In this upside down world of Alternative News Media legal disputes, a Million Dollar Prize is not a gift to the winner, but rather a lawsuit judgment to the loser in a Defamation Battle that typically begins on the internet, only to escalate to the federal court system.
One more for the mantle collection
I have tried to ignore the lawsuits involving Jason Goodman’s former co-host, George Webb Sweigert, who in conjunction with Goodman and a former FBI informant, Okey Marshall Richards, shut down the Port of Charleston by a reckless Crowdsource the Truth broadcast on June 14, 2017. However, I cannot ignore this latest lawsuit, so here goes…
On January 3, 2022, George Webb Sweigert filed a Defamation Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (case 2:22-cv-10002-SJM-KJA) as George Webb Sweigert vs Jason Goodman, requesting One Million Dollars for compensatory damages and Five Million Dollars for punitive damages. [George Webb Sweigert vs Goodman Doc 1 103 2022]
The centerpiece of this lawsuit is a Brief of Amicus Curiae written by Jason Goodman in Support of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed July 20, 2021, as Document 20 in the USDC Eastern District of Michigan-Southern Division lawsuit, known as George Webb Sweigert vs. Cable News Network, Inc. (CNN).
George Webb Sweigert, former co-host on Jason Goodman’s Crowdsource the Truth YouTube channel
In addition to the recently filed million dollar defamation lawsuit, George Webb Sweigert has requested the Court in the Michigan CNN lawsuit to “levy a Sanction of $100,000 toward Non-Party Goodman for such callous disregard for the facts and the law in his malicious filing of the Amicus Brief of July 20, 2021″. [George Webb Sweigert vs CNN Doc 38 103 2022]
This Worst Written Amicus Curiae has been deposited in several lawsuits by Goodman
Goodman vs. Bouzy, et. al.
In another recent lawsuit, Jason Goodman sued Christopher Ellis Bouzy, Bot Sentiel, Inc., and George Webb Sweigert in a Complaint for Conspiracy to Defame. In this lawsuit (case1:21-cv-10878-UA), filed December 19, 2021, in the USDC for the Southern District of New York [Goodman vs Bouzy Doc 1 1219 2021], plaintiff Goodman self describes himself as a “documentary filmmaker and journalist whose reputation for truthfulness is inherently valuable”.
Goodman inserts an odd claim into the Bouzy case in paragraphs 19 & 20 stating, “Plaintiff has submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in Sweigert v CNN that alleges criminal activity on the part of Webb and others. (See Case 2:20-cv-12933-GAD-KGA ECF No.20)”. This is followed by Goodman declaring, “On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Webb engaged Bouzy to harass and defame Plaintiff in retaliation for the Amicus filing and to deliberately harm Plaintiff.”
D. George Sweigert vs. Jason Goodman
For readers not familiar with the back story of the Jason Goodman lawsuits, Dave George Sweigert is the brother of George Webb Sweigert, the former co-host on Jason Goodman’s Crowdsource the Truth program.
On August 12, 2021, about a month after writing his Amicus Curiae for the George Webb Sweigert vs. CNN lawsuit, Jason Goodman filed a 47 page document in Dave Sweigert’s lawsuit, as Defendant Goodman’s Emergency Motion for A Show Cause Hearing and to Compel Plaintiff to Undergo Psychological Evaluation. [Sweigert v Goodman Doc 305 812 2021]
Lo and behold, Section 5 is titled, “Plaintiff is Interfering with Officers of the Court”, and lists three complaints. The first is that Sweigert is harassing attorney Larry Klayman; the third is that Sweigert used the U. S. Postal Service in furtherance of fraud; bookended by these two allegations is Goodman’s prized Worst Written Amicus Curiae highlighted as Fraud on the Court in Sweigert v CNN.
Goodman explains, “Plaintiff Sweigert’s brother Webb has filed a civil lawsuit against Cable News Network (“CNN”) in the Eastern District of Michigan, also as a pro se plaintiff. Plaintiff Sweigert has attempted to intervene in Sweigert v CNN, declaring it related litigation to Sweigert v Goodman and moving to relocate the case to the Southern District of New York. The Honorable Gershwin Drain has denied Sweigert’s intervention by right See 20-cv-12933-GAD-KGA ECF Nos. 9 & 10 (Exhibit F). Defendant Goodman filed an Amicus Curiae brief in Sweigert v CNN in which he alleges and presents evidence that Sweigert and Webb perpetrated a fraud on the court, conspiring with or otherwise forging information pertaining to Richard Loury (“Loury”) an employee of the District Court in Eastern District of Michigan. See 20-cv-12933-GAD-KGA ECF No. 12 (EXHIBIT G)”. [bolding added]
As will be shown later in this article, the evidential deficiencies of Jason Goodman’s Amicus Curiae do not support an allegation of fraud on the court. Despite that, Jason Goodman made an indirect reference to the Michigan lawsuit in a November 10, 2021, 42 page document that was filed in the Sweigert vs Goodman lawsuit as an Affidavit of Jason Goodman in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Recusal or Disqualification of Judge Valerie Caproni. [Sweigert v Goodman Doc 324 1110 2021]
In the motion to recuse Judge Valerie Caproni, Jason Goodman has displayed in Exhibit E, the Michigan Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed Without Prejudice. In the CNN lawsuit, Judge Drain ordered that George Webb Sweigert “show cause, in writing, by June 18, 2021, why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice. Failure to respond may result in dismissal of this case.” George Webb Sweigert did respond to the court’s show cause in the required time frame, as shown on the court docket.
Jason Goodman’s complaints against Judge Caproni in the D. George Sweigert vs. Jason Goodman lawsuit, include the charge on page 8 that “C. Judge Caproni has not taken reasonable steps that are within her purview to curtail Plaintiff’s vexatious behavior and interference, adding that “Plaintiff has clogged the docket with hundreds of pleadings the judge herself has deemed “incomprehensible” while simultaneously attempting numerous inappropriate disruptions and extrajudicial harm. Plaintiff is a judicial menace, and his outrageous behavior has directly impacted not only this case but also NATAS v MSD and Sweigert v CNN in the Eastern District of Michigan (EXHIBIT E).
(As of today, Goodman has submitted a motion to recuse Caproni in his Goodman vs. Sharp lawsuit.)
Goodman vs. Sharp and NATAS vs. Multimedia System Design lawsuits
On January 7, 2022, Jason Goodman included his Amicus Curiae as Exhibit J of Document 16 in the Jason Goodman vs. Adam Sharp, et. al. lawsuit [Goodman vs Sharp Doc 16 107 2022] and also on page 58 of Document 141 of the National Academy of Arts & Sciences vs. Multimedia System Design lawsuit [NATAS v Multimedia System Design Doc 141 107 2022].
Thus we see that Goodman’s Amicus Curiae was created for one lawsuit and later planted as an artifact in at least 4 other legal actions, outside the four corners of the originating lawsuit. If this document were properly written as to facts and law, it might add further insights into these other cases; however, the Amicus Curiae is unconvincing in its conclusion, leading the reader to speculate that this is an example of stunt litigation unworthy of the seriousness of our judicial system.
Jason Goodman’s Amicus Curiae: Any Substance?
[For reference, see George Webb Sweigert vs CNN Doc 20 720 2021].
In his two page brief, titled BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE JASON GOODMAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, Jason Goodman explains that he “is a pro se non-attorney, non-party to this case.” So far, so good.
It is the second sentence that raises the expectations of the reader, as Goodman declares that he “comes now as a friend of the court to share facts and evidence Goodman alleges reveal a fraud on the court intended to affect the outcome of this case.” [bolding added.]
First, we must inquire as to what is the legal standard which defines fraud on the court? Goodman does not bother to cite, let alone argue, the specifics of the law which he asserts govern the “facts” supporting his allegations and conclusion.
For all us non-attorneys, here is an example of a discussion of this topic, found on legalmatch.com.
What Is Fraud On the Court?
- Fraud in the service of court summons, such as withholding a court summons from an entitled party;
- Corruption or influence of a court member or official, such as bribery;
- Judicial fraud;
- Intentionally failing to inform the parties of necessary appointments or requirements, as an effort to impede the judicial process; and/or
- Schemes considered to be unconscionable, as they attempt to deceive or make misrepresentations through the court system.
It is important to note that fraud on the court only involves court officials, or officers of the court, such as judges or court-appointed attorneys. The fraudulent activity must be directed at the “judicial machinery” itself. As such, fraud on the court generally does not mean:
- Fraudulent activity between the two opposing parties;
- The submission of fraudulent documents; and
- Perjury or false statements made by witnesses. [bolding added for emphasis.]
Jason Goodman in paragraph 5 declared, “On information and belief, Goodman alleges that Sweigert and Webb, in an effort to improperly involve Goodman in Sweigert v CNN, have conspired with or otherwise deceived a third individual, an employee of the court, Richard Loury (“Loury’), to commit a fraud on the court. Document properties of ECF No. 12 reveal that Loury is named as the author of pro se Plaintiff Webb’s pleading. (Exhibit A). These properties are visible in the free reader Adobe Acrobat DC or the commercial application Adobe Acrobat Professional.”
The document which Goodman alleges was written by an employee of the court, rather than by the Plaintiff, is the rather mundane Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show Cause explaining his problems of serving a Summons and Complaint on CNN. That document was signed by George Sweigert, and as required by the Judge, filed on the court docket on the deadline date of June 18, 2021.
In his Amicus Curiae, Jason Goodman provided a copy of Document 12 overlaid with a “Document Properties” pop-up screen displaying Richard Loury as “Author”. [see page 4 of George Webb Sweigert vs CNN Doc 20 720 2021]. This pop-up screen displays a document creation date of 6/21/21, and a modified date of 6/24/21.
The obvious question which arises in the reader’s mind, concerns the fact that PACER records show that Document 12 was entered on the court docket on June 18, 2021 – the same day that George Sweigert signed the document, yet the so called proof of fraud on the court shows a document creation date THREE days after, and a modified date 6 days after the court docket date. For all we know, Jason Goodman has downloaded Document 20 and played around with the Adobe program himself. Perhaps he should prove that he has not messed with the document properties, since he believes the capability exists that others have done that very thing.
Ignoring this line of thought, Jason Goodman leapfrogs over his unsupported theory to remind the reader that “Non-party movant Sweigert is the author of the Ethical Hacker’s Field Operations Guide” and that this “guide details tactics and methods for manipulating computer systems, transmitting clandestine communications and evading detection, among other things. In several pleadings in Sweigert v Goodman, Sweigert has made note of various aspects of PDF document metadata indicating his knowledge in this area.”
Knowledge of a subject does not prove criminal intent, let alone that criminal actions have taken place. And there is no proof that Dave Sweigert or George Sweigert have committed fraud on the court at any time.
One wonders if filing an Amicus Curiae document has gone to Jason Goodman’s head, much the same way that Robert David Steele was overly proud about being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. In paragraph three, Jason Goodman referred to the D. George Sweigert vs. Jason Goodman lawsuit, originally filed on June 14, 2018, as a lawsuit “in which he is suing Amicus Goodman currently pending in the SDNY.” Amicus Goodman did not exist until July 20, 2021 when Jason Goodman filed his bogus amicus curiae, which included this humbug conclusion: “Amicus Curiae Goodman prays the court will further investigate this matter relating to ECF No 12 and alleged fraud on the part of Sweigert and Webb and take such action as it deems necessary.”
Dave Sweigert took the following measure to counter Amicus Goodman
Dave Sweigert filed Document 22, on July 27, 2021, as a non-party declarant, in the Michigan CNN lawsuit, as a means of informing the court what step he was taking in regard to the Goodman Amicus Curiae. [George Webb Sweigert v CNN Doc 22 727 2021]
Dave Sweigert’s Declaration consists of a letter dated July 21, 2021 to Patreon’s attorney Colin Michael Sullivan, with a subject line, “WARNING CONCERNING ALLEGED WIRE FRAUD”.
Noted by Sweigert in paragraph 2 & 3 of this letter is that “The latest ‘litigation stunt’ perpetuated by the CROWDSOURCE THE TRUTH enterprise appears to have been video content placed on Patreon that describes a purported act of judicial corruption. The video speakers claim to have evidence of such ‘corruption’ in a federal court. These assertions appear to be knowingly false with regards to any ‘corruption’. As you are well aware New York City attorney John H. Snyder has appeared on these COUNTER LAWFARE Patreon podcast shows. Specifically, a podcast video that directly addressed ‘fraud on the court’ and/or ‘corruption’ in the federal courts of Detroit, Michigan.”
Dave Sweigert’s letter to Patreon further displays the Michigan docket of the Amicus Curiae of Jason Goodman, adding, “John H. Snyder, esq. affirmatively participated in creating said video content (Michigan court ‘corruption’) and may have ghost written ECF document 20, which can be said to imply the use of judicial intimidation, through the use of social media, to slur and smear court officials.”
On page 8, D. George Sweigert concludes in his letter to attorney Sullivan, “Therefore, prepare accordingly as if Patreon were to be sued in Detroit, Michigan for acting as a facilitating accomplice under the federal wire fraud laws with CROWDSOURCE THE TRUTH and their affiliates.”
In Part II of this series on the Amicus Curiae of Jason Goodman, we shall take a walk on the wild side of the January 3, 2022 George Webb Sweigert vs. Jason Goodman Complaint.
Tracking The Leopard Meroz 