own culpability for the Port of Charleston incident, is that he has accused Dave Sweigert of being responsible for that event, and he has complained of being set up or entrapped by various persons.

Jason Goodman often fights the RICO lawsuit evidence in the public forum, rather than in the federal court, where the federal rules of evidence prevail. The primary reason that Dave Sweigert has had to resort to writing letters, and filing numerous Requests for Judicial Notice has to do with the necessity of countering Jason Goodman’s continual campaign of making defamatory statements on CSTT against the Plaintiff.

So if Jason Goodman wants to drop legal styled questions such as, “Could Sweigert be attempting to spoliate evidence of crimes?”, is it any wonder that I begin to wonder what type of defense Goodman is trying to muster for himself using the public air waves?

In a lawsuit, if I understand this correctly as a non-attorney/layman, there is something called an Affirmative Defense.  According to, this is defined as “a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which if found credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.”  Examples of an Affirmative Defense include self-defense, entrapment, insanity, necessity, and respondeat superior.

Interestingly, I ran across a lawsuit where the defendant attempted to amend their answer to assert spoliation of evidence by the Plaintiff as an affirmative defense.  Thus, in Ross v. Kopocs, the Plaintiffs replied by arguing that spoliation of evidence is not an affirmative defense for the defendant. (“Spoliation of evidence is not included in Rule 8(c)’s list of affirmative defenses.”)  Thus the Judge was obliged out of fairness to take a reasoned look at both arguments.

Spoliation is the intentional destruction of evidence that is presumed to be unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction. Since this type of question has been introduced in the ludicrous and unmerited style of the elusive Ghost Lawyers Guild’s, it is fair to ponder whether Jason Goodman will be attempting to use this ploy  against the plaintiff in the RICO lawsuit.

It was noted in the Ross v. Kopocs document,  that  “Courts who have addressed this issue have held that spoliation is not an affirmative defense, but rather is a rule of evidence.”  In other words, the defendant can raise the issue of spoliation, but it must be done using the appropriate  method, as an evidentiary and discovery remedy, and NOT as an Affirmative Defense which would have the effect of negating his liability, even if he committed the alleged acts.  So Jason Goodman needs to start coming up with real evidence and sound legal argumentation to back up his side of the story. As I predicted in my other article on David Hawkins, Hawkins as the man-in-the middle attacker may very well be the undoing of Jason Goodman.

Some things are impossible to reverse engineer….




The Descent into the Nether World of a Twitter ReTweet: From Joe Napoli to Lonestar 1776 to Schaeffer Cox to Larry Klayman

CSTT broadcast 2/2/2019

What is the moral impact upon a civilization’s treasured values,  when opinions which trample underfoot relevant facts and evidence travel unhindered through social media platforms?  Who are the Baggage Handlers that actively pass such opinions on to the next destination?

Over the years it has been a common warning at airports that one should never carry a bag or parcel onto an airplane as a favor for a complete stranger. Who knows what is in that parcel that someone wants to anonymously move along from point A to point B? Twitter is much like a busy airport hub, with short, terse messages being passed on, asking others to send their carry-on luggage (links to websites) to another location.

Today I am going to play the role of the baggage inspector, and show you what is in just one baggage link which was retweeted by a baggage handler (i.e. defender) of Jason Goodman.

The  Baggage Handler In The Background

There is a man in the background of Jason Goodman’s Crowdsource the Truth, who is both a  typical and an atypical example of a person who uses a Twitter account and the CSTT chat room. Where he differs from many has to do with his presence during two highly publicized incidents:  the CSTT broadcast involving the Port of Charleston dirty bomb incident, and the Las Vegas mass shooting event. This man is Joe Napoli, who describes himself on his Twitter page as Jesus 1st!  Dad, Husband, Executive Recruiter, and he has a motto, Responsible 4 what I say, not 4 what you understand.

Recently on a CSTT broadcast of David Hawkins, I saw that Joe Napoli was in the chatroom.In the midst of this nonsensical live chatter, Napoli declared, “Whoever has read the fake news about Jason and left as a result, please feel free to reach out to me and I’ll TRUTHFULLY defend Jason.  This is ridiculous.”

In all of this chat room over-talk, I am assuming  that Napoli was reacting to a remark made about the YouTube channel Prepper Kitty, which is operated by Dave (Acton) Sweigert.  Sweigert has an ongoing federal RICO lawsuit against Jason Goodman involving the June 14, 2017 Port of Charleston shutdown.

The Port closed for eight hours as a response to a false report from Deep Uranium, a (once) hidden source of broadcast journalist George Webb. By permitting the broadcasting of this unverified report on the Crowdsource the Truth You Tube channel, Jason Goodman then implicated himself in this costly chain reaction, as he encouraged his audience to Twitter a message to the U. S. Coast Guard.  As I understand it, some 8,000 Twitter retweets were sent.

Joe Napoli is mentioned in those RICO court filings. I am not sure I understand who Joe Napoli thinks would have responded to his chatroom comment, because if that someone “has left”, they would not be there to read his message.  And he provides no email address where he can be reached.  But what is clear is that Joe Napoli considers himself to be a truthful defender of Jason Goodman’s actions.

What exactly does that “defense” encompass?  I assume he is ready to  defend Goodman’s actions in the Port of Charleston incident; but does Napoli, who says Jesus is first, also defend Goodman’s use of Tinder to meet young women for sexually explicit conversations?

Like multitudes of Americans, Joe Napoli makes use of a Twitter account to promote websites and videos that represent his political viewpoint and favored social issues, such as anti-child trafficking. With regard to the latter, all decent persons would be against sexual and economic abuse of children. Unfortunately some of the prominent anti-CPS Facebook groups and websites are covers for anti-government groups that encourage senseless violence against government employees.

Like many Twitter users, it may be that Joe Napoli has never explored those links in-depth, and he is just operating as a baggage handler because attention getting headlines prop up his public image as a Christian family man. 

 Let’s descend into the nether world of just one of Joe Napoli’s Twitter links, and see what lies below the surface.

The example I have chosen was a January 11th link which Napoli retweeted. I found this link particularly interesting in that the original Twitter post tagged several persons I have written articles on, such as MrsJAB3, who is one of the hosts of the Victurus Libertas YouTube channel, which supports sovereign citizen/tax protestors, including the fake Alaskan “Judge” Anna Von Reitz. VL has been promoted by Doug Hagmann of the Hagmann Report and also was a platform for Robert David Steele who holds the dubious title, Special Counsel for ITNJ (International Tribunal for Natural Justice), a group which when originally formed, had been influenced by a woman associated with Anna Von Reitz’s sovereign citizen principles of law.

Also tagged is Jon Robberson who first came on the Hagmann Report as the Hollywood Insider, later becoming the Hagmann Report’s producer, who now does similar work for John B. Wells’ Caravan to Midnight.  Another tag is Larry Klayman who was recently a subject of this blog in an article centering around his claim that he operates under a spirit named Jesus.  And then regular readers of my blog will note that I have done several articles on Jason Goodman’s Crowdsource the Truth

Lonestar 1776:  Guardian of Schaeffer Cox’s pretentions of being the Commander-in-Chief of the several States of the United States of America

The video which is featured in this Twitter retweet is from the LoneStar 1776 YouTube channel; again, another subject which Tracking the Leopard Meroz has written about. The owners of this channel, Rudy and Erin Davis, have a prison ministry for self-described American political prisoners, including felons who are involved in the Sovereign Citizen movement.  This particular video on Francis Schaeffer Cox is one of many published on Davis’ LoneStar 1776 channel, which operates in conjunction with his website,

Schaeffer Cox once held himself out as the leader of the Alaska Peacemaker Militia,  the Secretary of Defense for the Alaska Assembly Post, and the Commander-in-Chief of the several States of the United States of America.  Unfortunately for Cox, when he was in his mid-twenties,  he entered into the self-delusional world of Sovereign Citizens and their peculiar “legal” reasonings and grandiose fake titles. After combining those ideas with forming a militia group, why am I not surprised that Cox soon found himself becoming acquainted with a couple of undercover FBI informants?

Much of Cox’s story can be found on the internet, but trying to understand what is true and what is fable is another matter. It is a major undertaking to wade through court transcripts, in order to gain insight into the evidence and legal arguments on which Cox was convicted and sentenced.

Schaeffer Cox had been arrested in Alaska by the FBI in 2011, and was found guilty by a jury on several counts, including conspiracy to possess unregistered silencers and destructive devices, possession of unregistered silencers and destructive devices, possession of an unregistered silencer, possession of an unregistered machine gun, illegal possession of a machine gun, making of a silencer, carrying firearms during a crime of violence, possession of unregistered destructive devices, and conspiracy to murder an Officer of the United States, and solicitation to murder an Officer of the United States.

It needs to be noted that because of a Ninth Circuit appeal, Cox’s conviction for conspiracy to murder an Officer of the United States was affirmed, but his conviction for solicitation to murder an Officer of the United States was reversed.    Schaeffer Cox submitted a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was denied, and the time for appealing his other convictions has passed.  Thus at this point in time, it seems as if the only avenue left for Cox’s supporters is their submission of a  petition to President Trump, asking for a pardon.

The Great Gulf of  Separation between a Retweeter and those others who desire a genuine understanding of a situation.

Joe Napoli asserts that he is responsible for what he says, and not for “what you understand”, so obviously there will have to be a parting of the ways at this point.

From here on out, I am going to leave Joe Napoli behind, to stand guard over his defense of Jason Goodman, while I guide my readers on a tour of the depths of that nether world of Twitter where a person cannot be held responsible for “saying nothing”, while yet promoting links to dangerous philosophical reasonings which negatively impact others.

The Forgotten American” Twitter account @YellowVests USA, which Napoli retweeted, links to a LoneStar 1776 video concerning Schaeffer Cox’s release from a solitary confinement cell.  We are going to continue further into this subject to discuss a civil defamation complaint filed by Larry Klayman on behalf of Schaeffer Cox,  as part of his pro bono legal work which is connected to his civil rights nonprofit,  Freedom Watch.

As we continue, one  question should be pondered: Do these so-called supporters of Schaeffer Cox actually care about the man himself, or is his controversial and complex situation being exploited to provide an image of fighting against injustice as a cover for a hidden agenda?

This post was published by Schaeffer Cox on his website on September 18, 2018.

Schaeffer Cox v. Benbella Books and William Fulton

On December 20, 2018, a Civil Action Complaint was submitted by Larry Klayman, Esq. to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, titled, Francis Schaeffer Cox, 16179006 U. S. Penitentiary CMU v. Benbella Books, Inc. and William Fulton, In Witness Protection.  [ Document 1, can be linked here:  Cox v Fulton Federal Suit 12 20 2018]

This federal civil complaint of defamation arose from the September 19, 2017 publication of a book about the Schaeffer Cox case, written by one of the undercover FBI informants involved in his arrest. (It can be purchased at

Although Bill Fulton’s book arrived in bookstores on 9/19/2017, one could preorder a copy from the publisher.  LoneStar1776’s Rudy Davis who stays in regular contact with Schaeffer Cox, was apparently aware of the contents of this book on August 29, 2017, for on that date, Rudy Davis uploaded a video titled, Special Announcement:  There is a war raging for the truth”.  At the .16 mark, Davis said, “…there is a battle raging right now about freedom for Schaeffer Cox.  There’s a book that just recently came out that’s full of slander and libel and I wouldn’t be surprised if Les Zerbe or Schaeffer Cox sues Jeanne Devon and Bill Fulton for slander and libel.”

The Lonestar 1776 channel also uploaded a September 14, 2017 video called “William White Critiques Bill Fulton’s book.”  It seems that William White is some kind of neo-Nazi styled felon, in the same federal prison as Cox.  The next day another video was uploaded by Rudy Davis called “Bill Fulton is a Turd by William A. White #13888-084 at Marion Prison”.  And then on September 18, 2017, Davis complains in a video, “Amazon Refuses My Book Review of the Turd Bill Fulton Book.”

How many sovereign citizens does it take to screw in one lightbulb?

So if inmate William White was able to review Bill Fulton’s book, I have to assume that Schaeffer Cox had a copy in his possession around that time also. Cox’s prison ministry advocate, Rudy Davis, lives in Forney, Texas, right around the corner from Benbella Books, Inc., the Dallas, Texas publisher of William Fulton’s book.  One would think that a light bulb would have been turned on in Rudy’s mind to pass on the defamation laws of Texas to Schaeffer Cox so that he could respond in a timely manner with any libel claims he had.


Why not?  Isn’t Larry Klayman one of the best Civil Rights attorneys in the United States and isn’t he doing this work pro bono using his nonprofit Freedom Watch, Inc.?   The question is whether Klayman has a workable strategy to overcome Texas’ defamation laws which have a one year statute of limitations. In addition, the Texas Defamation Mitigation Act  requires a person to FIRST request a retraction of the libelous statements from the publisher/author BEFORE filing a lawsuit.

One wonders why Cox did not first write a letter to the publisher, itemizing what he felt were defamatory statements.  All those video rants by Rudy Davis were of none effect when it came to helping his prisoner pen pal, Schaeffer Cox. Did ANY of Cox’s so-called friends and supporters encourage him to act in a timely manner in accordance with Texas law, after Bill Fulton’s book was published?  I am just asking…wondering who Cox’s real friends are, if he has any.

Attorney Larry Klayman, despite the fact that this lawsuit was filed late when it came to these Texas statute of limitation requirements, is asking for relief and judgment against the defendants amounting to $85,000,000, with punitive damages of $100,000,000!  And he wants attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs of this action.

Benbella Books’ Motion to Dismiss

The clock started ticking on September 19, 2017, and Larry Klayman filed Cox’s lawsuit on December 20, 2018,- three months past the one year time limit.

Document 10 was filed in federal court on February 1, 2019, by Benbella Books, Inc. as a Defendant’s Motion To DismissPursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (B) (6) and can be read at this link:  [ cox v fulton].

One of the interesting statements made by the defendants in Document 10, on page one, is that, “Plaintiff, a convicted criminal, does not have the right to pursue civil claims against Defendant for the purpose of undermining the validity of his criminal conviction.”  This is further argued on page 12 under D.  Plaintiff’s Defamation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims Fail Because They Implicate the Validity of His Criminal Conviction.

On page 21 of Document 10, the Defendant provides some interesting insight into the structure of Schaeffer Cox’s complaint, saying, “Plaintiff, who alleges that he was convicted ‘for simply believing in the original meaning of the Second Amendment,’ and that his conviction ‘will set a sweeping new precedent allowing for the wholesale round up of those who have not committed any crimes,’ seeks to relitigate his criminal trial in a civil forum.…Moreover, Plaintiff has no damages for emotional distress other than those which ‘necessarily result from his confinement and criminal conviction.  It was Plaintiff’s illegal conduct, which resulted in his conviction…”

One of the assertions of the defense is that because the plaintiff failed to file his complaint within the defamation statute of limitations time bar, that an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was presented, in the hopes that it might override the defamation statute of limitations period. That seems to be a reasonable answer as to how attorney Klayman was strategizing to overcome this obstacle.  Most attorneys would have told Cox, “Sorry, you’re too late”.

There is much to be learned in contrasting Document 1 with Document 10.  If you are a non-attorney layperson reader of lawsuits, observe the elements that are used to present a political/religious styled scenario to set the scene for an “emotional distress” complaint.  In the end, it will be up to the Judge, and possibly a jury, to examine the arguments of both sides.  We are but outsider observers trying to gain understanding of a complex story.

Inconvenient Truths Glossed Over

The link retweeted by Joe Napoli was touting the innocence of Schaeffer Cox.  But when one pursues the facts of this story, what stands out is that his guilt has been repackaged as innocence.