D. George Sweigert vs. Jason Goodman Amended RICO Complaint

On June 14, 2018, which was the one year anniversary of the Port of Charleston dirty bomb incident, D. George Sweigert filed a 24 page RICO lawsuit against Jason Goodman, as Defendant.

On June 29, 2018, the original complaint was amended, increasing it to 44 pages.  The Amended Complaint can be seen at this link:   sweigert amended rico 1

The following notes are suggested areas of interest to the reader.

The primary reasons why we should be interested in this RICO case are stated in the Introduction-Summary.

Under “Introduction”, a Summary has been added in this amended complaint, which  focuses on the actions of the U. S. Coast Guard’s  washing of “its hands of any meaningful investigation of a radiological bomb threat delivered to the Charleston Sector duty officer.” Consequently, the FBI was relied upon to investigate the source of the bomb threat, yet we find that this entire matter was “resolved” within 24 hours. One contributing factor noted was that the Midwestern conspiracy theorist allegedly hid behind his journalist privilege of not disclosing his source.

Dave Sweigert observes that one F.B.I. agent investigating this event was apparently from the West Virginia area of operations–exactly the location of the contract F.B.I. informant which had been the hidden source of George Webb Sweigert. He notes, “An overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that the F. B. I. took no action to mitigate the phenomenal conflict of interest in investigating this matter–as it involved one of their contract informants.  The practical effects of the F. B. I.’s apparent white-wash has been to allow the wrong-doers to continue their operations with a bold sense of immunity from government prosecution; engaging in a series of illegal racketeering activities.”

In the Background section of the Introduction, more than 4 pages are devoted to laying out the racketeering pattern, the Port of Charleston incident, and the U. S. C G. authority for investigating the events which transpired on June 14, 2018.

Jurisdiction

This RICO lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, thus nine reasons are stated to establish both who was impacted by the Port of Charleston dirty bomb threat hoax as well as what laws and regulations apply as a measuring stick of the actions of that eventful day. The plaintiff invokes the Private Attorney General (PAG) doctrine which allows him to “augment limited resources of the U. S. C. G.” and their “prosecutorial gaps”. This allows “a private citizen’s standing to sue for vindication of a public objective”.

Parties

The general description states, “This complaint alleges that the defendant, and his cooperative of wrongdoers, operate in alignment on social media for a common purpose.  By staging fake news, raising public alarm, spreading junk science, using deception to implement the Port hoax, etc. are rewarded with the expectation of remuneration, increases in their financial status and receipt of other such pecuniary advantages and benefits”.

There are 7 Parties described in detail:

The Plaintiff-Certified in Critical Infrastructure Protection

Wrong-doer Multimedia System Design, Inc.

Crowdsource the Truth- Racketeering Enterprise

Defendant Jason Goodman – Coordinator of CSTT RICO Cartel

Wrong-doer George Webb Sweigert – “Investigative Journalist”

Wrong-doer Deep Uranium – “Confidential Source” of Hoax

Wrong-Doer Quinn Michaels -Team Tyler Hacker Network

General Allegations:

The last sentences conclude, “Unfortunately for law enforcement (and for the public), the complex maze of wrong-doers involved would have been perplexing to unravel.  It is highly unlikely that any significant legal consequences would have been visited upon the defendants and wrong-doers without this present lawsuit.”  Also, the plaintiff Sweigert emphasizes that “this is not a private dispute and there are no other equitable remedies available under law, except those remedies articulated herein.”

Specific Allegations:  Ten Counts (in the original complaint 5 were listed)

Count One:  MDSI Operates as a Racketeering Enterprise

Count Two: MDSI/CSTT Closure of the Wando Welch Terminal at the Port of Charleston

Count Three: Fraudulent “Hudson Intelligence Group”

Count Four:  Conspiracy to Defraud The United States

Count Five:  Murder For Hire Activities on the Darknet

Count Six:  Hoax Assassination Plots

Count Seven:  Malicious State Actors Deny Civil Rights

Count Eight:  Trafficking in Personally Identifiable Information

Count Nine:  Tampering With A Witness

Count Ten:  Abuse of Court Processes by a Federally Protected Witness

Tracking the Leopard Meroz hopes that this amended complaint will be read with interest and with care.  The overall importance of the issues addressed by this lawsuit, as well as the finer details, are highly interesting and of great import in connection to our contemporary Alternative News Media style of journalism.

 

 

Advertisements

The Framework in which Truth is Examined

When you find a man playing “tough”, it is because he knows he has an advantage. All you have to do is shift the scenery to an environment where he doesn’t have the advantage then, nine times out of ten, his TOUGHNESS disappears.” (page 61 from Custer’s Last Stand by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman)

Back in June 2017 I began to look at the major “players” which were gathered around the Port of Charleston dirty bomb incident. I wrote a number of  posts on some of those persons based on the observations I had made at that point in time.  Back then, I could see a RICO lawsuit coming. In fact, I still have an unfinished post from August of 2017 which I never got around to publishing called RICOcheting and RACKETeering, using the cartoon below to illustrate the end game of all those adversarial standoffs which were happening back then.

Prior to Robert David Steele filing his defamation lawsuit,  I had been observing Dave (Acton) Sweigert, and learning about preservation of evidence and spoliation. He had been warning several individuals of possible copyright or trademark violations, wire fraud, obstruction of justice or criminal investigations, intimidation or coercion of government, monetization of YouTube accounts, harassment, and  crowdstalking, which are all aspects of filing a successful RICO lawsuit.  All of these words, or derivatives of these concepts, are found in the definition of racketeering activity in the U.S. Code sections which outline the provisions of the RICO Act.

Although Dave Sweigert refers to himself as a non-attorney layman, he has a hands on experience with legal matters,  stemming from being the Pro Se Plaintiff in several Qui Tam lawsuits many years ago. Thus Sweigert is in a category all his own, in this strange saga.  One year later, we find that Jason Goodman is facing two Federal Civil Court lawsuits; one structured on defamation and conspiracy laws, and the other based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The framework in which truth is examined is shifting from YouTube striking competitions to an arena where federal civil court procedures, statutes, regulations and case law are argued before a Judge.  Even when a jury trial is requested, it is a long winding road through a legal  forest before discovery and trial by a jury of peers becomes a reality.

From his YouTube platform,  Jason Goodman vacillates between being a tough guy who is comfortable breaching the boundaries of good taste and decorum when accusing his adversaries, and a woe is me, I’ve been framed cry baby. So while we all wait for the summons to be served,  I came across these oblique, but provoking words from Jason Goodman just two days ago. (But first, it is necessary for me to post a screenshot of the applicable CSTT show, in order to ward off a team of monkeys who are headed my way.)

In case you have misplaced your binoculars, the message below “500 Internal Server Error” reads, “Sorry, something went wrong. A team of highly trained monkeys has been dispatched to deal with this situation. If you see them, send them this information as text (screenshots frighten them).”  As you can see, I chose “B”, the screenshot option.

Getting back to the Jason Goodman quotation I was referring to, we hear,  “I may not necessarily know exactly what may or may not have happened to Quinn Michaels, but the second we started discussing it, it was met with derision, it was basically described as you know crazy talk and Star Trek Technology by someone who we have evidence was actually tracking Quinn Michaels and knew of his location when the injury occurred.” (Jason Goodman, 1.02.59 mark of the June 19, 2018 Crowdsource the Truth You Tube video, “The Hidden Triggers of Mass Mind Control with Special Guests Ole Dammegard and Cody Snodgres”.) 

Evidence.  It seems we are always waiting for the evidence…..and if any is presented, has it been tainted?

To provide context for Jason Goodman’s comment, we must go back to April 6, 2018 when Lift The Veil published a YouTube video called, Jason Goodman Calls Lift the Veil. One point of interest in this rambling monologue is found at the 13.14 mark, when Jason Goodman references what he terms, a decentralized distributed defamation attack.  He follows this with a broad discussion of various persons which he names, who he has had problems with in the prior year, and then at the 26.35 mark he again declares, “a new type of crime is taking place; a distributed decentralized defamation attack“.

At the 26.52 mark, Jason Goodman states,  “I called the FBI and I submitted a complaint that took about 45 minutes and in less than 24 hours I got a return phone call and I spent over three hours on the phone and have shared extensive evidence with the FBI and I find it very interesting how agitated Mr. Dave Acton has become.  I think everyone knows I have good contacts at the FBI. I’ve had retired FBI agent Robyn Gritz on my program many times.  I’ve had Thomas Paine of True Pundit, whose real identity I know very well and will not share with anyone, but I have verified that this person is a person who has a great deal of credibility and a tremendous amount of very well vetted law enforcement, active law enforcement sources and these people have assisted me and guided me as to what to do with the information.”

“And they’ve even shared things with me that I’m not prepared to share with you on this program, but tell me that everything Dave Acton is saying is false.  Dave Acton is also at best delusional, at worst psychotic, but he’s you know almost everything that guy says is a crazy manipulation and he seems to be becoming unhinged, primarily because his operation is failing and if he’s the magnificent genius who’s involved in Homeland Security and all these depositions that he talks about, why is he so ineffective for the past nine months that’s stopping little old me, a retired cinematographer who has designed a couple of 3D cameras…” (28.24) Then Jason Goodman continued to discuss his problems with various individuals.

When Jason Goodman said that he has “evidence” of someone tracking Quinn Michaels, this matter was duly noted on May 29, 2018, in Document 55 (Third Declaration of D. George Sweigert) which had been filed in Robert David Steele’s federal civil court defamation lawsuit.  Exhibit 2 of this declaration shows a screenshot of Crowdsource the Truth 2‘s April 21, 2018 broadcast where Jason Goodman says at the 1:12:22 mark, “Right.  And Dave (the undersigned) implores me to present the evidence that we have that indicated that he (the undersigned) knew your (Quinn) location in Vaughn, New Mexico right before his (Quinn) lung collapsed spontaneously.”

So Dave Sweigert had implored Jason Goodman to present his evidence!  I assume that nothing tangible was ever presented in the public domain, as Goodman is still dangling that invisible carrot on the end of a stick.

In response to the above quotation of Jason Goodman, D. George Sweigert declared,  “I hereby DENY all allegations and accusations made by Mr. Goodman that I had ANY knowledge-whatsoever-that CSTT 2.0’s researcher (Quinn Michaels) was in New Mexico-much less the city of Vaughn- when Quinn Michaels suffered a collapsed lung. This entire stream of logic is denied in all its forms by the undersigned.”

Jason Goodman’s racket ball game has now entered the Big Leagues:  Pro Se Plaintiff versus Pro Se Defendant in the Federal Civil Court 

At some point in the future, Jason Goodman will have to reply to the Federal Civil court RICO complaint filed by Sweigert. The court has sanctions for making false and unproved statements, and so this new environment will test the veracity of everyone who will be included in this case.

One of the acts of Jason Goodman, which I had not known about till recently, was described on  page 23 of the RICO complaint as, “…the plaintiff has had to endure Goodman telephoning every ambulance Emergency Medical Service system in Mt. Shasta, CA to report that Goodman has contacted the F. B. I. concerning the plaintiff”. Considering that we have seen no proof of these allegations which had been made to the FBI, I find Goodman’s behavior to be over-the-top, in his attempt to discredit Sweigert’s reputation before his professional peers.

What we are viewing in all of this Youtubing “war of the worlds” is the systematic dissolving of the boundaries of social discourse which allow all Americans to freely speak their own viewpoints, as long as defamatory statements,  as defined by law, are not made.  Whether one describes the speech activities on YouTube as personal or as investigative journalism, there is no place for making serious unfounded allegations when no genuine supporting evidence is presented.

I am hopeful that the filing of a RICO lawsuit which embodies a complaint and inquiry into the strange circumstances of the Port of Charleston dirty bomb incident, will benefit the public’s interest in protecting our fragile economic infrastructure. It took a non-attorney layman, Dave Sweigert, to bring this incident into the structured, reasoning, boundaries of the judicial system, and I commend him for doing so. 

So why wasn’t Robert David Steele’s lawsuit structured as a RICO complaint?  After all, the beginning of his troubles with Jason Goodman and CSTT started because of the Port of Charleston incident, and his defamation lawsuit displays many of the same  elements which are found in a RICO case.  For example, take a look at this screenshot of a remark made by Robert David Steele to Benjamin Fulford which I quoted in my March 21, 2018 article, And in this corner:  A Man Called SUE Contending Against Leviathan, Behemoth and God Almighty!

RICO lawsuits allow triple damages and are against conspirator/racketeer types

In addition, Steele has suggested that others with similar legal complaints might “band” together as a sort of unified force, similar to the class action concept,  against the Deep State. Robert David Steele is quoted in this screenshot  below, taken from my November 12, 2017 article, Robert David Steele & His List of Crowdstalkers & Co-Conspirators:  Is Your Name On This List?

One of the major elements of Dave Sweigert’s RICO lawsuit is the Port of Charleston dirty bomb incident.  In addition to naming Jason Goodman as defendant, others are included as wrongdoers, including George Webb Sweigert,  Okey Marshall Richards and Joe Napoli. In a personal defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff has no standing to represent the interests of others, such as the Coast Guard or the Port of Charleston.  However, in a RICO lawsuit, which is a form of class action complaint, those entities can be included as victims of the wrongdoing of the named racketeers.

I am no attorney, but it seems to me that the primary reason Steele would structure his lawsuit as a personal defamation, asking for triple damages due to the conspiracy of his defendants, rather than as a RICO lawsuit, is because he was instrumental in trying to cover over George Webb’s complicity in the dirty bomb false report incident. The following two screenshots are taken from my September 21, 2017 article Operation WHIPLASH.  (RDS’s words are in black, mine are in blue.)I  had three motivations in coming down hard on Dave Sweigert’s Port of Charleston report which he sold on Amazon.com. The first had to do with its unfinished presentation, which defeated the stated purpose of being a report which could be sent to interested Congressional members.  The second reason was that the report was  weighted more heavily against Jason Goodman than George Webb who was the primary connection to the source of false information which came from a former FBI agent provocateur.  I did not want Sweigert’s arguments to be nullified in the same manner as Robert David Steele had done in the above screenshots.  And thirdly, when presenting a legal argument, it is better to show the plain facts succinctly, without embellishment.

After reading through Dave Sweigert’s RICO complaint which was filed in federal court on June 14, 2018, I find it to be a crisply worded legal document that touches on all of the important aspects of his case, without becoming too lengthy.  Because he has attached his exhibits at the end, the overall look is professional.  This is in contrast to the Robert David Steele amended complaint which includes numerous screenshots of ridiculous images which have been embedded within the complaint itself.  One is left with the impression that attorney Biss took a PDF of  Robert David Steele’s research and poured it into a template of a defamation lawsuit, without editing it.  We shall see how things progress in both lawsuits over the coming months.

Thumbs up to Dave Sweigert for representing the public’s interest in protecting our social media and economic infrastructures from individuals who are lowering the bar of journalism and jeopardizing our societal protections.

The framework in which truth is examined is essential to the cause of justice and social stability, and I am glad Sweigert has shifted some of these issues, which were being trampled under foot in the social media, to the federal court system. While his lawsuit is a RICO civil case, we may yet see in the future that the U.S. Attorney General, as representing the government’s interests in the Port of Charleston incident, will be induced to file a criminal RICO lawsuit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO MORE INFORMANTS Man of the Year GEORGE WEBB: The Man Who Could Have Shut Down an Informant but instead Shut Down the Port of Charleston

A BLOBBER is an American term from the early 1925 era,  for an INFORMER.   (Henry Leverage, “Dictionary of the Underworld”)

image found on billwarnerpi.com

Due to a false report from George Webb’s blobber  with the code name Deep Uranium, the Port of Charleston was shut down for eight hours on June 14, 2017 while the Coast Guard and other government agencies checked out what turned out to be  false information that a dirty bomb might have been onboard the Maersk Memphis.

Four days later, Radio Patriots.net reposted a December 2015 article by George Webb on the No More Informants site as shown in part below:“I NEVER BELIEVE MUCH IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES.  I REQUIRE TOO MUCH PROOF.”  Thus saith George Webb (Sweigert), the man who gets much of his information from sources like Deep Uranium, Deep Trade, his French connection,…..and other blobbering experts.

Here is another writing sample from George Webb which was published about 20 months prior to his reliance on his Deep Uranium hidden source, now believed to be the former FBI informant, Okey Marshall Richards,  who sold out his militia as an agent provocateur in the late 1990’s.What George Webb does not tell his readers, is the exact source where he obtained his numbers.  Because of that, I question his statistics.  As I recall from prior reading on my part, it was not 100,000 paid informants as Webb states, but rather 10,000; at least as stated in interviews with former CIA agent Kevin Shipp, the author of a 2012 book, From the Company of Shadows. Even years later, Shipp was making the rounds of the internet about the secret code he had in his book.  It was in one interview with Shipp that the Hagmann Report had quoted the 10,000 paid informants statistics.  This was mentioned in my October 21, 2016 article, Disinformation, Black Ops, Two-Faced Bloggers and The Art of the Illogical Argument.

But Webb’s other statement that the FBI had 50,000 paid informants in 2008 should have been sourced, as well as the 100,000 informant statement.  Recently I had been reading that the FBI has 15,000 paid informants. Why is it left up to the reader (or viewer)  of George Webb to have to second guess the source of his statements? I do not know where he is getting his statistics, so I am left to wonder if he misquoted others who had discussed the same topic on the internet.

In light of the Port of Charleston dirty bomb incident, how should we regard Webb’s declaration, “I never believe much in conspiracy theories.  I require too much proof.”? In this case, I am going to take his word, and assume that he knew exactly who Deep Uranium was, when he got entangled in the June 14, 2017 dirty bomb incident at the Port of Charleston.  One hundred percent complicity, because this is a man who says he requires too much proof.

I hereby nominate George Webb for the No More Informants’ Man of the Year Award.

 

 

The Unusual Telephone Calls of FBI Informant Okey Marshall Richards, Jr.

“The resurrection of Brickton Missionary Baptist Church began one spring day a few weeks ago with an unusual telephone call.”  (Amy B. McCraw, Times-News Correspondent, June 6, 2015, “Man’s Dream Becomes Reality”, blueridgenow.com)

So begins this 2015 story out of Fletcher, North Carolina.  Reporter Amy McCraw continues, “Marshall Richards, who came to the area from Ohio, called local resident Clarence Livingston and told him he wanted to restore the little, white church founded by Livingston’s father, the late Colon Livingston.  Richards said the idea of restoring and reviving the church came to him in a dream he first had in 1968 when he was a 14-year old boy living in West Virginia.”

May 2015 photo of Marshall Richards shown in WLOS News 13 video “Man On Mission To Restore Fletcher Church”

“He said he continued to have the same dream over the years until he mentioned it while staying with a friend in Fletcher in February.  The friend recognized the church Richards described and took him to Brickton Missionary Baptist Church. ‘It looked exactly as the one in the dream,’ Richards said.  Richards knew he had to follow his dream and began work on the church in April.”

“In addition to working and researching the history of Brickton Missionary Baptist Church, Richards said he also preached and prayed while alone at the church.  And before long, he said his prayers were answered.”

On May 7, 2015, one month prior to the Times-News article cited above, WLOS News 13 published on their YouTube channel a 2 minute video called Man On Mission To Restore Fletcher Church. This video is narrated by News 13’s John Lee, with segments interspersed of the voice of Marshall Richards, singing, preaching, and intoning his message…Praise the Lord, I’m just the donkey that God is using right now..be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted,… God gave me a dream and I heard and I finally answered,… Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God,… he’s followed the voice of God to Fletcher, will you finally take your call?, The Lord said, you’ll go to that church someday, you’ll restore it and you’ll preach there…

Okey Marshall Richards, singing, preaching, intoning, in a vacant church.   Oddly, Richards left this renovation project undone, just a few weeks after he claimed he was answering God’s call to  renew this decrepit structure.

Near the end of this inspiring video,  two women who were helping with renovations spoke; one remarking that, …  this dream of this man is going to touch so many lives.  It’s too many coincidences to be coincidental.

TOO MANY COINCIDENCES TO BE COINCIDENTAL?  That’s just what I was thinking  when I started to examine some of the YouTube personalities who showed up around the time of the dirty bomb incident in the Port of Charleston, South Carolina.

Almost a year later, I am adding the name of Okey Marshall Richards to my list of strange coincidences to ponder. It was from Dave (Acton) Sweigert, that I first heard  the rumor that Richards might be the mysterious Deep Uranium who was the hidden source relied upon by George Webb for his Maersk Memphis dirty bomb tip.  Sweigert also was tying in Richards as the probable voice of Mr. Hudson who was a repeat guest on Jason Goodman’s Crowdsource The Truth show.

Okey Marshall Richards was a FBI informant who had tape recorded 400 conversations of his friend’s militia, by insinuating himself into a command level position.  He betrayed their trust for money; yet in 2015 he claims God was speaking to him in dreams going back to 1968. How does such behavior justify itself in light of numerous commands that Christians are to speak the truth, and not be deceivers?

Pittsburgh Post Gazette, August 8, 1997 AP article by David Sharp

Before going to prison, Floyd “Ray” Looker, the head of the West Virginia militia claimed he had a degree in theology and was involved in missions work. Eighteen years later, Okey Marshall Richards, decided to reinvent himself as a Christian preacher, using the small town of Fletcher, North Carolina to display his illusionist’s trick of  Now you see me, now you don’t.

Note the condition of the church during this restoration in 2015

Note the condition of the church in this Google photo below,  which in the right lower description states, image capture Feb 2017. If that date is accurate, it appears that almost two years after Richards arrived, creating a renovation sensation, nothing has really changed.  The poorly painted sign reads, Need help & Building Supplies-Cash. According to Google maps, this church sits in an industrial part of Fletcher, and therefore I think it is unlikely that anyone will pour money into renovating it.

The Times-News article of June 6, 2015 said, “Richards worked at the church until late May, when he returned to Ohio. He said he is unsure whether he will return to Fletcher or work at the church”. What is interesting is that the May 2015 News 13 video description ends, “To reach Marshall Richards about restoring the church, you can call him at 202-731-2341”. That number is a Maryland/Washington D. C. phone number, not a Ohio number.

Recently, the YouTube channel called School Play Rehearsals, has published several short videos addressing both Jason Goodman and the hidden source of George Webb, believed to be Okey Marshall Richards.  On May 14, 2018 SPR’S video entitled, Mr. Hudson Rightfully Called Out By Navy Veteran, led me to ask this video maker what specific court documents he was relying upon as his documentation for this video. It turns out that SPR has read extensively on Marshall Richards, and was of great help in narrowing down the specific trial transcripts of interest to me, in the 1997 criminal case against the West Virginia militia.

One of the problems which plagues on-line discussions of the identity of Deep Uranium as being that of former FBI informant Okey Marshall Richards, is that so far I have not seen definitive proof offered,  which can be relied upon, to give a positive identification of the true identity of Deep Uranium. Secondly, while one can compare the voice of Richards in the Fletcher church video, with that of the Jason Goodman’s Mr. Hudson, it would be useful to have a forensic analysis, rather than just subjective opinions.  For example, one of the months-old comments in a Jason Goodman video suggested that it was Dave Acton who was the voice of Mr. Hudson. An affidavit from Looker, or Richard’s ex-wives who personally knew the voice of Marshall Richards, would be helpful.

Below is a screenshot of an exchange between Ghostcrab @JIBCAMERA with Ray Looker, who was one of the defendants in the West Virginia militia criminal trial in 1997, in which Okey Marshall Richards had been a paid FBI informant. 

From a Christian commentary standpoint, the background history of Okey Marshall Richards is interesting in and of itself.  I do not have a problem with law enforcement going undercover as part of a criminal investigation, but I do find the use of law breakers and pathological liars as paid informants to be fraught with many dangers in a free society.  I am especially bothered when so-called Christians boast of being employed as FBI informants.  In the world of sinful men, Christians are to be salt and light, and  to reprove wrong doing and encourage others to a better course of action, rather than becoming liars and betrayers for a “noble” cause.

The cause of Christ is harmed when Christians play the part of the betrayer among their friends and associates, in order to gain thirty pieces of silver.  Pretenders who feign themselves just men so that they can, as is stated in Luke 20:20, “take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor”, are bringing a reproach upon the name of Christ.

The issues being raised here are similar to what I discussed in my 2016 post The Professional Liar as Hero,  I began that article with a quote from the Scriptures,  But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath:  but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.  James 5:12.  The first paragraph made reference back to another post written in 2015 where I had commented on the testimony of a former FBI informant who claimed to be a true Christian.  I wrote,  But what is most interesting about Hagmann’s article is the darkness of his own philosophy.  This he discloses in his opening sentences, saying, “As an investigator and in particular, when I was working as an operational asset for the FBI in the 1990’s, I was particularly good at securing covert video like that captured by the Center for Medical Progress of Planned Parenthood.  In fact, I was used because I could convincingly present myself to the subjects of investigation as someone I was not, and secure the needed evidence that served as the basis for immediate raids, arrests and sometimes later, as courtroom exhibits for a jury to see”.

The statement, “I could convincingly present myself …as someone I was not” is an apt description of Okey Marshall Richards, as we shall see when we examine excerpts from the 1997 West Virginia militia criminal case.

Criminal Action case #1:96-cr-00043-FPS:  Okey Marshall Richard’s character was examined under oath by the direct interrogation of attorney Gary B. Zimmerman of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as counsel for defendant James R. Rogers.

This testimony is found in the United States District Court-Northern District of West Virginia criminal action number 1:96-cr-00043-FPS, document 163 filed August 20, 1997,  representing the trial transcript, volume 4, August 19, 1997:  United States of America, Plaintiff vs. James R. Rogers, Defendant.

(Here is a link to my pdf of these transcripts.looker criminal rogers vol 4 820 1997.   Parts of the transcript that I found interesting are shown below, but the reader may desire to view the entire transcript to comprehend the context of this testimony. The page reference number I note is that of the PDF itself which is 239 pages long, and not that found on the court filings. Also any bolding is mine, and is not a part of the court transcripts.)

In the beginning, attorney Zimmerman cross examines Okey M. Richards and determines that he is 43 years old, born in West Virginia, but lived in Virginia, and because his father was in the service, had moved 16 times in 18 years. Richards graduated from high school in 1972, and in August of 1972 enlisted in the United States Navy for 4 years, and given radar training. Around 1973/74, Richards ended up in Norfolk, Virginia and was assigned a ship, starting out as an E1. He got out of the Navy in 1974, not serving his full four-year enlistment, having been charged with a variety of activities that were not in accordance with Navy regulations.

On page 24, Zimmerman brings up that on November 5, 1974 Richards had been an  unauthorized absentee from the U.S.S. Hassayampa, located in Pearl Harbor. Richards replies that, “I received leave from that ship to go back to Chicago and when I arrived in Chicago, I was in contact with the Naval Intelligence Agency or the Naval Investigative Service.” And Zimmerman counters, “Well, sir, your naval records indicate that you were placed in a restrictive status pending disciplinary action.”

Zimmerman:  For example, 6-17-74, a violation of Article 86, “United States Code of Military Justice”, missing movement; June 17, 1972, violation of “United States Code of Military Justice”, failure to obey a lawful order, breaking restriction, punishment, reduced to E2, forfeited $120 per month.  Do you recall that, sir?

Richards:  Yes, I do.

Zimmerman: And also 11-6-94, failure to obey a lawful order, breaking restriction, punishment, reduced to E2, forfeited $120 per month.  Do you recall that, sir?

Richards:  Yes, I do.

Zimmerman: (page 25)  Was the discharge that you got characterized as an administrative discharge?

Richards: It was an agreement between myself and the Navy.  We agreed that I would leave the service, that it was in my best interest and theirs, and I left with a general under-honorable-conditions discharge.

Zimmerman:  But you and the Navy agreed that you would leave the Navy and they wouldn’t court-martial you, isn’t that correct, because you had pending charges at the time?

Richards:  They deemed it wasn’t in their best interest because I was involved in narcotics investigations.

Zimmerman:  You were involved in narcotics investigations?

Richards:  That’s correct.

Zimmerman:  (page 26) Have you ever been advised, sir, by one of your commanding officers that you were recommended for this administrative discharge because you were considered unreliable for duty?

Richards:  I don’t recollect that, no.

Zimmerman:  Well, are you trying to tell us that you were engaged in some kind of undercover activity that the Navy sanctioned and even though they sanctioned it, they discharged you?  They sort of terminated you?

Richards:  Yes, sir; I am.

Zimmerman:  Do you have any–in the entire world, sir, have any evidence, any documents, any reports or any person that I or anyone else could contact to verify that you, in fact, were involved in an undercover operation for the United States Navy?

Richards:  Yes, sir, I do.

Zimmerman:  And who is that?

Richards:  Special Agent J.J. Baker with the United States Naval Investigative Service.

Zimmerman:  (page 30) While you were in the Navy, sir, did you receive any special training outside of being a radar man?

Richards:  Yes.

Zimmerman:  What was that?

Richards:  I trained at Little Creek, Virginia, with–they classified it as a ship’s landing party.  We trained over there, though, with SEAL Team 2, and UDT 21 was being absorbed into SEAL Team 2 at the time.

Zimmerman:  Are you trying to tell us you were in the Navy SEALS?

Richards: No, sir.

Zimmerman: (page 31) Did you serve in Vietnam, sir?

Richards:  No, sir.

Zimmerman:  Were you ever even on orders to Vietnam?

Richards:  No.

Zimmerman:  Now, did you ever tell anyone you served in Vietnam, sir?

Richards: Yes, I did.

Zimmerman: (page 31) You lied about being in Vietnam to many, many, many people, did you not?

Richards:  Yes, sir.

Zimmerman:  Have you ever told people that you, in fact were a member of the Navy SEALS?

Richards:  Yes, I did.

Zimmerman: (page 33)  And I assume you did that to impress people so that they would have a higher, higher view of your esteem; is that correct?

Richards:  I had very low self-esteem, yes.

Zimmerman:  So you made up this scenario about you being a special Navy SEAL doing all this dangerous work, and all this intricate knowledge about special military operations so that people would think of you in that way; is that right?

Richards:  Yes.

Zimmerman:  And when you first met Ray Looker in 1990 or whenever it was, you told him you were a Navy SEAL; is that correct?

Richards:  Yes, I did.

Zimmerman:  (page 34)  Well, I mean, did you tell Mr. Shaffer, sitting right here, that you, in fact worked closely with the CIA?

Richards:  I don’t recall saying that.

Zimmerman:  Saying what?  You don’t recall saying that or telling him that?

Richards:  I don’t recall, that is correct.

Zimmerman: Do you recall telling anybody that you had contacts and had done work for the CIA?

Richards:  I may have said something like that, but I don’t recall who it would be.

Embellishing versus Lying

On page 35, Okey Marshall Richards explains that he embellishes his speech.  To which attorney Zimmerman replies, “You embellished?  ‘Embellished’ means ‘stretching.’  You actually lied, did you not; made something up out of whole cloth, completely whole cloth, fabricated and you told many, many people that.  Richards says, “Yes”.

During much of this cross-examination, Zimmerman brings out the various individuals, including wives and associates and friends, that Okey Marshall Richards lied to in order to promote himself as being a former Navy SEAL, a Vietnam veteran, working in intelligence, bringing Vietnam POW’s out of Vietnam.  He even lied to his own psychologist who, based on his false testimony, concluded that Richards was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Zimmerman says to Richards on page 38, “You were convincing enough to convince a professional who was trying to help you that you were in Vietnam…”.  And later Zimmerman says, “You weren’t you were–would you say you couldn’t because you were a pathological liar?”

In regard to one of Richard’s former jobs, we read this:

Zimmerman:(page44)  You lied again about that.  Did you lie and tell them you were involved in the intelligence community?

Richards:  I may have.

Zimmerman:  So on the basis of your persona, so to speak, what you told them about your other life, they hired you as chief of security?

Richards:  Yes.

Zimmerman:  Okay.  And how long–how long was it that you worked as the chief of security for this company?

Richards:  A year or so.

Okey Marshall Richards discusses with Zimmerman a string of minimum wage, short-term jobs.  Several are of interest, including his association with several men in EMT, one of whom claimed to be an ex-CIA agent.  These men thought Richards had been a Navy SEAL. EMT went out of business, and apparently because of complaints, the FBI in 1995 had opened an investigation into that company.  Richards also became a campaign strategist for a U. S. Senate seat in 1988, involving former State Senator of West Virginia, Jay Wolfe. Richards met Looker in 1990 because he had been putting together a newspaper with Jay Wolfe. Looker, we learn, actually was in the military for 13-14 years. Looker introduced Richards to others as a Navy SEAL.

On page 75, Zimmerman says to Richards, “And he (Looker) obviously thought you had some great expertise in the military stuff because he asked you eventually to join his group in a command structure; is that correct?”

Richards:  Yes.

Zimmerman: So you had convinced Mr. Looker that, in fact, you were a Navy SEAL and that, in fact, you were in Vietnam and that, in fact, you took POW’s out of Vietnam, and were engaged in intelligence operations in the United States.

Richards:  I convinced him I had a background, yes.

Zimmerman also brings out Richards’ history of having several wives, three children that he owed thousands of dollars in back child support on, and failure to file tax returns.

Zimmerman:  (page 102) And when you were being prepared for your testimony for this case, did you have any discussions about your failure to file your income taxes with any member of the federal government?

Richards:  No.

Zimmerman:  (page 103) In addition, sir, you were paid a substantial sum of money by the federal government for this case, were you not?

Richards:  Not in 1995.

Zimmerman:  You weren’t in 1995? You started getting paid, in June of 1995, 2,000 bucks a month.

Richards:  I wouldn’t say it was a substantial amount of money.

Zimmerman: When you are making five bucks an hour and are getting 2,000 bucks a month from the government, wouldn’t you consider that substantial?

Richards:  Mr. Zimmerman, you are confused.  I wasn’t working for five bucks an hour at the time I started working for the government.  I was earning $1,000 a week.

Zimmerman: You were working for 1,000 bucks a week which, if you worked every week of the year, that would be $50,000, correct?

Richards:  Yes.

Zimmerman:  And you did not file an income tax return or pay any income taxes on one cent of that money, did you?

Richards:  I didn’t file–1995, which means I didn’t file my 1994 taxes.

Zimmerman:  I am talking about pure 1995 money, sir.

Richards: Which means I would have filed that in 1996.

Zimmerman:  That is right.

Richards: And I did not file it.

Zimmerman:  It was due April 15, 1996.

Richards:  And I did not file because I did not know how to report money I received from the FBI.  What am I supposed to do?  Tell an IRS agent that I am working for the FBI?

A couple of responses later, Zimmerman accuses Richards of making up an excuse on the stand as to why he did not file, and asks him, “You are not worried about going to jail?” Zimmerman adds, “Well, do you think that you will be a special case and be given some dispensation because you are testifying for the government–and you have committed a crime, sir.  You have failed to file your taxes.  Do you think they are going to forgive that because you are on the witness stand here?”  To which, Richards replies, “I don’t think so, no.”  It comes out on page 112, that the FBI paid Richards in cash.

Zimmerman (page 114) And during 1995, how much money did you pay to your children to catch up with all of the years you failed to pay support?

Richards:  I paid the amount I was required by the courts.

Zimmerman: How much was that?

Richards:   $100.54 a month.

Zimmerman: $100.54 a month.  You are making six G’s a month, you hadn’t paid your children’s support for years, and you are sending them $154 (sic) bucks a month.  Is that an accurate statement?

Richards:  Yes, sir.

The Unusual Telephone Call Initiating Contact With the FBI

On page 125, we discover that it was Okey Marshall Richards who called Agent Rafferty to ask him if they had any interest in the militia. Zimmerman asks, “You had no idea at that time, did you, what Mr. Looker was doing, what he was organizing, who was in his group or what the goals were, did you?” Later, Richards is asked, “So you had limited knowledge about his involvement and even with this limited knowledge, you called up the FBI and said, you know, ‘Are you interested in this group?'” On page 127, Zimmerman again stresses this fact, stating to Richards: “you called up the FBI and wanted to know if they were interested, and they rightfully told you, ‘No.  We are not interested in these people.  It is no crime.'”

On page 128 the discussion centered on what service Richards thought he could be to Mr. Rafferty of the FBI.  Zimmerman asks, “Well, he–he was led to believe, however, by you that you were a Navy SEAL, a Vietnam veteran, an intelligence operative.  You had deceived him about that.  Were you trying to see if he could get you to be involved in some kind of an undercover operation?  Was that your purpose?”

On page 130 Zimmerman asks Richards, “Well, you told everybody that would listen to you, did you not, that you were, in fact, involved in all these covert activities?  You told Mr. Looker that.  You told Mr. Rafferty that.  You told Mr. Rogers that; Mr. Schaffer.  You told as many people as would listen to you.  Gary Keith. You told all those people that you worked with, the president of Northwestern College, the person that you worked with at West Virginia University, everybody else you got in touch with, you told them that is what you were.  Did it ever occur to you once to actually try to be what you wanted to be rather than just to fantasize about it?”

On page 137, Zimmerman asks Richards, “Why did you join the group if you didn’t believe in what they stood for?” Richards replies, “Because I was concerned about the safety–I was concerned about the safety of Americans.  When I saw a fireman walk out with the baby dangling in his arms after Oklahoma City, I decided I was going to join the militia and find out what it was about.”

[Tracking the Leopard Meroz comment:  I  have to interject here that this noble profession of love for a stranger’s baby comes out of the mouth of a man who did not care enough for his own children to provide for their day-to-day living expenses. I Timothy 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” ]

Zimmerman:  (page 138) You started your own investigation, then, of Raymond Looker and the West Virginia–called the militia–listen to my question before you do that, please.  You started your own investigation of your friend, Raymond Looker, and the Mountaineer Militia in West Virginia even though you had been told by the FBI that they were doing nothing wrong and they were allowed to be together; is that right?  That is “yes” or “no”.

Richards: I don’t agree with the term “investigation.”  I joined the militia on my own volition, out of my own curiosity.

Richards:  (page 139)  he said–he made it very clear to me that –that the FBI, that their stance or their position on militias is as long as these individuals were operating within their constitutional rights, that they had no interest in the militias, and I understood that.

Zimmerman: So that even with that, with that information you then went out and said to your friend, Ray Looker, someone who you had–considered to be their friend, someone that you had helped, you went out and told him, “Look, I want to join your group, and I want to be the chief of intelligence because I am a former Navy SEAL;  I have been in Vietnam;  I am an intelligence operator.  I know all about the militia and military, and I can help you out.”  That is what you went out and told him; right?

Richards: I told him that I had reconsidered, and I was willing to join.

Zimmerman:  And that–

RichardsAnd that I was willing to join only under the–only if I had the position of intelligence officer.

Zimmerman:  And what did that mean to you?  Intelligence officer, I mean.

Richards:  I figured that that would give me a position that was privy to the most sensitive information.  It would allow me to determine if there was anything to be concerned about or not.

Zimmerman:  And you knew that being an intelligence officer and even used the word in your–in your report back to Mr. Rafferty, “G-2”, right?

Richards:  That was a position that Mr. Looker gave me.

Zimmerman:  G-2, you requested it.

Richards:  Yes, sir.

Zimmerman: Now, how in the world does a seaman who couldn’t even finish his enlistment understand the functions of what G-2 in an intelligence–what G-2 means in military jargon?

RichardsYou grab as many books as you can as quick as you can and you read them.

Zimmerman:   (page 159) Now, you turned in to the FBI all of these people, many of whom you had never met; is that correct?

Richards:  That’s correct.

Zimmerman:  You knew nothing about?

Richards: I don’t know how many I never met, but there are people–there were people that I did not meet.

Zimmerman:  Well, there is maybe 100 names here….

Zimmerman:  (page 167)  Did it ever occur to you if you were so concerned about what was going on in this country, that you would say, “I don’t think you should do that?”

Richards:  I’m sorry?  I didn’t hear.

ZimmermanIf you were so concerned about our country that you decided to join the militia on your own because you didn’t agree with them, why was it that you would do everything that he suggested without telling him it was foolish and that he shouldn’t do it?

Richards:  I didn’t do that –I just didn’t do that.

Zimmerman: (page 170)  Well, Ray Looker may have believed that, that they were already at war.  But you never in any of the conversations that we saw or any of the other 400 conversations that you were recording with Mr. Looker, at one time said, “Ray, you’re wrong,” did you?

Richards:  No, sir, I did not.

Zimmerman:  (page 172) You egged on the fears of Mr. Looker and Mr. Rogers, did you not?

Richards:  No. I don’t agree with that.  I did not egg–

Zimmerman: (page 175) Well, then, why don’t you believe that there is a New World Order if you believe what Looker tells you?  Why don’t you believe there are black helicopters?  You don’t believe everything he tells you, do you?

Richards:  No.  I don’t believe everything that he tells me.

Zimmerman:  Right.  You were involved in this case to do an investigation and you were– you were finally what you always wanted to be.  You were an intelligence operator, something that you had fantasized about for 20 years.  You were finally doing what you always wanted to do, and when you had the opportunity to push Mr. Rogers about getting these plans, you pushed him even though he was reluctant; isn’t that correct?

Richards:  No.

Richards:  (page 196)  Well, I can’t say that.  You know, I was playing a part.  I was–I had to appear to be a willing militia member, and I tried to do that….

Zimmerman:  (page 215)  You were the colonel.  You were his superior officer.  He looked up to you.  He did thing that you asked him to do.  You asked him to get certain things, he got them for you.  You talked to him. Did he ask you–

Richards:  I never told him to get information on FEMA until he brought it up.

Zimmerman:  Why didn’t you tell him, “Don’t waste your time.  This is foolish?”  Why didn’t you tell him that?

RichardsBecause I was playing the part of the militia man.

I shall end these notes on this 239 page transcription at this point.  One must remember that several members of this militia served jail time for criminal acts, which they in fact committed. 

But one has to wonder whether things might have turned out a little differently, had Okey Marshall Richards decided to behave as a Christian man in his life instead of a  pathological liar, fooling friends, family and business associates. Instead of being a true friend to Looker, he lied to him, as well as others in their militia group, and gained their confidence for the sake of receiving his 30 pieces of silver from the FBI.  In exchange, he secretly recorded conversations where he had control of the direction in which these discussions took.  Because Richards was a Colonel in charge of intelligence/security for this militia group, his leadership role was imbued with responsibilities, and by his condoning of actions which he knew to be illegal, he is as guilty in the sight of God, as the men who were jailed.  

Now the next question is:  did Okey Marshall Richards make any unusual phone calls to George Webb and Jason Goodman?

 

 

 

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.