On July 15, 2020, the Court heard discussions in the Robert David Steele et. al. vs. Jason Goodman, et. al. defamation lawsuit.
That lawsuit was filed almost three years ago, on September 1, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as case number 3:17-cv-00601-MHL.
When the original complaint was filed against Jason Goodman of Crowdsource the Truth, Patricia Negron, and Queen Tut, (later identified as Susan A. Lutzke), the asking price was $18 million. The Amended Complaint raised the ante several million; but now that almost 3 years has passed, Jason Goodman claims that Robert David Steele is willing to settle with him for $500,000.
Steele and Negron recently reached a private settlement. In the case of Queen Tut, she declined to answer the Complaint, and was found in default.
Trial is scheduled for August 11-13, 2020, unless Steele and Goodman come to terms in a private settlement.
According to Document 204 representing a Summary of the July 15th hearing, matters were taken under advisement, parties were to file detailed Table of Contents by Friday at noon, and the hearing will be continued to July 23, 2020 at 10 a.m.
On July 2, 2020, thirteen days prior to the July 15th hearing, Document 196 included this warning:
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm in referencing Steele as “a self-declared Nobel Peace Prize nominee”?
The honorable United States District Judge M. Hannah Lauck has had her patience repeatedly tested by the participants in this lawsuit. When a Judge uses the word obstreperous, i.e. noisy and difficult to control, that is a clear warning that the Court is seriously considering sanctions.
For example, the Court declared in a July 2, 2020, Memorandum Opinion (Doc. 196), “Having invoked the power of a federal court to launch suit, an embarred attorney such as Mr. Biss is expected to meet all court deadlines as directed, especially when interacting with a pro se defendant. This quibbling over electronic format is obstreperous and a waste of judicial resources. A self-declared Nobel Peace Prize nominee such as Steele, (Compl. ¶1), should be able to resolve these discovery differences, especially with counsel governing the process.” [bolding added].
“In the event that the Parties cannot reach agreement, both Parties will face sanctions as specified below. Given the breakdown in communication between the Parties on such a fundamental matter, the Court will deny the Motion to Compel and declines to award attorney’s fees to Plaintiffs for their costs incurred in responding to the Motion to Compel.”
Thomas Schoenberger is named, among others, in a Jason Goodman conspiracy theory
On page 11 of Document 196, Judge Lauck mentions that “In his Motion to Disqualify, Goodman states that the supposed conspiracy involved “[Steele], [Mr.] Biss, Negron, Webb, Sweigert, Chavez, S[c]hoenberger, Cornwell, Holmseth and others.” (Mot. Disqualify 14.) Given the number of other individuals with knowledge of the conspiracy who Goodman could call to testify, Mr. Biss’s testimony likely would be “cumulative and add little to the other evidence” and is therefore “substantially less than necessary.”
Continuing, Judge Lauck states, “The Court does not discount the serious ethical violation Mr. Goodman’s submission raises. But at this state of the litigation, Goodman has not met his heavy burden of demonstrating that Mr. Biss would prove a necessary witness at trial. The Court will therefore deny the Motion to Disqualify.
Footnote 10 to the above statement says,
What all of this references is Jason Goodman’s statement that Mr. Biss “engaged in unethical conduct by participating in the formulation and execution of a plan to bring multiple civil lawsuits against [Goodman] in jurisdictions around the United States.” (Id.8.)”.
“In support of this scheme, Mr. Biss allegedly paid an individual, Manuel Chavez III, to ‘produce false evidence against [Goodman] and to supply this evidence to [Mr.] Biss for use in this instant legal matter.” (Id.) Goodman claims Chavez ‘approached [Goodman] volunteering to provide emails,’ several of which Goodman attaches to the Motion to Disqualify. (Id 10.) One of these emails reveals a communication between Plaintiff Steele and Chavez, with Steele telling Chavez, ’email to [Mr. B]iss by tomorrow 0900 eastern detailing what you have collected that connects Goodman to Brock and Arnon Milchan. [F]eel free to tell him you want to support my case in return for a percentage.’ (Mot. Disqualify Ex. C ‘October 22, 2017 Email,’ ECF No. 165-3.)”.
This plot to extort money and chill the speech of broadcast journalist Jason Goodman of Crowdsource the Truth is noted in the screenshot below:
For further reading of Document 196, see [ rds vs goodman doc 196 702 2020].
Goodman seeks Relief from Judgement or Order by explaining how his conspiracy theories have come to life
On July 7, 2020, Document 198 [rds vs goodman doc 198 707 2020] was filed by defendant Jason Goodman seeking “relief with good cause and based on information discovered after July 2, 2020. This new information (bolding added) causes Defendant to believe that evidence already in the record indicates fraud on the court by the opposing party coordinated and overseen by Counsel for Plaintiff Steven Scott Biss. This new information causes Defendant to believe Mr. Biss would be a necessary witness whose testimony would touch all relevant matters in this action and which no other party or non-party could provide.”
On page 2, Jason Goodman explained, “Defendant believes this lawsuit was a preconceived plan to use military intelligence and asymmetric warfare tactics in the legal system, social media and real-world scenarios to extort money from Defendant. Defendant believes Plaintiff enlisted Steve Scott Biss (Mr. Biss) to orchestrate this conspiracy and that Mr. Biss will be a necessary witness whose testimony will touch every relevant matter in the Amended Complaint.”
Jason Goodman then describes to the Court, the military intelligence backgrounds of Robert David Steele [USMC, CIA, MCIA] and attorney Biss who received a BA in American History and Military Intelligence at Princeton University.
Item 4 of Document 198 states, “Defendant believes the Maneuver Warfare doctrine has been adapted by Steele and Biss and applied to a civilian attack strategy utilizing cyber harassment, real-world harassment and abusive lawsuits…Each of the non-parties who have presented themselves in this case have participated in the “variety of rapid, focused, and unexpected actions” which have made it extremely difficult for Defendant to cope. Defendant believes any Maneuver Lawfare campaign would inherently have to be coordinated by the Counsel for Plaintiff because any other party or non-party would be subject to being called as a witness.”
Then Jason Goodman discusses the use of operational plants and double agents, and he asserts that “Mr. Biss is the Controlling Officer of Deception (COD) in this lawsuit and he has coordinated double agents including Holmes, Negron, Chavez and others.”
Nah, he couldn’t be talking about Tracking the Leopard Meroz, could he?
Finally, Jason Goodman states, “It is Defendant’s belief that each of the non-parties who submitted filings are also operational plants in the scheme. Each of these individuals have taken actions online or in the real world to frustrate Goodman and complicate his ability to defend this lawsuit. Each carried out a minor role in the organized harrassment and defamation of Goodman, which cumulatively have had a substantial deleterious effect. Perhaps the most notable is intervenor applicant D. George Sweigert (Sweigert), the brother of Steele’s associate George Webb (Webb)….”.
It is doubtful that Jason Goodman can evade his accountability for defamatory statements he made in 2017, by introducing wild conspiracy theories just before this case goes to trial next month.
In addition to the persons named by Jason Goodman in these most recent court documents as co-conspirators, it must be recalled that he introduced another long list of third party co-conspirators in Document 78. In response to those false allegations, four non-parties filed affidavits to refute Jason Goodman, including yours truly, the author of Tracking the Leopard Meroz. The Judge ruled against Jason Goodman’s conspiracy theories at that time; thus rendering the four affidavits moot.
In the meantime, Tracking the Leopard Meroz will continue its rapid, focused, and unexpected actions in reporting on any new developments in this lawsuit.
To read Documents 195-205, see Tracking the Leopard Meroz’s July 18, 2020, informational post here.