Complaint Review: Jason Goddard film scam UNPHAZED - los Angeles Internet

Hi, it seems clear that this guy "Goodard" is up to something, other than what he's stated he's doing.  It's apparent in the writings themselves if you're willing to look at the writings and rebuttals objectively.  I don't know any of the parties, so I don't care.  I'm objective.

First, the dates given for the "vision" are so far apart, that no one is going to mistake that.  It's like if someone asked me, have you ever been to the that park, and I say yea, last year sometime, but couldn't remember the month.  No one is going to think twice about that if I get the time of year right.  But if I say, yea, it was ten years ago, when it was really fifteen years!  Now that's a red flag!  The first guy obvious thought the year was different than the second guy's years, right?  Red flag.

Another point, the second posting starts off as though someone else is writing to talk about Goodard, but in the second sentence it is revealed to be Goodard!  And he's a what?  Writer who can't write?  Or, he's a film maker who can't  keep his characters straight?  Really?  Please, by dissecting the linguistic value of what's being said, we can determine the intentions of the person.

In the third post, the person comes to the defense of Goodard.  But, I'll bring your attention to some facts.  First, the person says that a PA (personal assistant) "stole" some "goods" from Goodard, but how does the third poster know this?  I would suggest that he knows this because Goodard told him that.  I would suggest that he's not seen a police report, and has not consulted with the PA on the matter, and has no first hand knowledge regarding the "theft of goods."  

We can make this assertion through logical extrapolation of "modis operandi".  Which is a fancy way of saying that a person with motivation to commit and conceal their objectives and activities follows a methodology of sameness.  

The connecting action is that the third poster also states that Goodard has lost his license.  This is the common theme between poster three and Goodard.  Because, again we do know how the third poster knows that Goodard lost his license, because there is "no third person", and because it is "Goodard" who is still the victim of circumstances that "unfortunately" costs other people money, and again, through "no fault of Goodard's own".  He's the victim, right?  And again, I would suggest that the third poster has come to this knowledge directly through Goodard.  The third poster hasn't seen a police report and wasn't a witness to him losing his license, and he certainly didn't go with Goodard to a DMV to get a replacement license to see him pay money for a replacement license.

To recap thus far, the best we can say about poster three is that he's trusting someone he shouldn't regarding is public statements here.  The worst that could be said is that he's complicit in Goodard's actions and intent (a co-conspirator).  Poster two was, at first, supposed to be an anonymous poster, but then Goodard decided to reveal himself.  And poster one appears to be confused about lending his child's picture to someone who'd rather put someone els' face on the cover than his own whole face, so as to not be discovered.  

Summation and Critical Analysis:  Conmen enjoy the shadows and piecemeal accounts they give for their exploits.  They hate being on front street in a timeline comparison from what they've told one set of people vs. what they've told another set of people.   So, without even knowing these people, I am going to guess that the first poster who had different dates than Goodard's dates is in a completely different place than where Goodard is today.  And that the people in Goodard's current place are hearing the dates that Goodard has put here, & that the time frame between the meetings of Goodard and the first poster are separated by the difference between the discrepancy of their respective dates.

Yes!  I'm that good.

Whoever wrote this article has there facts wrong and shouldn't be using an eleven-year old boy's picture.  Jason has not been working on this film project for ten years.  He got the vision in 2002 and finished the script and copyright in 2003.  He came to Los Angeles in 2006 and held various jobs, one of which was in the SAG building in a real estate/foreclosure office.

I know for a fact that cast members did order shirts and received them along with other clothing items in order to promote this independent film.  There is nothing wrong with that.  The reason some people didn't get there shirts was because on of his PA's stoled them from Jason Goddard. 

He has lived at various places in LA including his own apartment and Veteran Housing.  He has held different jobs and has a Veteran's idea.  His driver's license was stolen and he hasn't made the appointment yet to get a new one. 

He has done many charity events and donations and doesn't publicize because he prefers it to be anomynous.  He does them to provide help to those in need, not to get credit for himself.

This is an independent film where there are not necessarily set guidelines on how you have to make the movie. 

The people writing the articles against Jason are using desperate measures to try to stop this film from being made.  They are even trying to scare and threaten cast members to get them to quit.  They are afraid they may have missed out on a good thing, so they will stop at nothing to ruin a man's reputation and dream. 

They have accused him of things that he is innocent of and slandered him.

if people no longer want to work with jason goddard that is fine, but when i get this report posted to my page with my 11 year old sons picture on it i am more than mad.

there is NO REASON why you would bring his picture along with my other son and other kids and post to such a page. this is between adults and now i am very upset. how bout acting like a grown up and changing the posting picture to one with jason on it.

that only seems right. not to mention the facts are not true that are posted, jason has only been n california since 2006. he wrote the screenplay in 2007. it is and always has been an inde film he created and once people joined the cast, acted unprofessional and were fired did all this stuff start. if you arent involved anymore let it be. move on. let it go already.

this is way over the line and now you have brought kids who are innocent into it. really? how bout leaving adult business to the adults. the threats towards people working for jason are out of control . LET IT BE ....