Opinion
20-cv-07269-VEC-OTW
11-28-2023
THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF TELEVISION ARTS AND SCIENCES, INC., and ACADEMY OF TELEVISION ARTS & SCIENCES, Plaintiff, v. MULTIMEDIA SYSTEM DESIGN, INC. d/b/a “CROWDSOURCE THE TRUTH”, Defendant.
Jason Goodman Pro Se Defendant
Jason Goodman Pro Se Defendant
NOTICE OF MOTION TO VACATE VOID JUDGEMENTS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, with this motion, JASON GOODMAN, (“Goodman”), by and for himself pro se, comes now as the REAL PARTY DEFENDANT IN INTEREST in this case. Goodman was deprived of his right to a pro se defense by a fraud upon the court, executed by plaintiffs, with non-party David George Sweigert (“Sweigert”), and judge Valerie Caproni in her capacity as a private citizen and participant in an ongoing, illegal, clandestine, FBI program to police social media including Twitter, (now “X Corp”) in violation of the Constitution and other laws. Judge Caproni acted ultra vires and outside all judicial authority, voiding all rulings in this case, and forfeiting subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b)(4), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1
PARTIES AND NON-PARTIES..........................................................................3
BACKGROUND...................................................................................................5
PLAINTIFFS DELIBERATELY SUED A FALSE PARTY.................................8
JUDGE CAPRONI PARTICIPATED IN AN ILLEGAL FBI PROGRAM ..........11
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................12
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page
Covington Industries, Inc. v.Resintext A.G., 629 F.2d 730, 732 n. 3 (2d Cir. 1980) .......2
Pitbull Prods. v. Universal Netmedia, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30633 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)........................................................................................................................................2
Am. Inst. Of Certified Pub. Accountants ("AICPA") v. Affinity Card, Inc., 8 F.Supp.2d 372, 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ................................................................................................................2
See Kao Hwa Shipping Co. v. China Steel Corp., 816 F.Supp. 910, 913 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ...................................................................................................................................................2
ORIX FINANCIAL SERVICES v. PHIPPS., 291 Cv 2523 (RPP), 2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug 14, 2009) ..........................................................................................................................................2
VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 U.S. 348,41 S.Ct. 116 1920)............................................................................................................................................2
WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 54012 L.Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850)...........................3
Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985)......................................................................3
United States ex rel. Sweigert v. Elec. Sys. Assocs., 85 F.3d 630 (6th Cir. 1996)..................6
Goodman v City of New York, 23-cv-09648-JGLC-GWG)....................................................12
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) ............................................13
Local 851 of the Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Thyssen Haniel Logistics, 90 F.Supp.2d 237, 238 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) ...................................................................................................................13
Matter of Simon (State Comm'n on Judicial Conduct), 2016 NY Slip Op 06855, ¶ 1, 28 N.Y.3d 35, 37, 41 N.Y.S.3d 192, 193, 63 N.E.3d 1136, 1137)............................................... 15
STATUTES
18 U.S. Code §§ 1341-1343)............................................................................................10
28 U.S. Code §§ 144 and 455............................................................................................11
RULES:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).......................................................................................... passim
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c)......................................................................................................2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a) and (b)..........................................................................................4
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE VOID JUDGEMENTS
JASON GOODMAN, (“Goodman”), by and for himself pro se, comes now as the REAL PARTY DEFENDANT IN INTEREST in this matter who was deprived of his right to represent his interests by a fraud upon this court. The deception involved plaintiffs, non-party David George Sweigert (“Sweigert”), and judge Valerie Caproni in her capacity as an individual and participant in an ongoing, illegal, clandestine FBI program that illicitly gained access to social media users' data including on Twitter, (“X Corp”) in violation of the U.S. Constitution and state and federal laws. These illegal actions, taken outside all jurisdiction, render each and every ruling in this matter void. Judge Caproni's illegal actions cause her to forfeit subject matter jurisdiction in this case pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b)(4). Goodman respectfully submits his Motion to Vacate Void Judgments under penalty of perjury regarding himself and his own acts, and with regard to all others, makes the following allegations upon information and belief;
INTRODUCTION
1. The default judgment entered against fictitious corporate entity and improper defendant in this matter, Multimedia System Design, Inc., D/B/A/ Crowdsource the Truth, (“MSDI”) is void and must be vacated as a matter of law pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b)(4), which states, “a court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment . . . [if] the judgment is void." This rule applies in equal force to judgments entered by default. See FRCP. 55(c) ("For good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default and, if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with Rule 60(b)."). Even in an instance where the rule might appear to offer a court discretion to determine if a judgment is or is not void, the Second Circuit determined that a "motion predicated on subsection four [of Rule 60(b)] is unique . . . in that relief is not discretionary and a meritorious defense is not necessary as on motions made pursuant to other 60(b) subsections." See Covington Industries, Inc. v. Resintext A.G., 629 F.2d 730, 732 n. 3 (2d Cir. 1980); Pitbull Prods. v. Universal Netmedia, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30633 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Am. Inst. Of Certified Pub. Accountants ("AICPA") v. Affinity Card, Inc., 8 F.Supp.2d 372, 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). As in those cases, the judgment here is void, and so the Court must vacate the default judgment. See Kao Hwa Shipping Co. v. China Steel Corp., 816 F.Supp. 910, 913 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("Unlike motions pursuant to other subsections of 60(b), the Court has no discretion regarding motions to vacate void judgments under Rule 60(b)(4).")
ORIX FINANCIAL SERVICES v. PHIPPS, 91 Cv. 2523 (RPP), 2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009)
2. “The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement is void even before reversal", VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 U.S. 348,41 S.Ct. 116 (1920) "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgements and orders are regarded as nullities; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal."
WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 54012 L.Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).
3. “A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights." Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d at 745 (Teague, J.,concurring). This cannot be ignored its fact recorded! Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process,” Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 -Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).
4. Goodman was denied due process and Judge Caproni violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial and equal protection under the law when she assisted plaintiffs' fraudulent scheme to prevent Goodman from defending his interests in this case. Due to these extraordinary acts outside all jurisdiction, and pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b)(4), each and every one of Judge Caproni's rulings in this case are legal nullities, hereby vacated as a matter of law.
PARTIES AND NON-PARTIES
5. Jason Goodman ("Goodman") is the Real Party Defendant in Interest in this matter, a natural person, citizen of New York, the sole owner of, and sole legal entity responsible for, all intellectual property ("IP") created by and posted on the internet by Goodman. All times relevant during this matter, Goodman was and currently is, an investigative journalist, talk show host and social media personality. Goodman was previously a Hollywood cinematographer and CEO of stereoscopic technology and motion picture production company, 21st Century 3D. (See American Cinematographer April 2011, "Discussion with Jason Goodman, founder and CEO of 21st Century 3D," https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ac/ac0411/index.php?startid=58#/p/58).
6. Multimedia System Design, Inc., ("MSD") is an inactive New York Corporation founded in June 1994 and previously owned by Goodman, voluntarily dissolved in March 2023.
7. 21st Century 3D is a world-famous stereoscopic technology and motion picture production company founded by Goodman in or around 1999 in New York City. In October 2002, the marketing name associated with Goodman's stereoscopic and visual effects work became a legal entity when he registered “21st Century 3D” as an assumed name with the New York Secretary of State and received an assumed name certificate officially forming the corporate legal entity Multimedia System Design, Inc. d.b.a. 21st Century 3D, ("21C3D").
8. Crowdsource the Truth, (“CSTT”) is a marketing name invented by Goodman in or around 2016, and associated with a series of documentary, news and opinion videos Goodman initially produced in his spare time, not involving stereoscopic or visual effects technology, and published on a YouTube channel called JASON GOODMAN. CSTT is not a corporate or legal business entity and cannot sue or be sued pursuant to FRCP Rule 17(a) or (b).
9. Multimedia System Design, INC., D/B/A/ Crowdsource the Truth, ("MSDI") is a fictitious non-existent entity devised by Sweigert as part of a scheme. MSDI does not exist as a legal entity and was never owned or controlled by Goodman. MSDI is a corporate misnomer deliberately concocted as part of Sweigert's stated goal to sue Goodman "for the rest of his life." MSDI is not a legal business entity and cannot sue or be sued pursuant to FRCP rule 17(a) or (b). MSDI is the wrongful defendant in this matter deliberately selected by plaintiffs as part of their scheme to complicate and obfuscate malicious litigation intended to burden Goodman.
10. Adam Sharp, ("Sharp") is a well-known social media, broadcast media and political expert and the CEO of Plaintiff, a 501(c)(6) tax-exempt business association, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, ("NATAS"). From 2010 through 2016 Sharp was employed at X Corp, then Twitter as the company's first U.S. Government liaison. Prior to that, Sharp was employed in the U.S. Senate where he became associated with former President Barack Obama. From 2017 up to and including today, Sharp has also been CEO of the privately held, for profit political consulting company, Sharp Things LLC. Sharp is the putative progenitor of this dispute because he personally sent a copyright complaint to YouTube on or around August 20, 2020, after receiving an allegedly anonymous email three weeks prior on July 28, 2020.
11. Margaret Esquenet, ("Esquenet") is counsel for plaintiffs in this matter. Esquenet was warned of Sweigert's stalking and harassment and that he was suspected of sending the email to lure her client into litigation. She ignored these warnings along with an offer to remove the image immediately for free, declining without consulting plaintiffs indicating a desire to sue.
12. David George Sweigert, ("Sweigert") is a professional hacker and a serial pro se plaintiff who is six and a half years in on his stated plan to sue Goodman "for the rest of his life".
BACKGROUND
13. Plaintiffs conspired with nonparty Sweigert to execute a scheme intended to foment this action under false pretenses and compel Goodman to hire counsel to defend a false corporate entity. Sweigert then harassed defendant's counsel with approval of the judge and provoked default judgment. Sweigert correctly calculated that Goodman's desire to restore his YouTube channel, which he relied upon to earn a living, would motivate him to retain counsel to resolve such a complicated legal matter as quickly as possible.
14. Sweigert provided a plausible pre-text for plaintiffs with fabricated fraudulent evidence in the form of an email he caused to be sent with the intent of harming Goodman. The email catalyzed this entire action, yet its contents and owner have been treated like matters of national security. Goodman has been persistently blocked from learning who was behind this email. Even if Sweigert is not responsible, no one's privacy would be harmed by in-camera review which Judge Caproni has repeatedly rejected outright without any further explanation.
15. Sweigert has a long-established history as a serial pro se plaintiff who hounds and harasses his perceived enemies with years of vindictive, obsessive, weaponized legal action (“Lawfare”) that is improperly filed, improperly prosecuted, and generally brought exclusively to burden the subject with the time-consuming expense of litigation. (See United States ex rel. Sweigert v. Elec. Sys. Assocs., 85 F.3d 630 (6th Cir. 1996)
16. At the outset of this matter, the suspicious email was deemed confidential and subject to a Stipulated Order of Protection, (“SOP”). No further investigation into its origin was allowed. At a public conference with Judge Caproni on April 30, 2021, former attorney for plaintiffs, Samuel Eichner, voluntarily destroyed the confidential, non-public status of the email address when he violated the SOP by announcing the email address, causing it to be recorded in the transcript and placed into the public domain where it is today, (Dkt. 69 Page 42 Line 23).
17. As the Court is aware, Goodman transmitted the email address to Larry Klayman and others in August 2021, three months after it became public and was no longer controlled by the SOP. Irrespective of Goodman's intent, understanding, or lack thereof at the time, publishing the email address after May 2021 could not violate the SOP because the SOP only controls confidential, non-public information, which the email address no longer was when Goodman sent it to Klayman. Goodman was unjustly, and wrongfully enjoined to block access to evidence.
18. The wrongful injunction blocking evidence is just one of the extraordinary steps taken to deny a fair trial and equal protection under the law. Judge Caproni ignored inarguable facts recorded in the transcript rather than seeking evidence to prove or disprove Goodman's claims. Judge Caproni consistently obstructed justice, preventing Goodman from accessing evidence or mounting a proper defense. This is because the judge knew true answers and real evidence would unravel the scheme she had worked with Sweigert and Plaintiffs to protect.
19. This case represents a unique and historic example of judicial misconduct that renders all judgements void pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b)(4). Goodman is the real party defendant in interest and judge Caproni obstructed his constitutional right to a fair trial and equal protection under the law by preventing him from accessing evidence that would prove or disprove his claims, and otherwise preventing him from defending his interests in this matter.
20. Throughout these proceedings Judge Caproni allowed non-party Sweigert to agitate the docket, harass Goodman and his attorney to the point of withdrawal (Dkt. 102), and to defy her orders repeatedly. Despite Sweigert's non-party status and putative lack of involvement in this case, he has had more influence on the outcome than any party including Goodman.
21. Judge Caproni aided plaintiffs and Sweigert ab initio, in the commission of a stunning fraud upon the court, without which, this case could not exist. Plaintiffs and Sweigert concocted a scheme intended to deceive Goodman into hiring counsel to represent a Corporate Phantom invented by Sweigert. Sweigert then illegally harassed defendant's counsel to the point of withdrawal. This was planned to deliberately provoke default judgment, and to prevent Goodman from engaging in first amendment activity by destroying his access to social media.
22. Goodman is entitled to a vacatur by law because he is the real party in interest in the case but was deliberately blocked from defending his interests by a complex fraud upon the court. Judge Caproni acted ultra vires, outside of all jurisdiction, in violation of the Canons of Judicial Conduct, the Oath of United States Judges, the United States Constitution, and justice itself when she assisted plaintiffs and Sweigert in a fraud upon the court by the following acts;
(1) Sweigert sent, or caused to be sent, a fraudulent email to plaintiffs on July 28, 2020, pertaining to a video published by Goodman six weeks prior on June 12, 2020.
(2) Plaintiffs waited another three weeks, until August 20, 2020, to initiate a fraudulent copyright complaint against the JASON GOODMAN YouTube Channel. Plaintiffs knew this would cause a ninety-day ban and timed their complaint to prevent broadcasting for two and a half months prior to, and two weeks after, the 2020 presidential election.
(3) Plaintiffs initiated this litigation immediately after Goodman appealed their complaint on YouTube and re-established his ability to broadcast. The deliberate long delays in complaining as compared to the rush to sue are strong indicators of plaintiffs' motives.
(4) Plaintiffs deceived and coerced Goodman into hiring counsel to defend the phantom corporate entity MSDI in order to convince the Court the wrong entity had been sued and in a good faith effort to restore his YouTube channel which he relies on to earn a living.
(5) Sweigert destroyed Goodman's attorney client relationship late in the litigation leaving him at a significant disadvantage and ultimately unable to hire alternate counsel. Sweigert directly and wrongfully provoked the default judgment and wrongful injunction. Judge Caproni has taken no action to enjoin Sweigert from doing anything in this case.
PLAINTIFFS DELIBERATELY SUED A FALSE PARTY
23. After Goodman appealed the spurious YouTube Copyright complaint, his ability to broadcast was restored with the caveat that YouTube would reinstate the ban if a judgement or pending lawsuit were presented within fourteen days. This prompted Plaintiffs to act quickly, demonstrating a dramatic shift as compared to Sharp's maliciously timed complaint intended to prevent Goodman from broadcasting the election, the true ulterior purpose of this instant action.
24. Plaintiffs, their attorneys and Sweigert worked like a tag-team behind the scenes with judge Caproni's unfair assistance. From the outset of this action, they worked together to confound Goodman by preventing him from mounting a pro se defense and preventing him from articulating that he was the Real Party Defendant in Interest in this matter. They did this by suing a False Party in Interest invented by Sweigert to substantially resemble a corporation previously owned by Goodman. This ruse successfully deceived YouTube, Goodman, and allegedly the Court, unless as Goodman claims the Court assisted.
25. Sweigert invented MSDI by conflating the legal doctrines of corporate misnomer and mistaken identity, and enabled plaintiffs to purposely sue the false party. Goodman did not understand this deception a first, discovering this insidious legal nuance only after it was too late.
26. Plaintiffs are represented by sophisticated bar members who, unlike Goodman, were aware of the legal doctrine of Real Party In Interest at the outset of this litigation. (See https://www.fmnegan.com/en/msights/blogs/at-the-ptab-blog/a-real-party-m-mterest-determmatton-is-fmal-and-non-appealable-mcludmg-demal-of-related-motion-to-dismiss-and-discovery.html)
27. Goodman is not an attorney and was not even aware of the term or concept of Real Party In Interest, until very recently. Goodman was aware that Plaintiffs had sued a false corporate entity they could have only learned of through Sweigert and did so deliberately to prevent Goodman from defending his interests in this action pro se.
28. Goodman was compelled to hire Snyder who failed to instruct the Court that the wrong entity had been sued, failed to depose Sharp and bungled the case. Snyder repeatedly refused to make Goodman's argument insisting the name in the caption, “didn't matter.” This perplexed Goodman at the time, but he was unable to address the impasse and grew increasingly uncomfortable challenging his own lawyer while trusting him to unravel this complext fraud.
29. There is no obviously discernable way for plaintiffs to have learned the name of false entity MSDI, or to have even associated the real MSD with Goodman's CSTT brand unless told to do so by Sweigert. Now that Judge Caproni's show cause order has provided evidence of unfair bias against Goodman and in favor of Plaintiffs' apparatchik, Sweigert, plaintiffs can no longer dismiss these objections as “conspiracy theory.” Any real challenge to this claim must be supported by an explanation as to how plaintiffs learned of the Corporate Phantom MSDI if not through Sweigert and why they chose to sue it and not Goodman if not for the reasons alleged.
30. Sweigert is the only person to have ever used the name MSDI previously. He created it and has engaged in a series of abusive actions in which he attempts to sue it repeatedly across a number of U.S. District Courts to drain Goodman's money one retainer fee at time.
31. Sweigert's pattern and practice of luring entities into unnecessary legal battles with Goodman is on display in the Southern District of Indiana. Sweigert has been accused of violating 18 U.S. Code §§ 1341-1343 in more sham litigation against Goodman. (EXHIBIT A)
32. Sweigert has documented his efforts as he attempts to entice Nintendo America into suing Goodman over alleged copyright infringement for parody images, demonstrating a pattern and practice precisely matching Goodman's allegations here. (EXHIBIT B)
33. Plaintiffs' unfair attack on Goodman's ability to earn a living caused him to quickly hire Snyder in hopes of resolving the matter and restoring the YouTube channel in time to take advantage of the history making, once in a lifetime opportunity of broadcasting during the 2020 election and covering the controversy that immediately followed and continues today.
34. This of course did not happen; Goodman was only drawn into more contentious and expensive litigation until Snyder withdrew, leaving the case in shambles and Goodman nearly financially ruined unable to retain new counsel despite trying for months.
35. Judge Caproni took no action even after Snyder cited Sweigert's inappropriate, if not explicitly illegal harassment and cyber stalking. Even though Judge Caproni simultaneously presided over Sweigert v Goodman, she did nothing to curtail Sweigert's outrageous, vexatious behavior openly demonstrating approval. This inaction granted at least tacit if not direct support.
JUDGE CAPRONI PARTICIPATED IN AN ILLEGAL FBI PROGRAM
36. Judge Caproni violated Goodman's constitutional right to a fair trial and fair treatment under the law when she acted outside all jurisdiction to protect an illegal FBI program within X Corp that she helped establish in or around 2010 while she was employed as FBI General Counsel and Sharp was employed as X Corp's first in history, U.S. Government liaison.
37. Judge Caproni's violations of law in this matter in service of this illegal FBI program, inter alia invoke automatic disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S. Code §§ 144 and 455 but also render all judgments in this matter void pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). New evidence of fraud on the docket augments the strong evidence previously filed. (Dkt. 167 Page 94).
38. Judge Caproni acted outside her judicial authority and outside all jurisdiction, in contradiction of justice, the law and in violation of the U.S. Constitution when she acted to protect an illicit, clandestine FBI program that was not publicly known at the outset of this action and which she helped establish in violation of law, prior to her tenure as a district court judge.
39. Goodman published a report on December 22, 2022, titled The Twitter Coup, that is attached hereto and fully realleged in its entirety as if initially set forth herein. (EXHIBIT C)
40. The report provides evidence in support of allegations that Judge Caproni worked with CEO for Plaintiffs Sharp, while he was X Corp's U.S. Government liaison, and she was FBI General Counsel in or around 2010, to create an illegal secret program that granted U.S. government agencies including the FBI access to online users' data without their knowledge.
41. This illegal FBI program is currently being investigated by the House Judiciary Committee and the House Weaponization of Government Committee in Congress. (See https://twitter.com/Weaponization/status/1729184280650404084, https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1692242463497339387, https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1682024280853295105)
42. This previously hidden illegal FBI program was first publicly exposed when X Corp's new management fired former FBI General Counsel James Baker from his position as deputy general counsel at X Corp and released a series of corporate records exposing the FBI program, (the “Twitter Files”). (See https://www.nationalreview.com/news/my-jaw-dropped-explosive-musk-biography-reveals-why-ex-fbi-lawyer-jim-baker-was-fired-from-twitter/) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TwitterFiles)
43. On November 1, 2022, Goodman was physically attacked when he traveled to X Corp's New York headquarters to alert new owner Elon Musk (“Musk”) of the FBI program. Various NYPD officers who responded to the incident violated Goodman's rights and are now subject to a separate action, (See Goodman v City of New York:23-cv-09648-JGLC-GWG).
44. Sweigert has already demonstrated repeated intentions to inappropriately disrupt another Goodman matter he is supposed to have nothing to do with, Goodman v City of New York. Unlike here however, his scurrilous filings in that action were promptly stricken from the record as his letter motion (Dkt. 181) should have been. (See 1:23-cv-09648-JGLC-GWG Dkt. 5)
45. Judge Caproni violated Goodman's rights, acted ultra vires, outside all jurisdiction and in excess of her judicial authority when she acted in furtherance of an illegal FBI conspiracy that she helped establish and which she participates in continuously, up to and including today.
46. Judges may not conspire with agencies in the Executive Branch, or with plaintiffs to illegally provide them advantages in litigation as Judge Caproni has here. Because this activity is outside the context of all judicial authority, each and every ruling in this matter is void pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b)(4). Judges may not depart from the law at their own discretion. Judge Caproni exceeded her judicial authority by violating the doctrine of separation of powers.
47. “When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
48. A judge or other government official, “acts ultra vires only where there is no colorable basis for the exercise of authority at issue. A valid ultra vires claim rests on the officer's lack of delegated power, while a claim of error in the exercise of that power is therefore not sufficient to evade a sovereign immunity defense.”
Local 851 of the Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Thyssen Haniel Logistics, 90 F.Supp.2d 237, 238 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)
49. Extra-constitutional activity is outside all jurisdiction for any judge, but it is regular practice for judge Caproni. She has been admonished repeatedly throughout her career with accusations of illegally exceeding her authority. As FBI General Counsel, she opposed ending the unconstitutional Patriot Act, (See https://www.govexec.com/defense/2005/03/fbi-official-privacy-advocate-clash-over-patriot-acf/18839/) and was later punished for abusing it. The late John Conyers, then Ranking Democrat in the House Judiciary Committee said, “Today's hearing showed that the FBI broke the law on telephone records privacy and the General Counsel's Office, headed by Valerie Caproni, sanctioned it and must face consequences.”
50. Just as she did at the FBI, Judge Caproni enabled illegal activity here and as the late John Conyers said, she must face the consequences of losing subject matter jurisdiction.
51. From the outset, Judge Caproni has acted on behalf of plaintiffs and through Sweigert to deny Goodman's right to equal protection under the law and a fair trial. Just as Sweigert masks harassment within sham litigation seeking indemnity from actionable claims, Judge Caproni seeks to mask extrajudicial activity by taking action vicariously through Sweigert.
52. It cannot possibly be construed as legitimate judicial conduct for a judge to enable or allow the criminal harassment and cyber stalking of defendant's counsel by a known non-party with known malicious intent to affect the outcome of the case as occurred here.
53. There can no longer be any doubt as to plaintiffs's tru motive in bringing this action. Burdening Goodman with litigation, stopping him from broadcasting the presidential election and destroying his business were priorities. Curing injuries was irrelevant.
54. Judge Caproni assisted the tax-exempt 501(c)(6) business association plaintiffs, in using tax exempt funds, to jam up the mechanisms of justice with a lawsuit intended to deprive a tax paying U.S. citizen of his right to access the courts and the first amendment on the internet.
55. “For purposes of judicial misconduct, the ultimate sanction of removal typically is reserved for truly egregious circumstances that extend beyond the limits of even extremely poor judgment, but it must also be kept in mind that the truly egregious standard is measured with due regard to the higher standard of conduct to which judges are held. Removal thus is warranted when a judge exhibits a pattern of injudicious behavior which cannot be viewed as acceptable conduct by one holding judicial office, or an abuse of the power of his or her office in a manner that has irredeemably damaged public confidence in the integrity of his or her court.”
Matter of Simon (State Comm'n on Judicial Conduct), 2016 NY Slip Op 06855, ¶ 1, 28 N.Y.3d 35, 37, 41 N.Y.S.3d 192, 193, 63 N.E.3d 1136, 1137
CONCLUSION
Judge Caproni's actions in this case irredeemably damage public confidence in her court. These egregious circumstances extend beyond the limits of extremely poor judgment and for the reasons stated herein, pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b)(4), each and every ruling in this matter is a legal nullity due to judge Caproni's violations of law and abuse of Goodman's constitutional rights in excess of her judicial authority and outside all jurisdictions. For the reasons stated herein, Judge Valerie Caproni has forfeited subject matter jurisdiction in this case, and each and every orders and judgement in this case is deemed void and vacated as a matter of law
Dated: New York, New York November 28, 2023
Jason Goodman Pro Se Real Party Defendant in Interest
EXHIBIT A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
D. G. SWEIGERT Plaintiff, -against
JASON GOODMAN et al Defendant.
No. 1:23-cv-01228-JRS-MG
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR INVESTIGATION INTO FRUAD ON THE COURT
Defendant, Jason Goodman, (“Goodman”) by and for himself pro se, respectfully moves the Court for an order staying the proceedings and opening an investigation into documents filed and fraud upon the court by Plaintiff David George Sweigert, (“Sweigert”) for the reasons below;
INTRODUCTION
1. “No matter who allegedly commits a fraud on the court--a party, an attorney, or a nonparty witness--the court has the inherent power to conduct proceedings to investigate that allegation and, if it is proven, to punish that conduct.”
De Manez v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 533 F.3d 578, 582 (7th Cir. 2008)
2. David George Sweigert (“Sweigert”) is a serial pro se plaintiff who began relentlessly cyberstalking and harassing Goodman in 2017. Shortly after Goodman founded Crowdsource the Truth (“CSTT”), Sweigert announced plans to sue him “for the rest of his life.”
3. CSTT began as a personal project and hobby eventually occupied more and more of Goodman's time after his formerly successful Multimedia System Design, INC DBA 21stCentury 3D, (“MSD”) failed in the wake of Hollywood's turn away from 3D movies at the end of 2014. Goodman reconfigured his life and changed careers from Hollywood visual effects cinematographer to investigative journalist and talk show host. Goodman's novel and remarkably effective, internet based, crowdsourced investigative journalism technique was innovative in 2016 and has now become a core component of his popular news and talk show.
4. Over the years CSTT has evolved from a hobby into an unincorporated private business and has become the new focus of Goodman's life and work. MSD, his now defunct corporation is no longer active, and Goodman is not a stereoscopic cinematographer or CEO in Hollywood. Despite this, Sweigert attempts to repeatedly deceive Courts into believing this legacy corporation is responsible for Goodman's personal activity and postings on the internet.
5. Even if the alleged corporate entities were real, and even if Goodman were the CEO at the time of the alleged acts, 47 U.S. Code § 230 prevents anyone from suing any user or provider of interactive computer services for posting made by Goodman, irrespective of job title or stock ownership. Goodman, like MSD or MSDI is a unique user or provider of interactive computer services. Sweigert knows this from previous litigation, and seeks alternate venues to make similar claims in an effort to compel Goodman to defend himself in multiple courts.
6. Sweigert has a particular specialty in crafting complex sham litigation which is precisely what he attempts here. He has publicly declared his intent to sue Goodman “for the rest of his life” and has been following through on that promise ever since. To that end, he has extensively researched Goodman's life and attempts to conflate legacy corporate entities with Goodman's current anti-corruption journalism so that he may sue fictious corporations of his own design. This is solely intended to deceive the Court and compel Goodman to hire counsel to unwind the confusing corporate phantom and otherwise complicate already vexatious litigation.
7. Recently, Sweigert has taken to adding corporate plaintiffs who Goodman relies on for his business such as Patreon.com. Sweigert then uses the threat of endless litigation to compel social media platforms to terminate Goodman's access. Using this tactic, he coerced Google to terminate Goodman's accounts in exchange for dismissal from Sweigert v Goodman et al, which they did prior to any ruling from the Court. (See 1:23-cv-06881-JGK-VF Dkt. 62)
8. Sweigert likely intends similar action toward Patreon.com here. He persists in litigating against Goodman in any venue and any U.S. District Court that will allow him as he seeks out unique statutes that may damage Goodman while exploiting the Court. Sweigert's maniacal pattern and practice of pursing sham litigation has become so obvious it is now selfevident. The Court need only examine pacer.gov to see his history of nonsensical litigation.
9. Nothing about this approach is consistent with the acts of a litigant attempting to recover damages or cure injuries. Sweigert's enthusiasm for harming Goodman is so great, his personal obsession with him so deeply disturbing, that he shows no consideration for the vast resources expended or laws broken in the process of antagonizing Goodman with legal traps.
10. Sweigert selected SDIND to access laws specific to the venue and to abuse this Court and Goodman's rights. Because neither he nor Goodman live in Indiana and no claims pertain to any action directed at Indiana, Sweigert relies on fraud and deception to litigate here.
11. When Sweigert brought this action on July 12, 2023, it was nearly identical to a case filed one week prior in SDNY, (See Sweigert v Goodman 1:23-cv-05875-JGK-VF). This shotgun approach to sham litigation gives Sweigert access to any venue with a “Mad Libs” style “quick release” pleading that he then refines and amends to exploit unique aspects of the venue.
BACKGROUND
12. Since 2017, Sweigert has involved himself in nearly two dozen legal actions against Goodman. The sheer volume of filings, appeals, amicus curiae briefs, attempted interventions, and other vexations actions have become too numerous to track. Sweigert has filed so many legal actions against Goodman, he is running out of venues free of judges who shun his “judicial gamesmanship” as judge Valerie Caproni called it, when she said the behavior would not be tolerated, but failed to act, (See Case 1:18-cv-08653-VEC-SDA Dkt. 383 Page 4).
13. Virtually every day, Sweigert concocts some new scheme more complex than the last, in his ongoing effort to put Goodman in legal jeopardy. To that end, and specifically so he could access Indiana law, Sweigert fraudulently represented that 1522 Vance Avenue Fort Wayne Indiana was an address at which he resided or could receive mail when he filed a change of address, (ECF No. 4). Goodman alleges this outrageous fraud upon the Court was perpetrated in violation of 18 U.S. Code §§ 1341 and 1343 so Sweigert could claim the Court has jurisdiction over matters intended to harass Goodman. Goodman hopes the Court will use its substantial power to investigate these allegations and upon verification, act with its full strength to punish the guilty, including if appropriate, referral to Attorney General Rokita for criminal prosecution.
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
I. Fraud Upon the Court and Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1341
14. On August 5, 2023, Sweigert set the stage for multiple violations of 18 U.S. Code § 1341 when he filed a change of address notice with intent to deceive the Court into believing that he was either a resident of 1522 Vance Avenue Fort Wayne Indiana or able to receive USPS mail there. Neither claim is true and when Sweigert coerced litigants to direct USPS mail to be sent to that address in furtherance of the scheme to defraud the Court, he violated § 1341.
15. “The federal mail fraud statute criminalizes the use of the mails in the service of, inter alia, "any scheme or artifice to defraud." 18 U.S.C.S. § 1341.”
United States v. Nayak, 769 F.3d 978, 978 (7th Cir. 2014)
16. Surely the Court cannot tolerate litigation practices that violate criminal statutes. By knowingly filing a false change of address, Sweigert devised a scheme intended to defraud this honorable Court into ensuring him access to the laws and valuable judicial resources of the people of the state of Indiana for his own misguided, vindictive crusade to occupy Goodman's life with senseless litigation. By inducing litigants and the Court to send mail via USPS to 1522 Vance Avenue, he used the mails in service of and furtherance of his fraudulent scheme.
17. “The mail and wire fraud statutes require a scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. 18 U.S.C.S. § 1341. This language has been given a broad interpretation and may be read to reach certain types of fraudulent settlement communications.”
Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 2006)
18. The broad language and intent of the mail fraud statue, and the Court's inherent power and broad discretion, grant it the tools required to thoroughly investigate these serious charges and punish the Plaintiff with appropriate sanctions should they be proven true.
19. On October 30, 2023, Goodman received an article of returned mail via USPS. The envelope contained a motion Goodman had filed with the clerk of the Second Circuit Appellate Court and served upon Sweigert via USPS to his registered address of record in the case. (See Goodman v Bouzy Case 23-1100, Document 59, 11/13/2023, 3589511, Page2 of 6).
20. On November 14, 2023, the Second Circuit indicated it was also unable to send mail to Sweigert in Fort Wayne Indiana, (See Case 23-1100, Document 64).
21. Public property records indicate the home at 1522 Vance Avenue was sold by plaintiff's brother Robert A. Sweigert in 2018. (EXHIBIT A)
22. Even this honorable Court has been unable to deliver mail to the Plaintiff at 1522 Vance Ave, (ECF No. 9) because he is not a resident of 1522 Vance Avenue, he cannot receive mail there, and he deliberately deceived the Court when he filed a change of address notification. He did so for the ulterior purpose of harassing Goodman through manipulation of this case.
II. Fraud Upon the Court and Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1343
23. Sweigert moved to consolidate a case from the Eastern District of Michigan that he had been unable to serve because the defendant was a phantom corporation he concocted in a scheme to deceive Goodman into hiring counsel, (See Case 1:23-cv-06881-JGK Document 33).
24. Proceeding with good faith, intending to counteract the increasingly malicious Lawfare campaign, and with a view toward judicial efficiency, Goodman moved to consolidate this instant action with the SDNY and MIED cases on November 20, 2023, (See Case 1:23-cv-05875-JGK-VF Dkt. 77), albeit incorrectly filing the motion with SDNY before this Court.
25. Goodman realizes now that this was an error. Goodman is not an attorney and despite years of unintended pro se defendant status there are tremendous gaps in his knowledge of law and Court procedure. Goodman mistakenly filed the motion in the SDNY and only realized this after the filing. On or about November 22, Sweigert filed a letter motion with the SDNY explaining Goodman's error and his desire to access the venue in SDIND. (EXHBIT B)
26. Goodman alleges on information and belief that Sweigert violated 18 U.S. Code § 1343 when he filed two requests for summonses on the Court's ECF docket, (ECF Nos 14 and 15). These may be completely normal filings that the plaintiff made on Saturday November 18, 2023, prior to Goodman's flawed motion to consolidate, however several points of suspicious evidence raise questions about these filings sufficient for the Court to investigate further.
27. At the outset and given that this instant action was initiated by Sweigert on July 12, 2023, the timing of the request for summonses is by defemination, at least coincidental.
28. Plaintiff Sweigert is a professional hacker who has spent the last six and half years scheming daily about novel ways to bring malicious, vexatious litigation against Goodman. Sweigert is the author of The Ethical Hacker's Field Operations Guide: Learning the Art of Penetration Testing, (https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Hackers-Field-Operations- Guide/dp/1517763096/ref=sr_1_4?crid=2G7KR63CS38SC&keywords=ethical+hackers+field+s weigert&qid=1700670601&sprefix=ethical+hackers+field+sweigert%2Caps%2C67&sr=8-4).
29. Sweigert's hacking book teaches readers about topics including social engineering, sometimes known as deception, and penetration testing (“Pen Testing”) which involves repeatedly attacking a secure system, such as the Court's ECF Docket, until a weakness is found and exploited. An ethical hacker employed by the Court might do this to learn how someone could compromise a secure system. If Goodman is correct, and Sweigert used social engineering and Pen Testing tactics to violate the authenticity of the ECF docket, this would be a matter of the utmost importance and should prompt the Court to alter its cyber security posture.
PLAINTIFF'S HISTORY OF MANIPULATED ECF FILINGS
30. Previously in MIED, Goodman alleged Sweigert participated in a scheme to alter a filing with the intent to affect the outcome of the case. Goodman filed an amicus curiae brief citing evidence he found which provoked Judge Gershwin Drain to call for an evidentiary hearing including Goodman. Less than a day before its scheduled time, the hearing was canceled with no explanation. (See Sweigert v Cable News Network 2:20-cv-12933-GAD-KGA)
31. MIED offers a sophisticated web site to pro se litigants rather than filing via email to the clerk's office like most other district courts. When litigants upload documents to be entered by the clerks, the MIED pro se filing portal automatically sends an email receipt, like the one Goodman received after he filed the amicus curiae brief. (EXHIBT C)
32. It would be easy to prove or disprove Goodman's allegations by presenting the receipt from the MIED pro se electronic filing portal, however no receipt has been produced. It has been more than two years and rather than produce a receipt, both Sweigert and his brother have sued Goodman unsuccessfully without even attempting to refute Goodman's evidence.
33. A plaintiff with no suspicious filing history, who did not engage in serial vexatious litigation, cyberstalking, and harassment, might persuade a court that the anomalous evidence in the November 18 filing was coincidence or a byproduct of the clerk's normal processes. Here however, with plaintiff Sweigert, these suppositions cannot be taken for granted.
34. The creation dates on Plaintiffs filings at ECF Nos. 14 and 15 are in conflict with the filing date. The documents are stamped as filed on Saturday November 18, but inspection of the document properties show that it was not created until November 20. While it is possible for something like this to happen with a normal filing on a Saturday, it is unusual that the clerks did not enter the filing that following Monday and rather waited one day until Tuesday November 21, despite evidence of interaction with the document the day before. (EXHIBIT D)
35. These sorts of anomalies in document metadata can sometimes be explained by the normal activates of the clerks and the functions required of them in transferring litigants' filings from pro se filing systems to the ECF docket. However, in this case due to the plaintiff's history of litigation chicanery there remain reasons to be extremely suspicious.
36. One way the Court could verify the authenticity of the filing would be to have its own Information Technology (“IT”) staff examine the time date the email containing this filing arrived at the clerk's office as recorded on the clerk's computer. If the arrival time and date is November 18, then the email is likely authentic. If it is not, it is likely evidence of deception.
37. One way a nefarious plaintiff could make the Court believe they had filed the summonses three days prior would be to set the date on their computer back three days and then file on temporary-efiling@insd.uscourts.gov. To an unsuspecting clerk, the email would appear to have been sent the prior Saturday, November 18 not the actual date, Monday November 20.
38. A social engineering enhancement of this scheme might involve placing a call to the clerk's office late on Monday November 20, and saying something like, “I filed something on Saturday via email filing and it has not yet been entered, could you please check if the email arrived?” Such a conversation between a pro se litigant and a clerk would not inherently raise suspicion, and the unsuspecting clerk would be likely to find what appeared to be a two-day old submission that had simply been missed earlier that day. This is speculation of course, but based on the totality of evidence, an inquiry with the clerks would be a prudent step in an investigation.
39. Perhaps the strongest evidence of deception is the motive and timing provided by Sweigert's filing with the SDNY on November 22, 2023. (See 1:23-cv-06881-JGK-VF Dkt. 70). This letter explains his motive for wanting to access SDIND. Timing suggests the need to deceive the Court into believing his false November 18 filing prompted Goodman's motion to consolidate which is not true. Had Goodman filed his motion correctly, Sweigert would not have had the opportunity, need or idea that motivated his alleged attack on the Court's ECF Docket.
40. If the Court's simple investigation of the email arrival date does determine there has been manipulation, the Court must take swift and decisive action. Such illicit acts intended to gain advantage in litigation are an affront to the civilized dissemination of justice and the lowest form of deception. As arduous as Sweigert's years of legal battering have been for Goodman, the damage Sweigert does to society overall is far greater. By jamming up the mechanisms of justice with his fraudulent nonsense and criminal schemes, Sweigert denies American citizens access to the courts. This is denial of justice writ large. Sweigert is a menace to society whose more than half decade long screed of psychopathic litigation must end now.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, to prevent the ongoing manifest injustice and abuse of the Courts for vindictive, vengeful, or personal ulterior purposes, this Court must fully investigate these serious, evidence backed allegations of criminal action and fraud upon the Court. Upon appropriate finding and in the furtherance of justice, this Honorable Court must act to the fullest extent of its power and legal authority to punish offending litigants and preserve the integrity of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government which the disgraceful actions of Plaintiff Sweigert routinely diminish and attack for his own psychotic enrichment.
Dated: New York, New York November 22, 2023
Respectfully submitted, Jason Goodman Pro Se Defendant
EXHIBIT A
(IMAGE OMITTED)
(IMAGE OMITTED)
(IMAGE OMITTED)
(IMAGE OMITTED)
(IMAGE OMITTED)
(IMAGE OMITTED)
(IMAGE OMITTED)
EXHIBIT B
Plaintiff Sweigert's Letter Motion to SDNY Entered November 22, 2023
(IMAGE OMITTED)