Jason Goodman, Religious Victim?

A few new developments in the case of Dave Sweigert and Robert David Steele vs Jason Goodman.

Dave Sweigert has his own lawsuit against Goodman in the Southern District of New York. He has also filed a Motion to Intervene as a co-Plaintiff in Robert David Steele’s lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia. He recently stated his intention to sue Jason Goodman in the state of California, where he has operated his business “21c3d” for many years.

Mr Goodman has asked the Court for an extension of time for his response to the Motion to Intervene, saying he is being persecuted for being Jewish.

If rats are anti-Semitic, then why is Jason posting hate speech to his Instagram account?

Specifically in his latest filing, Jason Goodman is claiming that Dave Sweigert has filed his motion to intervene maliciously, precisely co-ordinated with the sacrosanct Pesach (Passover) holiday.

Mr Goodman has used Passover as an excuse to ask the Court for an extension of time to file his response to the Motion to Intervene.

Unfortunately for Jason, he is representing himself pro se – without a lawyer. This means that it is important he reads all of the documents filed with the Court, in particular any Orders made by the Judge. If he had done this, he would have realized that the filing date was not set maliciously by Dave Sweigert to target him at Passover. Instead, it was set by Judge Hannah Lauck – who already gave the Defendants an extension of time from the original date of April 23 (during Passover) to May 1 (well after the end of Passover).

In the past Mr Goodman has said “I’m a secular Jewish guy, I’ve never been to Israel, I don’t have any particular affinity towards Israel…I don’t walk around wearing a yarmulke, I don’t frequently go to a synagogue, I have had a bar mtizvah and I do identify as being Jewish”:

This claim to be a non-practicing Jew is borne out by his behavior during this year’s Passover. Rather than attending synagogue and observing the holiday with family and friends (as he claimed under penalty of perjury), in fact he was very busy producing videos and slandering Dave Sweigert and others.

During the 8 days of Pesach he released 9 videos on YouTube and 15 on Patreon – an average of 3 videos per day. 9 of the videos were slandering Dave Sweigert. Jason Goodman also spent time making collages like the one below:

Mr Goodman just published a phone call he recorded with Queen Tut on April 3, 2019. It seems unusual that he has waited until now to release it. She confirmed that everything she said in her interview with me was true and accurate. The audio of this clip is strange – did Jason edit it? Perhaps re-recording his voice to sound more calm? Maybe this explains the publishing delay.

In a previous recorded call, Jason praised Queen Tut “who I consider a very competent researcher and a very honest person”:

Here is the email Jason was demanding:

The domain crowdsourcethetruth.org redirects to the Crowdsource the Truth Facebook page, which suggests that it is Jason Goodman’s domain. The WhoIs record lists 21st Century 3D of New York as the owner. So why did Jason pretend he never received this email?


Unfortunately for the Defendants, “this lawsuit is fake” is not likely to sway the Court into giving them a favorable outcome. With more than 100 documents filed so far, and multiple Judge’s Orders, it sure looks real to me.

Defendant Patricia Negron is certainly taking it seriously, she has hired a lawyer and filed all responses required of her by the due dates.

104-main


Previous Coverage

Original CryptoBeast interview with Queen Tut:

Quinn Michaels: “Burning Man Sites On Top of a Massive Underground City”

CryptoBeast #2 – #Clownsource the #Peabody

CryptoBeast #13 – #govLARP

CryptoBeast #16 – Queen Tut Spills the Beans

Dave Acton Sues Jason Goodman

Acton v Goodman – Was Charleston Dirty Bomb Hoax an FBI Operation?

Acton v Goodman – Judge Rules “Off to New York”

Insane in the Ukraine: J.Go Like You’ve Never Seen Him Before

Insane in the Ukraine Part 2: The Spin Begins

See also Tracking the Leopard Meroz, where you can find most of the Court documents without having to pay for PACER searches yourself.

George Webb In the Crosshairs of Perkins Coie

George Webb decided to sue John Podesta, Huma Abedin, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and a host of other names from the #HoaxBomber Caesar Psyop’s rolodex. The basis of the suit? He donated $30 to the DNC, and they conspired to defeat Bernie Sanders unethically in the 2016 Democratic primary.

Predictably, the judge threw the case out. George couldn’t prove that he donated the $30, even if he donated it it didn’t matter, and he didn’t show how any of the people named in the case had anything to do with taking $30 out of his hands to be given as a political contribution.

Now John Podesta via his infamous law firm Perkins Coie is going after George Webb Sweigert for costs. To amplify those costs, they express Saturday delivered an 85-page motion which they’ve just filed in the D.C. court. I’m sure it took quite a lot of time for an $800/hour law firm to deal with this matter. Several junior associates would have to burn the midnight oil writing the brief, then a couple of senior partners would have to run their eyes over it. It wouldn’t be hard to bump the price tag up into the tens of thousands. Now amplify this across a couple dozen people that George served in pro se cases.

George made a video discussing the document, in which he compared his failed case to Jared and Elizabeth Beck’s lawsuit against the DNC, in which 2 of the key witnesses dropped dead suddenly.

Having reflected on it for a while, George insists he proved his whole case in his suit and to ask him to prove that his $27 went from the Sanders campaign to Hillary for America is an onerous burden of proof. He should just be able to get the documents he needs without that.

18-7156_Documents

Some free advice for George, FWIW: remember the First Rule of Holes

 

Dave Acton Sues Jason Goodman [Update]

I mentioned these characters in CryptoBeast episode #2 and Short Bus Physics With Quinn and J.Go. Jason Goodman is in cahoots with the one-eyebrowed Sith Lord Quinn Michaels, who says that there is a giant underground city under Burning Man and the weight of the people on the earth is causing the planet to change its rotation. He is playing a LARP called #tyler, and Jason is most likely part of Project UAREHERE – as I discussed in Shadow History part 7.

 

Since then I am firmly on Team @DaveActon (he did apologize publicly for cyber-harrassing Nathan from Lift The Veil). Dave has just sued cinema verité pseudo-journalist Jason Goodman over the worst thing that has ever happened on YouTube, which is when LARPers caused one of the busiest seaports in the world to be shut down for 8 hours over the threat of a “dirty bomb made from uranium” – which is not possible, according to the Wikipedia page on dirty bombs.

Here are the public court documents from PACER:

1-main

1-1

If you don’t know about this case, you can read about it in the New York Times or watch it on CNN. You can also see it as it unfolded live on their stream, which for some reason is still permitted to be up on YouTube.

We wish Dave every success in his endeavor, and thank him for doing this to help protect US cyber security and the integrity of the YouTube #truth community.


[Update 6/18/18]

Secret Shopper made a great comment here:

Pro Se and RICO….hahahahhahahah https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/

I really enjoyed that link, thanks. I agree that RICO gets overused on the Interwebz. From the article:

“To win, a plaintiff would have to prove (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern, (4) of racketeering activity called “predicate acts,” (5) causing injury to the plaintiff’s “business or property.””

I am pretty sure Dave is aware of all this, he has been involved in a number of Federal pro se lawsuits before and he wrote a book and a cybersecurity case study about this incident, which involved his brother George Webb. From his book and videos I think he has evidence that would hit all 5 of these points.

Goodman’s legal troubles are mounting. He is already the subject of a $23.5 million defamation lawsuit from ex(?)-CIA agent Robert David Steele. Steele is the guy who recruited the late John Perry Barlow, according to Barlow in his 2002 Forbes article Why Spy . A year ago RDS was Crowdsourcing $15,000 of “the truth” from Jason’s channel so that he could tour the country in an RV promoting his hashtag #unrig to black churches, and at the same time saying on Alex Jones that there is child sex trafficking on Mars; now he seems to be LARPing as an anti-pedophile judge.

Goodman was thanked by Pakistani spy Imran Awan’s lawyer for his inadvertent disclosure that led to potential criminally incriminating evidence ending up with the defendant thanks to Jason’s interference with the case.

Burner Site Sets Online Speech Precedent

Image: Williamette Week

Image: Williamette Week

We know that it’s not always sparkles and rainbows in the Burner world, especially on social media. There are trolls and sock puppets, shills, disinformation agents, propagandists, doxing, flame wars, admins blocking users then talking smack about them, and all manner of other antisocial nastiness to contend with [read our guide on how to do that].

Well, one Burner in Portland, Oregon – hometown of Burning Man founder Larry Harvey – has taken things too far.

TL;DR – he set up a doxing site and published court documents. A jury ruled even though there was no defamation, his lawyer stated the ‘jury saw it as some kind of vendetta’, and ruled the blogger has to pay his target a $2200 fine.

From the Williamette Week:

Beware What You Say on Facebook—Even If It’s True

New court ruling holds Portland man liable for inflicting emotional distress by posting another man’s legal history.

A ruling last month in a Portland defamation case could have wide-reaching effect on what people can say about each other on social media—even if those statements are true.

A Multnomah County Circuit Court jury ruled that a local member of the Burning Man community intentionally inflicted emotional distress on another man with two Facebook posts and a website that described him as a danger to women.

The jury awarded Joseph A. Brown $2,200 for emotional distress, even though it found the posts and website created by Phil Hutchinson did not defame Brown or portray him in a false light.

That’s an unusual verdict, says Kyu Ho Youm, a media law professor at the University of Oregon.

“To find someone guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress [without defamation] is extremely unusual,” Youm says. He says juries rarely find someone liable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress unless they’ve spread lies. “We are talking about something way outside the boundary of decency.”

WW first reported in December about Brown’s lawsuit against Hutchinson.

On Jan. 30, 2015, Hutchinson wrote a public Facebook post about Brown, alleging he had been ostracized from multiple social circles “for not respecting boundaries and the withholding of sexual consent.”

In a second Facebook post on Feb. 11, 2015, Hutchinson posted a link to a website he created that features several public records related to Brown’s legal history. That history comprises an arrest for voyeurism, restraining orders—including one from his ex-wife—three stalking orders, and a conviction in a “complex burglary case” that culminated in Brown allegedly breaking into a woman’s house and climbing into bed with her.

In a sworn court declaration, Hutchinson stated he didn’t intend to harm Brown but felt he needed to “alert the community to behavior [he] believed caused danger to women who might interact with Mr. Brown.”

Hutchinson says he built the website because he wanted to substantiate his claims. “I thought it would be better than just another vague post on Facebook,” he tells WW.

Hutchinson made the posts and the website after Brown repeatedly broke a no-contact request from an ex-girlfriend (who was Hutchinson’s former roommate) and attempted to apply for services at the nonprofit where she was employed.

Jonathan Radmacher, Hutchinson’s attorney, says Hutchinson, in crafting the website, was acting within reason. “Phil used public record and didn’t delve beyond that,” Radmacher says. “But the jury saw it as some kind of vendetta against Brown.”

Civil suits, Radmacher says, do not set legal precedent, but Hutchinson still has to pay Brown the $2,200 in damages.

Brown’s lawyer, Rebecca Cambreleng, declined to comment on the verdict. Brown could not be reached for comment.

The verdict raises questions about what individuals can and cannot post on social media and what is and is not protected speech on the Internet, where the lines between traditional and social media are becoming increasingly blurred.

“[Hutchinson] was doing a kind of blogging, and his intention has to do with calling attention to very serious public issues,” Youm says. “More people are talking about these kinds of things through their own blogs and websites, and I’m not sure it’s so outrageous as to make a claim to intentional infliction—especially with the evolving journalistic landscape.”

One of the women who testified against Brown, whose name WW is withholding, says she’s hesitant to speak about Brown publicly.

“It’s scarier now to post anything, because you could be fined for speaking out,” she says. “It’s absurd.”

[Source: Williamette Week]

Being fined for speaking out seems extremely absurd in a free country. Building a web site to shower hate on someone is also pretty absurd.

The “explosive sex crimes allegations” story raises, once again, the issue of consent in our community. Some Regionals have made it the 11th Principle, others have talked about it. It’s time for action, BMOrg. How do we achieve radical safety from sex crimes in Black Rock City?

 

 

Anti-Burner Judge Gets Spanked by Appeals Circuit for the SEVENTH Time

0511-0709-0620-2149_Judge_With_His_Gavel_clipart_imageBurning Man announced today they won their appeal. Burners were left scratching their heads, without Propaganda Czar Will Chase there to put the usual spin on things. What does it all mean? Who’s suing whom? And will this affect ticket prices?

Here is the full text of the ruling. And here’s a summary in one paragraph:

.
Basically, Pershing County wanted Burning Man to pay for their police presence. BMOrg said no, we pay the Feds, we pay Washoe. Pershing said pay up, and we don’t like nudity around children. Burning Man said “fuck you! free speech! We demand nudity!” and sued Pershing. Pershing responded by making life very difficult for Burners, partnering with the Feds for an unprecedented police crackdown. Sniffer dogs were brought in from the Mexican border. This was the beginning of “we’ll pull you over for the slightest thing and the dogs will search your car”. Burners were understandably pissed. Some of the more vocal DPW crew formed a group called RIOT and threatened to strike. BMOrg decided that maybe they should just pay the extra hundred grand or so to the cops. They agreed a deal, and both parties took it to the judge. The judge went apeshit and threw it out of court, telling the prosecutor to go back to law school. Near the end, romors of a negligence and malpractice law firm in Chicago getting involved pro bono, but the case settled before it could get that far.  It seemed like it was all sorted it out, but it obviously wasn’t because of this appeal. The one judge sounds a little loco, and his Boss Judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seem to agree.

.

This has nothing to do with Burning Man’s other matter, objecting to the Live Entertainment Tax. So no effect on ticket prices. They will probably keep going up, and new things like Vehicle Passes and handling fees on Vehicle passes will be introduced to drive revenues further.

Here’s our previous commentary on what’s been going on in the case, in reverse chronological order. The headlines kind of speak for themselves:

http://burners.me/2014/02/04/radio-interview-with-pershing-da/

http://burners.me/2014/02/03/reno-gazette-journal-covers-pershing-county-cops-settlement/

http://burners.me/2014/01/13/judge-backs-off-pershing-roadblock-deal-is-done/

http://burners.me/2013/11/29/absurd-illegal-mealy-mouthed-more-on-judges-ruling-on-burning-manpershing-dispute/

http://burners.me/2013/11/29/go-back-to-law-school-judges-nukes-pershing-deal/

http://burners.me/2013/11/14/associated-press-misreports-pershing-county-fees/

http://burners.me/2013/11/11/breaking-burning-man-reaches-deal-with-pershing-county/

http://burners.me/2013/08/23/pershing-county-cops-and-federal-agents-integrated-and-synchronized/

http://burners.me/2013/08/22/busting-man-riot-calls-for-general-strike-at-burning-man/

http://burners.me/2013/05/07/failed-to-even-make-a-facial-pershing-county-claims-huge-defeat-over-burning-man/

http://burners.me/2012/10/11/pershing-county-hits-back-at-burning-man/

http://burners.me/2012/08/17/county-cops-duke-it-out-with-feds-for-burning-man-buck/

Today’s coverage by Scott Sonner (AP) in the Sacramento Bee was much better than the BJ or Burning Man in-house reporter Jenny Kane’s sales pitch for Will’s job piece at the RGJ.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned another ruling by the same conservative federal judge in Nevada, criticizing his unorthodox handling of a Burning Man lawsuit and taking the extraordinary step of ordering him off a case for the fifth time in two years.

U.S District Judge Robert Clive Jones had no legal basis to reject a deal lawyers for Burning Man and Pershing County reached in 2013 to settle a dispute over security costs and First Amendment rights at the annual counter-culture celebration in the desert about 100 miles north of Reno, the appellate court ruled on Wednesday.

Jones — who recently shifted to senior status on the Reno bench — inappropriately mocked the lawyers during a hearing, accused both sides of malpractice, described one lawyer’s comments as “mealy-mouthed,” suggested another should return to law school and “noted his own laughter on the record,” the three-judge panel said.

“We have in the past expressed concern over the district’s court’s handling of a number of cases that have reached this court, and we unfortunately must do so again here,” Chief Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas wrote in a unanimous four-page memo issued Wednesday in San Francisco.

Thomas said in granting the Burning Man lawyers’ appeal that he was remanding the case back to district court and instructing Nevada’s chief U.S. district judge to assign the case to a different judge. He listed six cases in which the 9th Circuit reluctantly has issued similar orders involving Jones since 2012 — five in just the last two years.

Read the rest of the story at the Sac Bee.
.
Although the case has to go before a different judge again, given that both parties have agreed a settlement and are getting along swimmingly in the new integrated Tier 1 Unified Command and Control structure, that should be just a formality.
.
How can this Judge tell lawyers to “go back to law school” when he gets slapped down unanimously by the Appeals Court – 7 times in 4 years? He must have some powerful friends in the Wild West of Northern Nevada. Pantsless Santa tells me that Federal Judges are appointed for life, and it would be no surprise if one was part of the old boys network.
.

Masks in the Cibolo Creek hunting lodge, where Bohemian Grove spin-off the Order of St Hubertus hosted Burning Man-connected Judge Antonin Scalia's mysterious demise. Image: Wayne Madsen Report, via Fellowship of the Minds

Masks in the Cibolo Creek hunting lodge, where Bohemian Grove spin-off the Order of St Hubertus hosted Burning Man-connected Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s mysterious demise.
Image: Wayne Madsen Report, via Fellowship of the Minds