Above: “CEO” of Multi-media Design Systems, Inc., Jason Goodman
OPINION AND EDITORIAL
In the third and final ORDER directed at conspiracy theorist Jason Goodman from Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, Goodman must respond with an ANSWER to the slander, libel and defamation complaint by Monday, November 18th, 2019. This has given more than none weeks to answer.
In this recent round of Goodman wrangling, the Hollywood fixture and film maker Defendant sought three times to postpone his response to the slander, defamation and libel complaint.
Founder of the CrowdSource The Truth conspiracy brand, Goodman blames Internet pioneer and crypto currency expert Steve Outtrim of New Zealand for the need of a delay.
Two Goodman requests were DENIED by the Magistrate Judge, who admonished Goodman for pleading his case via an e-mail message. Goodman’s latest filing (11/14/2019) threatens a “counter claim” against Outtrim.
In fact, the Magistrate Judge in the federal lawsuit has already DENIED TWO of the Defendant’s requests for more time to respond to the Second Amended Complaint ([SAC] docket no. 88).
In a somewhat Hollywood elitist manner, Jason Goodman filed a document known as “MOTION FOR LEAVE“, submitted just two (2) days prior to the deadline established by the Magistrate Judge, which gave Goodman almost nine (9) weeks to complete the assignment (an additional six (6) weeks).
Not only did the Magistrate Judge DENY Goodman’s first request of November 12, 2019; but the Magistrate Judge also DENIED a second e-mail request for extension of the deadline sent from Goodman to the judges chambers.
As in past, in his court filings Goodman alludes that Outtrim is a member of some “gang“.
Goodman paints a picture in his latest pleading of the infamous “gang” operating a “decentralized distributed defamation campaign” that — according to Goodman — was reported by him to the New York division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and New York City Police Department in April 2018.
Above: Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron
The court docket (see below)
99 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO THE SECONE AMENDED COMPLAINT,re: for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 88 Amended Complaint. Document filed by Jason Goodman.(sc) (Entered: 11/13/2019)11/13/2019
100 ORDER denying 99 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. ENDORSEMENT: Defendant Goodman’s request is DENIED. The unauthorized email sent to my Chambers by Mr. Outtrim is a nullity and provides no basis to extend the time to respond to the Second Amended Complaint. No motion to intervene has been filed in this case, and even if one were to be filed, such motion (regardless of its merit or lack of merit) would not provide a basis for an extension. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se parties. In addition, a copy of this Order will be emailed to the parties by Chambers. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 11/13/2019) (kl) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. (Entered: 11/13/2019)
101 ORDER: The Court received in its Chambers email box an unauthorized email from Defendant seeking reconsideration of the Court’s Order issued earlier today (ECF No. 100). The parties are admonished that they may not send emails to the Court other than emails transmitting courtesy copies of filings that are being properly made through the Pro Se Office (see ECF No. 97). If Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order, he shall file a motion through the Pro Se Office seeking such relief. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se parties. In addition, a copy of this Order will be emailed to the parties by Chambers. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 11/13/2019) (kl) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. (Entered: 11/13/2019)
102 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT. ENDORSEMENT: Defendant’s request is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The deadline to respond to the Second Amended Complaint is extended to Monday, November 18, 2019. Defendant must seek leave to file a third-party complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14. If Defendant has a good-faith basis to seek such leave, he shall file a motion for leave on or before November 29, 2019. SO ORDERED. Jason Goodman answer due 11/18/2019. (Motions due by 11/29/2019.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 11/14/2019) (rjm) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
click below for PDF
endorsement at bottom of page
second order against Jason Goodman
judge extends deadline to Monday, 11/18/2019
Above: Hollywood icon Jason “dick pic” Goodman
Jason Goodman’s e-mail to the Magistrate Judge
From: Jason Goodman <email@example.com>
To: “Aaron_XXXXXXXX@nysd.uscourts.gov” <Aaron_XXXXXX@nysd.uscourts.gov>
Cc: David George Acton Sweigart <spoliation-XXXXXX@mailbox.org>
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. Outtim’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
*Please note: firstname.lastname@example.org is not a valid email address for Defendant and has been inappropriately introduced into these proceedings by Plaintiff
STEVE OUTTRIM COMPLAINS OF
COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS TO YOUTUBE
The latest dust-up between Goodman and Outtrim appears to be over the use of non-public copyrighted materials used on CrowdSource The Truth by the Defendant Goodman. Apparently, this material also includes a non-public photograph of Outtrim’s spouse used in a Jason Goodman podcast.
Many of the concerns are addressed in a newly posted video by Outtrim (see below).
Above: Defendant Jason “dick pic” Goodman
To be continued….
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.