Corey Goode & David Wilcock
The Cosmic Con Shuffle
George Webb & Jason Goodman
Alt-Media PSYOPs, LARPs, and Litigation
The Hoffman Hustle
Robert David Steele
Spooks & PSYOPs - The Langley Larper
Al-Albustani v Alger, et al (Tracy Twyman's Widower vs Alt- Media)
Copyright Chaos & Narrative Control
Far Down the Foxhole
Mikaela Seales v Liz Crokin
A Field of Dreams & Lies
Timothy Charles Holmseth
The "PPTF" Larper
Mega Maga Larping Lawyer
"Baby Q" Needs a Bottle
Jason Goodman Discusses Legal Woes
June 23, 2022
"I believe there’s a network of individuals who operate in social media and have developed a number of strategies for getting people they don’t like, or messages they don’t want, broadcast - removed from social media.
This is the only job that I do - and I like it. I like finding answers to these questions. And I know there are other people who are interested in searching for the answers. So it was clear to me when I began in 2016-2017, there were a lot of people saying ‘Oh my channel’s getting demonitized.’ It didn’t make sense to me to go down a road that wouldn’t make sense for me to go down.
There’s a lot going on with the lawsuits.
People who watch that tall guy who I used to do videos with [George Webb]. That tall guy decided, like three years after the Statute of Limitations ran out, as you might know that, he sued me. He sued me in Detroit even though I don’t live in Detroit - I don’t do anything specific in Detroit.
"When you accuse someone of defamation, there are a certain number of things that you have to allege; that you have to state happened in order for it to be considered 'properly pled.'"
So that tall guy after the three years decided that it was incredibly important to sue CNN. He made videos, people who sent him money he told them, 'I have no choice, this is so important, CNN is lying.'
Here’s the facts: The lawsuit he filed was completely defective. It failed to form what is called a ‘cognizable claim’; meaning, you can file a complaint with your landlord that every appliance isn’t working, hot water doesn’t work, doors don’t lock, etc. And your landlord can come in and fix these things. But that’s not the way that court works. You can’t just say, ‘Oh, CNN did these broadcasts that defame me and said things that aren’t true, and they’re big and I’m small, and they’re doing this because they’re the Deep State and I’m not, or whatever nonsense.’ You can’t do that.
When you accuse someone of defamation, there are a certain number of things that you have to allege; that you have to state happened in order for it to be considered 'properly pled.'
And by the way, I’m not a lawyer and nothing I say is intended to be legal advice.
The point is, you have to allege things in a very specific way.
You need to be pleading them properly. In the case of defamation, somebody needs to say something that is false. And they have to know that it is false. Or, they should reasonably know that it’s false, like perhaps they have zero evidence. And the other person needs to suffer damage.
So, to just say that 'Oh, I’m a journalist and they say that I’m a "conspiracy theorist", so that’s irreparable damage.' The court is going to say, 'Yeah, we don’t really buy that. You need to show that somebody said something that resulted in you getting fired, or you had a contract with somebody and they lied to that person to make that person have a terrible impression of you and as a result of that, you lost the contract.'
It’s difficult to prove defamation. And even if you are able to prove defamation, the damages part is quite difficult.
So basically that lawsuit was utter nonsense. Improperly pled. It wasn’t even clear why it was in Michigan. CNN is primarily in Atlanta and New York, I think. The claims were garbage. BS.
That tall guy has a brother [Dave Acton], who’s kind of a mental midget, but I think close in height. The point is, they claim to be ‘estranged’ - to almost never communicate with one another. They hate each other, they barely communicate. But it’s weird because the first tall idiot [Webb] filed the lawsuit in October of 2020 and somehow his estranged brother who he never speaks to (according to them), he knew right away. Because within six days, a rather lengthy pleading went into the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that there was related litigation in New York and that this case should be brought to New York and that I should be added to it. These are the stupid ‘Mario Brothers’ I’m talking about. Stupid Mario and stupid Luigi.
They were trying to get me involved in this lawsuit and bring it to New York. The judge wasn’t having any of it. The judge instructed stupid Luigi [Acton] that non-parties cannot move the court to change the venue of the litigation from Michigan to New York, and you’re not supposed to file as a non-party until you first are allowed to intervene, which he had not been.
Now I spoke about all this in the last Counterlawfare Report. I spoke about the evidence that I found in the docket (public evidence), which causes me to believe there are anomalies in the filings that could only have gotten there through inappropriate filings. I’ve discussed this with people who are kinda experts about this kind of thing. Multiple people have agreed with me. It just doesn’t seem like there’s any possible explanation for how this document ECF #12 - how it got on the docket with this federal employee's name on it as the author. The metadata on the PDF document reveals the author of the document, not the pro-se litigant who filed it (allegedly).
But Richard Loury, a clerk in the court; a federal employee of the United States Government - his name is on the document as the author. And no explanation has been given. I mean, there are people who have made things up, but it doesn’t accurately explain within the context of how that software works - how that guy’s name got on there.
All the evidence I see indicates that he was offering pleadings. That is not allowed.
There’s a total of three documents on the docket in the eastern district of Michigan that exhibit anomalous attributes compared to documents filed elsewhere in US District Courts; things that are scanned in 8-bit color when every other court, 1-bit color - black and white only. Why do we have colored scans on the docket with this guy Richard Loury’s name as the author.
And by the way, people can’t sue me for making factual statements. The guy’s name is on the document. You can’t sue me for saying that.
But anyway, I put in an amicus brief, which is a letter to the court from a friend of the court - that’s literally what it means. Ultimately, the judge decided it was procedurally defective, meaning I’m not lawyer and I don’t know all the details of the proper way to file an amicus brief. But it’s interesting how he came to that conclusion. He first called for a hearing on the evidence that was raised in the amicus brief, which was just this docket item #12 and it seemed that the judge wanted to have an evidentiary hearing to hear more about what was going on with that. I drove to Michigan, remember, thanks to sponsors and viewers.
So it seemed there was going to be this hearing and when I got there, something like 16 or 18 hours before, it was adjourned, which normally means that it was rescheduled. But in this case it means wait a couple days, they’ll be nothing on the docket, and then it will be canceled. Who are the lawyers out there? Does that sound unusual to you? That sounds unusual to me. That sounds unusual to anyone with any legal experience that I’ve talked to about it. I drove all the way to Detroit to share that evidence and then it was canceled.
There were other things on the docket that were weird to me. So I called this guy Loury and asked him all these things. You’re allowed to do that. No law against doing that. And if you ask them questions about suspicious activity based on well-founded claims backed by evidence, you’re allowed to do all these things. So I called - why his name is on these documents and he didn’t want to talk about it. I spoke to Loury’s boss to ask how Loury came to be on the internal metadata of these documents and she said, ‘Well, there are occasions where he might join multiple documents together…' I don’t think that’s correct though, because when I asked her additional questions about the rules of doing this I was given default, go-to answers like, ‘I can’t give you legal advice, sir' to keep themselves out of trouble.
So instead of realizing they’re dopes and going away, stupid Mario attempted to sue me in the eastern district of Michigan for what he called ‘defamation’ on the basis of the allegations in the amicus brief. But you can’t sue for defamation for statements made in a legal proceeding, or allegations made to law enforcement - you just can’t. Those statements made are immune from allegations of defamation.
So there was a deadline on the 22nd, at noon. The new judge, Lorna I think, issues a new order in May after getting kicked down to New York saying May 29th, we got a hearing, May 22nd, we need a joint letter filed jointly by the parties. The way that works - if you bring the lawsuit against that person, you are the plaintiff. You are suing the defendant.
The way these pre-trial joint letters work is that the plaintiff is supposed to write it, send it to the defendant, and say please provide your edits, and then there’s a little bit of a back and forth - you’re supposed to be dealing with one another civilly.
Normally the plaintiff and the defendant are going to be represented by counsel so it isn’t so much of this acrimonious back and forth that you might have in a case where a bunch of lying losers spend five years and every day of their lives trying to sue you and destroy your business, take down all your work off the internet so people who value the information want to go back and review the information and recall who said what - they don’t want people to be able to go back and put all this information together. It’s actually a very valuable resource to have all those videos online and a library that would be accessible.
Anyway, this is a bunch of stunt litigation - a bunch of idiots who are bringing lawsuits to irritate people, whether it’s CNN or me. They’re not serious about this.
I brought a lawsuit against the CEO of the Emmys because I got shafted when the Emmys sued my company. That company had nothing to do with the posting. The company doesn’t own Crowdsource the Truth or any intellectual property. It’s my opinion that the 47 U.S.C. Section 230, the lauded Communications Decency Act, actually precludes anybody from suing any corporation for something an individual posts to the internet.
As I read that statute - says to me that it considers a corporation a legal entity that can either be a user, or provider, of interactive computer services. And separately, a natural person is also a legal entity. Jason Goodman is not Multimedia Systems Design, Inc. This is the exact reason why the Television Academy was able to sue the corporation and not me, and that I was not able to represent myself. I had to hire an attorney who was harassed to the point of withdrawing, after taking all of my money, and really screwed up the case. Who harassed him? Oh, that was stupid Luigi. How is this allowed? It shouldn’t be allowed for these stupid Mario Brothers to be clogging the courts to serve their personal vendettas.
It gets complicated, you know - causes of action and whatnot - but there's something called the New York Judiciary Rule 487, which makes it a misdemeanor for a lawyer to lie to the court during the course of litigation, which I allege, and information tends to prove, happened. And it was something substantial - this was this issue where I said they didn't even have the right to sue me as a non-profit. They disagreed.
Judges in court think everyone has a right to sue everyone because they get more money.
But moreover, the CEO of the non-profit also owns a for-profit LLC that he has to disclose as the CEO of the non-profit in their public filings. It's required by law. But instead, they just didn't file any 990s whatsoever - 2019, 2020, 2021 - all years that this guy was the CEO, so that's against the law. And it's weird that these guys would go so far out on a limb to do these things that appear to be breaking the law just to sue me.
And in the case of the Emmys, they were suing me for an image that I offered to take down for free if they would just withdraw the strike on my Youtube channel. They didn't want to do it. They seem to prefer to get into it. It's going on two plus years, I think - it's over two years - two years of litigation, $300,000-400,000 they're trying to come after me now for the legal fees, which I have to tell you - I know everyone out there is gasping and shocked that's a huge amount of money. What you need to appreciate about that some is that professional law firms don't go suing people like me with the anticipation that they're going to collect that money because they know that I don't have it, and attempting to extract it from me is going to take so much time and maybe never will succeed because you can't get something you can't get blood from a stone, as they say.
So I mean there have been times before I started Crowdsourced the Truth - got into a problem with that helicopter company and I wanted to sue, and every law firm I spoke to said, ‘Well, I mean there's no doubt you've got a very good breach of contract case but the problem is this is a company that we don't know what their financial status is. You're telling us they just got all this investment they could have spent that money already and even if you win we might not be able to collect anything from them. You might not be able to pay us.’
This is the type of stuff that law firms are worried about. They don't want to sue people who seem very unlikely to be able to pay. They want to sue banks and companies giant firms that they know have $400,000 that they would have to spend to be able to carry on doing business. They don't wanna necessarily go after somebody who, even if you could get this $400,000, it's going to be, you know, them in debt forever and you're chasing them through bankruptcy court and then it's costing them money and time. You know, they'd rather go off and make $400,000 with some other giant rich clients.
So everything about the lawsuit doesn't make any sense. They're lying in court, according to evidence that's substantiating allegations in the lawsuit they signed my signature to a document that I did not grant them authority to sign. I mean it's brazen the things that they're doing and then they have a crew a component of this whole thing that's a social media mob that says, ‘Oh, you know, bad day for Jason in court’ or this or that all kinds of things that they try to do. And whether that is to demoralize the target, who in this case is me, or to convince people to support them send the money buy a book, I don't know all kinds of different things they've got going on, but this is basically how they work it.
So Wednesday, June 22nd - today is the day that we had a deadline at the court. Now I anticipated that this drunk idiot would miss the deadline. I sent him the document by the way - I mailed it to him. I said, ‘Here is my half of the document; make some edits and send it back to me.’ So undoubtedly they will attempt to say that I did something wrong, but I made sure that I at least made a good faith effort to provide the material that I wasn't even obligated to provide to show that I was making an effort to move this forward.
I got no problem with this, you know, pre-trial case plan joint filing and letter - I had no problem with that.
I've written a few of those now; not a lawyer, but you cannot miss these deadlines. Particularly not if you're engaged in judicial gamesmanship.
The honorable Valerie Caproni has said that the court will not tolerate judicial gamesmanship. Now how could one of these other federal judges make their colleague look bad? They can't contradict her; she has said the US district court for the southern district of New York will not tolerate judicial gamesmanship. I interpret that to mean if the gamesmen continue their games the court will not tolerate it and we'll end it - somehow I’m looking forward to that.
So I’ll read these pleadings as they are filed publicly on the docket there, help people understand what's going on. I think some people find it interesting. Obviously it's not as important as the major events that are happening in our world, but a lot of people find it extremely newsworthy because they're confused. They see these people, think of Monte Cristo [Marcus Conte] sandwiches and tall dopes, who go to Europe and their mysterious dopey brothers who make public statements against their own interests about their family history of medically diagnosed and pharmaceutical pharmaceutically treated schizophrenia. Do people know that schizophrenia is considered hereditary runs in the family? If one of your parents has it, you could be a likely candidate for also having it. Do people know that? I'm not a doctor - I read that some doctor wrote it.
A lot of people say the courts are rigged. I don’t like that - not that I disagree with it, it's just so vague. It's not helpful. If you went to the doctor and he said, ‘Well, you're sick’ and left the room without describing exactly what was wrong with you, or providing some sort of a prescription or advice for a treatment, that wouldn't be very helpful. So my goal is to understand how it is this allegation that the courts are rigged. If that's true to any degree, are they rigged by Richard Luery? I don't know. There's evidence that suggests he might be doing things with the docket in the eastern district of Michigan that he's not supposed to. Does that count as rigging? I don't know."