Playing the victim has brought Jason Goodman this far. A channel with 85,700 subscribers that he can’t stream to. A long list of burned bridges from former guests on his show that he later betrayed. A mounting number of lawsuits across the country.
We’re facing in 2020 an exciting leap year of intense political action. Will Jason be able to cover it live? Or will his days be spent pushing paper and sweating bullets over his increasingly numerous legal entanglements?
He’s talking about the copyright strike I gave him for doxxing my family. “Leave my family out of it” is a pretty reasonable and fair request, I would hope anyone would agree with that. If he chooses to ignore it then he must accept responsibility for the consequences of his decisions.
Sadly, instead of owning up to his actions Goodman chose a childish move, striking my video in petty retaliation – even though I didn’t play anything from his channel. I was forced to upload another one with the clips he objected to edited out:
It would be easy for Mr Goodman to do the same. Remove my copyrighted work from his video and re-upload it. Why does he choose lawsuits instead? Is the plan to tug on the heart strings of his audience to fund his pro se legal defenses with superchats? Perhaps Jason is looking longingly at the lucrative fundraising his frequent guest “Vabelle Danger” aka Robyn Gritz has been doing off her FBI wrongful dismissal claim. Her GoFundMe’s about to enter into its third year, even though the basis of her claim seems weak since she resigned in 2013 rather than being dismissed (she’s kept herself busy working at the Macy’s Cosmetics counter and as a Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research).
Maybe Mr Goodman is seeing crowdsourced dollar signs after interviewing his other recent guest, the multi-million dollar king of them all, Sawman.
To remove his strike from my channel, I filed a counter-notification. Jason Goodman now has ten business days to file a new lawsuit against me, making his argument that playing modified versions of his clips from a comedy channel infringes his rights. It will be interesting to see what legal basis he comes up with, since the clips are marked parody which is specifically mentioned as acceptable Fair Use.
Outtrim v Goodman
Last week Jason Goodman filed an objection to my copyright claim.
I might be a public figure, but the other person in the photograph is not. Nor is she an employee of a UN-linked agency.
Mr Goodman thinks he has the right to take peoples’ Facebook photos and display them in high definition without modification for two minutes on his channel, even if the images were privacy restricted to only be available on Facebook. Pretend to be someone’s friend so you can steal their photos, then monetize them on your stream while begging for donations and “pateon” subscriptions. He will be arguing in Court that the law somehow lets him do all of this, but I don’t think he will find much case law he can cite in support of this idea. Even if he could make a successful argument that showing a photo for minutes without specifically discussing it is somehow Fair Use, that doesn’t override the right to privacy.
YouTube’s legal process requires me to file a lawsuit against Jason Goodman to settle his dispute of my copyright claim. So I wrote to the Magistrate Judge in the most local of all his lawsuits, Sweigert v Goodman in the Southern District of New York asking permission to file a Motion to Intervene. The issues in the two cases are almost identical, because Jason Goodman doesn’t just occasionally behave like this, he has built his entire multi-national operation on a consistent and readily identifiable pattern of fake news, lies, defamation and smear campaigns – all of which I can prove with evidence that meets the Federal Standards.
Think I’m kidding? Here is evidence of an active whisper campaign he is doing right now, contacting people he sees me communicating with to smear my character. Unfortunately for him most of the people I like to associate with in the research community are actually researchers too. They have critical thinking and logic skills, and the sleight-of-mind tricks that work on Jason’s mostly boomer audience aren’t going to turn out the same way with them. You can see in this conversation how that went for him…
“He claims I was in Ukraine fomenting revolution in 2013” – I challenge Mr Goodman to provide a citation showing where I ever made that claim. The Maidan Revolution was actually in 2014. Was this a Freudian slip, revealing he was involved with AeroEscape LLC which was incorporated in 2013? You can read my coverage (evidence-backed, as always) at Insane in the Ukraine Part 3 – Sheep Dipping the Truther (also Part 1 and Part 2).
Battleground 1: Pink Umbrella Court
Here’s my letter to the Magistrate Judge in New York:
Address-Clean-Letter-Motion-to-Intervene-Steve-Outtrim-Case-SDNY-1-18-cv-08653-d2Mr Goodman freaked out and immediately returned to his conspiracy theory defense.
magistrate-stewart-d-aaron-issues-ORDER-against-Jason-GoodmanThis guy has no shame – he is gaslighting the Judge. He says “Outtrim wrote a declaration in support of the Plaintiff’s motion to intervene”. This is completely false, it’s not what happened at all. Jason as the Defendant wrote an Opposition to the Motion to Intervene in which he named myself, Titus Frost and a host of others in a vast (and vastly illogical) conspiracy theory, using likes on Steemit posts to somehow stop his “truth” from coming out. Several of us who were named in Goodman’s statement wrote letters to the Judge swearing under penalty of perjury (ie. voluntarily putting ourselves in legal jeopardy if we were lying) that his claims were completely false. Mine was titled “Statement in Response to Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Intervene”. It was not in support of any Plaintiff motions. Nor was it in support of the intervenor-applicant. It was a direct response to the unsubstantiated nonsense in Jason Goodman’s Defendant’s Statement of Opposition. The Virginia Judge refused to let Goodman bring us into his suit, ruling that we were non-parties. Goodman is trying to twist these facts into a claim that I filed a Motion to Intervene in his Virginia case which was denied by the Judge – a complete lie.
The New York Judge didn’t waste any time, issuing an Order denying Jason’s motion for a deadline extension.
This greatly upset Jason. He has a YouTube channel to run, these pesky Judges’ Orders get in the way! So he seems to have thought “maybe if I send the Judge an email with some more conspiracy theory allegations, he’ll change his mind and grant an extension so I can really ‘Close In’ with Charles Motel”
Jason Goodman emailed the Judge:
Date: November 13, 2019 at 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: 1:18-cv-08653-VEC-SDA, Sweigert v. Goodman
Thank you your honor, however Mr. Outtrim’s inappropriate actions have revealed new evidence that is extremely significant and must be included in my answer. Outtrim’s latest action provides further proof of the alleged conspiracy between Plaintiff and others including Outtrim.This causes me to request that you reconsider today’s order given the following circumstances:
Irrespective of Mr. Outtrim’s denial of intervention, his reason for attempting to intervene changes my answer and requires additional time to complete. Prior to emailing you inappropriately, Mr. Outtrim submitted a fraudulent complaint to YouTube that has crippled my online business by preventing me from live streaming my daily broadcasts to my audience of 85,000 viewers. This has negatively impacted my income and is a clear example of the ongoing extrajudicial steps Plaintiff and his associates have taken in their persistent and escalating effort to disrupt my day to day life, my business and my ability to defend myself in this legal mater.
Online broadcasting is my full time job and primary source of income. The YouTube penalty will continue indefinitely IF Outtrim is able to demonstrate to Google that he has an active lawsuit against me for the same claim he has submitted to YouTube. It is extremely important to my defense that I have the additional time requested so I may adequately explain and present the relevant facts and details related to shed light on this newest development and so the court may consider these facts in rendering its decision.
I respectfully request that you reconsider the order and allow me the time extension. I stand ready to submit another motion for extention of time if that would please the court.
Jason Goodman, Defendant Pro Se
Source: checkmatek2.net
“Crippled” his business? He is still Premiering his videos live, which means he should be able to receive superchats and talk directly to his audience. He never interacts with the chat on his show anyway, except to delete any “trolls” who dare to question the narrative, or to post the links for his subscriptions. I haven’t gone after his Patreon or Subscribestar accounts…yet. So how is his business hurt in any way? Meanwhile my family is suffering greatly from him doxxing my wife, and I am defamed per se by him accusing me of “murdering” someone who was hit by a car in a different country, whose death was ruled suicide by vehicle.
He is also directly lying to the Judge that the YouTube copyright strike penalty is indefinite. It’s for 90 days.
His logic doesn’t add up either. He says his business is crippled while the lawsuit is going on; yet he says he wants to delay the lawsuit and stretch it out longer.
Jason’s case is jumbled and confused, and it seems that he is trying the patience of the legal system. Reconsider the Order? Who does he think he is? The judge made another Order, slapping him down again:
Jason Goodman’s response to the Second Amended Complaint was due today, November 14. He was given a choice whether to file what he was asked to three weeks ago; or file another Motion for the Judge to reconsider his denial of an extension.
Jason filed another Motion, in which he lies to the judge again and gets his own pronouns confused.
This is plainly nonsense. Why would the Plaintiffs file a motion to intervene in their own case? As I pointed out earlier, I did not write anything in support of the intervenor-applicant. Defendant Jason Goodman brought up my name and I wrote a letter to the Court categorically denying all of his claims. There was no ruling from the Judge about frivolous claims or abuse of process. In fact, the Judge spent 7 pages of a 14-page Memorandum Opinion going through the legal basis of rejecting the Motion to Intervene. There would be no need to do that for a frivolous claim, she could have just denied the Motion.
Did Jason just copy and paste his latest New York Motion? Maybe from one of Klarry Layman‘s documents? Did his close pal Laura Loomer help out? Either that or the Tinder Predator is getting rather confused about how he identifies:
He also swore under penalty of perjury that he sent a letter via email to a physical post office:
This is what happens with liars – they just can’t help themselves.
Jason asked for a week extension. The Judge finally caved on this third attempt, granting Jason an extension – but only for the weekend.
Can Mr Goodman see the rabbit hole he is digging for himself? The next stage of this case is the interrogatory discovery requests, due by next Thursday Nov 21.
Meanwhile, in Virginia
Jason Goodman recently had to appear in Court in one of the other defamation and slander lawsuits against him, Steele et al v Goodman et al in the Eastern District of Virginia.
He started out a bit confused:
The judge had to explain to the Defendant that he can’t give him legal advice:
There was a whole discussion about Goodman’s dick pics. He tried to get them taken out of the case, but it got shut down.
His claim that “I have never live-streamed a phone call with anyone without telling them” is another falsehood. I’ve personally witnessed him doing this to Laura Loomer (having an airport meltdown over her luggage), the New York Post and the Washington Post (where he used the social engineering technique of pretending to be someone else by using Kevin Marsden’s complaint ticket number). He also frequently records conversations without permission or even notification then broadcasts them, such as this one with Douglas Gabriel from American Intelligence Media.
By the end of his first day in Court, Goodman felt that anything he said would be inappropriate. The judge said that was probably true, since they were only there to set the trial date.
It’s going to be a busy 12 months of legal responses for Mr Goodman. I hear there are other lawsuits pending for him too…including two I’m aware of in California. At some point wouldn’t it be better to go back to “truth”, like the title of his channel? Surely that is preferable to trying to frame people for murders of suicide victims, shutting down ports, training people how to modify household appliances into directed energy weapons, and the rest of his LARPing antics.
