Sweigert v. Goodman lawsuit: Documents 56 & 57

Filed November 1, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the D. George Sweigert vs. Jason Goodman civil RICO lawsuit:

Document 56:  (4 pages) Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for leave to file Second Amended Complaint per FRCP 15(A)

sweigert points and authorities for amended complaint 11 2018

Document 56-1:  (89 pages) Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

sweigert amended complaint 11 2018

Document 57:  (13 pages) Notice of Plaintiff’s Amended Motion Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(F) to Strike Defendant’s “Answer”

sweigert motion to strike goodmans answer 11 2018

Advertisements

Sweigert v. Goodman Lawsuit: Documents 52-55, including Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim

The following documents were entered onto the federal court docket on October 29 & October 31, 2018 as shown below:

Document 52 (4 pages) Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12 (F) To Strike Defendant’s “Counterclaim”

sweigert doc 52 10 29 2018

 

Document 53 (16 pages) Plaintiff’s Sixteenth Request for Judicial Notice [16-RJN]

Three Public Artifacts are shown referencing Jason Goodman and Joe Napoli

sweigert rjn 16

 

Document 54 (14 pages) Plaintiff’s Fifteenth Request for Judicial Notice [15-RJN]

Five Public Artifacts are shown referencing Jason Goodman, Larry Nichols and Larry Klayman

sweigert rjn 15

 

Document 55 (33 pages-18/33 are exhibits) Notice of Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim Per FRCP Rule 12(B)(6) and CPLR 3211(A)

sweigert motion to dismiss counterclaim

D. George Sweigert v. Jason Goodman: 3 Documents Filed-14th RJN, Plaintiff’s Reply to Counterclaim, & Defendant’s Motion to Show Cause for Plaintiff’s Address Changes

On October 26, 2018, three documents were entered onto the U. S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) Civil Docket for Sweigert v. Goodman.

Document 47 Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Request for Judicial Notice

This document is 13 pages with Four Public Artifacts regarding Jason Goodman’s YouTube guests Field McConnell, Kevin Shipp and David Hawkins and the topic of the Federal Bridge Certificate Authority.

sweigert 14 rjn

Document 48 Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s “Counter-Claim”

Document 48 is 26 pages: the first 12 pages represent the Plaintiff’s reply, and pages 13-26 are supporting exhibits.  I am reposting a link to Jason Goodman’s Counterclaim for comparison.

sweigert plaintiff’s reply 10 2018

goodman-counter-claim 10 22 2018

Document 49 Motion for Ruling to Show Cause for Defendant’s Conduct of Providing False Address and Persistent Efforts to Avoid Service

This 8 page document filed by defendant Jason Goodman requests an explanation as to why the plaintiff has utilized three addresses during the course of this legal action. Of interest is Exhibit B: a transcript of the phone inquiry by Jason Goodman to the Mesa, Arizona Post Office.

Update 10/30/2018:  An astute reader has alerted me to the fact that Jason Goodman had filed this motion against himself. As shown in the screenshot below, Jason Goodman, as Defendant, is asking the Court in a Motion for a ruling to show cause for Defendant’s Conduct of providing a false address and persistent efforts to avoid service.  Perhaps Crowdsource the Truth’s Resident Pro Se Expert, Brian Vukadinovich can offer Mr. Goodman some advice on this embarrassing situation, unless of course he opposes outside interference in other people’s legal problems.  sweigert v goodman motion for showing cause (goodman doc 49 10 26 2018)

D. George Sweigert files Plaintiff’s Thirteenth Request for Judicial Notice

On October 22, 2018 the Plaintiff in D. George Sweigert v. Jason Goodman & Patreon, Inc. filed Document 46 representing his 13th RJN.  This 15 page document features 4 Public Artifacts beginning with a Crowdsource the Truth2 video on The Sinister Psychological Operation of George Webb Sweigert, followed by documentation on the Titus Frost conflict with Jason Goodman, and finally a display of the Terms of Use published by Patreon, Inc.

Of interest to the reader of all of the RJNs is that piece by piece, public records are being introduced as documentation in this lawsuit by the Plaintiff, as he builds upon and strengthens the edifice of his 2d Amended Complaint.

In the meantime, it is apparent by this same documentation that Jason Goodman has over time, been developing his own narrative of the same events in his videos. Whether Mr. Goodman will provide sufficient factual evidence to prove his general assertions in the public arena, and more importantly in this RICO lawsuit, remains to be seen.

Read Document 46 here:  sweigert RJN 13

 

D. George Sweigert v. Jason Goodman and Patreon, Inc. – Second Amended Complaint

On October 17, 2018,  D. George Sweigert filed three new documents in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Because this case had been transferred from South Carolina to New York, the Plaintiff is afforded the opportunity to consider New York RICO laws in this matter.  Note that Patreon, Inc. has been added as a second defendant.

The Second Amended Complaint is a MUST READ for anyone interested in this case, or for those interested in contemporary Internet Journalism legal issues.  Click on the PDF links below to read:

Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.  Document 39-1, 65 pages.  sweigert amended complaint oct 2018

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Per FRCP 15(A).  Document 39, 3 pages  sweigert motion 4 leave oct. 2018

Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint Per FRCP 15(A).  Document 40, 4 pages.  sweigert memo of support oct. 2018

 

UPDATE October 22, 2018: The links below represent additional documents filed with the court on procedural issues which the plaintiff desired to correct with regard to the defendant’s actions.

sweigert goodman corrupted files 10  2018

sweigert letter to clerk 10 19 2018

Another “Woe Is Me” Jason Goodman Guest, “Targeted Individual” Michael Barden: An Illustration of the Dangers of Reframing Reality Through Social Media Videos

When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.   Luke 12:58-59

I don’t know where Jason Goodman of Crowdsource the Truth picks up some of his guests…maybe the Jail House Blues Club on Pan Handler’s Lane…I don’t know…but his September 27, 2018 video called Michael Barden Targeted Individual-Psychological Assault and Weaponized Mental Health Evaluation, has an interesting exchange at the 47.08 mark which reminded me of the scriptural warning in Luke 12:58-59.

Michael Barden,  silently reflecting on the prospect of  his next criminal court meeting.

Jason Goodman:  … of course you’ll have had your settlement meeting which is strange.  They’re settling it, I’m concerned about this notion of you taking a plea deal, I, I think somebody has told me, if you’re innocent you should never do that.

Michael Barden:  Yeah, as a TI,  judging from repetition in the past, getting screwed over on pretty much everything, it’s really tough to take that risk.

Jason Goodman:  But the question is, is it a bigger risk to take the plea deal? I don’t know…

The foundational reality on  whether or not to take a plea bargain hinges on Actual Innocence.  And therein lies the problem for many YouTubers who roam the streets looking for trouble with other citizens and law enforcement, filming their conspiracy complaints about the long lines at the grocery store, asking for a dollar from the honest working man, because THEIR precious free time is spent on their endless cause of photographing their endless rambling complaints….

Michael Barden has labeled himself as a TI, a Targeted Individual, who has been singled out by organized gang stalkers, presumably with connections to the government.

Meet 43-year-old Michael Barden, who has labeled himself as a Targeted Individual, a descriptor which is repeatedly driven into his viewer’s mind through both words and images.

While claiming to be documenting  the reality of his own life as a victim of gang stalking since youth, it would appear that he is also establishing a narrative to justify himself as the innocent victim in all of his real life dealings with others.

The Michael Barden YouTube channel states, “My channel is dedicated to ending Cult Ritual Abuse and Organized Stalking and Harassment.  I have been a Targeted Individual for years now, and fighting the illegal use of FISA to target innocent individuals around the world. The videos I make take up a lot of my time and my finances have been drained through targeting and legal fees.  Any donation you can give even if it’s a dollar would be very helpful in our fight.  I am an Air Force veteran of 15 years and have no retirement.  You can send money via PayPal.”

I had to look up FISA to see what this acronym represents, and after reading this brief introductory sentence on the Wikipedia page, I have to wonder why Michael Barden is paranoid about the purposes of this agency. As a former Air Force employee, why would he be personally interested in surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the U. S.? Notice in this Google search of Michael Barden videos, the repeated attachment of the label Targeted Individual with his name.

Here is a screenshot of the titles which were chosen by Jason Goodman to headline his interviews of Michael Barden. The overuse of the phrase Targeted Individual is beginning to suggest that someone is creating an alibi,  writing a false legal narrative to explain the rewriting of a personal history….

Will the mere mention by this blog, of the fact that Michael Barden is referenced in a court filing in the D. George Sweigert vs. Jason Goodman RICO lawsuit, be offered as “proof” that Barden is in fact a targeted individual?  Has Jason Goodman even broken this bad news to his new friend?

On October 1, 2018,  in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, docket entry #32 was added, representing Plaintiff’s Eighth Request for Judicial Notice [RJN].  The three public artifacts which have been entered into the court record can be viewed here:   sweigert RJN 8 10 01 2018.

Public Artifact One displays the current criminal charges against Michael Barden, for which Jason Goodman had been pondering the plea deal question. Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Disorderly Conduct with a Weapon are serious charges. Jason Goodman and Michael Barden are both non attorneys, facing potential legal judgments in two different arenas.  Whereas Barden is facing criminal prosecution for  aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and disorderly conduct with a weapon in the State of Arizona, Goodman is representing himself in two federal civil lawsuits involving defamation and RICO complaints.  Both men are looking for the perfect alibi to get out from under these complaints.

Let’s ask this simple question:  how foolish is it for Michael Barden to publicly weigh his legal options with Jason Goodman and his “Crowdsource the Truth” viewers?  

I am not an attorney, so perhaps a brief look at another story which has nothing to do with Goodman’s or Barden’s legal situations, might provide us with some cautionary advice before we attempt to override the legal counsel of a person facing a criminal conviction.

The story of Shawn Stuller who believed the advice of his friends over his attorney

The January 8, 2016 Santa Rosa Press Gazette at srpressgazette.com presented a short news story headlined Stuller sentenced to 20 years for drug trafficking, burglary.

Shawn Stuller was one of Rudy Davis’ featured  “American political” prisoners on his LoneStar 1776 YouTube until recently, when there was a falling out between the two men.

Like Michael Barden, Shawn Stuller was looking for the perfect alibi to escape the consequences of his own actions.

Let’s pick up Shawn’s story from an October 7, 2016 article on Robert Baty’s kehvrlb.com website, ‘Kent Hovind’s False Legal Narrative Challenged!” (I have added bolding to highlight points of interest).

Under a post headlined, Another Hovind False Narrative-The Shawn Stuller Case, Robert Baty writes:

“I and others have been following Shawn Stuller’s case because of its association with Kent Hovind and his convicted co-conspirator Paul John Hansen and their sovereign citizen theology.

Shawn met Kent and Paul while they were all in county jail together.  Shawn has a long rap sheet and things were starting to get serious with his latest criminal activity.

Kent and Paul convinced Shawn to try their sovereign citizen antics instead of making a deal as he had always done before and which typically put him back out on the street without any serious jail time.

So Shawn tried that and, of course, it got him nowhere.  Because of Shawn’s problems with lawyers, private and public, he is the one who caused his case to drag on and ultimately get scheduled for trial after a number of delays.

The judge was not of a mind to allow any further delays and Shawn was not properly prepared to try his case (i.e., still had lawyer problems and couldn’t seem to get any witnesses, or even his mother, to show up for the trial/sentencing).

The judge was not pleased with Shawn’s further attempt at delay and was going to proceed to trial.  Shawn decided to do what he had always done before, plead out.  In this case it was a blind plea and he would be at the mercy of the court as to sentencing.

Because of Shawn’s antics, the State introduced his criminal history which resulted in him being classified as an “habitual felony offender”.

Kent didn’t mention that the crimes in this case not only included illegally entering a residence, but also stealing controlled drugs [enough of them to qualify as him as a “trafficker”), defecating in the kitchen sink, and stealing some other small item(s)].

Shawn had a change of heart, still playing games, and decided to try to withdraw his plea before being sentenced.  Shawn claimed some unnamed criminals who were in the courthouse when he was sent for trial threatened him into making the plea.

The judge didn’t buy it, and when Shawn came back for sentencing he got the 20 years; all thanks to the influence of Kent Hovind himself and his co-conspirator Paul John Hansen whose sovereign citizen antics not only failed but put Shawn in a worse case scenario instead of allowing him to plead and get a sentence that could have resulted in him being free today, October 7, 2016.

Shawn recently filed his appeal brief, through a private attorney whom Kent’s visitor Barbara may have helped to significantly finance.  The State’s reply is due soon.”

According to an update by Robert Baty, a transcript of court proceedings on September 20, 2018 reveals that Shawn Stuller was granted considerable mercy by the court in allowing his charges to be reinstated using the original plea deal which had been withdrawn. The link to the 35 page transcript is here.

Here is an excerpt beginning on page 6 of a few of the questions asked Shawn Stuller:

Q. At some point in time, did Assistant Public Defender Nash-Early convey a plea offer of five years in prison to you to resolve the case?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Did she explain to you that the maximum sentence that you were facing, if you chose not to–did she explain to you the maximum sentence you were facing if you chose not to accept the five-year plea offer?

A. Yes.

Q.  At some point in time did she tell you that the plea offer of five years was no longer available?

A. Yes.

Q.  Now, after you found out that the plea offer of five years was no longer available, did you at some point become aware that you were now subject to an enhanced habitual offender–you were now subject to an enhanced habitual offender sentencing?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And that you were now facing a maximum of life in prison?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Had you known that you were subject to an enhanced sentence of life in prison as an habitual offender at the time of the five-year plea offer was on the table, would you have accepted the five-year plea?

A.  Yes.

When questioned, the asst. public defender who had formerly represented Stuller,  recalled explaining the habitual felony offender sentencing to him, but added, “I do recall that he didn’t believe me because he had never been to prison before.”

Back in 2016, Robert Baty had wondered, “More important from the aspect of my coverage is that failure of Kent Hovind, Paul John Hansen, Rudy Davis (LoneStar1776), and Erin Davis to accept responsibility for the roles they played in putting Shawn away for 20 years, barring a successful appeal and subsequent developments. If Shawn gets a do-over, his prospects might be greatly improved if he could get Kent and Paul to admit to their responsibility as to how it all played out and the three of them would admit to just how silly and frivolous their sovereign citizen antics were.”  Thus in the recent 2018 appeal, we observe that  Shawn Stuller was very fortunate in his circumstances to be granted a merciful return to the original sentencing proposition of the five-year plea deal.

In this recent update on Shawn Stuller, there was a falling out between Stuller and one of his friendly advisors, Rudy Davis, who has a prison ministry for self-proclaimed “Innocent” American Political Prisoners on his YouTube Channel, Lonestar 1776.

from Robert Baty’s website kehvrlb.co

I suppose it is not for me to say who Jason Goodman should feature on his CSTT show.  But given his past troubles with some of his former guests, he might want to start selling T-shirts with a line from Alexander Pope’s An Essay on CriticismFor fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.

Update 10/6/2018Prepper Kitty has provided this link to Didn’t Do It Bail Bonds in connection with Michael Barden.

 

The Vanishing of Trustworthy Historical Documentation

“He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand:  he loveth to oppress.”  Hosea 12:7

I am a collector of discarded books from the Hattiesburg, Mississippi library, and so for ten cents, I acquired the 2008 Federal Rules of Evidence with Advisory Committee Notes and Legislative History (Christopher B. Mueller and Laird C. Kirkpatrick). On page 251, the 1961 lawsuit Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assoc. Co., Ltd. was cited as part of  a discussion on hearsay exceptions.  In this particular case, the Court had found that an unsigned newspaper article published 50 years earlier did not fit within any of the recognized hearsay exceptions. However, the Court concluded, “the article was trustworthy because it was inconceivable that a newspaper reporter in a small town would report a fire in the courthouse if none had occurred“.

There are two primary components that ensure the trustworthiness of journalistic reports.  The integrity of the reporter sits on one scale of the counterbalances, while the fact-checking capability of the readers is set on the other scale.  In the example of the small town newspaper noted above, the article was unsigned, but the accountability resided with the publisher whose personal reputation would be well known in the community.  And then secondly, it is significant that the newspaper readers were within the same proximity to the material facts of the article as was the reporter.

The Balances are two scales which hold opposing weights, held up by the hand of Justice.  This concept is seen in the court system where material facts and legal arguments are evaluated, and in the financial sphere with its double-entry accounting system where every entry has a corresponding and opposite notation to a different account.  And then of course in the physical world of Newtonian physics, the third law observes that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Much of what is described as Alternative Media News reporting is untrustworthy in detail and scope, because the internet’s set of “balances” are inherently deceitful.  The primary blame for this state of affairs lies with the partiality of the propagator of the news reports itself, who presently are able to broadcast to a vast audence with little or no personal cost to themselves, and are allowed to operate behind a curtain of a false public image.

Although there are commentaries and forums that serve as restraining forces against the promotion of lies on the internet, the relationship of these websites to a writer of the original report is often just the anomalous tie provided by using the same tag words, which allows search engines to group similar topics together.  The “face-to-face” relationship that exists between local newspapers and their readership base has been severed in the internet world.

Example One:  The Balances of Deceit Are In His Hand

One recent example of an untrustworthy internet news publication is True Pundit, who was recently called out in an August 27, 2018, Buzzfeed expose by Craig Silverman, titled, Revealed:  Notorious Pro-Trump Misinformation Site True Pundit Is Run By An Ex-Journalist With A Grudge Against the FBI.

But months earlier, someone with the pseudonym exGOPer started a thread on January 23, 2018 under Politics on elitetrader.com, titling it  A Brief History of right-wing’s favorite fake news site True Pundit (loved by Russians). “exGOPer”  provided an extensive numbered list of his observations. Below, I pull out a few of the interesting ones from the beginning of this thread, which are useful to our discussion on the vanishing of trustworthy historical documentation.

Under (1) exGOPer notes that True Pundit began publishing on June 9, 2016. Line (3) says, “All articles on True Pundit are published anonymously.  The only person publicly associated with the website operates under a pseudonym- ‘Thomas Paine.’ (Thomas Paine, a Founding Father of the United States, was instrumental in convincing the colonies to rebel against Britain.)”.  Line (4) adds that “From June 9, 2016 to June 12, 2016, it seemed clear True Pundit had been started up in a hurry-it published dozens of stories but no original reporting.  More than 95% of stories were simply links to other sources, while True Pundit ‘originals’ were two-sentence news summaries.”

Line (8) states, “then, on June 12, 2016, the Orlando nightclub shooting occurred- and it seemed a switch had been turned on.  True Pundit had its story…”.  Line (10) observes, “It must have seemed odd to any readers of True Pundit in those first 72 hours of operation to read that the Philly publication already had ‘multiple’ sources in the Philadelphia Police Dept. and *multiple* Philly-based ‘recognized security expert’ sources-but so they said.”

(11) comments, “But Mateen” [Orlando nightclub shooting story] “changed everything.  Suddenly True Pundit was publishing what it said were original (‘exclusive’) stories, all of which relied-or-claimed to-on FBI sources. Not just one source, but multiple-and not just random sources, but sources close to the Pulse investigation.”  (12) “The mystery of this was dispelled almost immediately, when True Pundit wrote the following in an ‘exclusive’ on Mateen after the shooting:  ‘True Pundit has folks who worked for the FBI and other agencies on staff.’  It then claimed to have ‘unique insight’ into FBI operations.”

Our last line which we shall consider, (13) states,   “Whether or not True Pundit really had ex-FBI staff, no reader could possible know.  But what was clear was that True Pundit was obsessed with the FBI, had-at a minimum- some basic knowledge of criminal investigation, and was very, very, angry at the current state of the Bureau.”

This thread by exGOPer, continues on, point by point, making observations about True Pundit, in an attempt to weigh in the balances the trustworthiness of the reporting of Thomas Paine, now known to be Michael D. Moore. While this forum writer posts under an anonymous name, his presentation of factual observations is detailed and astute.  In contrast the writer under the pseudonym Thomas Paine has presented himself in a false light by borrowing from the historical reputation of a real person in American history. There is something defamatory and insulting about a person writing under false pretenses, by masking himself with another person’s good reputation, without the consent of that once, long ago, real flesh and blood individual.

Example Two: He loveth to Oppress

The Anonymous broadcaster of profaneness, defamation, and  false accusations to provoke and harass his selected victims.

I recently ran across a YouTuber using a fake name, where I was drawn to look at his videos which he had linked, via tag words, to a particular YouTube channel which I like. I am going to call the fake name channel “X” as this channel’s content is continually both factually false and/or defamatory. Apparently this person has lost at least one channel for violating nudity standards, and seems to have received numerous strikes to his videos because of their defamatory content.

On his new channel which has few viewers, X laments, “Because they are watching me, they’ve been watching me because I used to go into chats and say shit and I see that, that is a waste of a complete waste of time to say anything in a chat opposing these people and they’re controlled chats.  All you’re doing is exposing yourself to, now they know who you are, or at least your fake account.  Because you can try and dox me dude, try and figure out who I am.  You’re gonna have a hard time.”

Channel X did a video about a published report someone else had written on journalism and the internet. He offered his commentary and judgments without apparently even reading the report.  With respect to the real name of the author of this copyrighted material,  the cowardly X comments, saying, “this is by either —- or his brother, it doesn’t matter which one.”

It does not matter who wrote it??? The legal owner of the book is identified, and X has no right, without proof, to state otherwise. X continues in his nonsensical manner, “This person is saying the journalists’ enemies, so in order for you to be a journalist, right, you have to take some classes or something, you have to get a degree or something in journalism.  It’s a club like the Freemasons, it’s just another club, right?  And they don’t want us in their club, they don’t want us in their 1% club, you know what I mean?  So for, for people on YouTube, we’re supposed to fall, you know, we need degrees in journalism before we can report on anything.  That is total horseshit man, there’s plenty of people putting out good information on the internet, OK?  So what does it take to get a journalist, journalism degree, I mean, what do what, what do you need exactly?  What are people not- you know what I mean?”

“Because you don’t like what’s being reported because you want to keep the gatekeeping going?  You know what I mean?  Um, it’s bullshit man because when it comes down to it, you’re trying to control social media.  That’s what this is, a set-up for future living, you know, laws, future uh regulations on free speech that’s basically what it is so you’re posing as people for free speech, but you’re really um trying to set up some regulations um, I just can’t believe people are falling for this guy, for —, for —, all these characters.  I cannot believe people are falling for this shit.  It’s right in your face what’s going on here….”.

Sorry Channel X, I don’t know what you mean, except that you seem to be unaware that the United States already has time tested Constitutional laws against your abuse of free speech.   And what right does anyone have to alter the factual, personal history of other people?

Example Three:  He Is A Merchant 

Previously on August 20, 2018, I had discussed an April 21st interview by Jason Goodman of Crowdsource The Truth called Pete Santilli-FBI Informant or Framed by Hackers?  In that interview Santilli commented on the use of online anonymous identities for covert operations.  At the 35.32 mark, he remarked, “…it was overwhelming to me that they, that they admitted this in open court.  The FBI during the Bundy Ranch quote-unquote investigation said that they had, they had over a thousand trolls in the threads, a thousand…” [Jason Goodman: “The FBI had trolls.”]..”the FBI and this is documented, the FBI had 1,000-over a thousand trolls- in the threads on anonymous accounts and they call themselves online covert investigators…” .

Merchandising of Americana patriotism

The astonishment expressed by Pete Santilli, regarding the use of anonymous identities by the FBI, needs to be viewed against the backdrop of his own use of false accounts to serve his personal commercial interests.

For in an audio dated November 8, 2013 which can be found at Vinnie Eastwood’s Face Book page Pete Santilli Exposed, we hear Santilli saying, “This, this list of Twitter accounts has just been stewing, okay, because I used to have at one point of time, I had like 600 Twitter accounts being manufactured and in the rotation and we had automated messaging and basically having them set up so that they didn’t look like fake accounts because they had messages going out and links and so on and so on.  So that when somebody lands on it, they see that it doesn’t have like one follower and two messages.  That’s a boring person, so I set up these dormant accounts and I made it look like they’re active now.”

Is there an ethical difference between setting up fake identities to covertly troll others versus using such accounts to trick persons into being directed to a profit motivated online broadcast? Anonymous identities which have the purpose of causing the disruption of the normal flow of conversation, fraud, harassment, commercial trickery, altering history and the time honored interpretation of laws are undermining the stability of our society.

At nytimes.com a January 27, 2018 article,  The Follower Factory written by Nicholas Confessore, Gabriel J. X. Dance, Richard Harris and Mark Hanson, addressed the use of social media bots, by highlighting an “American company named Devumi that has collected millions of dollars in a shadowy global marketplace for social media fraud.” The authors claim, “Devumi sells Twitter followers and retreets to celebrities, businesses and anyone who wants to appear more popular or exert influence online.  Drawing on an estimated stock of at least 3.5 million automated accounts, each sold many times over, the company has provided customers with more than 200 million Twitter followers, a New York Times investigation found.”

The most shocking statement in this article is that “the accounts that most resemble real people…reveal a kind of large-scale social identity theft. At least 55,000 of the accounts use the names, profile pictures, hometowns and other personal details of real Twitter users, including minors, according to a Times data analysis.”  Additionally, it was asserted that “these accounts are counterfeit coins in the booming economy of online influence, reaching into virtually any industry where a mass audience- or the illusion of it-can be monetized.  Fake accounts, deployed by governments, criminals and entrepreneurs, now infest social media networks.”

It would appear that in this day and age, a vast number of so called internet journalist reporters readily alter material facts, resulting in the falsification of this generation’s documentation of its national and personal histories.  Years from now, this information cannot be utilized for legal or historical purposes, other than to document how modern day liars undermined American values for malicious and selfish purposes.