DECORUM & DIDACTICS: An Example of How A False Accuser Can Abuse the Civil Court Legal Process

“Plaintiff Steele and Intervenor Applicant Sweigert have been conspiring together and with intermediaries for more than one year and in an ongoing fashion to create and monetize a harassment campaign (The Campaign) intended to disrupt the Defendant’s business, personal life and world wide reputation, and chill Defendant’s journalistic endeavors which have revealed evidence of felony crimes by Plaintiff, Intervenor Applicant and third-party co-conspirators.” [Document 78 filed March 8, 2019 by Jason Goodman as “Defendant’s Opposition to the Motion to Intervene”.]

A little background history

As readers of Tracking the Leopard Meroz blog know, Jason Goodman  accused this author of being part of a co-conspiracy which had committed “felony crimes” in Document 78 in the Robert David Steele, et. al. vs. Jason Goodman, et. al. defamation lawsuit.

On March 15, 2019, in Document 79, I responded to those false allegations by submitting a Declaration, which included two exhibits to the Court.

In my Declaration to the Court, I described the content of this blog for the past four years, denied all of the allegations of Jason Goodman as being false and unsupported by ANY evidence, and noted that in the past 20 months of writing articles that involved Crowdsource the Truth, not once had Jason Goodman written this blog to challenge the numerous screenshots, transcriptions of videos, references to court documents or any other documentation I provide to support my commentary.  That is, not until Goodman commented on my blog on March 9, 2019; displayed as Exhibit B of Document 79, The Declaration of Jacquelyn Weaver.

That comment which was left by Jason Goodman on Tracking the Leopard Meroz, stated in part, ” If you believe the biased propaganda presented on this blog, you might ask yourself why Weaver has refrained from editorializing her latest post regarding the docket entry 78.  She has merely presented the court documents without her usual grossly slanted commentary, which is coincidentally continually lauding the very individuals behind the alleged conspiracy to create a harassment for pay operation, I would suggest, that may be due to the fact that any further comments she makes, may in fact, not be helpful to her in defending her actions should the court find my conclusions in this matter to be correct.

This blog is free and has never solicited donations. The conclusions which Jason Goodman wants the Court to endorse are his allegations that I, along with others, have committed felony crimes.

What are felony crimes?

Justice.gov states that “felonies are offenses that may result in prison sentences of more than one year…”, and they define such criminal acts as those that violate state or federal law.

As inferred in the comment left by Jason Goodman on this blog, he had inserted my name in a court document to which I am a non-party, as a warning  to intimidate this writer into silence.

Other False Allegations made anonymously

Around April 3, 2019, an internet handle Avi Avi posted insinuating questions  on the Kevin Alan Marsden YouTube channel comment section, saying,  “Did anyone notice that so called Jacqueline (sp) Weaver from Meroz doesn’t really live at her court filed address?  How come “Weaver” is trashing everyone that supported Dave Acton?  How come Dave Acton ‘hangs out’ anyone that helped him & has ‘Weaver’ do all his dirty work?  How is that CIA scumbag Robert David Steele, Dave Acton, NSA, Homeland Security & ‘Weaver’ are such good friends?  And u all think Goodman is the bad guy…funny.”

The first thing to notice in the above comment is that the anonymous liar implied that I had submitted a court affidavit using a false address of record, when a check of the Lamar County, Mississippi property records proves that I, along with my husband, am the owner of the house at that address.  There are 3 reasonable guesses as to who is behind the Avi Avi insinuations, and 2 of those possibilities are parties to the Robert David Steele defamation lawsuit.

Document 109:  Hidden Messages to subvert civil legal procedures?

In the most recent court document (109) submitted by Jason Goodman on May 7, 2019, he again declares, “Defendant has alleged a conspiracy between Plaintiff, Intervenor Applicant, co-Defendant Queen Tut aka Susan Lutzke aka Susan Holmes (herein after HOLMES) and non-party co-conspirators.”

On page 5 and 6 of Document 109, Jason Goodman declares, “Plaintiff and Intervenor Applicant, by their own admission, are both retired members of the military and clandestine services with specialties in deceptive psychological and information/disinformation operations.  Defendant has repeated the allegation that both parties are cooperating to use this instant legal action as a burdensome weapon of harassment against Defendant and to chill Defendant’s journalistic investigations into alleged criminal activity. Plaintiff has asserted that “no evidence” exists to support Defendant’s claim.”

Goodman continues, “It is Defendant’s belief that the coordinated effort between the Plaintiff, Intervenor Applicant, Holmes and third parties has been carefully crafted in a specific manner so as to  circumvent standard civil legal procedures and has been executed in absence of any overt, discoverable communications.  Coded messages sent in public via steganographic techniques, including YouTube videos and social media comments and the use of third-party intermediaries, deliberately avoid leaving a discoverable trail of evidence and sufficiently frustrate civil legal procedures.”

Jason Goodman provided no evidence to the Court to support this allegation.  What is more, Goodman had declared in Document 109 that “Defendant is entitled to an order protecting him from responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.”  With regard to his situation, his argument was that ample public information was available.  But when it comes to others, he accuses them of subverting the legal process by hiding secret messages in plain sight.

What are steganographic techniques, and how are they to be discovered?

Steganographic techniques involve hiding messages in plain sight, such as in digital images, or spam messages. If one is concerned about such matters, there exists software which can be purchased to analyze possible sources where steganographic techniques have been employed. In one advertisement,   McAfee.com asks, Are you protecting yourself from Stegware? And they offer a free “Try It Out” mechanism that allows for an image file to be dropped in their trial example, and analyzed for steganography.

If Jason Goodman wants to declare that steganographic techniques have been used as claimed in Document 109, certainly he could have also provided evidence of such, using a software program that detects stegwareHe provides no such software analysis as supporting evidence.

[There are numerous articles on the internet on steganography, if one is interested in this topic.  Semanticsscholar.org has published a 2013 thesis by Aimie Chee titled, Steganographic Techniques on Social Media:  Investigative Guidelines which provides sound research on this subject.]

Felony Crimes and Non-Parties of a Civil Lawsuit

In Document 78 which identifies by name, the accused participants in a co-conspiracy, all are NON PARTIES to the Robert David Steele lawsuit with the exception of Robert David Steele, the Plaintiff and Queen Tut, one of the Co-Defendants.  Jason Goodman asserted that he has “revealed evidence of felony crimes by Plaintiff, Intervenor Applicant and third-party co-conspirators.

Not only has Jason Goodman failed to provide evidence to support his allegations, he fails to document that he has provided this so-called proof of felony crimes to the state or federal law enforcement agencies responsible for investigating and for procuring  indictments for illegal conduct. Felony offenses are to be tried in a Criminal Court, not in a civil defamation case by a defendant who appears to regard himself as having the same standing as a state or federal law enforcement investigator.

Not only has Jason Goodman undertaken a role not belonging to him, but he disingenuously makes his false allegations in a Federal Civil Court proceeding where most of the accused do not have legal standing in which to exonerate their reputations.  Four of those accused by Goodman submitted Declarations to the Court as interested persons, NOT as parties in this defamation lawsuit.

I apologize for being redundant, but this nail needs to be driven in with several strikes of the hammer

Again, let me repeat:  The Robert David Steele, et. al. vs Jason Goodman, et. al. lawsuit is a defamation complaint filed in Federal Civil Court.  It is not a court which is a trier of felony criminal offenses.  Yet Jason Goodman, as a defendant in this case, has the temerity to cast felony criminal aspersions against several non-parties.  Is such a means of slander and libel to be tolerated in a civil court proceeding? 

Justice.gov in discussing the role of a grand jury, references Section 9.11.130 Limitation on Naming Persons as Unindicted Co-Conspirators.  The first paragraph reads, “In the absence of some significant justification, federal prosecutors generally should not identify co-conspirators in conspiracy indictments.  The practice of naming individuals as unindicted co-conspirators in an indictment charging a criminal conspiracy has been severely criticized in United States v. Briggs, 514 F. 2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975).

Thus we see that persons accused of being unindicted co-conspirators have been acknowledged as having certain rights in Criminal Court proceedings.  Do persons accused of being unindicted co-conspirators have any rights in Civil Court proceedings, where they lack legal standing as non-parties to defend themselves against false allegations from a Defendant in a defamation lawsuit?  Does a Defendant in a defamation case have the right to commit DEFAMATION in a civil court matter against non-parties?

United States vs. Briggs and the Rights of Unindicted co-conspirators

I am not an attorney, nor am I an expert in legal theory.  However, the Department of Justice has cited United States v. Briggs as an authority in governing how unindicted co-conspirators in criminal matters are to be addressed.  United States v. Briggs

For the sake of discussion, let’s see what points were presented in United States v. Briggs.  As background, this case was decided June 13, 1975, almost 44 years ago. The original case dealt with a five-count indictment by a federal Grand Jury in the Northern District of Florida against a number of persons involved in political demonstrations and disruptions at the Republican Party National Convention in 1972.

“The alleged conspirators included ten named persons plus others not named.  Of the ten named, seven were made defendants and three were not.  The latter three, although accused of participation in the criminal conspiracy, were determined in the indictment as ‘unindicted co-conspirators’.”

“Prior to the trial of the seven named defendants, two of the three named but unindicted persons…filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, seeking entry of an order expunging the references to them in Count One of the indictment.  The United States Attorney appeared and contested the application.  The named defendants did not object to expunction of references to Beverly and Chambers.  The District Judge denied the petition without opinion or statement of reasons.  The petitioners appealed.  Pending appeal and following a month-long trial before a jury, the indicted conspirators were acquitted.”

The government had argued that “since the petitioners were not named as defendants they lacked standing to object to the contents of the indictment.”

On appeal, the Court stated, “We hold that there is a case or controversy, that the appellants have standing, and that the acquittal of the persons named as defendants does not moot the case.  The government’s position to the contrary on each of these points is founded upon its argument that since the appellants were not indicted, and particularly since those names as defendants were acquitted, the formal branding of appellants as alleged felons and as participants in a distasteful conspiracy is a mere chimera, neither substantial nor injurious.  This is at least disingenuous.”

“Beverly and Chambers complain of injury to their good names and reputations and impairment of their ability to obtain employment.  The courts have recognized in many contexts that these are substantial and legally cognizable interests entitled to constitutional protection against official action that debases them.”

Tort Law Quoted in United States v. Briggs

The United States v. Briggs opinion is extensive, but  an interesting reference cited which is appropriate to today’s post, says, “In tort law, slanderous publication imputing to another a criminal offense subjects the defamer to liability without proof of special harm.  Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 570 (Tent. Draft No. 20, 1974).”

Following this quote, the Court Opinion continued, “The government defies common sense with its theory that one’s interests are not adversely affected to any extent by being publicly branded as a felon so long as he is not named as a defendant for trial.  We reject as frivolous the contention that if appellants have suffered injury it is at the hand of only the news media to whom they should repair for relief…”.

Unindicted co-conspirators in criminal trials have rights…what about civil court proceedings?

The point I am addressing is that in a criminal case which is prosecuted by the government, the Court has ruled that those named as unindicted co-conspirators have rights which must be respected, in spite of the fact that these persons lack standing in a criminal proceeding.  Jason Goodman, one of three defendants in a federal civil defamation lawsuit, has cast aspersions on several non-parties whose only common bond is an interest in this case.

It is a danger to a civilized society, when slanderous publications impute to another a criminal offense, is committed by a defamer on social media.

How much more is that danger, when that same defamer can with apparent impunity in a civil proceeding, allege that non-parties to the lawsuit have committed unindicted felony crimes? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

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.