Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman, et. al. Documents 173-174: Defendant’s Amended Disclosure & Opposition to Motion in Limine

On January 21, 2020, Documents 173-174 were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the Robert David Steele et. al vs. Jason Goodman, et. al. lawsuit.

Document 173 (11 pages)  Defendant’s Amended Disclosure Statement

rds doc 173 jan 21 2020

Document 174  (6 pages)  Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine

rds doc 174 jan 21 2020

Document 174-1 (2 pages)  Exhibit A    rds doc 174 1 jan 21 2020

Document 174-2 (2 pages)  Exhibit B    rds doc 174 2 jan 21 2020

Document 175-3 (2 pages)  Exhibit C    rds doc 174 3 jan 21 2020

Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman Documents 171-172: Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine

On January 17, 2020, Documents 171-172 were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman lawsuit.

Document 171 (3 pages) Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine

rds doc 171 jan 17 2020

Document 171-1 (2 pages) [Proposed] ORDER

rds doc 171 1 jan 17 2020

Document 172 (4 pages)  Plaintiff’s Memorandum In Support of Motion In Limine

rds doc 172 jan 17 2020

Document 172-1  (14 pages)  Request for Production of Documents

rds doc 172 1 jan 17 2020

Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman Documents 169-170: Responses in Regard to Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiff

On December 20 and 23, 2019, Documents 169-170 were filed respectively, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the Robert David Steele, et. al. vs. Jason Goodman, et. al. lawsuit.

Document 169 (3 pages) Patricia A. Negron’s Response to Defendant Goodman’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiff

rds doc 169 1220 2019

Document 170 (9  pages) (Jason Goodman) Response to Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiff

rds doc 170 1223 2019

Robert David Steele vs Jason Goodman, et. al. Documents 166-168: Steele’s Opposition to Goodman’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs

On December 9-11, 2019, Documents 166 through 168 were filed in the United States District Court for Eastern District of Virginia in the Robert David Steele, et. al. vs. Jason Goodman, et. al. lawsuit.

Document 166 (10 pages) Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Goodman’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs

rds doc 166 Dec 9 2019

Document 166-1 (3 pages) Declaration of Robert David Steele

rds doc 166 1 Dec 9 2019

Document 167 (3 pages) Motion for Extension of Time (Patricia A. Negron)

rds doc 167 Dec 10 2019

Document 167-1 (2 pages) Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time

rds doc 167 1 Dec 10 2019

Document 168 (1 page)  Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time

rds doc 168 1211 2019

Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman Document 165: Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiff

On November 27, 2019, Document 165 was filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the Robert David Steele, et. al. vs Jason Goodman, et. al. lawsuit.

Document 165 (27 pages) Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiff

RDS Doc 165 1127 2019

Document 165-1 (2 pages) Exhibit A

RDS Doc 165 1 Exhibit A 1127 2019

Document 165-2 (2 pages) Exhibit B

RDS Doc 165 2 Exhibit B 1127 2019

Document 165-3 (2 pages) Exhibit C

RDS Doc 165 3 Exhibit C 1127 2019

Document 165-4 (34 pages) Exhibit D

RDS Doc 165 4 Exhibit D 1127 2019

Document 166-5 (2 pages)  Exhibit E

RDS Doc 165 5 Exhibit E 1127 2019

Document 166-6  (3 pages) Exhibit F

RDS Doc 165 6 Exhibit F 1127 2019

Document 166-7 (6 pages)  Exhibit G

RDS Doc 165 7 Exhibit G 1127 2019

Document 166-8 (32 pages) Exhibit H

RDS Doc 165 8 Exhibit H 1127 2019

Crowdsource the Court Jester Marcus Conte: Too Lazy to Sue Dave Sweigert, He Attempts to Intervene in a Lawsuit Unrelated to Him!

Marcus Conte declaring that he is intervening in the Sweigert vs. Goodman lawsuit with his letter and an Evidence Video!

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.

Timeline explained

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.

 

 

 

Loop Holes in Entrapment Laws form a New Entanglement as Privately Funded “Litigation Support” Tricksters manipulate the Scales of Justice

TEKEL;  Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.  Daniel 5:27

Three years ago one of my readers challenged me to read the position paper,  From PSYOP to MindWar:  The Psychology of Victory by Colonel Paul E. Vallely, Commander,  with Major Michael A. Aquino, PSYOP Research & Analysis Team Leader, of the Headquarters, 7th Psychological Operations Group, United States Army Reserve, Presidio of San Francisco, CA, 1980.

As a result, I wrote an article on June 4, 2016,  called The Strength of the Confidence of the City of the Mighty.  One of the points Vallely and Aquino argue is that “The advantage of MindWar is that it conducts wars in nonlethal, noninjurious, and nondestructive ways.  Essentially you overwhelm your enemy with argument.  You seize control of all of the means by which his government and populace process information to make up their minds, and you adjust it so that those minds are made up as you desire.  Everyone is happy, no one gets hurt or killed, and nothing is destroyed.  Ordinary warfare, on the other hand, is characterized by its lack of reason…The only loser in MindWar are the war profiteers…”.

There are a number of fallacies in the justification of MindWar as a non-destructive operation, as essentially a person is manipulated into the position of turning against their own best interests through the use of principles that they believe in.

This form of dictatorship is ruinous of the well being of the most valued members of a free society.

Techniques for Overturning Justice

Steve Outtrim’s #govLarp hypothesis is based on the very real observation that there are many former government employees connected with the Jason Goodman Crowdsource the Truth channel which had publicized and instigated the Port of Charleston incident.

Since the advent of the internet, we live side by side with a cyber-based world which is  utilized by many different interest-based agents to promote subtle mind warfare techniques that work for their own selfish interests, rather than the public good.  Although the presence of former government agents is notable in the Alternative Media, it does not necessarily indicate that a government sponsored operation is in play.  As we shall see below, there is another possibility.

I was interested recently in a footnote of a Washington and Lee Law Review article, (Volume 16-Issue 1) dated March 1, 1959, called   Entrapment Re-Examined By United States Supreme Court.

Foot note 2 states, “According to the federal courts, the entrapping person must be an agent or officer of the government; inducement by a private person does not make the defense available, Polski v. United States, 33 F.2d 686 (8th Cir. 1929), cert. denied 280 U. S. 591 (1929).  However, courts have considered paid informers and those promised immunity to be government agents.  Cratty v. United States, 163 F.2d 844 (D. C. Cir. 1947); Hayes v. United States, 112 F.2d 676 (10th Cir. 1940); Wall v. United States, 65 F.2d 993 (5th Cir.1933).  Cf. Mayer v. United States, 67 F 2d 223 (9th Cir. 1933).

Did you notice the loop hole?

Much ado has been made about the FBI informant activities of the hidden source of the false report that shut down the Port of Charleston on June 14, 2017. It was Susan Luztke aka Queen Tut, who led the way in researching the background of Jason Goodman’s Mr. Hudson, which also was George Webb’s Deep Uranium source.  Lutzke identified that source as being Okey Marshall Richards, the infamous paid informant for the FBI who betrayed his own militia group.  The backstory of Richards can be read in my May 28, 2018 article, The Unusual Telephone Calls of FBI Informant Okey Marshall Richards, Jr.

I am not aware that anyone has proved that Okey Marshall Richards had been employed by the FBI at the time of the Port of Charleston dirty bomb hoax. In other words, Richards could have been employed by a private interest group, and he was known to be a liar throughout his lifetime, who liked to profit monetarily from his lies.

Government versus Privately Funded Covert Operatives 

The loop hole in the law of entrapment, is that such activities are permissible if performed by a private person who is not funded by the government.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of this section of Alternative Media that I have been covering for the past two years, is the sheer bungling and incompetence of the host of characters who have garnered our attention.  From Robert David Steele’s attempts to maneuver a plastic wrapped #UNRIG tax exempt RV across America, to Jason Goodman’s on air rants and straight jacket styled legal imaginations, to Steven S. Biss, the attorney that Judge Lauck criticized for being “unintelligible”,  to Defango’s foul language and use of mind altering drugs to maintain his lifestyle as an unemployable cyber genius, to Queen Tut’s furnishing the court with false documents in lieu of a credible defense, to Jason Goodman hitting Marcus Conte with his pink umbrella…one has to wonder what in the world is going on.

And now what has surfaced is that grand piano player Thomas Schoenberger, who claims to have composed thousands of musical scores, when no one has ever witnessed him playing a piano.

We are not in the land of Gucci, but some kind of Alternative Media flea market where merchandisers peddle cheap plastic counterfeits.  And in the process, real America is being destroyed by these fakers.

The cheap Imitation of Black Cube’s reputation repair business became Shadowbox Strategies

It was Thomas Schoenberger, the persistent manipulator of all those he encounters,  that founded the reputation repair business known as Shadowbox Strategies.  Some of those company documents which revealed fee structures and marketing methods was displayed on Defango TV, as Manuel Chavez, III prepared to send documentation to the attorneys for the Aaron Rich defamation lawsuit.

Black Cube’s main business is to provide litigation support and they make use of the resources of former Mossad and Israeli operatives, to provide quality services to their clients.  One of their clients was Harvey Weinstein who was arrested on May 25, 2018 on rape and sexual misconduct charges, and who was able to be released on one million dollars bail.

A Look at Black Cube’s Contract with Weinstein

Ronon Farrow, who won the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for public service and authored War on Peace:  The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence, published an article November 6, 2017 with the New Yorker.  Farrow titled it, Harvey Weinstein’s Army of Spies:  The film executive hired private investigators, including ex-Mossad agents, to track actresses and journalists.

Farrow begins, “In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women.  He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations.”

One of those agencies was “Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies.”  Farrow says, “Two private investigators from Black Cube, using false identities, met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, to extract information from her.  One of the investigator’s pretended to be a women’s-rights advocate and secretly recorded at least four meetings with McGowan.  The same operative, using a different false identity and implying that she had an allegation against Weinstein, met twice with a journalist to find out which women were talking to the press.”

According to this New Yorker article, “The explicit goal of the investigations, laid out in one contract with Black Cube, signed in July, was to stop the publication of the abuse allegations against Weinstein that eventually emerged in the New York Times and The New Yorker.”

Farrow adds, “Over the course of a year, Weinstein had the agencies “target,” or collect information on, dozens of individuals, and compile psychological profiles that sometimes focused on their personal or sexual histories…In some cases, the investigative effort was run through Weinstein’s lawyers, including David Boies…”

Where have we encountered the issue of Conflict of Interests before?

“Boies personally signed the contract directing Black Cube to attempt to uncover information that would stop the publication of a Times story about Weinstein’s abuses, while his firm was also representing the Times, including in a libel case”.

Further down in Farrow’s article, he writes, “Techniques like the one used by the agencies on Weinstein’s behalf are almost always kept secret, and, because such relationships are often run through law firms, the investigations are theoretically protected by attorney-client privilege, which could prevent them from being disclosed in court.  The documents and sources reveal the tools and tactics available to powerful individuals to suppress negative stories and, in some cases, forestall criminal investigations.”

Success Fees to obstruct the publication of facts

On page 6, Farrow comments on the July contract with Black Cube, noting that several “success fees” would allow the agency to receive “an additional $300,000 if the agency provides intelligence which will directly contribute to the efforts to completely stop the Article from being published at all in any shape or form.”

“The contracts also show some of the techniques that Black Cube employs”.  These included using a “project manager, intelligence analysts, linguists, and ‘Avatar Operators’ specifically hired to create fake identities on social media, as well as ‘operations experts with extensive experience in social engineering’.”  There are other interesting facts and observations which Farrow discusses, and I recommend reading the entire New Yorker article which is linked in a prior paragraph.

Distracting from the real story of underlying relationships  

So let’s get back to what was going on with Crowdsource the Truth around the time of the Port of Charleston dirty bomb incident which caused mainstream media and the general public to turn aside to find out how a YouTube journalist managed to shut down a major U. S. Port for eight hours, and gain new subscribers as a reward.

At that very same time, the Seth Rich story which had been headlined on CSTT, was winding down when Jason Goodman  started accusing Defango of spoofing the files.

Defango was a business associate in 2017 of Shadowbox Strategies, Thomas Schoenberger, Trevor Fitzgibbons and Ed Butowski, and others.  Those former associations are now being looked at in association with the Aaron Rich defamation lawsuit which resulted because of false allegation made in regard to his brother,Seth Rich’s death.

But what most YouTube viewers are seeing now is constant squabbling between Schoenberger and Defango about their past history together.  In the meantime, persons who were acquainted with Thomas Schoenberger and his online puzzles, are publicly discussing his methods of harassing people on the internet.

In the past few days, Abel Danger has featured several videos on Thomas Schoenberger.    Two of those includes the August 9, 2019 YouTube video published by Jethro and the August 11, 2019 video called Jesse’s Full Story Regarding Thomas Schoenberger-Case Study #4.

Both of the above videos are insightful.  Jesse also provides a link to some legal documents and court records on Schoenberger, in addition to his video explanation of what happened to his wife’s mental health after engaging with the online puzzle maker and his gang stalking associates.  It appears that Schoenberger is so manipulative that he impersonated a medical doctor in an attempt to interfere in the treatment of Jesse’s wife.

As usual, it helps to draw back once in awhile to gain a panoramic view of these bizarre interactions on the internet.  Please be cautious always with online strangers who want to inject themselves into your life.  Often it is only hindsight that reveals what the true motives were, and how some of these players are lining their pockets.