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

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

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

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

David Hawkins:  The Frustrum Personified

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

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

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

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

Reverse Engineering CSI is based on inductive, not deductive logic

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

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

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

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

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

Laying the Sacrificial Victim upon the Frustrum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some things are impossible to reverse engineer….

 

 

 

Advertisements

D. George Sweigert v. Jason Goodman: Plaintiff’s Ninth Request for Judicial Notice

On October 9, 2018, D. George Sweigert filed Plaintiff’s Ninth Request for Judicial Notice in the Sweigert vs. Goodman RICO lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In this 32 page document, three Public Artifacts were recorded involving a September 13, 2018 interview by Jason Goodman of “Targeted Individual” Michael Barden, and plaintiff’s book which is sold at Amazon.com titled, Report:  The Port of Charleston Dirty Bomb Hoax and Social Media Liability.

These documents can be read here:  sweigert rjn 9

Sweigert vs. Goodman: Show Cause Why The Defendant Should Not Be Restrained with regard to Defendant’s Copyright Infringement

On July 9, 2018,  documents were filed by Plaintiff Sweigert in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in the D. George Sweigert vs. Jason Goodman RICO lawsuit.

The first document is two pages and represents the Plaintiff’s Second Request for Judicial Notice [RJN]. 

The second document is 38 pages displaying the Public Artifacts, as supporting  evidence, for the arguments which the Plaintiff is presenting to the court.

The third document is an eleven page Brief In Support of Plaintiff’s Show Cause Motion as to Why the Defendant Should Not (be) Restrained By An Injunction to Cease and Desist Defendant’s Copyright Infringement.

Note:  The third document is worth the time to read if you are interested in this case.

This brief was filed to “support plaintiff’s MOTION before this Court as to why the defendant should not be restrained with an injunctive order to cease the copyright infringement of the plaintiff’s intellectual property on social media platforms”.

It is noted that Defendant Jason Goodman operates at least three YouTube channels:  JASON GOODMAN, 21c3D, and Crowdsource the Truth 2.  In addition“the defendant also operates rogue channels that are designed to openly harass, intimidate and injure the plaintiff and others like him”. The rogue channels under scrutiny are Crazy Dave’s Insane-atorium and Exposing the Chavez Hoax.  Both of these channels were brought down by Dave Sweigert with YouTube copyright strikes.  Jason Goodman had done a BULK upload of eighty copyrighted works of Sweigert to each channel;  it is a federal crime to do such bulk uploads for commercial purposes.

document 1: sweigert 1 july 10 2018

document 2: sweigert 2 july 10, 2018

document 3:  sweigert 3 july 10 2018