Another Legal Transposable Model To Impeach A Witness, A Plaintiff & Defendant - Fraud Upon The Court - Steele v. Goodman

It is never a great idea to bear false witness in the public square, where, in this instance, it is youtube, which, in this particular moment of time, is an attempt to obviate of law and policy, and possibly another election.

In furtherance of my position that it is never a good thing to conjure up evidence, to perform some kind of black magic in a court of law, for the purposes of casting a spell upon yourself, to make people respond in awe, as you have transformed into a wizard witness, it pisses alot of people off when everyone knows you are lying.

This is nothing but two idiots actually believing that due process is nothing but a joke by and through propaganda.

Falsely advising any branch of government in the formation of public policy, which, in this particular situation, is the judicial branch, may, after further review, be considered a nefarious act of infecting justice with the virus of false claims, where action may be taken to identify the epidemiology, or rather, "who told you that lie, how much money did you make off this lie, how many other people did you pass this lie off to, and who paid you?"

Perhaps, we should embrace the concept of investigating the investigator through intervention of an intervener, or more intuitively, a whistleblower?

If an attorney lies in the court, the attorney will face penalties of being stripped of licensure and held to the laws of the land.

But what if a pro se litigant falsely verifies evidence as proof in the process of a claim in a court of law?

Impeachment of the witness?

What penalties will the pro se face?

When you have a document notarized, you do it under penalty of law.

Now, what that particular law is, would be something left to the judge, or referral, since it is a situation of wire fraud.

So, what would happen if there was a superseding matter of interest, whereby, the evidence presented into the court is being done, intentionally, in a pathetic attempt to cover up what is of interest in such superseding matter, like...um... the 2016 election interference, but, hey, what do I know?

I know this is just another transposable legal model because the Detroit Land Bank Authority basically did the same lying in a civil court with fake ass foreclosures, fake ass quiet titles, fake ass mortgages, fake ass youtube videos about what they do.

I also know that this looks very messy.

I bet it will get messier.

I like messies.

#maytheheavensfall

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
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young (Settlement)
Demand: $15,500,000
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

ORDER that this matter comes before the Court sua sponte.

The Court has authorized pro se Defendant Jason Goodman to bring an Apple MacBook Pro l 611 and Apple iPhone to the July 15, 2020 Show Cause Hearing should Goodman require those devices to present evidence to the Court.

The Court reminds Goodman, consistent with Local Civil Rule 83.3 for the Eastern District of Virginia and General Order 2020-11, that [t]he taking of photographs and operation of tape recorders in a courtroom or its environs, and radio or television broadcasting from a courtroom or its environs during the progress of or in connection with judicial proceedings, including proceedings before a magistrate judge or bankruptcy judge, whether or not Court is actually in session, is prohibited. E.D. Va. Loe. Civ. R. 83.3.

Under no circumstances shall Goodman record, tape, or otherwise create a secondary record of the Show Cause Hearing.

Goodman SHALL only power on or use his electronic devices after requesting, and receiving, express permission from the Court. The Court does not anticipate authorizing any electronic presentation of evidence at this time.

Consistent with this Court's July 2, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order, and due to the unique nature of this case, both Goodman and Counsel for Plaintiffs remain responsible for providing "(1) two paper copies of all evidence that has been disclosed (with verification as to how and when it was disclosed) since the Initial Pretrial Conference on July 31, 2019; (2) two paper copies of all requests for evidence (with verification as to how and when it was requested), including but not limited to emails, interrogatories, or Rule 26 disclosures." (July 2, 2020 Mem. Op. 17, ECF No. 196.)

The Court reminds all Parties that "[a]ny verification shall be presented under penalty of perjury." (Id.).

Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 7/14/20. (khan, ) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

(2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.
(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.
(B) Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report—prepared and signed by the witness—if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. The report must contain:
(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;
(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;
(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;
(iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;
(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and
(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.

28 U.S. Code § 1746.Unsworn declarations under penalty of per­jury

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1)If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature)”.
(2)If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature)”.
(Added Pub. L. 94–550, § 1(a), Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534.)

FUN FACT! YOU CAN IMPEACH A WITNESS

Rule 608. A Witness

(a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked.

(b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:

(1) the witness; or

(2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about.

By testifying on another matter, a witness does not waive any privilege against self-incrimination for testimony that relates only to the witness’s character for truthfulness.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©