Jason “dick pic” Goodman, founder of CrowdSource The Truth
UPDATE: Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron rules on Steve Outtrim intervention
click for PDF (see last page)
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18-cv-08653-VEC-SDA
|Sweigert v. Goodman
Assigned to: Judge Valerie E. Caproni
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron
|11/21/2019||109||MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 107 Letter. ENDORSEMENT: An individual, like Mr. Outtrim, who seeks to intervene as a party plaintiff may file a motion to intervene, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Outtrim, however, should be aware of the legal standards that the Court will apply which likely could result in a denial of his motion. Rule 24 allows a party to intervene either as a matter of right or by permission of the court. Intervention as a matter of right is allowed if a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene or if the party seeking intervention has an interest in the lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Based upon Mr. Outtrim’s letter, he would not be entitled to intervention as of right. Permissive intervention is allowed under Rule 24 if a statute confers a conditional right to intervene or if the applicant has a common question of law or fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Again, based upon Mr. Outtrim’s letter, it appears that he may seek to assert a common question of law or fact with this case. Nonetheless, a court has broad discretion to deny a motion to intervene. For example, a motion to intervene could be denied where (1) it was not timely made; (2) the proposed intervenor-plaintiff’s claims do not bear a sufficiently close relationship to the issues posed by the main case and/or (3) intervention would unduly delay the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. If, notwithstanding the foregoing, Mr. Outtrim chooses to file a motion to intervene (rather than filing a separate lawsuit), he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 24(c). That is, he must state the grounds for intervention and submit a pleading that sets out the claim for which intervention is sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). 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 mailed to Mr. Outtrim by Chambers. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 11/21/2019) (kl) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. (Entered: 11/21/2019)|
OPINION AND EDITORIAL
Jason Goodman, the self proclaimed “film maker”, has already received his first response to what is now known as the “jumble of irrelevancies”, referring to Goodman’s papers provided to the Southern District of New York (SDNY) yesterday.
Fashioned as a “notice of motion” and “memorandum of law” (Court documents no. 105 & 106) the jumbled papers are seeking to have the slander, defamation and libel lawsuit dismissed.
Purportedly, Goodman’s papers for a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. Proc.) Rule 12(b)(6) “motion to dismiss”.
Goodman is a famous conspiracy theorist that operates a social media conspiracy brand known as “CrowdSource The Truth”. When David Charles Hawkins of White Rock (South Surrey), British Columbia (Canada) joined CrowdSource last year, he brought many of his ABEL DANGER influences to the Goodman “investigative reporting”. ABEL DANGER was created by Hawkins in 2008 when he authored a series of lawsuits filed in 2008 against over 100 defendants “connected to 911”.
Jason “dick pick” Goodman seems to have gone to great lengths to file what is known in the SDNY culture as a “kitchen sink pleading“. The kitchen sink approach refers to the inclusion of the most bizarre legal theories (as with Goodman’s insistence that the Communications Decency Act (CDA), Section 230 provides him immunity from lawsuit) with disjointed conspiracy theories.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron and Goodman (founder of the ill-fated “CrowdSource The Truth“) were delivered electronic copies of the below response.
click on PDF below
GOODMAN KITCHEN SINK DOCUMENTS
An analysis of the Defendant’s papers (ECF doc. no.s 105 and 106) provide illumination into the mind of this “Hollywood film maker“.
To set the stage and create a portal into the lawsuit for extraneous and incidental documents Goodman opines (pg. 9, doc. no. 105):
One wonders what documents Goodman is referring to as he requests the Court to consider documents that were attached to his papers (doc. no. 105). Restated, in what way did the Plaintiff rely on information contained in the documents that Goodman has drug (some say “dragged”) into the SDNY.
Jason “dick pick” Goodman has apparently misplaced his reliance on Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007)
Hutchins v. Solomon, No. 16-CV-10029 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 29, 2018)
Additionally, even if not attached or incorporated by reference, a document upon which the complaint “solely relies and which is integral to the complaint may be considered by the court in ruling on such a motion.” Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007)(emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). Documents are “integral” where the plaintiff had to rely on their content “in order to explain what the actual unlawful course of conduct was on which the [d]efendants embarked.”
Vitrano v. U.S., 06 Civ. 6518 (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2009)
“[A] ruling on a motion for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is not an occasion for the court to make findings of fact.” Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and generally construe the complaint liberally.
Semeraro v. Woodner Co., 17 Civ. 8535 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 29, 2018)
Rather, in ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court generally must confine itself to the four corners of the complaint and look only to the allegations contained therein. See Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007); Friedl v. City of New York, 210 F.3d 79, 83 (2d Cir. 2000) (noting that where extrinsic materials are submitted to the Court for consideration in connection with a 12(b)(6) motion, the additional materials must either be excluded, or the motion must be converted to one for summary judgment).
Rivers v. Paige, Case # 12-CV-6593-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2014)
While presented as a factual statement, at this stage, I am generally confined to the four corners of the Complaint in determining the Motion to Dismiss, unless the matters outside the pleadings are incorporated within or integral to the Complaint. See Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007).
Attached as Exhibit A (Exh. A) is an electronic message sent from Robert David Steele to Jason Goodman and George Webb on June 15, 2017 cancelling a Skype interview following the Port of Charleston (S.C.) “dirty bomb hoax”.
How the Exh. A e-mail message relates back to the Second Amended Complaint ([SAC] doc. no. 88) remains bewildering and perplexing. Goodman would need to improve that Exh. A is “integral” to the complaint. Relevancy in question.
EXHIBIT B AND C
Attached as Exh. B is one page of a motion submitted to the U.S. District Court in the Robert David Steele lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia (Steele v. Goodman, 17-CV-00601-MHL).
Attached as Exh. C are 27 pages of the presiding judge’s order in the unsuccessful intervention by the Plaintiff in the Virginia case. It is difficult to understand how Goodman makes the leap of logic that the SAC (doc. no. 88) is “integral” to the Plaintiff’s allegations of slander, defamation and libel. Relevancy in question.
Attached as Exh. D is a two page letter to the Captain of The Port concerning the subject of “Closure of the Port of Charleston, June 14th, 2017“. The letter advises the Captain of the Port of New Jersey and New York that the NJ/NY port may have been the intended target of the “dirty bomb hoax“. Goodman’s Rule 12(b)(6) “motion to dismiss” is asking the Court to consider this letter. For what purpose is unknown. Relevancy in question.
Attached as Exh. E are 18 pages of time stamps that is purported to be an unauthenticated copy of gibberish concerning a “Skype” call that took place sometime in December 2017. Relevancy in question.
Attached as Exh. F is a letter to David Charles Hawkins from his school tutor, dated 1964. A very poor copy of a document from the supposed Queens College that granted a degree to Hawkins for BACHELOR OF ARTS. Relevancy in question.
Attached as Exh. G is what appears to be a self-incriminating letter Goodman sent to the REDBUBBLE merchandising site. After the Plaintiff was successful in having REDBUBBLE remove merchandising displaying his likeness, Goodman filed a “counter copyright demand” (sent November 2018). Goodman complains that artwork for the “Deep State Dunces” and “Iran Contra Crazies” should not have been removed by REDBUBBLE.
Above: (l to r) Plaintiff, Manuel Chavez, III of Carson City, Nevada and Robert David Steele
Attached as Exh. H is a screen shot of a non-existent channel on YouTube.com. Relevancy in question.
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Virginia – (Richmond)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:17-cv-00601-MHL
|Steele et al v. Goodman et al
Assigned to: District Judge M. Hannah Lauck
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
As a courtesy the below is provided.
|08/08/2019||162||TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on July 31, 2019, before Judge M. Hannah Lauck, Court Reporter Diane Daffron, Telephone number 804 916-2893. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 9/9/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/8/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/6/2019.(daffron, diane) (Entered: 08/08/2019)|
click below for PDF
To be continued….
888 days since the Port of Charleston “dirty bomb hoax”
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.