Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 4, 2019 - Jim Fetzer

01:34:04

JIM FETZER - The Raw Deal 06/19 - Jim discusses his loss in Dane County Circuit Court

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Hey, Jim.
	Yep.
	My computer seized up.
	We're back now.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Great.
	Mitchell.
	Glad.
	Okay.
	I think this is going to be a standard situation.
	We encountered Leonard Posner, who launched a lawsuit against me for describing the death certificate that he had given to Kelly Watt in 2014 as a fabrication.
	Which turns out to have been a fabrication.
	Nevertheless, the court ruled in his favor after excluding my most important evidence to forensic document experts.
	The judge in this case had narrowed the range of evidence I was allowed to permit.
	So I couldn't bring in proof that Sandy Hook had been a FEMA exercise.
	Where, in that case, any death certificates for purported victims would be fabrications.
	That was indirect evidence I wanted to bring to bear, as I explained in my answer to the initial complaint, but restricted only to direct evidence.
	When we discussed the death certificate Kelly had been given, In Chapter 11 of the book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, which was initially published in 2015, then in a second edition in 2016, I offered a variety of reasons for drawing the conclusion that it was a fabrication, including that it had no file number,
	That it had the wrong estimated time of death at 11 a.m.
	when the shooting officially took place between 9.30 and 9.40 or 9.41, so the estimated time of death was wildly off.
	While it had a dark texture in roughly the bottom two-thirds versus the top one-third, it appeared to me that the bottom two-thirds was from a real death certificate combined with the top one-third of a fake.
	In addition, there were many typographical or font size differences and variations throughout the document, leading me to believe again that it was fabricated.
	The location of the burial of the decedent was redacted, as was the social security number.
	I explained in the book that Dennis Camino, Who is the Navy's top electronic troubleshooter until he left the Navy and went to work for Raytheon, who is an expert on Photoshop research, where he's done absolutely brilliant stuff on this most famous photograph of the JFK assassination taken by AP photographer James Ike Alchins.
	It's known as the Alchins 6.
	It may be the one familiar photograph to most of the members of the audience.
	It's quite a panoramic view of the Lincoln right in front of the Book Depository.
	JFK is already clutching his throat.
	If you were to look carefully at the windshield where his left ear would be, if his left ear were visible, you'd see there's a small white spiral nebula with a dark hole at the center indicative of a through-and-through Shot which had hit him in the throat.
	He's clutching his throat in the in the background.
	You can see the Dow tax building.
	There's in fact the broom closet of a uranium mining company.
	That was a CIA asset that is framed by the fire escape from which three shots appear to have been fired by an anti Castro Cuban by the name of Nestor Tony Escadro using a man liquor Carcano.
	As the only unsilenced weapon that was used during the assassination is set up the acoustical impression of only three shots having been fired.
	Even though we have now identified eight different shooters, I've identified six in the past, only Damagard is seventh, with which I agree.
	And there turns out to be yet an eighth that what you might call the south knoll.
	There's a single tree there on the opposite side from the grassy knoll.
	I've now seen two photographs of a rifleman standing up from behind the tree.
	These are different photographs, not two replications of the same.
	One from Rick Russo, the other from Ed Tetreault.
	So we have actually eight shooters for JFK.
	The government would have us believe there was only one, Lee Oswald.
	Interestingly enough, He was captured in that very same photograph peering out from the doorway.
	Harold Weisberg in his Whitewash series in the second volume, also known as Photographic Whitewash, spends the last several pages explaining how the Warren Commission staff had had a terrible time trying to suppress the information that Lee Oswald was actually in the doorway.
	of the book Depository when the motorcade passed by, meaning he not only cannot have been the lone gunman, he cannot have even been one of the shooters.
	And yet, Google, Facebook and other of the social media are now going to reject any posts or blogs or videos that dispute well-documented violent events.
	Since we have the Warren Report, It would follow that the JFK assassination was well documented, and you're therefore required to accept that Lee Oswald was a lone, demented gunman.
	You're not allowed to challenge it by this new policy, just as in relation to 9-11.
	If you dispute the 9-11 Commission report, which blames it all on 19 Islamic terrorists who are alleged to have commandeered those four Commercial carriers and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan, then which are more absurd story or fantasy could hardly be envisioned.
	Then you're going to be censored too.
	I mean, you talk about the death of America.
	We have, we're now living in a censorship society where the deep state is intent on controlling everything we hear, everything we see.
	Dennis Camino discovered many photoshopped images in the Alt-Gen 6, so that when he suggested parts of this death certificate were photoshopped, I had reason to take him at his word.
	When Bob Sims wrote and pointed out all these typographical abnormalities with the different fonts and different spacings, I could verify that for myself by looking at the document.
	So I included those as reasons for concluding that this appeared to be a fabricated death certificate.
	Now, it would turn out during the course of research in relation to the lawsuit that I learned that many of my reasons for having believed that the death certificate was a fabrication were wrong.
	But the fact of the matter is my conclusion That it was a fabrication is right and has indeed been vindicated by the two document examiners whose reports were excluded by the judge on Monday during the formal hearing on what are known as motions for summary judgment.
	I was fairly floored When it happened, because the judge just said, rather casually, that those are just opinions, as though all opinions are on a par.
	Of course, they're opinions.
	The point being, in this instance, they're expert opinions.
	They're coming from persons who are highly qualified at the study of documents.
	It turns out we have four different versions of the Noah Posner death certificate.
	We have the one that Lenny put up on a blog in 2014 and invited Kelly Watt to obtain it, which she did and subsequently shared with me, where when I edited the book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook in 2015, she and I co-authored chapter 11.
	In which we talked about that document downloaded from a blog where Lenny was posting documents that were formally acknowledged there as having come from Leonard Posner.
	But where, when I was subjected to the lawsuit on the 29th of November after it had been filed here in Dane County on the 27th of November of 2018, The death certificate attached was different.
	It was one that had forms of certification that were not present on the one Kelly had downloaded.
	It also showed changes to the address of the decedent made by the father, Leonard Posner, in 2013, to which I shall return.
	The specific copy that was attached to the complaint was so poor as to be virtually illegible.
	Such that when the plaintiff's attorney, Jake Zimmerman called me, I said to him, Jake, do you know anything about Sandy Hook?
	Do you have any idea what you're getting into?
	And I said, that death certificate, the copy attached to the complaint is virtually illegible and legally useless.
	To which he replied that if I wanted a better copy, then I could write to the state of Connecticut and obtain one for $20.
	Which I thought was a very peculiar attitude for someone who's basing a lawsuit on a death certificate attached to the complaint.
	Now, in the complaint, it claimed that the death certificate I described as a fabrication was in no material respects different than the death certificate that was attached to the complaint itself that had been certified by the state of Connecticut.
	To which I replied that if indeed it were the case that the death certificate certified by the state of Connecticut was in no material respect different than the death certificate that I had characterized as a fabrication, then the state of Connecticut had certified a fabricated death certificate, which is a crime.
	It would turn out I was right about that again.
	Two other death certificates, two other copies or versions of Noah's death certificate would surface, where the first two I've described had in the first instance redaction of the location of the burial and of the social security number.
	The second had a redaction of the location of the burial, but no redaction of the social security number.
	The box for which was empty Dave Gehry would subsequently obtain a copy of Noah's Death Certificate from Debbie Aurelia, who is the town clerk for Newtown and the custodian of vital records.
	What's interesting about the copy that Dave got, which had the Debbie Aurelia certification on the left-hand side, but no state certification at the bottom, by Elizabeth Fugale, which merely certifies it's a true copy of the death certificate on record.
	Because he was obtaining it directly from the town clerk.
	It had a partial printed file number.
	The first of the four digits of which was rather obscure, but the other three differed from the handwritten file number on the copy attached to the complaint.
	I mean, what more blatant evidence could you have that something is going on that's wrong?
	Obviously, they couldn't both be authentic, but they could both be fake.
	I would subsequently reach the State Department of Vital Statistics and obtain five death certificates, one from NOAA, which would turn out to have the handwritten file number that wasn't redacted regarding the location of burial.
	It also, however, had a blank Social Security box, but four others in addition, one for Adam Lonza, the purported shooter at Sandy Hook.
	One for Nancy Londa, his supposed mother, another for an Averill Richmond, who was supposed to be another of the children at Sandy Hook, whose father was recently reported to have committed suicide, which I find highly unlikely.
	Those who played Sandy Hook parents in this elaborate charade split between $27 and $130 million contributed by sympathetic but gullible Americans.
	In the false beliefs, they'd actually lost children or loved ones at Sandy Hook divided by 26%.
	For the 20 children and 6 adults, that works out to between $1 and $5 million apiece for pretending to have lost someone at Sandy Hook.
	Most unlikely that someone who's a millionaire is going to commit suicide and whose daughter didn't in fact even die there because Averil Richman wasn't her real name.
	It was like Avi Urbana, who actually sang at the Super Bowl, which of course occurred 51 days after the event at Sandy Hook.
	We know it's her because she had an unusual birthmark across the right temple of her forehead.
	It was rather like the leathery surface of a football, you know, kind of like a tanning line, very distinctive, where a little girl looking strikingly like April Richmond with the same distinctive tanning line across her forehead saying at the Super Bowl.
	The fifth and final was for a dear friend of mine, William Brandon Shanley, who in fact had died of natural causes.
	And where all four of these other death certificates had printed file numbers where Noah's is the only one with a handwritten.
	It turns out now that as in the case of the death certificate that Dave obtained from Debbie Aurelia, mine had both Debbie Aurelia's certification, but also the state certification.
	And had no redactions of either the location of the burial or the social security box, which was once again blank.
	Well, in fact, I obtained studies from two document examiners, one of whom Larry Wickstrom is from Minneapolis, and who was said to me during one of several conversations, he found it mind boggling
	That the state of Connecticut was issuing fabricated death certificates and indeed was issuing different fabricated death certificates to different parties to the same litigation, which would be Dave and me.
	In addition, though, I had him backstopped by an even more highly qualified document examiner, A.P.
	Robertson from Los Angeles, California.
	Well, Robertson not only confirmed that Wickstrom was correct that all four of the death certificates were fabrications, but that he also had examined the Noah Posner social security card and that it too was fake.
	We already knew from a study done by Mona Alexis Presley that the passport The image of which Lenny Posner had put up on the same blog was highly irregular.
	It showed a snapshot for the photograph.
	The passport instructions are very strict about having a photograph looking directly at the camera.
	This one is not.
	It has very specific proportions for the size of which the photograph, the face, takes up in the allotted space.
	This one takes up much more.
	So it doesn't even require an expert to determine that the passport itself is a counterfeit, where you combine the fabricated death certificates with a fake social security card with a counterfeit passport, and you have a lot of evidence that there is no Noah Samuel Posner, which was confirmed by another affidavit, a study done by Larry Rivera, who had in fact contributed to identifying Lee in the doorway
	In Dallas, on the 22nd of November 1963, by following up on research that was pioneered by Ralph Sincay, who organized the Oswald Innocence Campaign, which you can find online, where Ralph is a chiropractor, is used to dealing with people who want to get their physiques into shape so they'll better fit into their clothing, and who had suggested to me long before
	That the way to identify Lee in the doorway was on the basis of his height, his weight, his build, his shirt, and his t-shirt.
	In fact, he's wearing a long sleeve, richly textured shirt that's rather tattered and torn.
	Marina would later tell Ed Tetreault that she remembered laundering that shirt, which Lee appears to have obtained in Russia when he was arrested.
	He had the same height, weight, build, shirt, and t-shirt as on the man in the doorway in the famous Alton Six photograph.
	So we already knew this had to be Lee.
	The government has insisted instead that it's actually Billy Lovelady, who in fact said he thought it was odd they'd be confused because he was two to three inches shorter, 15 to 20 pounds heavier, and incidentally,
	He was called in by the FBI on the 29th of February, 1964, wearing the shirt he wore on the day of the assassination, which turned out to be a short sleeve, vertically striped, red and white, very different shirt than the man in the doorway.
	We know, therefore, the man in the doorway had to be Lee Oswald, not Millie Lovelady.
	In fact, Larry would add the final coup de grace to the theory that it was Billy Lovelady by finding suitable facial images for both Billy and Lee to do superpositions on the facial features of the man in the doorway, which is accomplished by Larry would add the final coup de grace to the theory that it was Billy Lovelady by finding
	And then you can do, assuming the face is in the same perspective as the photograph you're superimposing, determine whether or not they are the same person.
	and When we conducted this empirical on the man in the doorway, it turned out that the image of Lee Oswald fit the man in the doorway's features hand in glove.
	But when he did it with Billy Lovelady, it was all wrong.
	The ears were too low, the nose was too large, the jaw extended beyond the jaw of the man in the doorway, clearly confirming that it was indeed Lee Oswald in the doorway and not Billy Lovelady.
	Knowing of Larry's expertise in this area of photogrammetry, which is the application of mathematics to the study of photographs, I sent Larry two images, which the plaintiff has actually himself confirmed are respectively of Noah Posner and of his purported older stepbrother, Michael Vabner.
	That was all confirmed during his answers to my second set of requests for admissions.
	Larry did not know who these I simply asked Larry, are these two photographs of the same person at different ages?
	Larry undertook a comparison and sent back a GIF confirming that they have the same eyes, they have the same eyebrows, they have the same nose, they have the same mouth, they have the same ears, they have the same shape of skull.
	Many properties of which are inviolable and remain constant during a person's lifetime, although you can break your nose or have a nose job, for example.
	Ears and the shape of your skull are properties that remain invariant during a lifetime, which is why, incidentally, oddly enough, the man who replaced Paul McCartney has been known to wear a fake earpiece.
	That's very, very strange.
	You're not going to hear of anyone else you know of who wears a fake earpiece, because his ears are distinctly different than those of the original Paul McCartney, whom he replaced.
	If you want more, you can check out the second edition of my favorite book in all of Moonrock Books, where we have a dozen.
	And I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
	Well, you'll find four chapters on the moon landing, four chapters on Paul and Paul, two chapters on the first death of Saddam Hussein, two chapters on the second death of Osama bin Laden, and four chapters on the end of World War II, the Holocaust mythology, to which I've now in the second edition added at least five more appendices
	Including on all of the above and where two of the chapters about the moon landing have been expanded and revised.
	It's a completely sensational book.
	I would say If you were to buy one book from Moonrock Books, I'd highly recommend you pick up, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either, which Mike Palachuk had suggested as a title.
	Someone might respond in that vein after hearing the title of what was intended to be our first book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, they might say.
	And I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
	And indeed, we did not go to the moon.
	I elaborate and strengthen the arguments for that conclusion in the second edition.
	But meanwhile, back at the ranch, Larry, establishing that, in fact, Noah was made up out of photographs of Michael Vavner as a child, explains why.
	We have a fake social security card, we have fabricated death certificates, and we have a counterfeit passport, because Noah Posner was a fiction.
	It was made up out of photographs of his older step-brother, Michael Fabner.
	Now, the judge sought to keep all of this proof out of the case.
	He wanted to focus exclusively on the death certificate and not on whether or not Sandy Hook was real.
	At one point he even said, He didn't care if Sandy Hook was real or not.
	He didn't even care how Noah Posner had died.
	He just wanted to know whether or not the death certificate were authentic.
	Well, it turns out that even though some of my reasons at the time were mistaken, those are the premises of an argument, the conclusion of which is the death certificate is a fabrication over which I was being sued.
	Even though some of my premises were wrong, my conclusion was right.
	And indeed, the proof is very simple.
	It does not have the certification of the town registrar, Debbie Aurelia, on the left side.
	It's a law in Connecticut that states not even parents are allowed to have uncertified death certificates in their possession.
	So the argument is actually very, very elegant.
	It came after a great deal of research, learning a whole lot more about death certificates than I would have preferred to know.
	I was prepared to present that argument at the hearing on Monday, but was preceded by sorting out a series of motions, including two that I had submitted
	To strike the affidavit of one Samuel Green, who is supposed to be the funeral director for the burial of Noah Posner, but it turned out not to be licensed as a funeral director, but only as an embalmer and also to strike The affidavit of an expert on DNA, because there was a problem with the chain of custody of the DNA.
	I explained to the court, it appeared to me that in fact, Leonard Posner and Noah Posner had real names of Michael Vabner and Ruben Vabner.
	In other words, that there was a parental relationship.
	Between the party known as Noah, who is actually Michael Vabner, and the party known as Leonard or Lenny Posner and Ruben Vabner, such that if you only tested, you get a positive result, except that you weren't actually testing the DNA of Noah Posner, you were testing the DNA of Michael Vabner.
	So I proposed expanding the DNA to include Michael Vabner, Noah Posner, Leonard Posner, Ruben Vabner, and Veronique de la Rosa, the mother.
	The judge, however, did not approve my motion for expansion of DNA, which would have allowed this case to be settled.
	In retrospect, That would have been such an obvious thing to do to lay to rest many of these questions.
	The fact the judge did not would appear to me to be a major error on his part.
	It was far from the only what I hope turn out to be reversible errors on his part because the decision he made in favor of the plaintiff was utterly irresponsible and ill-founded.
	And I am shocked Actually completely shocked by what happened.
	He not only vetoed the two motions, would not approve the two motions to strike, but he ruled out the reports by my two document examiners saying they were only opinions, when of course they were only opinions.
	But then too, in the book, I was only offering an opinion.
	So why ought I to have been subject to a lawsuit For offering my opinion about a death certificate that certainly appeared to be a fabrication.
	Indeed, as a forensic document examiner, Robertson from Los Angeles observed, a reasonable person looking at that death certificate published in the book would have, on the grounds that I cited, reasonably inferred that the document was a fabrication and therefore It would be indefensible to suggest there was any malice on my part, which there most certainly was not.
	I've simply been seeking to get to the bottom of the matter to expose the truth about Sandy Hook, which turns out to be a completely elaborate sham event designed by the Obama administration to deprive the American people of their access to weapons under the Second Amendment.
	Have no doubt that Obama was behind it.
	He modified the Smith-Mutt Act of 1948, which precluded the use of the same techniques of propaganda and disinformation within the United States that were used without by the Smith-Mutt Modernization Act of 2012, just prior to Sandy Hawk, and in the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2013.
	This was all set up to legitimize Sandy Hook as a legally operated operation, even though it was perpetrating a fraud on the American people.
	We know it went from Obama to Biden to Holder, then Attorney General, who went to Connecticut and met with the governor on the 27th of November to discuss with him the Obama administration's gun control agenda, where the government on the occasion of a press conference following
	The purported shooting at Sandy Hook explained that he and the lieutenant governor had been spoken to that something like this might happen, leading me to speculate spoken to by whom and something like this.
	What could he possibly have meant?
	There are really only two alternatives.
	He might have been told that someone would go berserk and come into a Connecticut public school and shoot up a bunch of kids.
	In which case, he obviously had the obligation to notify the school districts of the threat that they increase their security to ensure it did not happen, which the governor did not do.
	Alternatively, he'd been informed they were going to take an abandoned school, conduct a drill, and present it as a live event to promote gun control, which is exactly what happened.
	Eric Holder, we know, is a gun control zealot.
	We have video of him addressing a National Democratic Women's Conference in Washington, D.C.
	back in 1995, where he's telling the women that we have to brainwash the American people in order to change their attitude toward guns, as though guns weren't keeping us safe, as though guns weren't guaranteed under the Second Amendment, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
	Eric Holder obviously doesn't feel that way.
	He's taking a completely different attitude.
	He wants there to be gun control, and he was a willing participant.
	We know Biden was also involved in this scurrilous effort because Thomas Menino, who was the mayor of Boston at the time, appeared on the show Greater Boston, which was hosted by Andy Rooney's daughter.
	Uh, who, who was astonished when the, the mayor said that he was close friends of Joe Biden and that the vice president had assured him that gun control would be a done deal by January of 2013, which led Emily very reasonably to ask what in the world could happen to cause legislation to pass that fast.
	Biden wouldn't say.
	But obviously, it was Sandy Hook, or just a month and two days after the event on the 16th of January, Barack Obama would sign no less than 23 executive orders to constrain our access to weapons under the Second Amendment.
	Now, this continues to be a major plank in the Democratic Party platform, which is based on the false premise, just as I had false premises in In inferring that the death certificate was a fabrication, where my conclusion turned out to be true, but where the Democrats promote the false belief that the more guns, the more deaths from guns, and the more gun violence, which turns out to be false.
	In fact, they're inversely related.
	We know worldwide The greater the gun ownership, the lower the homicide rate in North America.
	United States and Canada have the highest gun ownership in the world and also the lowest homicide rate.
	If you look at South America, say, for example, Brazil, low gun ownership, high homicide rate.
	Look at Africa, low gun ownership, high homicide rate.
	Look at Russia, low gun ownership, high homicide rate.
	So you can have high gun ownership and low homicide rates, or low gun ownership and high homicide rates, which has now been confirmed by additional studies of the defensive use of guns right here in the USA, which turns out to occur between a half a million and three million times every single year, where Americans defending themselves from criminals are saving between 150 to 200,000 American lives every year.
	So if the Democrats are successful in taking away our guns, we're going to add a minimum of 150,000 to 200,000 lives lost every year because of democratic ideological commitments that have no empirical or scientific foundation.
	Mind you, because of my background as a philosopher of science, of course, I've looked for scientific and objective evidence in relation to the Sandy Hook event.
	And found quite a lot of it around, including, of course, Larry Rivera's study, which could be replicated by anyone else were they so inclined to do so.
	Now, not only did the court deny my motions to strike the unlicensed funeral director and the improper DNA study from exclusion,
	But he also just tossed aside my expert document examiners, even though you would have thought he would have had a keen interest, because after all, he said we had to focus on the authenticity or lack thereof of the death certificate.
	Who better to offer educated, expert opinions on this matter than document examiners themselves?
	At one point, and this just dumbfounded me, The lead counsel for the plaintiff, whose name is Jacob or Jake Zimmerman, offered the court two death certificates that the plaintiff had obtained from the state that were both properly certified by both the town registrar and the state, but which he never even showed me.
	They were immaterial and irrelevant because they were not the death certificate that was published in the book.
	That was a subject of the lawsuit.
	None of my protests or complaints were responded to favorably by the court.
	I felt as though I'd been run over by a steamroller by the time the hearing was complete.
	Indeed, I did not even have the opportunity to speak until the judge and the plaintiff's counsel had had a conversation about the forthcoming trial in October, during which a jury would deliberate over how much of an award To hold against Mike Palachuk and me, and whether or not Mike Palachuk and I would even be allowed to speak during the jury trial.
	I mean, this is absolutely stunning stuff.
	When I spoke, and you can find my presentation absent a few additional elaborations I made extemporaneously as I read the document on my blog, Sandy Hook Posner versus Fetzer lawsuit.
	Judge rules against Sandy Hook denier.
	You can see the four versions of the death certificate.
	You can see where I go through and explain that, although some of my original reasons turned out to have been wrong.
	Nevertheless, my conclusion was right, that the death certificate is a fabrication, and it's very simple because it does not have a certification.
	From the town registrar and the law in Connecticut holds that not even parents can have death certificates that are not certified.
	So the case was actually closed.
	Stunningly, however, the judge disregarded all of my evidence and ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
	And I've got to say, in retrospect, I should have seen it coming.
	I'm very sorry to say.
	My confidence in the courts of law in the United States, the ability of anyone to secure justice has been gravely shaken.
	Admittedly, because Mike Palachuk and I were representing ourselves pro se, because we didn't have the benefit of an attorney, I have no doubt that we would have been better off had we been represented by one, particularly during the hearing.
	But we've run through about 20 efforts to locate attorneys and no one wants to touch the case.
	It's too much of a political hot potato.
	In addition, by the way, to that blog, there's a second most recent blog by Mike Palachuk, We Seek the Truth.
	Mike makes many very appropriate points here.
	I'm very fond of this guy.
	He's a super human being.
	He may be the most honorable man I have ever known.
	He was an anti-war conscientious objector who actually went to jail for his beliefs.
	He actually served time in a federal penitentiary.
	Here's what he wrote in part.
	Monday's ruling in Wisconsin against Jim Fetzer and me was a substantial blow.
	We are still reeling.
	We asked for an attorney to come forward to represent us.
	Our book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, has now been banned for the second time.
	Jim and I are both facing $1 million in damages.
	I think it turns out actually $1 million against the two of us, so perhaps only a half a mil apiece.
	However, it is true there are vast lies being perpetrated upon the American people.
	We are trying to fight for the truth for the people.
	Because this is important, it is everything you have been taught to laugh at.
	Conspiracy theorists, a term introduced by the CIA in the 60s to cover up the JFK murder.
	The government has been lying for years, decades, the government and media.
	By now, we should be able to look at these events with a critical eye, and we should be allowed to question the American people or the victims of this, not knowing that their real history is the American tragedy.
	We don't know exactly how the different players are involved.
	The investigation would certainly profit from the work of someone with more resources available to them.
	We believe a knowledge of the facts and anomalies surrounding the case would lead any person to question whether anybody could have died at Sandy Hook.
	There's a lot more to the case if there's any journalist out there who really, honestly wants to explore.
	And we're very close to the break.
	But I have one more blog, the most recent, Or the New York Times, knowing better, nevertheless published a false depiction of these events, which may in fact actually qualify defamation by the New York Times against me, Jim Fetzer, and Mike Palachuk.
	Meanwhile, I'm willing to take phone calls here.
	This is not going to be a usual Wednesday show, so if you want to call in, Mitchell will take your call.
	The number 540-352-4452.
	number 540-352-4452, 540-352-4452.
	As we proceed toward the break, I'll introduce my most recent blog, Jim Fetzer, More Propaganda from the New York Times, What else would we expect?
	For good reasons have I described the New York Times as the Langley Newsletter, which has been powerfully confirmed by their most recent story about the Sandy Hook Posner versus Fetzer lawsuit, where they claim that Mike Palachuk and I asserted that Lenny had faked his son's death certificate, when what we inserted instead was that the death certificate was fake, not that he had faked it.
	Were you to read the Times story, however, it would appear that we committed the stronger offense, which makes for more effective propaganda.
	Here's a title in the New York Times.
	Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist loses to father of six-year-old victim over hoax.
	A Wisconsin judge ruled that it was defamatory to publish a book that said Leonard Posner faked his son's death certificate, which we did not do.
	And indeed.
	The claim we actually made that it was fake is one we substantiated in the course of our evidence, the presentation of which we were able to introduce to the court, where the judge clearly committed a wrongful decision that I believe was not in accord with proper judicial practice and which I hope to be the basis for an appeal or a motion for reconsideration.
	Meanwhile, we're here on the break.
	Again, I repeat, if you want to call in the number 540-352-4452, please call Mitchell.
	We'll handle your call and get you on the air with me today.
	540-352-4452.
	Please call Mitchell.
	We'll handle your call and get you on the air with me today.
	Jim Fetzer, this is The Raw Deal, and I look forward to your calls.
	This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal, where the New York Times published this article today.
	You're getting the latest, the most current developments, where it claimed that we had committed the stronger offense of claiming that Lenny had faked his son's death certificate, when what we asserted instead was that the death certificate was fake, not that he had faked it.
	Liar, liar, pants on fire does not quite capture the egregious insult to the American public perpetrated by the New York Times, because the author, Sharon Auterman, contacted me and Dave Gehry yesterday for comments about the lawsuit, where I explained to her in clear and unmistakable language that the case had been wrongly decided, that we had proven the death certificate
	We addressed in the book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, 2015, second edition, 2016, was in fact the fabrication as we had proven in our pleadings.
	I wrote her an email, James Fetzer, Tuesday, June 18th, 5.05 PM, to Sharon, Sharon, Thanks for reaching out to me.
	Yes, there is no doubt about it.
	Two document experts concluded that all four of the death certificates in this case available at my latest blog are fabricated.
	Larry Wickstrom of Minnesota found it mind-boggling that Connecticut would be fabricating death certificates and sending out different death certificates to different parties to litigation.
	His report and affidavit are attached.
	The second, A.P.
	Robertson, whose credentials are even more imposing, not only backed him up, but reviewed the Noah Posner Social Security card and found that it, too, is a fake.
	His affidavit is also attached.
	Although some of my reasons for having concluded that the death certificate was fake, as published in our book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, 2015, second edition, 2016, were mistaken.
	My conclusion for which I was sued was correct.
	In Connecticut, not even parents are allowed to possess an uncertified death certificate.
	This death certificate was uncertified.
	I laid out the case in court in very precise language, where you can find my statement here, alluding to the earlier blog I've been talking about.
	It was wrongly decided I'm going to do what I can to reverse the result.
	The American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history.
	Now, interestingly, of everything I wrote to her, she used one sentence, which was that final sentence.
	The American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history, which, of course, Proves that she got the email, that she had it, that she'd read it, and that she knew better.
	What that means is that this woman has actually deliberately made a false report about what I had informed her.
	Notice, I even attached the reports of two forensic document examiners, Larry Wickstrom of Minnesota and A.B.
	Robertson of California.
	To substantiate my assertion that these death certificates, including, of course, the one that Lenny gave to Kelly, which was published in the book, are fabrications.
	Read that again.
	Not only is the death certificate we published in the book a fake, but all of the others in this case are fakes as well.
	And the proof is straightforward and simple.
	But the Times, like the court, could care less.
	The Times went on to report the following in this article you can find today.
	In a dozen chapters, the book professes, among other things, that the school in Newtown, Connecticut had been abandoned years before a gunman killed 21st graders and six staff members.
	Why does she say a dozen chapters when there are 13 contributors, some of whom had more than one chapter?
	We had, I think, 16 chapters.
	I'm pulling up the book right now to take a look, but I mean, she even says a dozen chapters.
	Let me look.
	We have the preface and the prologue, then part 1, 4, part 2, 4, part 3, 4.
	That's already 12.
	part three, four, that's already 12, then part four, four more, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
	So there were 16 chapters anyway you cut it, More reasonably, you'd call it 20.
	And then there are four appendices, including the FEMA manual for the event at Sandy Hook.
	So she can't even get right how many chapters there are in the book.
	The Federal Emergency Management Agency, it claimed, had staged the event to promote gun control measures, which is true.
	And Leonard Posner, the father of the youngest child to die that day, had faked his six-year-old's death certificate in service of the conspiracy, it claimed, which is false.
	No.
	He didn't fake it, but he had a fake death certificate.
	It was uncertified.
	On Monday, Mr. Posner, who has made it his life's work to stop those who would seek to deny the December 14, 2012 school shooting, won a key challenge.
	A judge ruled for the first time that Mr. Posner had been defamed by the publication of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control.
	Nowhere would we learn that the book had 13 contributors, including six current or retired Ph.D.
	professors, and that we had established that the school had been abandoned by 2008, that there were no students there, and that it had been a FEMA drill presented as though it had been mass murder to promote gun control.
	Or that one of the other contributors, Paul Preston, who was a school administrator, was so troubled by what he saw broadcast from Newtown that day That he reached out to his contacts in the Obama Department of Education, all of whom confirmed that it had been a drill, that no children had died and that it was done to promote gun control.
	It's in the book, which you can download for free as a PDF.
	If you haven't already, Do yourself a favor, just put the title Nobody Died at Sandy Hook into your browser and download the PDF.
	One of the advantages you'd have over the first printing, by the way, is that it was only done in black and white, whereas you'll have all the images in color in the PDF.
	Here is more from the New York Times.
	This is a victory for myself and my family, Mr. Posner said in an interview on Tuesday.
	It's also a victory for the survivors and victims' families of all mass casualty events who've been targeted by these people.
	The advocacy of the group Mr. Posner founded, the Honor Network, has helped push corporations like YouTube and Facebook to remove thousands of false posts about the massacre And to provide new ways for users to report hateful content.
	But they don't know the difference between the truth and the false.
	This is the absurdity here, as though these Facebook, these social media giants had some special access to truth, which they obviously do not.
	Other family members of victims and survivors of the attack have also been involved in recent years in taking on conspiracy theorists on a variety of fronts, including through legal action.
	Judge Frank Remington of the Dane County Circuit Court in Wisconsin ruled on Monday that the co-editors of the book, James Fetzer and Mike Palachuk, had defamed Mr. Posner in their book by alleging multiple times that Mr. Posner had faked his son's death certificate to promote the conspiracy, which is false!
	We claim that Mr. Posner had distributed a fake death certificate, not that Mr. Posner had faked his son's death certificate.
	How bad is that?
	This is the New York Times.
	This is the New York Times.
	As I repeat, I refer to it as the Langley Newsletter.
	For good reasons, have I described the New York Times as the Langley Newsletter, which have been powerfully Confirmed by the most recent story about the Sandy Hook-Posner vs. Fetzer lawsuit, where they claim that Mike Palachuk and I asserted that Lenny had faked his son's death certificate, when what we asserted instead was that the death certificate was fake, not that he had faked it.
	I'm pleased to say we have a caller here I'm glad to take from the 179 area code.
	Caller, please give us your name and state and join the conversation.
	Captain Kurt from Colorado, Jim.
	Hey, Captain Kirk, how you doing, friend?
	Pretty good.
	I got to apologize from Colorado for George, what he said to you on Friday or whatever.
	That wasn't cool.
	You didn't need to be attacked as you're going to court on Monday.
	I'm glad you brought that up for the following reason.
	George wanted me not to talk too fast, and I assured him that wouldn't happen.
	But in the way it played out, Because I was kept back and back and back because they basically already settled the case before I was even allowed to speak.
	I actually did talk too fast.
	So George was actually giving good advice.
	In fact, the judge asked me to slow down so the court reporter could get every word right.
	She seemed comfortable, but I did speak too fast, so I wanted to say, actually, George, if you're listening, I think you were spot on, and under the circumstances, I talk faster than I ought to have, so you had it right.
	Captain Kirk, please do continue.
	Well, I kind of told you that the judge is, I felt like you were being set up, and now is when it really gets crooked.
	Because when a judge is out of line, and this is in Colorado, I'm speaking from experience of a judge fleecing my mom's estate for $25,000.
	You write to a judicial review board, and one guy in Colorado, one guy determines if it's even a complaint of merit, To give to the judicial review board who were like, half of them are appointed by the governor.
	And the other half, I mean, it's it's there's not accountability.
	So.
	Now, if you can appeal appeals tend to be a good thing, because.
	It might be that instead of one judge, which is easy to get a judge to be one guy to be a crook, because he obviously showed partiality against you and had already made his decision.
	By the way, you said he was talking to the plaintiff before you even said hello or whatever.
	So.
	But an appeals appeals court might be like three judges.
	Yeah, from my experience, that's that's your best hope, Jim.
	Captain Kirk, I think that's wise counsel.
	I do intend to make one or another or more moves about this.
	We're plotting it out.
	We have to have the transcript, however, before we move forward, and I will not have the transcript in hand until Friday.
	It turns out, however, that the plaintiffs requested the first copy of the transcript Which means I only have to pay the copy price, which turns out to be only $123 in this instance.
	It would have been, I'm sure, a couple grand because it was four hours long had I had to buy the first copy.
	So that's a minor benefit, but we have to go through the transcript to establish the case on the basis of the record reflected by the transcript.
	Have you ever heard of jurist dictionary?
	Is that an online resource?
	Yeah, it's a it's a class.
	I think it's like 400 bucks or 500 bucks maybe, but it covers civil lawsuits.
	And.
	The guy that runs it, I talked to on the phone.
	He's really cool.
	He's kind of like you.
	He might take interest and help you out.
	It's just called Jurisdictionary.
	This was a couple years ago, and I'm sure he's still around.
	He sounded like he is in great health.
	Well, that's very interesting, Captain Kirk.
	I'm glad you mentioned that.
	I'm glad you do.
	I'm getting good advice from a number of sources, and I'm very pleased to receive it.
	He might help you out if you just plugged his uh his uh course for him or something maybe because he's he's uh he's someone that is into the truth he wants the truth to get out just like all of us do so that listen to you um put out the truth so well Jim.
	It's crazy Captain Kirk how the court Restricted the focus to the death certificate alone would not allow me to bring in the massive evidence that Sandy Hook was an elaborate charade so that any death certificate for a Sandy Hook victim would have to be a fabrication.
	And then when I obtain the results, the analysis of two expert document examiners, he dismisses it.
	In my opinion, this is That was a completely improper action.
	It led to the case being wrongly decided.
	I have no doubt it's appealable on that basis alone, where he dismissed them saying they were only opinions, as though all of our positions were only opinions, except some opinions are better than others.
	And in the case of documents, what would be more appropriate than expert document examiner's opinions?
	And I'm sure those two guys have testified in court before.
	Yeah, they have very impressive credentials and it's interesting.
	You see, I sent all of that to this New York Times reporter by the name of Sharon.
	I included their reports, I included their affidavits, I included their CVs, so she would know that these were very imposing persons.
	Sharon Auterman.
	I mean, it's embarrassing what she has done here.
	Who knows how many people have ever read Nobody Died at Sandy Hook or would be aware of the allegation contained in Chapter 11, which turns out to be well-founded, that the death certificate was a fabrication, albeit not for all the reasons that I gave there.
	But the fact is, lots of people read the New York Times, so there's a massive assault upon me being perpetrated by this article in the New York Times.
	I mean, I think it makes the purported defamation of mine against Lenny trivial and insignificant by comparison.
	This is a massive assault by what is supposed to be the nation's leading newspaper.
	Even though I regard it as a propaganda organ, which it seems to be demonstrating quite conclusively in this instance, since it can't even get straight what it was that I was supposed to have been convicted of doing, which is describing a death certificate as a fabrication, and not for alleging that the man himself had faked it.
	I mean, Captain Kirk, can't we see the difference?
	Say again?
	You should sue them because what you've just demonstrated is she responded to your email so she intentionally wrote her, they wrote that headline even though they had prior knowledge that it's wrong.
	So they were acting maliciously to harm you.
	So you should sue them for slander.
	That's the first thing I said when you went through that argument before the break.
	Kirk, isn't that, isn't that ironic?
	Is that ironic that it could be the case that this New York Times, the mighty powerful New York Times, could have committed a far more serious act of defamation by attacking me after I had informed the journalist authoring the article of the facts of the matter and substantiated them with the reports of the two document examiners, their affidavits and their CVs?
	Yeah, she's as bad as the judge.
	I mean, the judge is so out of line That I think to take it to the appeal appeals level if it is like three judges instead of one there's no way three of them especially when they're at that level where they think they might become Supreme Court justice they're not going to sell out where a black put a black mark on their record like that as blatant as this judge did this judge should be removed I mean how does how does he say that expert witnesses Just have an opinion.
	It's already established by court that you bring in expert witnesses.
	I mean, that's a no-brainer, right?
	I gotta tell you, it's very, very strange what happened in that courtroom on Monday.
	I was not prepared for what took place.
	I was really floored.
	And it seems to me that something was grossly wrong, grossly wrong.
	It's a racket against you.
	The court is actually a for-profit corporation, I guess.
	So remember what Paul said, how they didn't let him into his court date because his ID was expired, even though it's already been determined that an expired ID is still an ID?
	Is still functional as an identification.
	Yeah, sure.
	And so somehow somebody at the front door had already been talking to people behind the the you know behind the gavel or whatever the judges chambers.
	Communication between the judges chambers and the guy at the front door.
	I mean, that's just.
	Someone going into the courthouse with an ID that's expired by whatever date they might be going to renew their ID.
	First of all.
	I bet that made no sense when Paul told that story, just like what the story you told about the judge talking to the plaintiff and never giving you any attention until he pretty much had already made his own decision about it.
	By the time I had the opportunity to speak, it was clear to me the decision had already been made.
	It wasn't going to matter what I said, even though I offered a clear, elegant proof that the document was a fabrication.
	The plaintiff's counsel, this guy, Jake Zimmerman, had already produced these death certificates.
	They said that the plaintiff had obtained for no oppositor from the state.
	They had both forms of certification, but they were irrelevant and immaterial because they were not The death certificate that I had described in the book.
	I mean, it was blatant.
	I was virtually shouting out, this is a shell game.
	This is improper.
	Those are the wrong death certificates.
	I have no doubt the record is going to reflect.
	I was stunned.
	Yeah, you should check out jurisdictionary and talk to that guy.
	And he's really smart.
	He's really smart.
	I very much like the suggestion.
	Why don't you hang around and I'll finish the blog here because this is so important and you may have further comments about it.
	Sure.
	Yeah, just stand by.
	The author who cannot properly qualify as a journalist but only as a propagandist repeats the false allegation that we had claimed that Mr. Posner had faked his son's death certificate to promote the conspiracy.
	Has to know better, given the statement I sent and the proof that I provided.
	She did not simply make a false assertion multiple times, but has to have done so deliberately, which means that Miss Auterman has qualified as lying for the New York Times.
	There is a real story here which would no doubt fascinate the American people, but the role of the Times is to conceal the truth, not to reveal it.
	And here I show the actual document from the book, which has this preface from page 181, Noah Posner's death certificate.
	Upon first consideration, Lenny's death certificate for no appositor looks authentic, where questions only arise when you take a closer look.
	For it to have been published by his father, Lenny, is a significant development, since it is the first concrete proof we have that any child actually died at Sandy Hook.
	As I have emphasized, there have been extraordinary efforts to suppress information about these 20 deaths.
	Over my strenuous objection, plaintiff's attorney introduced two copies of properly certified death certificates he claimed plaintiff had obtained for Noah.
	But those were not the copy published in the book above, which I had described as a fabrication.
	And because it is an uncertified copy, my characterization was correct.
	In Connecticut, not even parents are allowed to possess an uncertified copy of a death certificate.
	The copies he introduced were irrelevant and immaterial to the case.
	Truth no longer matters in America, whether in the courts in Wisconsin or in the New York Times.
	They understand who controls the news controls the culture.
	Anyone can go to my blog at jamesfetzer.org and read the blogs I've been talking about here, which have to be among the most important I've ever published.
	There were lots of other oddities about the situation, including the following.
	Lenny made this death certificate available to Kelly in 2014.
	But he'd already modified the death certificate in 2013, as it says right at the top, modified by Leonard Posner, father, and it gives the date in 2013, which included the address for the decedent, where I thought it was bizarre.
	I mean, no one changes their address after they're dead.
	But Lenny Posner changed the address for Noah after he was departed.
	From the address for his ex-wife to the address for he himself, which I believe was not explicable by Lenny's professed reasoning when I was able to question him during a seven-hour video deposition where he said,
	That since Noah had only resided there a brief time, but mostly with his father, he wanted to give the address where Noah had mostly spent his time.
	Frankly, that's an absurd idea, but the forensic document examiner suggested far more likely he changed the address because he didn't want donations going to his ex-wife, but rather to come to him.
	And this is a man who, by the way, in the complaint, Referred to his dear departed son by his initials N.P.
	He doesn't even refer to him as Noah Posner in the complaint.
	I, as a father, find that verging on obscenity that you would be referring to your child by their initials in a complaint that's supposed to be in his support and defense.
	We have another caller from the 512 area code caller.
	Please give us your name and state and join the conversation.
	Hello, hello, Dr. Fetzer.
	This is Janan in Texas again.
	Hello, Janan.
	I'm delighted to have you here.
	I was quite interested in what you said a few minutes ago about you requested to expand the DNA investigation.
	Yes.
	I really had not heard much about that, but it would seem that that would be a way to establish a positive identity Of the person, the natural person appearing in the courtroom going by the name of Leonard Posner.
	Yes.
	Am I correct on that?
	That one of the side effects of an expanded DNA investigation would be a positive ID on that person named, going by the name of Leonard Posner.
	Yes, yes.
	Particularly, you see, since I believe that the real names of the parties referred to as Leonard Posner and Noah Posner are actually Ruben Vabner and Michael Vabner, by having DNA tests of all the four of them, including then the wife, mother, Veronique de la Rosa, we'd be able to sort it out.
	But the judge denied my request for expansion.
	I mean, Janine, what in the world is going on here?
	Every time, and that would be objective scientific evidence about the identity and the propriety of the DNA evidence, was a judge declined to do.
	I was baffled at the time.
	Now that he's tossed my expert examiner's report, I think it's part of a larger pattern.
	Honest to God, I really didn't see it coming.
	Others were telling me they thought the deck was stacked.
	They thought the case was rigged.
	Until this point, I don't believe I really was taking it as being the case.
	Now, of course, it's difficult for me to deny.
	Right.
	I don't really know what to make of this.
	You know, it looks like Your efforts to bring concrete evidence to the case are just being thwarted and just thrown out before you even are allowed to submit real evidence.
	And the court accepted a case from someone named Leonard Posner as the plaintiff, whom they have no positive identification of.
	I didn't know courts could even entertain a case when they don't have a positive idea of the plaintiff.
	I don't know if I'm off track on that or not.
	Well, you know what?
	I was making the point from the very beginning in my initial answer, where when I received the complaint, I had the choice to move to dismiss it or to accept it with an answer.
	I was explaining from the beginning that there appeared to be, and when I served my counterclaims, that I believe a fraud was being perpetrated on the court because the party who was launching the lawsuit wasn't the person he claimed to be.
	So, you know, I was maintaining that there was an abusive process, that the lawsuit actually wasn't filed to establish defamation, but for the improper purpose of silencing Skeptics of Sandy Hook and others who do conspiracy research, that was the real reason, abusing the law to undermine freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
	That in the second place, there was a case for fraud and theft by deception because massive sums of money had been received by this plaintiff and others for posing as the parents of children who died at Sandy Hook, where they were enriching themselves between one and five million bucks.
	for feigning the role.
	And then third, the fraud upon the court, which I believe was represented by the entire lawsuit.
	I must say, at no point did I believe that the judge was actually taking my case all that seriously.
	In fact, he reiterated at the end what he'd said earlier on, that he thought this was a very simple case.
	It's a very simple case if you take for granted that Sandy Hook was real.
	But if you understand that in fact it's an elaborate charade, it's actually a complex case.
	And I don't believe that the judge, if he was in fact sincere, had the least inkling of the complexity of the case, which I was seeking to emphasize again and again and again.
	We have another caller, this time from the 408 area.
	Both of you, please do stay on the line.
	Area call 408.
	Give us your name and your state and join the conversation.
	This is Paul from California.
	How are you doing?
	Good, Paul.
	How are you doing?
	Shocking development, right?
	I think you were predicting it quite a while ago.
	Well, you know, you just, again, my experiences, excuse me, sorry for a second.
	Hang on.
	Oh, thank you.
	My experience is limited myself personally, but I've seen and read a lot more and you're just, you're just going into an unreal world and they just, they can make up and do whatever it is they want.
	By the way, the other person that called, I forget who it was, he was mentioning a jurisdictionary.
	And, uh, you know, he's actually still on with us.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So I, I, I took that course, uh, actually, I think one time I, I think I might've talked to as a Dr. Frederick Graves, if I'm not mistaken, but it's mostly for, uh, it would be mostly for a plaintiff would be my, my take.
	And it's, it's relatively conventional and straightforward.
	It wouldn't have done you any good at all.
	My best analogy would be like this.
	is let's say that it made you an expert at swinging the bat and hitting fastballs and curveballs, and you were ready to go, but then you go up to the plate, and their intention was to walk you the whole time, and you never got a pitch to hit.
	It doesn't matter how many legal degrees you have when the situation was as ridiculous as it comes.
	Go ahead.
	Well, I do have one question which troubled me, and I wasn't sure.
	But, of course, my assumption is you're going to go to a court case to decide the facts.
	Now you're going to have a so-called trial to decide punishment, which seems bizarre.
	Did you waive the right to a jury in this first phase, and you decided to let a judge hear it?
	Well, I mean, the plaintiffs wanted a jury trial.
	We wanted a jury trial.
	The case was complicated in the following respect.
	Only one of the three defendants actually had a lawyer.
	That was Dave Gehry, because he represents the publisher of the company Moonrock Books.
	A company cannot represent itself pro se and had to have an attorney.
	We not only had an attorney grounded in Wisconsin by the name of Reed Peterson, But we had an attorney from California by the name of Alexander Patali, who has a lot of trial experience, who was anchored in Wisconsin by way of Reed.
	In other words, Alexander's ability to practice in Wisconsin was on an ad hoc basis because he was associated with a local attorney.
	Now, very strangely and unexpectedly, my colleague and co-defendant settled, settled With Posner.
	I didn't even know about this until much later.
	He settled with Posner, and at that point, his attorney, Reed Peterson, retired.
	I mean, retired from the law, and thereby lost the anchor for the attorney Alexander Patali in California.
	Now, we going in had expected that first the attorneys would represent Dave, and then they'd represent Mike, and then they'd represent me.
	And we take care of each of us in serial order, but it didn't come to pass at all.
	And Dave actually gave up the book.
	He said he would no longer publish Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, which frankly... Yeah, that made me sick when I read that.
	It really pissed me off.
	Paul, you have no idea how it made me feel.
	Absolutely nauseated.
	And it's even worse because if you read the article about it that was from the Associated Press and even appeared at The Hill, which, of course, is a publication for those who work on Capitol Hill, he even apologized to Posner.
	He said he'd spent this time with Posner and he was now convinced that it really can't happen.
	I read that.
	Well, George Burns observed a long time ago that if you can fake sincerity, you got it made.
	This guy is very smooth, as Mike Palachuk observed.
	Very smooth.
	But I caught him in multiple lies during the deposition.
	Multiple lies.
	Let me give an illustration.
	He had about two dozen websites, domain names and all that, where Tony Meade, who was a brilliant student of Sandy Hook, had ferreted them out.
	So I presented this list of all these domain names and asked him about them because there were one for Tony Meade, one for me, one for Wolfgang Halbig, one for others who had been severe critics of Sandy Hook.
	And he said, he said, oh, he just gathered them to retail them that nobody seemed to want.
	Mine was available for 20 bucks if I wanted it.
	And I said, well, you know, when I first discovered you had that, I went to the website and I found it.
	And you had about 30 pages of material about me, most of which was true.
	But then when I went back later, it was no longer there.
	Well, guess what?
	I found it.
	And it turns out to say, James H. Fetzer, a life of insanity.
	And it's got the name of the Honor Network on every one of its 37 pages.
	So, you know, I mean, I unraveled this stuff.
	It's all in the record.
	It's in my affidavit.
	And honest to God, I believe at this point in time, the judge never even, his eyes never crossed the page.
	Yeah, well, so, I mean, this just goes back to what I've discovered myself.
	And you know now, there can't be any doubt in your mind that this world that we're living in has nothing to do with facts, truth, evidence, or anything else.
	It's, it's, It's a club, you know, it's an exclusive club and as George Carlin said, you ain't in it.
	Let me ask Janan and Captain Kirk if they have any thoughts they'd like to add to your observations, Paul.
	Captain Kirk?
	Yeah.
	Captain, are you there?
	Yeah, it's called the Club of Rome.
	Oh, the club is called the Club of Rome.
	Yeah.
	Ginon, did you want to add to this?
	You're so good.
	I agree.
	I used to have a little problem.
	I was too idealistic, you know, thinking that our whole court system was a joke.
	But, you know, it's being confirmed.
	To me, on this particular case, it looks like the judge actually facilitated fraud upon the court.
	I mean, facilitated.
	Made it happen.
	Entertained it.
	And I'm kind of thinking that if we can't get non-fabricated death certificates on Noah Positive from the state of Connecticut, we may not be able to get non-fabricated DNA I know, I know.
	Well, I think you're a wonderful person and extremely perceptive and I'm very glad every time you call in.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	I'm delighted.
	I'm delighted every time you call in.
	Paul, further thoughts of yours?
	Well, just for the fun of it, if you're ever interested, there's a piece, it's now in multiple locations, I've found it before, but there's supposedly a former federal judge by the name of Dale Brown, and one of the titles I think one time I came across was, you know, Confessions of a Former Federal Judge, or something like that, along those lines.
	But if you just put in Former Federal Judge Dale Brown, you'd probably pull up something Where he supposedly, you know, was revealing the truth about the way the system works.
	And in another place, I read and heard the same thing, is that when you get to a certain level, certainly when you become like a federal judge, and I don't know if it's the same is true in various levels in the state, but you actually go to like a seminar.
	And they actually tell you you're instructed, in some cases even given like a little notebook guideline about how to deal with people like us, how to deal and to rule against patriots and truth seekers and people that challenge jurisdiction and do all the how to deal and to rule against patriots and truth seekers and people that challenge jurisdiction and do all the other things that essentially
	I mean, the one discovery that I made, I spent probably two and a half to three years dabbling in the law, mostly concerning my own case, but also I helped a few other people with just basic, simple stuff.
	You know, the majority was traffic and, you know, occasionally little, you know, tax stuff, right?
	But it's the same everywhere, no matter what.
	And you run into all these arcane rules and procedures that nobody could possibly know them all.
	And they'll pull, literally, they will pull the quintessential rabbit out of the hat and say, oh, this is what now decides your case.
	And it has nothing to do with anything.
	And you've never even heard of it before.
	And you just, you're not prepared for it.
	You just literally, you'll sit there, you know, in court, or I've done it reading case law.
	I've actually, you know, read court decisions before, and you get to a certain page and you read a certain paragraph or two, and literally your mouth will drop open.
	Because you realize, oh come on, no grown man who has an education could actually think this or believe this.
	Because they so convolute and twist things in such a way, they even have a term for it, they call it legal word But, again, I don't know what happened in your case.
	I can't imagine this judge was not talked to, okay?
	But the chances are very good, no matter how nice of a profile he had and how many good reports you could read about him, you know, that the fact of the matter is it's more than likely he was probably already corrupt.
	You know, he could indeed have come from, as you reported on the air, a long line of, upright, you know, judicial professionals, you know, I don't know.
	But normally most people to attain that position and to and to maintain that position, they sort of have to have some degree of corruption or they just find a way to get rid of them.
	This has been my what I've seen and experienced and what I've heard others testify to time and time again.
	Well, I got to tell you, Paul, I feel as though I have been very naive in that going through this process has stripped the scales from my eyes.
	I have thought American courts were a place where one could secure justice.
	I now have serious doubts, serious doubts based upon my own experience.
	Right, right.
	But going back to my initial question.
	The way that I look at it, my simplistic logical mind would have looked at a case like this as A, was there defamation?
	And B, was it based upon truth or not?
	Right?
	And it seems to me that that really wasn't decided.
	It was decided by this judge without any kind of a, you know, what you call a procedures, right?
	It was just a decision on his part, which is why I asked the question, did you at some point waive your right to a jury?
	Because I'm assuming The basis of this case, you were entitled to a jury trial to have the jury decide if you indeed did defame this man.
	Instead, the judge decided it.
	Yeah, look, I mean, I'm telling you, Paul, I'm so naive about the law and the way this was handled.
	I have no doubt whatsoever that I have made mistakes.
	I mean, I have been, you know, and if I overlooked, The requirement or demand for a jury trial.
	I certainly wanted a jury trial.
	I always assumed we'd get a jury trial.
	And, you know, but I also recognize that motions for summary judgment are an occasion when the judge can based upon evidence presented.
	That it's not necessary to send it to a jury because none of the basic facts are in dispute.
	And I think that, in a way, the agreement on the facts was manufactured.
	For example, each side presents their list of purported undisputed findings of fact.
	They submitted 128 purported undisputed findings of fact.
	We submitted 90.
	We replied to each of their 128.
	We must have disputed 120.
	The judge actually said he only read two or three.
	So, I mean, what does that tell you?
	He only read two or three when we were disputing.
	If he read three, 125 more that he never even read.
	So that may be another basis for a reversible error on his part.
	I think he committed a number of blunders here.
	That, you know, have to be ferreted out.
	He was admitting this.
	It would be in the transcript.
	So what we have to do is to look at the transcript and go through it with a fine tooth comb.
	Right.
	You know, and what this reminds me of, too, is so before, you know, we have the so-called the conspiracy community, which I kind of feel like that really got going in, you know, the early 2000s.
	That would be my take on it.
	But before that, there was, you know, starting back, I believe, in For me, the 80s, what I would call the Patriot, you know, so-called community.
	So before, you know, the Internet came along, there was various people and, you know, they had seminars or they tried to sell courses and various things.
	And there used to be what's known as Barrister's School of Common Law.
	I remember that was George Gordon, I believe, is the guy that started that.
	These all had to do with basically trying to combat the corruption of the U.S.
	courts.
	So my background on this is quite lengthy, but the reason I mention this is coming full forward to today and the time that I've spent online looking at, listening to, you know, reading, watching all sorts of various, you know, people in different types of cases.
	Also, time and time and time again, the same theme comes up, which is they don't read your paperwork.
	You could be the greatest scholar in the world and put together the most unbelievable set of documents in multiple stages of the proceedings.
	But I can't even tell you how many times I read or heard other people say, just be prepared for one thing, that they either will not read your documents or they'll just glance at them, which has got to be the most infuriating thing in the world.
	And that's why, to be honest with you, I don't think I'm ever going to go to a courtroom again unless they're dragging me into it for any reason.
	And by the way, just sort of keeping with a joke I made before, the best advice I gave you was to go in armed, so that way you could have dispensed justice the way it's meant to be dispensed.
	Well, I think that's pretty fascinating, Paul.
	Let me see if Kirk and Janan have things to say they'd like to add.
	Janan, would you like to add on to this?
	No, it's been very enlightening and I'm a Christian and I'm going to continue praying for you and it ain't over till the fat lady sings.
	This is round one and I guarantee you there are going to be some surprising twists and turns as this case moves forward.
	Captain Kirk, would you like to add a word or two here?
	Yeah, I said that the court is the bar is the alcove.
	And that's Stanley Kubrick's movie Eyes Wide Shut and where he tries to expose them.
	So to me, it sounds like that judge's eyes were definitely shut.
	He said he settled.
	He knew what was going to do to you before he even walked in and everybody stood for him.
	I wish I didn't agree with that, but I can't find a basis to disagree.
	It's really startling to me.
	We have another caller here, but I think it's from Australia.
	Bill, is that you?
	Bill?
	Yeah, it's me.
	Yeah, I just thought I'd ring in.
	I got held up and I heard part of the show.
	It seems like you had a bit of bad luck there.
	Well, go ahead, Bill.
	We got about two minutes before we're off the air.
	Yeah, OK, OK.
	I'll say my bit.
	Now, it seems to be that you might be up for some massive bills.
	And maybe you should set up a GoFundMe site or something, you know, like they did for Sandy Hook, and try and get some money, because it seems to me that you might have to pay a lot of money, you know?
	Well, you know, they even kicked me off of PayPal.
	I can't even use PayPal.
	In other words, they've been after me for a long time.
	I apparently represent much more of a threat to the deep state than even I have ever surmised.
	Bill, I'm glad you got the chance to get a few words in.
	Let's have a final remark here from Paul, and then I'll go down the list.
	Paul, just a few seconds.
	Sure.
	Before I say what I was going to say at the beginning of the call, I just want to say, I don't think I have to say it, but don't you dare apologize and don't you dare pay them one cent.
	100% not going to happen.
	I let Dave know I was, shall we say, disenchanted.
	Janan, would you like to say a final statement?
	No, I've pretty well said my piece.
	Thank you.
	Well, I was delighted you were here.
	Captain Kirk.
	Kirk, are you there?
	Yes, Kirk.
	If he's not, Jim, what I was going to say, but I decided not to just to make it light at the beginning when I called in, I was going to say, but Jim, I thought you said truth was the ultimate defense.
	Yeah, I know.
	I know, Paul.
	I know.
	I had the truth.
	I had the truth.
	It didn't make a damn bit of difference.
	Didn't make a damn bit of difference.
	Take the truth and a $10 bill and go have yourself a drink.
	I will have a drink.
	I will have a drink, by God.
	I will have a drink.
	Probably a gin and tonic.
	It's my favorite next to maybe Long Island iced tea.
	If anyone's never had one, try it.
	You're going to like it.
	It's wonderful.
	If I was in Wisconsin, I'd buy you one.
	Paul, very good.
	If we're together, I'll take you up on that.
	I want to thank Mitchell for his excellent work in producing the show.
	Absolutely reliable standby guy.
	He's quite brilliant himself.
	And of course he guest hosts for me on a intermittent basis.
	And I'm really grateful for that.
	So I want to thank everyone out there who has been following this show.
	I shall persevere.
	This was just round one.
	Standby.
	There are going to be many twists and turns in what is to follow.
	I guarantee.
	I ain't done yet.
	I've just begun to fight.
	So thank you all.
	Thank you all.
	Paul Ginan, Captain Kirk, Mitchell, George, too.
	No, you weren't on the air here, George.
	You made excellent advice.
	And the circumstances led me to... Thank you.

▲