A Review of Dave Sweigert’s Report on the “Port of Charleston Dirty Bomb Hoax and Social Media Liability”

Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.  Deuteronomy 25:13

Every once in awhile I check in with the YouTube channel of Dave Acton, the pseudonym used by Dave Sweigert.  If you are unfamiliar with this channel, Dave will on occasion publish short visually irrelevant videos, where he speaks on whatever topic of the moment captures his attention, such as, Is Jason Goodman an FBI informant like Deep Uranium? These videos are usually removed by Dave Acton from his YouTube account after a few days.

In mid April I was viewing similar Dave Acton videos, so I became aware that he was putting together a report which one could purchase from Amazon.com for the purpose of encouraging a Congressional investigation into the legal liability of the persons responsible for the June 14, 2017 dirty bomb false report, which had resulted in shutting down the Port of Charleston for eight hours.

My own reasons for becoming interested in that incident had to do with the fact that  Alternative News Media video journalists and a hidden source were the means of conveying false information to the United States Coast Guard. The day after the incident, on June 15, 2017, a Time.com article by Abigail Abrams had headlined Port of Charleston Bomb Threat Conspiracy Theorist Shut Down Terminal.  The conspiracy theorist reported to be at the heart of this incident was George Webb, who I had first heard about when he was extolled as a great researcher by Rebekah Roth and Doug Hagmann of The Hagmann Report.

Abrams reported,  “The tip calls were prompted by a YouTube video, Coast Guard spokesman, Lt. James B. Zorn told the Times.  An account of one call appeared in a YouTube video on Wednesday, according to the newspaper.  In the video, George Webb, a frequent peddler of far-right conspiracy theories, described having a conversation with the Coast Guard.”

The Time article continues, “‘Well I just got off the phone with the Coast Guard in South Carolina, and they were very obviously, you know, hesitant to call out the dogs and call out all the radiation meters and all that without knowing who our source is’, Webb said in the video. The U. S. Coast Guard said on Twitter early Thursday that the person who reported the threat has been detained and was questioned by authorities, but did not name the suspect.  Webb has thousands of followers on Twitter under the name “Truth Leaks” and YouTube, where his channel describes himself as “Reporting on Political Corruption.””

Ten months later, around April 15, 2018, the Dave Acton YouTube channel began  promoting an online petition to have officials review the Port of Charleston dirty bomb incident for possible legal prosecution of those involved.  In addition, Dave Sweigert was telling his audience that he was writing a purchasable report, and he was encouraging his listeners to buy 2 copies, one as a souvenir and the other to mail to a Congressional representative.

It was also becoming apparent that the impetus for these actions had arisen from some sort of present friction between Dave Sweigert and Jason Goodman, which also involved Crowdsource The Truth’s frequent guest, Quinn Michaels.

In an April 25, 2018 Dave Acton video titled, 3Time Phone Hack US Congress to CrowdSource the USCG, Dave Sweigert states, “Hey look, Jason, you backed me into a corner; you’re lying about me every day, you’re telling stories about me. I ask you to stop in a nice way and you attack my family.  You attack the memory of my father, a warrior, you attack my military service.  How long am I supposed to be a nice guy about this? And then the funny thing part about it, why we need documents like this.  I’ll let you guys read this because well, let’s face it, Jason’s completely lied about his role in the actual dirty hoax bomb event….”.

Thus we find for sale on Amazon.com this $6.95 report written by Dave Sweigert which is titled, Port of Charleston Dirty Bomb Hoax and Social Media Liability-“Dirty Bomb…Please Investigate…Maersk Memphis”.  I purchased a copy, as I am in agreement that a Congressional investigation of this event is needed, and given Dave Sweigert’s impressive resume, I thought a professional level report would help to summarize the main areas of inquiry.

Dave Sweigert’s credentials can be located on various internet sites and include, but are not limited to, the following statements:  Air Force veteran, security engineering experience with military and defense contractors before earning two Master’s degrees (Project Management and Information Security).  Over 20 years experience in information assurance, risk management, governance frameworks and litigation support. His military experience in cryptology allowed him to successfully transition into the role of a security architect for “open systems” (see UNIX,  LINUX, etc.) for government and military systems. As a sought after speaker, Sweigert had served as a member of the American Bar Association’s Information Security Committee.

Also, I have located a number of pro se Federal civil lawsuits filed by Sweigert over a number of years, and have noted a number of reports on his slideshare account which he has written.

By way of introduction to Sweigert’s recent report, the screenshot below displays the Amazon.com summary. 

Dave Sweigert’s education and employment background is extensive, so the question is, why am I highly disappointed with the Port of Charleston Dirty Bomb Hoax and Social Media Liability report? The following is a listing of some of my notes, which document the reasons why I would never use this report as the basis for asking for an official inquiry into the June 14, 2017 shutting down of the  Port of Charleston dirty bomb incident.

I.  Author is not named in the report. I cannot locate any place in this report where the author’s name is printed.  It is highly odd for the writer of a published “evidentiary report” not to acknowledge his authorship and his credentials.

II.  A Draft copy, not a finalized version, is being sold.The report for which I paid $6.95 has DRAFT imprinted diagonally in very large print on numerous pages. I thought I was purchasing a finished report with a content that Sweigert would take responsibility for, which would meet the professional standards necessary to persuade government officials to publicly investigate this particular incident.

III.  Report has not been proofread.There are a number of typographical mistakes, and failure to label images adequately. Also the Contents page is missing the titles for Parts I-IV.

IV.  Disclaimers  Provided as a Cover for Making Accusations Without Supporting Evidence.  The Executive Summary begins, “This evidentiary report…” which implies that supporting facts for conclusions will be presented, yet there are two warnings given which immediately bring into question the supportive evidence on which the thesis and conclusions of the author are based.

  •  The back cover states:  WARNING: No individuals described herein should be presumed to be guilty of any particular violation of law, policy or regulation.  All parties should be presumed innocent until a competent court deems otherwise.
  • Page 1 states: WARNING:   This document provides a threat assessment of a cyber-attack vector.  Individuals listed in this report should not be considered guilty of any crime or offense.   The focus of this document is to present evidence of the telecommunications aspects of the “dirty bomb” alert and warning received by the  U.S. Coast Guard on June 14th, 2017 in the context of federal law.  Any individual discussed should be presumed innocent of any crimes until adjudicated otherwise in an appropriate court of law.

V.  A Subtle Shifting of the Story Line, and a Preponderance of Loaded Words and Images To Override a Lack of Supporting Facts. 

In looking at a report, I first quickly scan through it, then read it from front to back to understand the flow of thought of the author, and finally I take time to examine the arguments in detail to see if the evidence supports the conclusions.

In the first scan through, what caught my eye is that the background of the story of the incident which caused the Port of Charleston to be shut down on June 14, 2017 was not presented as a factual overview of the entire event. It became immediately apparent that Dave Sweigert is attempting to take the focal point off of the first and secondary causes of this event, and to shift the emphasis onto a party who was involved farther down the line of actions.

Reading from front to back, Sweigert lines up his presentation in a manner that targets Jason Goodman as the primary actor which should be indicted under federal laws.

There are a number of things that can be noted about the technique Sweigert employs in his use of visual aids and “loaded” words to influence the reader to accept his conclusions outright,  in lieu of forming a conclusion from a progressive presentation of  facts and evidence.  In some instances this technique is subtle, and difficult to explain to someone who does not have the full report in front of them.  However, I will note a few examples.

The first part of the title on the cover is repeated on page 1, but leaves out “and social media liability”,  replacing it with another statement,  “Immediate Need for Deterrence Against Weaponized Deception”. This subtly moves the reader from a generality to a conclusion which should be acted on now.

Both the cover title and page 1 display the Jason Goodman message which he wanted his listeners to relay on Twitter, “Dirty Bomb…Please Investigate…Maersk Memphis“. This message of Goodman’s has been repeated 6 times in the report. In addition, an illustration is shown 4 times in the report in which 13 barrels are shown in a semicircle with arrows directed at one target barrel which represents the USCG 7th district. The author is attempting to visually imprint a message on the reader apart from what is supposed to be the actual facts of an “evidentiary report”. The conclusion which the author wants the reader to come to, is that Goodman had set up a DDoS attack on the Coast Guard via a Twitter Storm.

The Executive Summary summarizes the points which the author will be presenting in his report.  In this section, Jason Goodman is made the centerpiece of this report, as if  the other parties involved bear less legal liability.   This report is prejudicial and biased from the beginning.  A beginning example is this first sentence, “This evidentiary report places certain actions of a You Tube celebrity, who initiated a radiological event response during the hoax reality news show, within the context of federal law.” So who is this “singular” You Tube celebrity?  According to mainstream news articles which were published at the time of this incident, the celebrity was George Webb, who we also know as George Webb Sweigert, the brother of the author of this report,  Dave Sweigert aka Dave Acton. Whereas mainstream media named Webb as the YouTube celebrity involved, the Executive Summary of Dave Sweigert’s report focuses its attention on Jason Goodman, thus moving George Webb to a more obscure position, while also failing to note the personal family relationship of the author of this report to George Webb.

Part I in the Contents gives three subdivisions:  Background, Weaponized Deception, and Weak Legal Deterrence Provides Immunity to Hoax Channels. When the reader turns to this section, a title is added that is not shown on the Contents page; Hoax Threat Actors Attack U.S.C.G. 7th District.  “Hoax Threat Actorsis a loaded phrase and represents a “conclusion” made by the author which is shown to the reader before any evidence is presented which might or might not support that conclusion.

Remember that this report was published in order to be presented to Congressional representatives of the U. S. government; therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that professional standards of presenting evidence would be observed. On page 7, a photo showing Jason Goodman and George Webb Sweigert is introduced; however, just below that is the 13 barrel illustration which highlights the actions of Jason Goodman, indicating that he had confirmed the dirty bomb threat received by the Coast Guard and then proceeded to direct a DDoS attack (Distributed Denial of Service Attack) on the 7th District. This same illustration with this DDoS allegation is repeated on page 9.

Page 8 begins the section entitled Background, and it must be noted again that the author fails to give the reader the factual overview of the events which lead up to the closing of the Port of Charleston on June 14, 2017 due to a phone call which relied on the insider source of George Webb. If this threat had been based on solid information, it was the responsibility of this hidden source to contact the USCG privately.  Again, Dave Sweigert fails to clearly identify his brother’s responsibility for coming on the CSTT show to discuss the insider’s warning and involving Jason Goodman in this false reporting incident.

The author has claimed to have identified who the hidden source of George Webb is.  As that man is the First Cause of this entire incident, this information belongs under the Background section.  However, Sweigert places that person’s identity on pages 14 and 15 under Part II b. The Curious Deep Uranium, aka Rock Hudson of The Hudson Report.  In addition on page 11, the author introduces a title to Part II, which is not shown under the Contents page, Wilful Blindness of CSTT. This is a reference to case-law which the author argues applies to Jason Goodman’s actions in this matter.

Dave Sweigert says on page 14, “The identity of the curious “Deep Uranium” appears to be that of a former FBI informant living in West Virginia.”  However, in the 3rd paragraph on this page he says, “The source of this dirty bomb “intelligence’ (“Deep Uranium”) is a former FBI informant”.  So which is it? Appears to be and Is are two different statements. Dave Sweigert asserts in this report that “Deep Uranium” is Okey Marshall Richards, Jr. who had operated undercover back in 1997 to convict a militia group of plotting to blow up the FBI’s fingerprint laboratory. An August 8, 1997 news article has been reprinted in part for this report, but the source is not identified by Sweigert.  Also, the author has not proven the connection between this FBI informant and the mysterious Deep Uranium, the insider source of George Webb.

In the time sequencing of this event on June 14, 2017, we could label George Webb, as the secondary cause of this incident.  Later the name of Joe Napoli is brought up as one of the possible two callers to the Coast Guard. We could label Napoli as the third cause. Jason Goodman ought to be held responsible for his actions, but he is maybe the fifth cause in this entire mess.  We have no idea what the true relationships of all of these people were, prior to this incident.  Thus a thorough investigation might reveal that the culpability for this incident should be distributed among these persons in a different way than what we know of the June 14, 2017 timeline of communications.

Dave Sweigert uses several loaded phrases, which are not precisely applied to the facts, which serve to imprint a conclusion in the reader’s mind.  For example, under Weaponized Deception on pages 9-10, Sweigert uses acronyms such as Live Action Role Plays (LARP), which he says include injection of periodic “intelligence reports” from “inside sources” to create an Augmented Reality Game (ARG). He is attempting to force his narrative into a mold, rather than simply showing the reader the sequence of events as they were.

The author likens Crowdsource the Truth (CSTT) to the Orson Wells broadcast of “War of the Worlds” in 1938, and in an earlier paragraph mentions CSTT hoaxes, as if he has proven that the Port of Charleston incident as it relates to Jason Goodman’s participation, was in fact a Hoax, a word which implies a planned event. Another possibility is that Jason Goodman’s actions are the outcome of his impulsive personality. I have viewed a number of CSTT videos and Jason Goodman often displays an impulsive personality which repeatedly displays poor judgment. Goodman should be held accountable for his actions in this incident; the question is, whether he was merely reckless, or whether he played a key part in the planning of this series of actions.

Sweigert is also trying to build a scenario to include the CSTT guest, Quinn Michaels, as a part of his thesis that “a lack of criminal prosecution of these threat actors” is creating a situation where further and more dangerous hoaxes will imperil the critical infrastructure of our nation. While this scenario is of definite concern regarding the ways in which social media can be misused, this report is supposed to be about  the incident which happened on June 14, 2017 at the Port of Charleston. It does not appear that Quinn Michaels had any participation in that event whatsoever, and he should not be drawn into this particular investigation request at this point.

In several places, Jason Goodman’s act wherein he suggested to his 2,117 member audience, that they send a Twitter message to the higher command of the USCG-7th district stating, “Dirty Bomb-Please Investigate-Maersk Memphis” is notedAs deplorable as that action was on Goodman’s part in attempting to create a Twitter Storm, is it reasonable that this action should be treated as a DDoS attack on the 7th District USCG?

It appears that Twitter Storms are a normal occurrence in the Twitter World, and are defined as “a sudden spike in activity surrounding the Twitter social media sites”.  Whereas a DDoS (“Distributed Denial of Service Attack“), is defined by Wikipedia as a Denial of Service attack “where the perpetrator uses more than one unique IP address, often thousands of them…flooding the victim” and thus disrupting the normal, legitimate traffic of the target.

While Goodman may have flooded the USCG Twitter account, the fact is that the Port of Charleston was shut down on the basis of a couple of phone calls to the USCG, and not by an attack on their computer systems.  Goodman directed a flood of twitter messages to a social media site, which is separate and apart, from the computer systems used in the daily operations of the USCG and the Port of Charleston management. The stressing of the use of a DDoS in labeling Goodman’s actions would seem to serve the purpose of placing these actions under more severe penalties of the law.

On page 8, under Background, second paragraph says, “The maritime terminal closure was based on a ‘dirty bomb” tip provided by individuals that supposedly had knowledge of the shipment of a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) on the Maersk Memphis container ship (arriving in the Port of Charleston).  By definition, a dirty bomb, while radiological, cannot be labeled a Weapon of Mass Destruction, which is a “nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures, natural structures or the biosphere”. (Wikipedia)  Compare the definition of a WMD with the dirty bomb definition below, as defined by the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Committee:

definition found on page 2 of “Prevention of And Response to the Arrival of a Dirty Bomb at a U. S. Port (114-30) Hearing before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation on October 27, 2015

While there are points of agreement I have with Dave Sweigert in this report, these factors are overridden by the numerous statements which appear to be tainted  by  Dave Sweigert’s personal differences with Jason Goodman, and also by his under playing the culpability of his brother, George Webb. This has distorted the laying out of the bare facts of this incident by which an independent official investigation should be encouraged to impartially weigh the actions of all the persons involved.

Despite impressive credentials, Dave Sweigert has not done the public a service by publishing a biased report.

 

 

 

 

RICO Alchemy: Turning Monetized Youtubers into Treble Damages Gangstas

It would be easy for me to ignore all of the drama which has played out between the Sweigert brothers, AKA George Webb and Dave Acton, and that of Defango, Nathan Stolpman, and others. But…there is one aspect of this story that causes me to camp out in this neck of the woods a little longer.

I want to know what the legal theory and evidence is, behind  Dave Sweigert’s threats of a RICO lawsuit against a  few YouTubers and most likely,  the deeper pockets of YouTube and Patreon.  If Sweigert did not have an extensive history of filing as a Pro Se Plaintiff in Federal courts, I might saunter away, on the assumption that he was probably not serious in his threats. However,  because of his past history, this story bears watching.

There are interesting questions which arise from the potential use of RICO laws against persons who are only loosely associated through online social media. And then there is the monetary motive that Sweigert feels is critical to his argument against Youtubing crowdstalkers, which can be derived from having a Youtube channel that allows advertising. I feel inclined to point out that there are monetary benefits from filing a successful civil RICO case, in the form of treble damages.

The backstory of what I have viewed in the public domain, has no doubt hidden undercurrents, documents which are not accessible, and behind the scenes conversations which have taken place.  Much of this situation could have been kept entirely private, but for the fact that Dave Acton/Sweigert has published documents and videos and made comments on other YouTube channels, Twitter, etc. Some of his words and documents he has pulled from the public domain after being witnessed by many persons not party to his private affairs.  The game he is playing is a strange one; possibly one that suggests a form of  entrapment through legal sophistry.

So what  are the various options in which conflicts can be resolved, apart from criminal and civil law proceedings?  What are the elements of a RICO lawsuit that must exist for a case to be even accepted into the law courts?  I am not an attorney and do not understand legal theory in depth, nor legal procedures.  Yet because I am an American citizen, having a layman’s common sense understanding of law, I can view  the facts and evidence which have been presented in the public domain, and form an opinion which can withstand logical scrutiny.

As stated in previous posts, my attention was first drawn to various Youtubers, because of their commentaries on the Maersk Memphis dirty bomb incident on June 14, 2017.  About that time, I began to follow Bravo Von Muller’s video commentaries.  Through him, I became aware that prior to this event, there had arisen a discussion on the true identity of Dave Acton, and that of George Webb.

A Pre Litigation Notice?

And like others, Bravo Von Muller has found himself in the fishing net of Dave Acton/Sweigert.  An example of that is found in this video, although there were other similar type communications made and displayed earlier at the Bravo Von Muller YouTube channel. This particular comment shows someone named Dave Sweigert stating, Bravo, …this is your pre litigation notice.  Safeguard all electronic files that you have used in your video productions.

If Bravo Von Muller is ever named as a defendant in a lawsuit by Dave Sweigert, I shall be interested to find out what measures Sweigert took prior to that action,  to explain exactly where and how that Bravo Von Muller had committed defamation or some other action subject to a civil court of law. Bravo von Muller has pointed out that he has no assets, and I cannot see how he can be drawn into the gangsta group which Sweigert is forming through some legal theory of his.

So what is Sweigert trying to achieve? A chilling of free speech?  Bravo Von Muller has admitted that he receives the grand sum of about $160 a month from his YouTube channel.  Perhaps Sweigert desires to be the cause of the loss of this source of supplemental income for this former Air Force man from the 1980’s, who later became a Las Vegas gambler and casino dealer.  Bravo Von Muller has a right to speak his own views and to make his personal commentary public on matters which are in the public domain. I note that he allows derogatory comments from others about him to be published on his YouTube channel. In other words, Bravo Von Muller has not attempted to censor those who oppose him by words, but rather he allows their views to be read.

After the dirty bomb report, numerous persons asked whether this false report which originated with “a conspiracy theorist” might negatively impact the free-for-all world of YouTubing. The answer to that concern would appear to have arrived in the form of Suspicious Activity Reports, Evidence Preservation Letters, Cease and Desist Notices, and Pre Litigation Warnings; all of which come from one source who uses  Twitter, YouTube comments and videos, plus letters sent by the United States Postal Office.

The grouping together of various Youtubers that Sweigert believes can be  prosecuted under the criminal and civils laws of the RICO act,  has the potential to have a chilling effect on free speech, the monetizing of certain internet platforms, and the right of free association to discuss ideas in the public realm.

A Letter to the Attorney General of California Department of Justice

On August 1, 2017, Dave Sweigert wrote to the Attorney General, California Department of Justice to request their assistance.  Sweigert made it understood that the District Attorney of San Luis Obispo (SLO) County had failed to comprehend the application of Article I Declaration of Rights [Section 1-Sec. 32] and the California Penal Code Section 646.9 to the complaints which he had filed against Nathan Stolpman of the Lift The Veil YouTube channel.

The Declaration of Rights deals with this California Constitutional statement:  All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. And Section 646.9 defines harassment, credible threats, and the crime of stalking.

Sweigert tells the Attorney General that an individual in SLO county “maintains a worldwide network of crowd stalking associates that receive calls to action via Livestream broadcasts on YouTube and videos on  Patreon to target the private citizens of California.  The individual is known as:  NATHAN AMES STOLPMAN, age 38″.

He claims that Mr. Stolpman is involved in crowd stalking, that he is ” handsomely rewarded via financial incentives”, and that he encourages “a call to action to ‘take care of’ or ‘visit’ the victim.  He also states that “Mr. Stolpman is fond of issuing ‘bounties’ for photographs of his targeted individuals.  By providing the intended whereabouts of the victim, a call to action is issued to intercept the individual for unwanted photography and other harassment.”

With regard to this and other such letters of complaint, I have no issue with Dave Sweigert freely exercising any of his rights at any time.  The only thing which I would object to, is if his facts are incorrect and his arguments misleading, so that he has not fairly represented the situation.

Two letters sent to the parents of Nathan Stolpman

Days earlier, Dave Sweigert had sent two letters to the residential address of Nathan Stolpman, who apparently resides in the garage. One of these letters, dated July 20, 2017 is addressed to Pamela J. Stolpman, who is Nathan Stolpman’s mother. When I looked up her name on the internet, it is readily apparent that Pamela Stolpman died a couple of years ago.  It appears that the second letter was addressed to Nathan’s father, who is the owner of the home.

Envelope of letter sent to Nathan’s deceased mother from Fort Meade Army base with postage of $6.65.  Note that Fort Meade is the location of the United States Cyber Command, and Sweigert has claimed in this letter  that a cyber harassment campaign has been directed at him

The subject line of this letter to the deceased Pamela Stolpman is:  Alleged criminal activity of your son, Nathan Ames Stolpman. He begins by saying, “As you are well aware, your son (Nathan Ames Stolpman) is presently engaged in a long standing cyber harassment campaign directed at me.  I am a private individual that has suffered greatly from your son’s continuous disparaging, slanderous and defaming remarks.  Additionally, he is fond of making videos in my neighborhood in Mount Shasta with his encouragement to ‘meet with him’.  Enough is enough.”  Sweigert quotes California Penal Code Sec. 646.9 (a) and (e), concluding “Your son’s actions are considered by me as threats.”

I won’t criticize Sweigert when he views the actions and words of Nathan Stolpman as threatening, for he is within his rights to express his subjective opinion.  After all, he is the focal point of those videos. But after viewing a number of Lift The Veil videos, my opinion is that Stolpman is a childish showman, much like Dave Acton.  And like Dave Acton aka Dave Sweigert, Nathan also panics if the scrapes he gets himself into with other people goes beyond some invisible boundary.

Unless Nathan Stolpman has a criminal record that I am unaware of, he does not appear to be someone who would physically harm another person.  That his actions might encourage someone else who is dangerous, would be, in my mind, the primary reason that Stolpman needs to rethink his dramatic displays. It must be noted that Nathan Stolpman studied drama at college.  It must also be noted that Dave Acton also did some Hollywood acting on a temporary basis.  One can find something of the mirror imaging of each other in their methods of conflict resolution.  That said, Dave Sweigert is within his rights to initiate action to cause certain acts of Nathan Stolpman  to cease, and I do not take issue with that.

Here is the fly in this ointment, however.  Dave Sweigert has claimed that he lives in California, presumably in the Mount Shasta vicinity.  But the letters which he mailed to Nathan Stolpman’s living father and deceased mother were sent from a post office box from Fort George G. Meade, Maryland.  The Fort Meade location is highlighted on Dave Sweigert’s online resume, although it would appear that he still retains employment in California.  Fort Meade is an Army Base which houses the United States Cyber Command, and the NSA. And of course, given this twilight zone in which we find ourselves,  it is only appropriate that the postage on the envelope was one penny less than $6.66.

So here we have the unfortunate situation that Nathan’s father, who once held a very high government position,  not only receives a threatening letter regarding his adult son’s behavior, but he also receives a separate letter addressed to his deceased wife.

So what does the compassionate Dave Sweigert do on July 25, 2017, just after it is confirmed that the Stolpmans have received his July 20th letter?  Why he files a Report of Suspected Endangerment To A Dependent Adult/Elder which also references a letter he had sent to the Chief of Detectives of SLO on July 24, 2017.

This letter to Victim Services, Elder & Dependent Adult Abuse, complains that Nathan Ames Stolpman, 38, “operates a fake hoax news site with thousands of viewers”, and he brings to their attention that in a certain video, Nathan’s father  appeared “on a live camera show” as he came into the room to discuss legal documents which had been delivered a few minutes earlier.  Sweigert then stresses, “These documents clearly state that the father’s property and home are in legal jeopardy because of the son’s use of the facilities and logistics to support wire fraud activities as defined by Penal Code 646.9, cyber-stalking, for commercial profit (see wire fraud and racketeering).”

Sweigert, in his Elder Abuse letter, also observes that the 72 year old “elder Stolpman appears to be in the care of an extremely unstable, controversial and eccentric YouTube personality who-only last week-abused the processes of the County courts with an unfounded, meritless, frivolous and vexations civil action against a former fan (see attachment to ref: (b)).”  Dave Sweigert then explains to Victim Services that “a wire fraud civil legal action has been iniated(sp) against Nathan Stolpman for alleged slander, defamation, wire fraud and criminal violations of Penal Code 646.9”.  Dave Sweigert signs off with “Warm regards”.

Anyone who watches Lift The Veil sooner or later understands that Nathan Stolpman has confessed to having mental issues, although at one time he was highly functioning in society as a high-end car salesman.  Thus Nathan Stolpman’s father, who is now getting older, and who lost his wife two years ago, and is trying to assist his son who is dealing with some level of mental health issues, finds himself  being threatened by Dave Sweigert that he might lose his house through RICO laws And while Sweigert chastises Nathan for being the primary cause of this trouble, we must note that Sweigert is purposely using tactics to resolve conflict, that will cause the most damage to his targets.

Here are two common sense questions: (1) if Dave Sweigert does not file a lawsuit as he has threatened to do, is he setting himself up to be criminally charged for harassment and the use of intimidation tactics against his adversaries? (2) If he does file a lawsuit, can he expect a  counterclaim involving those same issues?

This whole matter is messy from beginning to end, as there is fault to be found with many of these Youtubers in their presentations, and that includes The Litigator also known as Dave Sweigert. Most likely some of these conflicts could have been ignored, or addressed by a detailed formal letter from Dave Sweigert to individual persons,  wherein he describes exactly what was said that constituted defamation, as the law defines it.

And with regard to the charge of cyber stalking against Stolpman,   I do not know if a judge or a jury would agree with Sweigert  that a credible threat had been made against him.   In fact, it might be that the District Attorney of SLO did not address Dave Sweigert’s complaint in the manner in which Sweigert wanted, because the facts of that situation did not meet the minimum requirements of the law.  I do not know. And it is  now left up to the Attorney General of the California Department of Justice to review this question.

I find it difficult to imagine that a strong, bold, heroic,  self-proclaimed Incident Commander, with Army training,  a survivalist expert  who has put his photos out on the internet via Infowars and Hollywood acting demo websites, would  so tremble in  fear over someone taking his photo at a conference, that he cancelled his own book signing opportunity.  But, the upside to this loss of potential book buyers is that now he can add this complaint to his RICO lawsuit, and command treble damages should he prevail.

Dave Sweigert has published several specialized books, and it seems that he is working on another one.  Below is a copy of the potential cover, front and back. It says, “Dave Sweigert is a modern day General Billy Mitchell, ostracized for demonstrations of the next generation of warfare.  The author brilliantly leads us through the nuances of cyber-attacks…”.

Billy Mitchell was an Army General who is called the “father of the United States Air Force”.  I am not sure whether to rest my case on that book cover statement, or allow Dave Sweigert to rest his case on that comparison. I am virtually conflicted on that one. As we now know,  Dave Sweigert is an expert on winning virtual conflict.

 

 

 

Trapped In a RICO Chamber, Part II

On July 21, 2017 Dave Sweigert  published a Draft of his article entitled, The application of racketeering and wire fraud laws to combat Crowdstalking hoax news sites. (See end of this post to read full article).  As the author, he describes himself as Dave Sweigert, M. Sci. -Non attorney engaged in scholarly cyber-legal research. This paper is a draft, so we must understand that it may not represent a finalized version; however, what is stated in his first section,” ABSTRACT”, introduces concepts which need to be seriously considered.

Sweigert’s Abstract states, Racketeering Laws can be used to suppress Crowdstalking cyber harassment, one of the favorite operational vectors upon to distribute cognitive threats that are based upon deception.  Hoax news sites use these techniques to attack critical infrastructure operators, federal employees, and infrastructure security advisors to create chaos in critical sectors.

From his beginning discussion of crowd stalking/cyber harassment, Sweigert narrows this broad field down to a personal example, which centers on himself as the target. Some of the information he provides in that situation helps to clarify a few questions I had raised in my prior post where I was reviewing a Suspicious Activity Report which Sweigert had written.

In this article, his final paragraph reads: “About the author:  Dave Sweigert became the target of crowdstalkers shortly after his estranged brother (George Webb Sweigert) was linked to the Port of Charleston dirty bomb hoax on 6/14/17.  The author’s background in computer security was seized upon as “proof” that he was an agent for government surveillance and espionage against YouTube “truth tellers” like Stolpman and Moorefield.”

It is interesting that in this “about” scenario, one major fact was left out, which would appear to be the main reason why Dave Sweigert’s name had been brought into the dirty bomb hoax story in the first place.  A couple of days prior to the Charleston incident, Nathan Stolpman of Lift The Veil, had brought up the question as to whether George Webb and Dave Acton were one and the same person. This led to several Youtubers going down the road of trying to find out what the true relationship between these names is.

As noted by numerous persons, it was Dave Acton AKA Dave Sweigert, who then responded publically by stating that he and George Webb are brothers. And when the Charleston incident was linked with his brother, George Webb, it was Dave Acton who made several videos addressing his brother’s personal history. However, these videos were pulled quickly by Dave Acton after airing them on YouTube; but not before various commenters had viewed them and discussed their content publically.

This “hit and run” method of Dave Acton is also seen on Dave Sweigert’s slideshare.net account.  Many of those slideshare.net  documents were links inserted into Sweigert’s Twitter account.  By later pulling the document off of the link, he has hurt his own credibility.

Because the actual timeline of the internet discussion of “the identity of the person behind the fake name Dave Acton”, was prior to the actual dirty bomb incident, a disinterested observer would be inclined to ask whether the drama which  subsequently played out was:  (1) a scripted play with several persons playing assigned roles, or (2) a true life example of  individual juvenile boys trapped in adult male bodies, awaiting some 400 pound Mommy to come along to ground them for life, for their squabbling.  One cannot help to notice that the participants in this drama dropped words about each other, such as Mossad, CIA, NSA, gamers, hackers, schizophrenia, Hollywood movie actors, 3D cameramen, RICO, financial market manipulation through hoaxes…etc.; words which feed the Suspicious Mindset, particularly when one finds out that the participants made their living in such occupations.

Because of the partiality of Dave Sweigert/Dave Acton in this entire drama, and his grasping at laws to “ground for life” those who have driven him to distraction, we must continue to wonder what on earth is really going on here? In the past,  Dave Sweigert has been the plaintiff in lawsuits, which includes the Pro Se approach to solving a problem through the civil court system.  There are several important elements of American law which are interesting in the world of internet free speech rights, and Dave Sweigert taps into them in his July 21, 2017 Abstract.

Sweigert is correct in raising the alarm as to the dangers of critical decisions which are based on a deceptive personal email or mass audience targeted video tape.  He says, “Social media stalkers can combine information about hobbies, professional associations, fraternal organizations, etc. to craft deceptive and false messages for the purpose of supporting cyber intrusions and social engineering.  In the previous example, random bites of information are coalesced into a modern cyber weapon- the cognitive threat.  Cyber stalking gangs, encouraged by financial gain, have begun experimenting with Crowd stalking as a valid attack vector.  Armies of social media vandals, well trained in areas like reputational destruction, are guided by paid social media personalities to attack targets.”

In his section entitled, Suppression of the cognitive threat, the second paragraph, Sweigert says, “The closure of the Port of Charleston by a dirty bomb hoax is the latest example.”  As I noted in my previous post, Trapped in A RICO Chamber, Dave Acton AKA Dave Sweigert had accused Crowdsource The Truth of attempting to manipulate the financial markets via false stories, and he brought up the RICO laws as applying to their words and actions.

One of the problems of Dave Sweigert’s credibility, besides his “hit and run” manner of reporting his viewpoint, is his combining a discussion of generalized cyber crowd stalking behavior with his own individualized personal complaints.  In the latter, it would appear that he is building civil and criminal cases against certain individuals who he claims have defamed his reputation, and that of another family member. At the same time he is trying to build a RICO/wire fraud case which also includes some of the same targets with other persons. There are flaws in throwing all of these persons into the same so-called network, which will ultimately undermine his arguments , should all of these individuals have to “lawyer up”.

In Dave Sweigert’s Abstract, first paragraph summary,  he focuses on the attack against federal employees, infrastructure security advisors, etc. by hoax news sites.  I agree with him that there is a problem that needs addressing here.  But there is another real problem, and it would appear that Sweigert likes to play both sides of the fence.

On the one side of this Fence, there are persons journalistically  targeting the actions of the American government and its individual representatives. But on the other side are those government agencies with their paid operatives who are set up on the internet to introduce false stories which target the American public, whose hard earnings fund these very same government deceptions.

Dave Sweigert has a dual nature: he was employed as an agent of the government in various capacities, CIA, NSA, Air Force, government contractor, while at the same time he enjoys certain Constitutional rights as an American private citizen. He seems to think he can freely move between these two positions, and put forth whatever argument best suits him.  What is at risk here is the freedom of the press of the genuine, truthful  investigative journalist, as well as the free speech rights of the individual American who publically expresses an opinion within the legal boundaries of Constitutional law.

On the internet, there are reasonable arguments put forth by individual bloggers and Youtubers who attempt to discuss these covert PSYOPS, who are countered not by facts and evidence, but by professional cons trying to draw these individuals into a wider net of the false accusation that they are acting in concert as a Cabal.

Therein lies the trap which is being set when professional liars are seeking to use RICO as a basis to shut down the freedom of the press, and of personal speech which has been established by Constitutional and case law.

Is it any wonder that there are comments made on the internet that question the motivations and work histories of certain persons, and wonder whose side they are really on?

It is important for the reader to do their own critical thinking on the matters raised here.  Below are screenshots of the July 21, 2017 Draft copy of The Application of racketeering and wire fraud laws to combat CrowdStalking Hoax news sites, by Dave Sweigert, M. Sci.

Related to this matter are the following documents, as well.