Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 2, 2020 - Jim Fetzer

01:44:54

The Fetz Presents: Alexander Petale, Esq., on the Defendant's Appeal of the Pozner v. Fetzer Verdict

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Very good.
	I think this will work now.
	Very good, Alexander.
	I think we're good to go.
	Go ahead, pick up now, you know, the trial, your thoughts.
	I'm especially interested in your evaluation of the appeal, because the appeal is a rather astute dissection of problems that were encountered here during the course of this Absolutely.
	So, as I had said, I believe, during an earlier broadcast, I thought that the, based on my reading of Wisconsin law, now I want the listeners to realize I'm not, I do not regularly practice law in Wisconsin.
	I practice in California and have been doing so for approximately 22 years.
	Very, very litigation-oriented, heavily litigated, very heavily litigation-oriented practice.
	So it's a lot of courtroom experience, a lot of experience with pleadings, meetings with judges, opposing counsel, and scheduling conferences.
	And I was a little bit concerned that the judge in this particular case, in your case, James, seemed to be accelerating the calendar.
	But that's not what really concerned me.
	Primarily was what I thought were errors that the court made.
	Regarding an abuse of judicial discretion as to a refusal to admit significant evidence, substantial evidence, evidence which you had put before the court and we had been prepared to put before the court, which the court absolutely refused to allow.
	And also, I think the court failed to follow, made an error of law when it granted a summary judgment
	against you in favor of Posner but did not apply the federal law of Gertz versus Robert Welch Publishing or the Denny case in which is the Wisconsin decision which specifically holds that in order for a plaintiff, it's the plaintiff's burden in a defamation case in Wisconsin to prove that the defendant intended to harm or negligently harm the plaintiff.
	And based on reading of the record in the appellate brief, Leonard Posner did not make that showing.
	Oh, you're absolutely right.
	My opinion is 100% correct.
	They originally were going to charge me with, you know, a malicious publication, which would be impossible to prove.
	Because I had been very diligent.
	I had brought in 13 different experts, including six SCARGA retired PhD professors, to establish the case that the school had been abandoned by 2008, that there were no students there, that it was a two-day FEMA exercise presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	And Alexander, as you know, we had a mountain of evidence which the court Would not allow me to present.
	I was shocked because in my original response, and as you know, but our audience may not, when one is issued with a complaint for a lawsuit, you have two options.
	You can attempt to dismiss, move to dismiss the suit.
	Or you can provide an answer.
	Because of the mountain of evidence we had published in the book, I felt an answer was very appropriate because I look forward to the opportunity to present it in a judicial framework and get it out to the public.
	By the way, for the audience joining us now, Alexander and I had 10 minutes or so of difficulty connecting, so you actually have missed very little.
	Let me simply mention he's a distinguished trial attorney from California.
	He has over 50 trial victories under his belt.
	He was involved in representing the publisher in the case early on and was, in my opinion, the first to discern that this trial was not being conducted in accordance with the legal requirements for a defamation case.
	Alexander, I mean, as you were starting to... Yeah, go ahead.
	Can I give a little sketch of a background for people who may be listening for the first time?
	Yeah.
	I want the audience to understand that you were the gentleman, along with Wolfgang Haubeck, who were perceptive enough by the exercise of critical thinking skills to see that something was amiss with the set of facts that were released by the mainstream media regarding the shooting of allegedly 26 people, 6 teachers and 20 children.
	In the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and I believe the date was December 6th of 2012.
	Am I correct?
	It was December 14th.
	December 14th.
	Yeah, December 6th was my birthday, Alexander.
	That may be the occasion for that.
	Well, in any event, what first struck me was that, of course, initially when I was, you know, I believe I was riding in my car coming back from the courthouse at about 9.30, 10 a.m.
	On December 14th of 2012, when I heard this terrible, upsetting news.
	And of course, it's depressing to be confronted with a story on the radio, which you're accustomed to trusting these as actual news, that someone had been so insane that they had allegedly killed their mom, taken the guns from the house, and then went to the local elementary school and committed a mass murder.
	And so naturally, as a human being with some compassion, I had a little bit of a depression, but nevertheless had to get through the day.
	And it was probably at least maybe five or six months that passed before I started surfing the internet and seeing, realizing that there were irregularities in this story.
	And I think it was eventually came out that you were able to demonstrate Some very, very strange facts.
	James, isn't it true that this alleged mass murder was published on the internet on December 13th, the day before it allegedly happened?
	Well, I think what you're alluding to, Alexander, is that there were members, participants in the two-day FEMA exercise with a rehearsal on the 13th, going live on the 14th, who put up donation websites the day before the shooting.
	In fact, Adam Lanza, the purported shooters, Death was even recorded in the Social Security Death Index as having occurred on the 13th, making his feat in shooting 20 kids and six adults the following day all the more remarkable.
	Right, exactly.
	And then I also saw some photographs and some film footage from Wolfgang Halbe, later on, had gone to Connecticut to seek documents to prove that this reporting was not accurate and he had received an admission from a public official at the town of Newtown who made the admission that FEMA had brought porter parties to the scene of the massacre before it occurred.
	Yeah, the point you're making Alexander is that Wolfgang Halbig, who of course is Former Florida State Trooper, a former U.S.
	Customs agent, I mean, a very responsible guy.
	He's a former school principal, but also a nationally recognized school safety expert.
	Sought to make FEMA requests and phone calls just to learn what happened.
	Alexander, his motives were so pure.
	He just wanted to find out what happened so he could advise other school systems how to make sure it didn't happen to them.
	And he noticed that his FOIA requests were being unanswered, his phone calls weren't being returned, and before he knew it, there were two homicide detectives in a local precinct on the porch of his home in his gated community in Florida.
	Telling him they were there on behalf of the Connecticut State Police and that if he kept asking questions about Sandy Hook, he would be prosecuted.
	Can you imagine the insanity of that?
	How insulting.
	But he dug in.
	He's like a bulldog.
	And in one of the numerous hearings he had, formal hearings with sworn witnesses, where the state was constantly trying to undermine him, for example, by notifying the witnesses that they didn't need to appear after all, without his permission or authority, he had on one occasion deposing Patricia LaLorda, who is the first select man in Newtown, a position equivalent to mayor,
	Asserting that the sign, Everyone Must Check In, had not been placed there by the town, and when they pursued, she acknowledged it had been put there by Homeland Security.
	But of course, Homeland Security, on the official narrative, had nothing to do with any of this, not to have been present.
	So that was a very telling admission.
	Yes, and I saw that footage where she actually made that admission, that on the day of the shooting, person, the entity responsible for the placement of the sign, everyone must check in, was Homeland Security.
	So that's totally inconsistent with a version of the facts which would indicate that this was an unexpected attack that occurred by someone who was mentally deranged.
	Yes.
	Totally inconsistent.
	Yes.
	Exactly.
	Alexander, I was just verifying we're going out fine, but I gather from the chat room that we are going out fine.
	And yeah, Wolfgang has still been pursuing these issues.
	He and I traveled together to Newtown in 2014, and we visited the The United Way of Northeastern Connecticut, as I recall, where they had funds, donations that were by law available for public inspection.
	And would you believe, Alexander, they sent over six or seven police officers to block Wolfgang Halbig's physical access into the building.
	We went to the Newtown Police Department because its three highest officials had been involved in the event to speak with them, but they refused.
	They refused to talk with us.
	Subsequently, after lunch, we went to the firehouse just a third of the mile up Dickinson Drive, which is really Just a driveway, the entryway into Sandy Hook Elementary to speak with the fire chief who'd been among the very first to rush down.
	But he was reluctant to talk, and one of the other firemen got into a bit of an altercation with Wolfgang and actually pushed him physically.
	We went down where the school had already been dismantled and nothing but pile of dirt clods there.
	And I must say, Alexander, it was striking that those who were commissioned to participate in the demolition were required to sign lifetime gag orders against speaking of anything they saw or did not see at the school during its demolition, which I'm certain would have included no blood on the floors and no pockmarks on the walls.
	Of course.
	And one thing also I'd like to mention.
	As I had said before, on the morning of December 14th as I was driving in my car and I heard this horrific story on the radio, at that same time it is my understanding that various news outlets sent helicopters from their stations close by in the Connecticut area and started circling the school.
	The Sandy Hook School to pick up footage of the emergency personnel who should have been in attendance tending to the 20 shot children for the six teachers and adults who allegedly had also been shot.
	Instead, what the footage that was captured by these helicopters, and correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Fetzer, the footage that was captured by the helicopters showed that
	Triage tarps of various colors, yellow, green, yellow, red, and black, were all spread out in the parking lot at the Sandy Hook School, and yet not a single child's or teacher's body was brought out and placed on an appropriate tarp for medical triage, emergency treatment,
	Or for the coroner to make appropriate arrangements to remove not even a single body from the scene on the morning that the event allegedly happened.
	You're absolutely correct, yes.
	I mean, there were many anomalies on the 14th.
	On the 13th, we had porta-potties already in place, we had pizza and bottled water at the firehouse, we had many appearing with name tags on lanyards, none of which makes any sense unless you understood Because the footage that was being broadcast, Alexander, was a mix of what had been taken the day before and what was taken on the 14th, all being broadcast on the 14th.
	So if you did not understand what was going on, it would be very difficult to sort out.
	But it says right in the manual, to which we gained access, everyone must check in with a controller so they can be paid for their participation.
	It's standard for FEMA exercises to provide restrooms and refreshments.
	And the sign and the restrooms and refreshments and the name tags on lanyards, which is how they identify the players and their role, are all standard for FEMA exercises.
	Someone in the chat room is saying I ought not to have sought to show that nobody died at Sandy Hook, but the point is, that was what we had done in the book.
	426 pages, 13 contributors.
	We had established a school was closed by 2008, loaded with asbestos and other biohazards.
	damaged by a hurricane.
	It had been abandoned.
	There were no students there, and it was a two-day FEMA exercise.
	So as I began to say, but was distracted when we had to work out our technical access issues, in my original answer, my response, I explained I had two lines of argument.
	I was going to explain all the evidence we had that what occurred at Sandy Hook was a two-day FEMA exercise where nobody died, and therefore it would follow that any death certificates for alleged decedents would be fraudulent or fake.
	We even had a contribution here, a chapter of an interview with a fellow named Paul Preston, who's a former school administrator.
	He may still be active, but he would supervise shooter drills himself.
	He was so disturbed by what he saw being broadcast from Newtown that day That he reached out to his contacts in the Obama Department of Education, all of whom confirmed to him that it had been a drill, that no one had died, and that no children had been harmed, and it was done to promote gun control!
	I mean, you couldn't have a more direct admission of what was going on than that!
	So the point is, and then of course, second, I was going to talk about specific aspects of the death certificate per se that had been published in the book and why it appeared not to be authentic, where Alexander, as I believe you know, but the audience may not, I'm not allowed to assert
	What I said in the book, I'm merely explaining what the case was all about, because of course the court ruled against me, and I'm supposed to be, you know, reaffirming the defamation if I reassert.
	I'm explaining the line of argument I was given.
	Giving or presenting until the judge ruled that I could not address what had happened at Sandy Hook.
	Now, Alexander, I think at the very least he had to acknowledge my state of mind.
	What I believed about what happened at Sandy Hook and in editing the book.
	Where I have, you know, edited lots and lots of books.
	I have 24 scholarly books, plus scholarly books, a dozen plus books in the area of conspiracy research.
	I have lots of experience as an editor.
	I knew what I was doing.
	Would you believe, Alexander, we may get into this?
	Even in the response to the appeal, they're questioning whether I had a journalistic privilege because, of course, historically the courts give a broad berth to journalists who are reporting on events in order they can explore every aspect.
	Right, right.
	And the judge claimed, you know, doubted whether I had a journalistic privilege or not when the sentences for which I was being sued were in a book I had edited.
	I mean, what could be more blatant, Alexander, than that?
	Right, right.
	So the judge is making the point, well, you're not a reporter, but, your honor, I published it in the newspaper.
	Well, you're still not a reporter.
	I think this is, this is bizarre.
	I mean, you know, you're, you ought to be allowed to provide your defense on multiple grounds.
	And I was just astonished when he declared in essence, we're not going down that rabbit hole.
	And I wasn't allowed to present that evidence, which I think was very powerful.
	I think that's the affirmative defense to a defamation case of fair comment.
	Fair comment on a matter of public concern.
	So in the interest of preserving First Amendment rights to free speech and a lively discussion of issues which concern the public at large, reporters, internet reporters, persons of your ilk that are raising these issues for public discussion are given a broad berth, are given broad discretion to investigate and publish these matters, to provoke a lively public debate.
	That's what the First Amendment is all about, and it is one of the most important principles of our Constitution.
	Yeah.
	Another fact that I found very, very Inconsistent with the media's presentation of the events was the fact that after the event allegedly occurred, the schoolhouse was destroyed.
	Yes.
	So if this was an effort, sincere effort, by the people of Newtown and the Sandy Hook administration, to preserve and take steps to prevent anything like this happening in the future.
	Wouldn't it have been appropriate to have documented the condition of the inside of the school?
	Wouldn't it have been fitting and proper to have taken a wall that had all of those alleged bullet hole pot marks in it as proof that this issue is something that we have to be concerned with in the future and reserve that area And separate it out and say, look, here's the wall.
	Here's where the shooting occurred.
	Nothing like that.
	Nothing like that was ever done.
	And not only that, he allegedly emptied clip after clip into the human beings that were in the school.
	And yet not a single photograph of the inside of the school.
	Not a single autopsy report.
	of a child's or a teacher's body, showing where the bullet entered, where the bullet exited, how many wounds, how many bullet holes in each of the 26 victims.
	I've never seen, even though we demanded that in Discovery, James.
	I never got any of that evidence which would have been consistent with an actual shooting.
	And of course, as you know, I was representing myself, as was Mike Palachuk, my series editor, where you and Reed Peterson were representing the company Moonrock Books, a publisher, and you know, frankly, The law is a very complicated area.
	I mean, it requires specialization.
	And while I learned a lot in the process, I most certainly was not prepared to make the kinds of responses during hearings and so forth that would have been legally appropriate, given my position and the evidence at my disposal.
	I'm inclined to believe, had I had representation at the time, that the summary judgment could not possibly have taken place the way it did.
	Because it was clearly violative of the protocols for summary judgment specified in the Wisconsin statutes.
	Yes, it was an error of law.
	The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is basically it takes the position that since we know all the facts and they are undisputed, the judge can decide the law without a jury.
	But Mr. Bolton, your appellate attorney, was very astute in his appellate brief where he pointed out that the five different death certificates Had they been placed in evidence in front of a jury, there would have been a fact-finding process that the jury should have determined whether or not
	The certificate that was published in your book was an authentic certificate or not.
	And that was a critical issue to be determined, a factual issue to be determined by a jury in your case.
	Yeah, I was fairly dumbfounded, Alexander, when the death certificate that was attached to the complaint was completely different than the death certificate published in the book.
	Without now making a commitment one way or another, which the court is not allowing me to do, they were two completely different documents.
	And yet in the complaint it said that there was no material difference between the death certificate published in the book, which had no town certification, no file number, no state certification, Uh, and the document attached to the complaint, which had town certification, file number, and state certification, I mean, my God, talk about material differences!
	Those are obviously material differences, and therefore I believe this case was corrupt from the beginning.
	Well, um, In reviewing the appellate brief, I think it's important to understand the background of defamation law in the United States as ruled on by the Supreme Court.
	You know, the foundational case under these circumstances is, of course, the New York Times versus Sullivan.
	So, in the New York Times versus Sullivan, I don't know if you're familiar with the facts, it was the protest movement in the 1960s And the New York Times had taken out an ad by members of the Civil Rights Movement who were soliciting funds to support the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King.
	Because of his efforts in Montgomery, Alabama.
	And, of course, one of the aldermen, or assistant mayors in Montgomery, found this to be insulting, even though his name was not mentioned.
	So he sued the New York Times for publishing this ad, and allegedly publishing false information.
	Well, in Montgomery, Alabama, That plaintiff won.
	Sullivan won.
	However, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court by the New York Times.
	And the New York Times said no.
	In order to secure a lively debate and to encourage and foster the free exercise of speech and ideas in the United States of America under the umbrella of the First Amendment, We will not hold the New York Times liable for defamation under the facts of this case.
	And so it appears as if the courts in Wisconsin, the trial court in Wisconsin, has now abandoned that logic.
	And they have gone beyond the rules and procedures which should have guided them in determining that your book Your essay about the doubts about how what actually occurred in Sandy Hook should be engaged in a free and lively debate, that was thrown out by this court.
	And all of a sudden we're in a situation where instead of having a lively and a frank discussion about what actually happened, things are being covered up.
	Things are being hidden.
	The truth is not being allowed to come out.
	Which is contrary to the purpose of a court having a tribunal and a trial to begin with.
	So I think your attorney, Mr. Fulton, did a very good job in pointing that out.
	And, um, we described it as a structural error by the court, which affected the entire conduct of the matter from the beginning to the end.
	When the court said, no, this is not going to be about Sandy Hook.
	This is going to be about the document that was attached to the complaint.
	The court, in the appellate brief, your attorney is saying that this was a structural error that damaged, that caused the entire proceeding to be a reversible error.
	And your appeal was filed not that long ago, isn't it?
	Yes, yes, yes, yes.
	Just in the last several weeks.
	But now we have a response.
	We do have a response from Posner to the appeal.
	And then, of course, we'll have our reply.
	And I haven't spoken My attorney, of course, Richard Bolton, I hold in high esteem, Alexander.
	He's really excellent, and I thought this appeal was very well crafted.
	Just for the sake of the audience, I have published the appeal as a blog, so if you go to jamesfetzer.org, And you go down right on the front page you'll find it's I think the first blog on the second page so you just scroll down to the bottom go to page two and there it's at the top and you can actually read the appeal which Alexander and I are discussing here for yourself and you'll see the very thorough meticulous manner in which my attorney
	My appellate attorney, since I was only able to secure him as my legal representative after the summary judgment had already been rendered, and even after the opportunity for an interlocutory appeal had passed, where I put together what I could for that purpose, but which the appellate court declined to review, where they have that option in terms of an interlocutory, but not, of course, now that the judgment is final.
	Well, I just think it's entirely inappropriate that you should be accused of defamation for bringing forth facts in a lively debate in an exercise of your First Amendment privilege to express your opinion.
	That you should be accused of defamation under these circumstances, and I think it's totally inconsistent with the law that has been laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in New York Times v. Sullivan, and then also in the case of Gertz v. Robert Welch Publishing.
	Now, in Gertz, where the circumstances were somewhat different from your case, but nevertheless, the Supreme Court held in that case that Individual states can provide their own law regarding defamation so long as they do not impose strict liability.
	There has to be a causal link.
	The plaintiff is under a burden to prove that somehow the defendant either intended to harm or negligently, carelessly, or recklessly harmed the plaintiff.
	That was not done in your case.
	I know it's not.
	Alexander, you're spot on.
	I mean, they never established that I was at fault.
	And in fact, I explained to the court repeatedly the reasons I had for drawing the conclusion I drew.
	I acknowledged that subsequent evidence had indicated some of my reasons were mistaken.
	For example, the fact that the death certificate had different typefaces and so forth.
	This is because there are three different parties.
	The funeral director and the medical examiner fills out one part, the funeral director fills out another, and the state fills out, or the town registrar fills out a third.
	So there were reasons for the discrepancies in the font that I initially, in the books, suggested were reasons for doubting its authenticity.
	But of course, I had all these mega reasons that this was, in fact, a FEMA exercise, a mass casualty exercise involving children.
	Where even the Obama Department of Education had told Paul Preston that no children were harmed!
	I mean, you know.
	And it seems ridiculous, actually, that the death certificate that you published, which we had found out, which you had known a long time ago, was originally, or allegedly, delivered by Posner to a woman who was engaging him in telephone calls about the Sandy Hook Which he had initiated with her, and they spent over a hundred hours on the phone.
	She's a wonderful, wonderful woman, and a great researcher by the name of Kelly Watt.
	And where Kelly, during that hundred hours, kept telling him she didn't believe him, she didn't think she had a son, didn't think he'd died there, asked for proof.
	And Wendy just said, check here, and directed her to a blog where he put up things she'd asked for, including a death certificate, a kindergarten report card, and Maybe a birth certificate, a couple other things.
	She noticed right off the bat, by the way, that Dickinson Drive was misspelled on the kindergarten card, which is really damn peculiar, if it were authentic in evidence, you know, that this was another sign of fabrication of evidence in this case.
	It just seems absurd that the death certificate that was initially produced by the plaintiff himself, and then Which you attached in your book was a different certificate than the one that was attached to Mr. Posner's complaint.
	Yes.
	I felt that was very significant, Alexander.
	And of course, as you've implied, I mean, those were two different death certificates, and then the publisher obtained one directly from the town clerk, and I obtained one directly from the state, and all four of those were different.
	And I secured, at your suggestion, for which I'm eternally grateful, The reports of two expert document examiners, both of whom confirmed that I was correct and that the other documents were also not authentic.
	And again, I'm not, I'm only talking about the case as it developed.
	I can't reaffirm my views about the matter under penalty of the court.
	I mean, this is so bizarre, Alexander.
	Let's dwell on that point for a moment.
	So you came across a document totally subtracting the logic of all emotion and all any type of reaction based on sympathy, just purely looking at the logic of the situation.
	A document is produced, which is allegedly a death certificate.
	And then a second and significantly different document is attached to a complaint.
	And the person who produced the first death certificate is then accused of defamation by a document which is completely different from the document that you produced.
	I made that point several times, Alexander.
	I was being sued over a document I'd never seen before, never published or commented upon.
	Where is the cause?
	Where is the link?
	Where is the causation?
	Between what you did and what the plaintiff was accusing you of.
	It's completely missing.
	It's not there.
	So even if we just look at it from a purely logical point of view.
	Separate ourselves completely from the circumstances of the allegations of 26 murders.
	A mass murder.
	We see an incredible inconsistency in the evidence.
	In what was put before the court.
	And this is one of the most important points of the appeal.
	Because not only is it inconsistent with the law, it's an error of the law, it's also an abuse of judicial discretion to deny a litigant his ability to present his affirmative defenses.
	It was very odd, by the way, that the judge never actually ruled on my entitlement to journalistic privilege, even though the last document I submitted before the summary judgment was an extensive explanation even though the last document I submitted before the summary judgment was an extensive explanation of my background as a journalist, and as an author, and as a publisher, and
	I mean, I gave a very thorough documentation that left no doubt about it.
	And of course, I mean, even the very chapter where the death certificate was discussed, which was co-authored with Kelly Watt, who, as you observe, had been the recipient of this death certificate directly from the plaintiff himself.
	We were responding in that chapter to an article that he, the plaintiff, had actually published in the Hartford Courant.
	You know, attacking students of Sandy Hook, who are skeptics of Sandy Hook, as demented and with twisted minds.
	I mean, pretty bizarre.
	I think that made him right there, ipso facto, a public figure for limited purposes, Alexander.
	Yes, exactly, which is a different standard.
	But even under that different standard, they did not reach, the plaintiff did not reach his burden of proof.
	That there has to be a fault-based liability before you could have been held liable or responsible for a defamation.
	I think this may be the major blunder in the entire case, Alexander, that they somehow... I think once they realize that if they tried to charge me with malice, I had a mountain of evidence that would disprove it.
	I mean, my record as an academician, as a scholar, all my publications, all my participation in Editorial boards, I mean, founding a journal of my own, I mean, my scholarly credentials were simply overwhelming.
	So I think they believed that if they pursued that, attempted to make out that I'd been malicious, that it would be a defeating strategy, that it would collapse on them and backfire.
	But when they withdrew that, they neglected to come back and show that I'd done anything wrong, that I had any fault.
	If I could read from the brief?
	Yes!
	Posner's evidence did not explain why the version circulated by Posner, referring to the death certificate, is different than the official death certificate.
	Now, a jury could have reasonably inferred that Posner's private issue death certificate was not authentic.
	Because this case proceeded by summary judgment, That issue, those documents, never went before the jury.
	Isn't that correct, James?
	Would you repeat that, Alexander?
	I was distracted by a comment here in the chat.
	The last point you made, it was excellent, from Richard, yes, from the brief.
	Well, Posner's evidence did not explain why the version circulated privately.
	That would be the death certificate that Posner gave to Kelly Watt.
	Yes.
	He did not explain why it's different than the official death certificate.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	A jury could have reasonably inferred that Posner's private-issue death certificate was not authentic.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	He's only pointing out that there's an inconsistency.
	How could that possibly be linked without evidence of malice, without evidence of an intentional act intended to harm?
	How could that possibly lead to a judgment against you for defamation?
	Not only that, Alexander, but a wonderful woman, Alison Maynard, Who was giving me, offering me legal advice.
	She couldn't represent me.
	She was not acting in the practice of law.
	She received no compensation.
	But she did research on my case and discovered that according to Connecticut statutes, not even parents are allowed to have uncertified death certificates, of which the one published in the book was an example.
	They never dealt with that issue.
	The judge didn't pursue it.
	The plaintiffs didn't pursue it, they just pretended it didn't exist.
	It was like the 800-pound gorilla in the middle of the room.
	Right, right.
	And also, the Supreme Court in the case of Gertz v. Robert Welch Publishing was very clear that in the absence of malice, Not only must the plaintiff prove a causal link between the act and the defamation, but there also must be actual damages.
	What were Posler's damages, as you recall, James?
	Well, the allegation was, and this is a separate trial, right?
	The summary judgment was used improperly, setting aside the testimony of the two experts.
	And this is fascinating, Alexander.
	It was actually a conversation between the judge and the plaintiff's attorney, Jacob Zimmerman, About whether he should exclude my expert opinions, the two documents, or simply set them aside.
	They actually talked explicitly about if he excluded them, it would be grounds for appeal.
	And I said, Your Honor, I haven't even had an opportunity to testify yet.
	And here they were talking about whether... So he just set him aside.
	He said, I'll just set him aside.
	But he didn't have that discretion.
	It meant there was a disputed issue of fact about the authenticity of the death certificate that had to be sent to the jury.
	That was obligatory under the law to be sent to the jury, Alexander, which he did not do.
	Right, exactly.
	So my point, though, goes past that point.
	After that error, after that, we could almost call it a blunder, then we come to the issue of damages.
	In the brief on page 18, your attorney says, in fact, Posner introduced no evidence that third-party harassers had ever even read Fetzer's statements.
	Right, right, right.
	What was it that he had based his damages on, based on the activities of a third party?
	Alexander, you're not going to believe this, but they had an expert, a Dr. Leavitt, who testified based upon a phone conversation, a brief duration with a plaintiff, and a longer conversation with his attorney, which involved numerous false statements about the situation.
	Claiming for example that I denied he had a son, that I had asserted that he had created a fake death certificate, both of which were blatantly false.
	I mean, I simply asserted, which I'm not allowed to reaffirm, ...that the death certificate was not authentic.
	This was the subject of the trial, so I'm merely mentioning what was the subject of the trial, rather than reasserting it, because they have me on this ridiculous tightrope.
	But the fact is that it was based upon false impressions that this guy had formed.
	Now, he said that Posner had suffered PTSD from the death of his son.
	And that it was only after my having published these few sentences in a book that he went through a second bout of PTSD.
	And yet Posner himself was acknowledging that he was aggressively seeking out those who were skeptics of Sandy Hook, and that he was responsible for removing over 1,500 videos from YouTube Yes, I understand your point.
	indication of PTSD, which involves avoidance of stimuli that remind you of the source of your anxiety and emotional harm. - Yes, I understand your point, but isn't it true that Mr. Poser never produced evidence of actual damage but isn't it true that Mr. Poser never produced evidence of actual damage in the form of lost earnings? - Yes, he never presented medical bills, no signs of lost damage, no evidence whatsoever
	They made the assertion, but it was groundless, baseless, had no proof whatsoever.
	It was shocking.
	My point is that's totally inconsistent with the Supreme Court in the matter of Gertz v. Robert Welch publishing.
	Before you can hold an individual liable for defamation, Under these circumstances, not only must there be liability based on fault, there must also be proof of actual damages.
	And according to the brief that Mr. Bolton wrote, Mr. Posner never submitted any loss of earnings, Mr. Posner never submitted any medical bills, that he needed therapy, and Mr. Posner never submitted any other evidence of special damages, essentially other than what is described as a depression by the expert doctor.
	Most massively, Alexander, and you're spot on, they never showed any causal connection between the sentences over which I was being sued and the purported actions that had been taken that were harmful to Mr. Posner.
	I mean, there was nothing!
	They talked about this woman, Lucy Richards, who had called.
	They even played a recording of some string of profanities she'd left on his recording.
	But I never had any contact with Lucy Richards.
	For all I know, she's never read any of my stuff.
	And they never presented any evidence that showed she'd ever read any of my stuff or been so influenced.
	They did say, and this is fascinating to me, that it was a condition of her sentence that she not be allowed to visit my blog or read my work.
	But there'd never been any evidence that she'd ever done that in the past.
	I think that was gratuitous to set up this attempt to tie me into her.
	Yes, absolutely.
	I mean, this is the action of a third party with whom you had no contact whatsoever.
	This is worse than guilt by association.
	This is guilt by non-association.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Oh, absolutely.
	100%.
	I was pilloried there by the plaintiffs.
	They gave a very false depiction, and they used emotion.
	They put up a picture of little Noah.
	They put him up on the screen, and it was up there for most of the trial for damages.
	And it was a dozen Madison citizens All under the age of 30, only one male and 11 females, all of whom, get this, Alexander, profess they'd never even heard of Alex Jones.
	They'd never heard of Alex Jones!
	Well, I think that what we're encountering with this particular situation, the Sandy Hook alleged school shooting, and Other events in our country in recent history.
	Can we discuss some of these other events at this time?
	Oh, sure.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	I'm under no constraints with regard to them.
	So you were one of the first educators to point out to me and the public at large that this series of alleged mass shootings did not occur until after the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was overturned during the Bush administration?
	No, Obama.
	Nullified by Barack Obama by the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 Just where the Smith-Mutt Act of 1948 precluded the use of the same techniques of propaganda and disinformation within the United States that were being used without.
	In other words, they were staging all kinds of provoking riots, all kinds of nonsense, which we're seeing going on today with Antifa and Black Lives Matter, by the way.
	to bring down regimes or governments in other nations.
	Now, because of Obama, this is going on manifold everywhere, all the time, every day.
	But in the wake of the nullification of the Smith-Munn Act, we had Sandy Hook, we had the Boston bombing, we had Orlando, we had Charlottesville, we had Parkland, we had Las Vegas.
	I've done a great deal of research on all of them.
	Each one of those was staged, contrived, phony, fake.
	I don't believe anyone died at any of them, even the Heather Heyer in Charlottesville appears to have died the following day.
	From a heart attack, and not because of the arranged car crash, where there were two cars, two drivers, two or even three takes, and where it turns out that the woman, Susan Brough, who played the mother of Heather Heyer at Charlottesville, also played the role of Donna Soto, the mother of one of the teachers, Victoria Soto at Sandy Hook.
	It's that bad, Alexander.
	Well, there's been evidence that's been coming out that it's actually a group of actors, almost a sort of repertoire company, that goes around to these events.
	And I thought that I had heard a version of the facts that one of the young women from Parkland, who was She wears her head cropped very short, if at all, almost.
	Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
	That she is a 26-year-old actress who lives in a condominium in Brooklyn, and that she was not really a high school student at all.
	Yeah, of course, with complex cases like this, with new evidence, you may have to revise.
	That was an early identification of her, where she and David Hogg were the two principals at Parkland.
	But, you know, they actually closed the school.
	It was a holiday, Valentine's Day.
	They closed the school at 1 o'clock, so you had 3,500 students go home.
	Even David Hogg, after the March for Our Lives, which is just about six weeks later, after he had spoken, was interviewed by CBS and said that day he was home, and all of a sudden got on his bike to ride back to the school so that he could film what was going on.
	In other words, He'd forgotten they were going to stage this fake event, and he had to get on his bike and ride back there.
	I mean, what a stunning admission.
	It also turns out that in order to have the March for Our Lives, which involved closing roadways in Washington, D.C., you have to submit a permit at least six months in advance.
	So while they claimed all this was inspired by the shooting on Valentine's Day, it was not.
	And we were able to establish they actually submitted the permit many months in advance, although they would claim retrospectively it was based on the Parkland event.
	They recruited a woman, Dina Katz, who produces Dancing with the Stars.
	She's organized other large-scale events.
	She, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, appeared to have been the key players.
	But they had all kinds of apparel, shirts, mugs, and all that.
	You know, a hundred different varieties, Alexander, that would have taken months to organize.
	As some commentators observed, there wasn't enough time to organize a bake sale at a church between the shooting and the March for Our Lives.
	I mean, it was totally fantastic and fabricated.
	It was a Democratic campaign voter drive in Washington, D.C., as is In fact, I think it's backfiring, but Antifa, Black Lives Matter, all this is supposed to draw the support of the black community back to the Democratic Party, but it's having precisely the opposite result.
	Regarding Parkland, there were a number of inconsistencies that I thought stuck out like a sore thumb.
	The first of which, the news report that uh four police officers in the vicinity at the time of the alleged shooting were instructed not to enter the building which would be contrary to your training as a marine and security procedures in general that police officers are armed and trained to confront shooters and the only reason
	That there would have been any order to prevent officers from entering the building would have been to prevent eyewitnesses from seeing what was actually going on.
	Well, there's an additional rationale for that, Alexander.
	They hit a shooter all in SWAT gear and helmet.
	He was using a gun the teacher said she'd never seen before.
	It was a SIM gun.
	It was firing simulated ammunition, which is made out of beeswax and laundry detergent.
	It'll create a welt on your skin, but it won't even penetrate.
	So that we had all these miracles, this Maddie Wilford and Samantha Fuentes, who were walking around days later with Band-Aids on what were supposed to be AR-15 wounds.
	Or even the New York Times had published a piece about the massive damage done to bones by AR-15 bullets.
	And then they had a fake doctor saying they were very lucky to have survived, you know, large, he said, large caliber wounds to the chest and torso.
	Well, number one, the AR-15 fires a .223, just slightly larger than a .22 caliber.
	It's small caliber, but it's high velocity and it does enormous damage.
	And if either of them had been in shot in the chest or the torso, they would have been dead.
	Even shot in the leg.
	They could have been walking around with band-aids.
	I mean, the medical evidence here is simply absurd.
	Atrocious.
	Well, what also upset me a great deal is a very, very, very articulate young man who was in the midst of publishing his news blog or news internet station.
	He called it the Daily Wire.
	I think his name is Ben Shapiro.
	He's a Harvard-educated attorney.
	Based in Los Angeles.
	And I admired him.
	I respected his message.
	And, you know, whether I agree with it or not, it's not the point.
	We should have the freedom in this country because of the First Amendment to engage in a lively debate.
	And I specifically recall that shortly after Parkland, Ben Shapiro went on the air, went on the Internet on two occasions critical of the News media reporting of the events and pointing out the inconsistencies.
	And all of a sudden, within a day or two, Mr. Shapiro had taken an entirely new approach to his Daily Wire program.
	and was no longer concentrating on what was a very timely, very, very important story about the inconsistencies in the Parkland shooting.
	And I think I had made a remark to you that I had thought that something insidious had happened that had dampened Mr. Shapiro's enthusiasm as a true investigative reporter.
	that he would change the entire style of the Daily Wire in such a short period of time.
	Do you remember that, James?
	Well, it was a major scandal in Congress because Debbie Wasserman Schultz was employing Pakistani ITAC people, and they were using their cover as her administrative assistant to spy on other members of Congress.
	It was a huge scandal.
	Wasserman Schultz, who was then the chair of the Democratic Party, was worried about losing 11 seats in Florida alone, and therefore they needed this event as a massive distraction.
	I mean, I think that was the principal motive, but it was done well in advance.
	Because as I observed, they actually had to do the permitting six months in advance of the March for Our Lives, which wasn't just inspired to take place a couple weeks later after the purported event.
	You know, we even had a wonderful student who was walking off the campus with his fellow Nicholas Cruz, the alleged shooter, and she turned to him as they were walking off campus and said, you know, I'm surprised it wasn't you.
	And he looked at her and said, huh?
	Meaning he was really taken aback.
	Meanwhile, she could hear shots being fired in the background.
	So obviously the guy they were fingering for the crime Could not have done it.
	She was led to and further had to be at least two shooters, but the fact is there was a fake shooter.
	That fake shooter, by the way, that's the reason why the sheriff had to direct his deputies not to go in.
	They might have thought he was firing real bullets, not knowing.
	They weren't in the loop that this was just a charade.
	They might have shot him dead, and I think the sheriff therefore couldn't take the chance.
	So the deputies were pilloried For not having gone in when they were simply following the sheriff's orders.
	His name was, let's see, Scott Israel.
	Do you know he's the only sheriff I've heard of who drives a Lamborghini, Alexander?
	Well, Southern Florida, I think, has a little bit of that Hollywood glam attitude down there.
	Here's something else.
	They had a 57-second video inside a classroom at Parkland, and you hear the girls doing their best to scream as though they're in fear.
	One's worried about her bottled water, another's on her iPod.
	You gotta keep pulling his putts.
	The camera swings around, and you see what initially looks like a body lying in a pool of blood.
	There are individuals in police uniforms rushing in and out, carrying some bodies out.
	When you take a closer look, it's not actually a body, it's a training dummy with no head and no arms, lying in a pool of fake blood.
	And you might think the Parkland cops were Johnny on the spot, except Parkland gave up its police force in 2004.
	They were actors in police uniforms, Alexander.
	I mean, the proof of this Right.
	I remember, I specifically remember that clip that somehow made its way onto the internet.
	And what sounded particularly false was the shrieks of terror that were coming from the high school girls.
	It really sounded like a poor version of a high school play.
	And you could actually hear that these were actresses that had no experience whatsoever, that they weren't really in fear of anything, they were just trying to sound like a B-rated horror movie.
	Yeah, I just want to mention for the chat room members that I've gone through so many of these cases in the two-parter on how to spot a false flag, so if any of you haven't watched those two-part series, I go through 15 or 20 different cases there.
	Just go to JimTheConspiracyGuy.com and watch those two.
	If you haven't before, you're going to get an education because I illustrate how many different ways we've been played for saps.
	Well, what about your reporting on the Orlando fiasco?
	As I recall, it was either a Saturday or a Sunday morning, and I had gotten up early to go to my home office to work on some litigation matters and switched on the radio.
	And the initial story that I heard at about 7am, as I recall, was that there may have been two people that were shot in a nightclub.
	Then it was probably about four or five hours later that we got a complete new rehash of all the events that had happened.
	And somehow now it was a mass shooting that was related to somebody who was frustrated about the fact that this was some kind of a gang club.
	And all of a sudden it took on a whole new character.
	And I noticed that you had done a report about that.
	Oh yeah, well virtually all of these.
	I've published books, Alexander.
	So, I mean, Orlando.
	I think Dr. Elwin, who maintains the Fellowship of the Minds blog, was the first to discover that the permit For the club had expired three years before.
	This is when it was painted black.
	It had been white when it was open.
	They painted it black because it was now closed.
	So this is very like Sandy Hook, where the school had been abandoned, but they used it as the stage, as the set.
	to fake a mass shooting in Orlando.
	They used an abandoned club.
	Get this, it only had a legal occupancy of 150.
	It only had 11 parking spots.
	The claim was made that it was packed with over 300 inside.
	And also that there was nobody escaped, had a way to escape.
	Well, there was, from the floor plan, there were six different exits.
	People could escape to everywhere.
	If there'd been over 300 when they only had 11 parking spaces, there would have been abandoned vehicles all over the place.
	They weren't there, because the whole thing was fake.
	They even made up some video subsequently, Alexander.
	And while some of it is timestamped, such as the police arriving to check out, When you have inside, you're supposed to see the shooter walking around.
	There's no time stamp.
	There's also inside showing dancing, and it's very spacious.
	People are very distant, which would have been preposterous.
	They would have been crammed in like sardines.
	So the whole thing was completely ridiculous.
	There was no evidence anyone died there.
	And you had particularly low-quality crisis actors.
	You had a group Carrying what was supposed to be a wounded toward the club instead of away from it.
	And you had people who were supposed to be picking up, you know, helping to take the wounded, which puts you in jeopardy because you may aggravate their wounds and cause more, that cause a serious injury.
	In fact, the Orlando Emergency Medical Center eventually announced they weren't charging for services rendered.
	Well, when's the last time you heard of a hospital not charging for a Band-Aid?
	They weren't charging for services rendered because they didn't render any services.
	Exactly.
	I remember seeing a clip about Orlando where two young men were carrying another young man and they were running as if he was injured while they thought they were on camera.
	When they reached the point where they were off camera, they put the man they were carrying down, and the three of them ran away.
	It was a clown show.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, right.
	This group was carrying what was supposed to be a wounded, and as soon as they got out of camera range, they put him down, and he did a little jig, but they caught it on camera, too.
	I mean, the whole thing was a joke!
	And some of the crisis actors were pathetic.
	There's a wonderful video I want to mention for the chat room by a fellow named Harrison Hanks about, you know, the all-purpose crisis actor.
	It's so brilliant.
	And he talks about the many different roles he can play.
	The doctor, you know, the grieving parent.
	I mean, he just goes through a whole list of them and it's spectacular.
	And he integrates a number of these actual crisis actors on the scene who are so pathetic.
	I mean, Just god-awful.
	So look for this Harrison Hanks.
	You know, if you need to up, you know, get a better quality crisis actor, Harrison Hanks is available.
	You know, terms negotiable.
	Well, James, what do you think is the purpose of all of these staged events?
	I mean, obviously, many people are claiming, obviously, they want to attack our rights pursuant to the Second Amendment.
	But do you think there's a more subtle agenda of fear and control that various rogue elements of our federal government are advancing with staging all of these events?
	Well, I think that, you know, since Trump came into office, there's been a noticeable dearth of these false flag attacks, except now they've proceeded on a more massive scale with a looting and riots that were supposed to be based upon the George Floyd death.
	But Alexander, I don't know if I've shared with you the research we've done on the George Floyd death.
	He was a big guy.
	He was like about 6'5", and when they arrested him, they manacled him, handcuffed him behind his back.
	They put him in the squad car, which as you know normally would Proceed taking him to the precinct to be booked and mug shots.
	Instead, they took him out the other side and lay him on the ground, except when he's lying on the ground, although he had hair when they put him in the squad car, now he doesn't have any hair.
	While he was manacled behind his back, now his hands are in front of his body.
	When they lift him up to put him on a gurney, he has no legs.
	They took out this African-American medical training torso that's manufactured by Sigma-7, which is actually a company in Minneapolis that departed the area.
	They got out of town as soon as the looting and rioting took place, because they were worried they would turn on Sigma-7 when they figured out what actually happened.
	It was totally fake.
	Well, that's upsetting.
	It's the first time I've heard that.
	And I've done civil rights litigation.
	I presently have civil rights litigation pending for some African-American citizens.
	Lovely people.
	The woman is actually a Christian minister.
	She's articulate.
	She's wonderful.
	She was wrongfully prosecuted for an extended period of time.
	Falsely imprisoned, along with her husband.
	And they went through two trials.
	The jury acquitted them on both occasions and we then filed a 42 U.S.C.
	1985 conspiracy lawsuit against the police here in Southern California.
	So I am an advocate of the Black Lives Matter campaign.
	I think it's critically important for the character and the soul of our nation that we start to recognize that people should not be judged by the color of their skin.
	And systemic racism has to be eliminated.
	Well, Alexander, think about this now.
	We have elected a black president twice.
	We have many members, black members of Congress.
	Our highest paid athletes and celebrities are frequently black.
	They are really a privileged and admired class in the United States, and since the Democrats have been in control of the Academy, of our other major institutions, including the media, and a host of others, our school systems, if there were any systemic racism, who would be responsible?
	The Democrats.
	I mean, the whole thing.
	And surely you... I endorse the idea of racial justice, but actually the United States has made many, many efforts and expended a huge amount of resource to try to benefit and improve civil rights.
	And we have many black police officers, by the way.
	When you study the statistics, black on black crime is like 500 times more common than black on white crime which is more common than white on black crime.
	So you have, you know, when you look at the statistics, it's like with the coronavirus, Alexander, and still you look at the statistics of how many die from the seasonal flu or how many die from tuberculosis Or how many die from cancer?
	You don't realize that this is a tiny, tiny percentage of the population, and for the most part, the coronavirus deaths are modeling the normal pattern for deaths in the age groups.
	I mean the average lifespan of an American is right like between 74 and 79 years of age and that's where the most the corona deaths are occurring because they're classifying people who are dying from any cause whatsoever as being coronavirus death.
	We had a state senator Scott Jensen explain it where he's not only a state senator he's a physician And how he was shocked when he was asked to classify a patient who'd never been tested as a coronavirus patient.
	And he revealed how the AMA was encouraging paying $13,000 for every patient a hospital admitted as a coronavirus patient and $39,000 for every patient they put on a ventilator.
	And just to return to that theme of gun control, I think most of these, Sandy Hook, Orlando, Parkland, Las Vegas, were all directed at gun control.
	I think Boston bombing was supposed to undermine posse comitatus by bringing a huge military force into the city to perform police functions.
	But let me just say, all those efforts for gun control have now been completely obliterated by the rioting and looting and arson of the Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists.
	I mean, in principle, I agree with you 100%.
	Of course Black Lives Matter, but do you know a woman holding a child was shot in the head when she said, All Lives Matter?
	She just said all lives matter, which obviously is true.
	And you and I would endorse that.
	And a Black Lives Matter activist shot her in the head for saying that.
	A mother holding a child.
	So, I mean, what has happened is gun sales have gone out the roof, Alexander.
	Because every American knows.
	Look, they're moving to defund the police.
	Minneapolis is abolishing their police force.
	Crime is running rampant.
	Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York, disbanded a 600-man undercover police squad that was very effective in preventing crimes from taking place, and now that crime rate is soaring again in New York City.
	But it's happening not only in Seattle and in Parkland and in New York City, in Chicago, needless to say, in Minneapolis, and it turns out if you put a An electoral map over a crime map.
	And this is, again, the brilliance of Dr. Ewan, who, like myself, is a retired university professor.
	It turns out the areas where the murder rate is going out of control are all controlled by the Democrats.
	These are all areas where they have gun-free zones because they won't allow law-abiding citizens to carry.
	It's well known from ample statistical demographic and studies that the more guns The less crime.
	I mean, it's odd because it sounds counterintuitive, but it's the fact of the matter, so that if there could be somehow a concealed carry law passed nationwide, which I would encourage President Trump to do, the crime rate, Alexander, would drop dramatically.
	I understand that the statistics, which you have specifically researched and published on numerous occasions, it's clear that countries which allow Second Amendment rights have lower crime and murder rates than countries which restrict the citizens from possessing firearms.
	This is a proven statistical fact.
	And I think, James, that the lively debate that we're engaging in right now is essential to the free exercise of our concerns as members of the Democratic Republic.
	And I agree with you.
	Gun sales at this point are through the roof.
	And if some type of Democratic conspiracy to deny people Second Amendment rights by staging all these events can actually be proven, well, doggone it, it's certainly backfired by this time.
	Yes, yes, I couldn't agree more.
	So I believe the Democrats were employing two contradictory strategies by moving for gun control on the one hand and by promoting rioting and looting on the other.
	And what could be less democratic than to have mobs taking down statues and defacing monuments, Alexander?
	We have procedures.
	You could have referenda.
	You could have votes.
	You can put matters on the ballot, but to have governmental entities responding to the mob when they're not proceeding in accordance with the proper procedures is, in my opinion, completely outrageous and violative of the rule of law.
	Well, what can we possibly look to as a source for this perfect storm of civil disobedience?
	First, we have a pandemic, and then in the midst of the pandemic, we have a series of riots across the nation because of incidents of police misconduct.
	I've been living in the United States now since 1954, and I don't think I've ever seen a situation Quite as chaotic as what we've experienced in the last two months, Jay.
	Alexander, you're 100% correct.
	Really, all of this, believe it or not, is part of the ongoing Democratic campaign to deny the legitimacy of the election of 2016.
	I mean, Hillary Clinton is very much involved in this.
	Barack Obama is very much involved in this.
	George Soros, very much involved in this.
	George Soros has made it his lifelong goal to destroy the United States.
	And he's doing his best.
	If he fails, it won't be for lack of trying.
	And the problem is there are too many Democrats who are afraid of Donald Trump following through on draining the swamp.
	There's been too much of a gravy train in Washington for too long.
	There was a town hall meeting before the 2016 election where Hillary was really pissed off because she hadn't known one of the questions would be asked about her emails, and she just slew into Donna Brazile and just said to her, uh, don't you know if he's elected we're all going to hang?
	Because the crimes that have been committed by the elites in the United States are horrific, Alexander.
	I did a recent program on Pizzagate that was illustrating a number of them, and they're so awful that I hesitate even to put into words what some of them came to.
	But they involve some of the very same players we've already spoken of by name involved in those sordid activities and many other forms of malfeasance.
	Where Donald Trump, believe it or not, because he came from the outside, wasn't already contaminated.
	They didn't have a way to control him.
	And he actually believes in the Constitution and how government ought to work to benefit the American people.
	And he's been so willing to sacrifice himself toward that end that when he was informed by Anthony Fauci, to whom I refer as Tony the Rat, and Deborah Blux, that this model of Neil Ferguson from Imperial College showed that if the country weren't shut that this model of Neil Ferguson from Imperial College showed that if the country weren't shut down, 2.2 million
	Donald Trump fully knowing that the surging economy and the soaring stock market were his greatest assets going into a reelection, nevertheless shut the country down.
	And I say, given the rubble, and the country is being massively destroyed, it turns out there are 5.7 million American countries, 90% of which have 20 workers or less, where investors watch VOG early on observe, That of those small companies, 75% couldn't survive a month without revenue.
	Now it's over two and a half.
	So these small companies are going out of business, they're going defunct, they're bankrupt, wiping out the middle class.
	We're having the greatest transfer of wealth in history to the big banks and big companies who are taking over But when the American people look at the rubble, I think they're going to say, who would be the best guy to restore the American economy?
	And the answer is going to be obvious.
	The guy who gave us the surging economy, the strongest in American history and the most soaring stock market.
	And I think, too, they're going to say, what are we going to have with the Democrats?
	They're going to want to do for the United States what they've done for Portland and Seattle and New York City and Minneapolis.
	And I say this as someone who voted twice for Bill Clinton and voted twice for Barack Obama.
	So it's not that I regard myself as an ideologue.
	I vote for the best qualified candidate.
	And at the time, and it had a lot to do, too, with their opponents, I believe that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were the better choices, and I supported them.
	But when it came to Hillary versus the Donald, she is such a monster, Alexander.
	The more you know about Hillary, the more you despise her.
	This is one of the real monsters of world history, right in America.
	I couldn't bring myself to vote for her, and Donald Trump looked like a new broom who's gonna sweep clean, and I still stand with the President of the United States today.
	Well, James, you and I have exchanged correspondence regarding Donald Trump from the very beginning of his presidency, from a rumor about the inauguration back in 2017.
	We had exchanged numerous emails, and we had engaged in group emails with Robert David Steele, where we were attempting to encourage President Trump to stand up and declare that there was a huge problem with the media describing the actual events of 9-11.
	I'm very concerned that we have not been able to be more effective in getting the truth out to the American people about that false flag event.
	Yeah, well a lot of us thought that Trump would give us more about 9-11.
	He gave us a lot more about JFK, but he was precluded from releasing all the files he wanted to release.
	On grounds of national security.
	Think about it, Alexander.
	If the official account of three lucky shots by disgruntled ex-Marine were true, there is no national security aspect to the case.
	So the fact that records are being withheld on grounds of national security is an admission that the official account is nonsense.
	I've done more work on JFK than any of the other events.
	I have four books, four collections of expert studies, because as you know, what I do is I specialize in bringing together groups of experts on diverse aspects of these cases to dissect them and take them apart and figure out what really happened.
	Now with Donald Trump, On the day after 9-11, he was interviewed by a local New York network, and he explained that the same builders who had constructed the World Trade Center were now working for him, that it was impossible that planes had brought down the Twin Towers, and he's absolutely correct.
	It was a physical and engineering impossibility for those buildings to collapse.
	He said something else had to be involved.
	Bombs.
	He actually used the word bombs.
	What he meant, of course, was a powerful source of explosives, because those buildings weren't collapsing.
	They were blown apart in every direction from the top down.
	All the floors remained stationary.
	With Building 7, which many Americans to this day do not know collapsed at 520 in the afternoon, about seven hours after the North Tower was destroyed, it actually did collapse.
	It was a 47-story building Came down all the floors at the same time.
	Classic controlled demolition.
	You could see this little kink at the time.
	It was perfect demolition into its own footprint at virtually the speed of free fall.
	Even Dan Rather said at the time on Television Live that this looked just like the controlled demolitions we see of casinos and resorts in Las Vegas.
	He had it right.
	But with the Twin Towers, the floors weren't moving.
	They were remaining stationary.
	Waiting their turn to be blown to kingdom come, in the memorable phrase of Morgan Reynolds.
	The buildings were being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, and when it was over, Alexander, there was nothing there.
	In relation to Building 7, typical experience with controlled demolition, you have a residue pile equal to about 12% of the height of the original.
	That was a 47, 12% was 5 1⁄2 floors, you had it there.
	12% of 110 floors would have been about 13 1⁄2, but it was not, it wasn't there.
	I know I had Father Frank Morales, an Episcopal priest from St.
	Mary's in the vicinity on my shows twice, and both times he emphasized those buildings were destroyed too, were even below ground level.
	So a lot of us had high...
	Anyone with a basic understanding of high school physics could easily see that the pancake theory is a complete fallacy.
	There is no way that the pancake theory, that the fire weakened the structure and the floors fell on each other.
	If you had any concept of logic or even basic chemistry.
	You could look at the footage and see the squibs in the corners of the buildings.
	And what disturbs me, James, is that this evidence was in front of the American people, but they just don't want to believe it.
	They don't want to look at it.
	And so when President Trump was in the middle of his campaign before the election, and I recall seeing footage of him saying they blew up those buildings, I said, "Doggone it, I'm going to vote for this man, because he's going to bring us the truth." And he is going to drain the swamp.
	But unfortunately, James, I don't think they let him do it.
	Well, it's a good question, Alexander.
	I mean, I think if he is re-elected, we're going to see a whole lot of things we never expected to see from a President of the United States.
	And this is another reason why the Deep State is fighting with all of its might.
	I mean, go back to Russiagate.
	Now, I've even published a book on Russiagate.
	That was a total hoax, manufactured Christopher Steele, who wrote the famous dossier, admitted when he first spoke to the FBI, their first conversation, he wrote it as an employee of Hillary Clinton as opposition research.
	He told them at their first interview, would you believe that Robert Mueller never went back to look at the origins of Russiagate because it would have shown the whole thing was corrupt?
	We already had the FISA court rule that two of the four original warrants that were to justify the spying on the Trump administration were not legitimate.
	All four of them will turn out to be illegitimate.
	So you had that effort.
	We had two and a half years of rushing it, rushing it, rushing it, non-stop, 24-7.
	It drove you out of your skin!
	And then that failed, so they tried Ukrainegate.
	Well, it turns out that Joe Biden actually had committed the quid pro quo they were attributing to Donald Trump, but Donald Trump had not.
	In fact, the three most important witnesses all said there was nothing illegal or improper about the conversation he had with the President of Ukraine.
	They disagreed with him on policy.
	But Joe Biden had threatened the Ukrainian government that he would withhold a billion dollars in foreign aid if they didn't fire the prosecutor looking into Burisma, where his son Hunter had this cushy job for which he was completely unqualified, to the tune of about $50,000 a month.
	Biden gave him six hours to do it before he flew back to the United States.
	And he actually talked about it.
	He boasted about it at the Council on Foreign Relations and turned to the camera and said, son of a bitch, they did it.
	They fired the prosecutor.
	Well, there couldn't be a more blatant quid pro quo.
	That fell flat.
	They tried the impeachment.
	It was never going to get anywhere.
	But they were really trying to drag it out and drag it out for political purposes.
	Of course, it wasn't destined to succeed.
	And what happens after the impeachment?
	The coronavirus.
	And now what happens when coronavirus looks like it's going to go away?
	We have all the Black Lives Matter and Tifa.
	I'm telling you, Alexander, it's incredible, but this is all tied into the Democrats' effort to get Trump out of office to deny him a second term.
	But frankly, it's backfiring massively.
	So they're trying to push the coronavirus to get mail-in ballots, which are easy to rig.
	They also know, and Dr. Robert Epstein, who is the editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, testified a year and a half ago to Congress that Google had sent Get Out to Vote reminders to selected individuals where they knew they were going to vote Democrat.
	To get out the vote, and they gave, he said, he already testified to Congress, between 2.4 and 10.2 million additional votes to Hillary in 2016.
	It was Google that gave the Democrats the House of Representatives in 2018, and he has said they're going to go all out to get Trump out of office, and he has most recently observed they're going to shift As much as 10% of the vote in favor of the Democratic nominee, even if he's brain damaged, even if he's cognitively incompetent, as is clearly the case for Joe Biden, Alexander.
	As I'm sure you know, Joe Biden ran for president three times.
	In a 32 year period.
	He never won a single caucus or a single primary before South Carolina.
	And that happened because Google geared up for him and brought out the black vote in a massive way.
	And they've continued to do it.
	Well, James, I think it's what you've said.
	You've said a lot.
	And I'm Going through the series of thoughts and it's absolutely chilling to think that there is some type of an insidious worldwide or government or conspiracy that is arranging these social disturbances.
	A pandemic is released and then social disturbance of an unprecedented scale, which we have experienced in the United States of America, to push an agenda to eliminate the middle class.
	And unfortunately, it seems as if it's having a terrific effect on eliminating a huge class of middle class businessmen and women particularly the restaurant business, certain sectors of the service industry, where people that were able to earn incomes where people that were able to earn incomes in that middle bracket, anywhere between $90,000 and $220,000, are literally being eliminated and are being swallowed up.
	And so I think, unfortunately, it can be perceived that there is such a deep state activity, which actually might be occurring.
	And your efforts to make people aware of this, it's critically important that something be done about this, because I don't want to lose the Constitution.
	I don't want to lose the First Amendment.
	I don't want to lose the Second Amendment.
	I don't want to lose what we've taken so long to try and build.
	Well, look at the geniuses coronavirusing with a space mask, which are actually harmful to you.
	The viruses are so tiny, they're like 0.1 micron, whereas the masks only filter out 0.3 and larger, so they can't filter out the virus.
	Normally what you do is isolate and quarantine the sick.
	You don't isolate and quarantine the healthy, but that's what we're doing here.
	Social distancing doesn't make any contribution, but I gather there are ways in which satellite tracking of individuals requires calibration.
	That social distancing enables them to calibrate their technology, and it requires a couple of months to get it right.
	I've been told this by a source who has very good intel connections, as fantastic as it sounds.
	But notice how they give an excuse for the fact that Joe Biden, he gave a recent talk and he had like 13, 13 who were viewing Joe Biden give a talk.
	So they had to find a way to cover it up, and they're using the coronavirus to keep him in the basement.
	They're going to try to use the coronavirus to not have any debates.
	I mean, Joe Biden is completely incompetent.
	Alexander, I mean, I'm telling you, there's never been a worse candidate.
	But Angela Davis, whom you may or may not recall, she was once an assistant professor at UCLA as a young black radical.
	She has recently explained why they're supporting Joe Biden, that he's the easiest to manipulate to support their anti-racist agenda.
	They want him not because he's the best candidate or the most competent, but because he's the one they can most easily pressure to do what they want.
	That's pretty pathetic as an admission.
	And one further point.
	Catherine Austin Fitts, who's completely brilliant, I noticed a month and a half or so ago, and I just discovered this article and published it on my blog, that the vaccine that Bill Gates wants to give all of us is loaded with all kinds of nonsense, fetal tissue, mercury, aluminum, heavy metals, but it's also got, you know, little chips.
	It's got credit card chips.
	It's got mind interface chips.
	It's got a bunch of stuff in there that is clearly not medicine.
	And the reason they're trying to qualify it as vaccines is that because Congress, in its infinite stupidity, gave Big Pharma a freedom from liability for the effects of vaccines, so that Bill Gates, for whom vaccines are a business, I mean, he makes money over every vaccination, many of which do
	Irreparable damage, for example, paralyzing 500 children in India with an alleged polio vaccine that had unexpected consequences.
	We have another for the H1N1 virus that actually causes brain damage.
	They have others that are killing people right and left.
	And of course, I'm sure you're familiar with the effects of these heavy metals on children, inducing autism.
	Well, it's been projected by 2050, if we continue to use these vaccines, half of our children will be autistic.
	What Catherine Authen Fitz makes it very clear is, these things they're trying to inject into our system are not medicine, and therefore they can't possibly qualify as vaccines.
	Bill Gates just today came out to support Donald Trump about getting kids back into schools.
	But he had an agenda.
	He wants to get them back into school because he wants them to be vaccinated on their way into school so he'll make billions and billions.
	It turns out he and Anthony Fauci and a group of others are on this worldwide organization To promote vaccines and other agendas that are really ultimately directed at drastically reducing the population of the world.
	Ted Turner, who's been very much involved in all of this, has said he'd like to see a 95% reduction in the world's population.
	95%!
	Alexander, you're not going to believe this.
	There's a website called Deagle, deagle.com, that's tied in with a military-industrial complex, and they have projections of all kinds of worldwide phenomena, including population changes.
	And for 2025, the population of Russia slightly increases, China slightly decreases, Would you believe the population of the U.S.
	goes from today 327 million to 99 million?
	That two-thirds of the U.S.
	population, according to Diegel, will be dead within five years?
	Ask yourself, what in God's name is going on here?
	And I think if they're able to vaccinate us all, it's probably going to happen.
	Well, I think that if there's any type of potential solution for that, we should look to it at the state level.
	Governors have a lot of power when it comes to regulating health policies for their individual populations.
	And there are certain governors in certain states that should be insisting that they have a right to have their medical personnel examined, not only with a 900 power biological microscope, but with an electron microscope.
	At the molecular level.
	Because if you're going to insert metals, if you're going to insert chips into a vaccine, you're going to be able to detect that with either a 900 power biological microscope...
	Or with an electron microscope.
	Oh yeah, yeah, yeah!
	Catherine Austin Fitz is already talking about what they've discovered in these vaccines.
	She's talking about study after study, examining the contents of these vaccines, and it's gruesome!
	Everyone has to go to my blog at jamesfetzer.org and read this piece by Catherine Austin Fitz, because it's so important.
	My point is this.
	Most, I wouldn't say most, but I'm sure there are many, many state universities that are equipped with advanced research tools, including electron microscopes.
	So if we can get the message out there that before the vaccines are distributed to state populations, they should be examined at the state level by the executives in charge of the health administrations of those state governments.
	Don't forget, we have a constitution and a federal government of limited powers, not unlimited powers, pursuant to our constitution as it exists today.
	States have a huge responsibility and ability to be able to control this if we catch it early, James.
	Well, it's so sensational having you here with me tonight, Alexander.
	I want to remind the chat room, if anyone has any questions for Alexander or for me about anything we've been discussing tonight, please put it in the chat right now, because we're nearing the end, and I really would not want you to miss the opportunity.
	If there's something burning on your mind, go ahead, put it in the chat.
	Put it in caps, preferably, so I can see it's meant to be a question.
	But Alexander, I'm just so grateful to you for, you know, being so insightful about the legal process here involved in this trial, which of course was a classic slap suit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation, which is actually illegal in 27 states, but not in Wisconsin, where they filed it to punish me for speaking out, for exposing the sham of Sandy Hook,
	With the intent to drag me into court for it to be drawn out and run at great expense, where my legal fees have now exceeded $70,000.
	I mean, it's completely outrageous.
	And would you believe, in an earlier lawsuit with Wolfgang Halbig, where he claimed that Wolfgang had violated his privacy by publishing some private information, where Posner never appeared in court.
	The judge became fed up with his non-appearance and eventually revealed that he had to sit for a video deposition.
	At the last minute, therefore, he withdrew the suit, and Wolfgang prevailed and would have gone forward with his counterclaims, except that Posner wrote a completely scurrilous letter saying he didn't feel he could get a fair trial from the judge, who withdrew, and they put in a stooge who wouldn't allow Wolfgang and they put in a stooge who wouldn't allow Wolfgang to follow up on his counterclaims.
	When he was questioned about the Wolfgang lawsuit on a blog, he was asked how he lost that.
	He said, "Well, no, because the objective was to get Wolfgang to take down his Sandy Hook Justice blog," which he did, and also to set an example that if you do this, you'll be dragged into court, and it's going to be drawn out for a long time.
	That's exactly...
	I want to say something about that, James.
	First of all, as a professor and a PhD in the skill of critical thinking, I think you've caused many, many people, including myself, to look at things with a more introspective point of view, to examine the facts deeper than what is presented to examine the facts deeper than what is presented to us in the mainstream media and to encourage and to
	And an active skepticism, which is based upon evidence and facts.
	Because unfortunately, a whole generation of Americans is forgetting or have never learned how to do that.
	And for your efforts in doing that, in promoting critical thinking, whether I agree with all of your opinions or not, I want to make a contribution to your defense fund.
	Fortunately, I'm a small businessman, but my business has been successful, and I think it's very important.
	I thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my thoughts about being wary of a vaccine imposed at a national level.
	I think we need to look to our state governments and even some of our larger county governments to protect us from an insidious vaccine which is covering up a hidden agenda.
	This is very Orwellian, but I'm afraid the evidence is clear that this is a real possibility.
	The United States of America Is a government of limited powers, the federal government, and many of those powers are vested in the 50 individual state governments.
	So we should, as people, as citizens of me, California, you, Wisconsin, wherever are people that are listening now, Should ask their leaders in state government, am I safe by taking this vaccine?
	Can we send it to our universities to examine it and find out what's in it?
	There's nothing wrong with that, James.
	That's the exercise of our due process rights as citizens of the states in which we live.
	And furthermore, because of your efforts to fight this lawsuit and to stand up as a champion of the First Amendment, I want to say on the radio program now, I'm personally going to make a contribution of $1,000 to your defense fund.
	Could you please send me an email?
	So that I can make that contribution, James.
	I've made contributions in the past.
	I'm sorry Robert David Steele isn't on the air because he would have been contributing some other insights from his position as a former CIA operative.
	That would have been very insightful here.
	I thought he was going to be a part of the program.
	But I want to send out a message to other free men and women who believe in the First Amendment and our Constitution, that your efforts as a champion should be supported.
	And I'm committing to a $1,000 contribution to continue the fight with your appeal in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
	James, you're a hero and you're a courageous man.
	Oh, you're wonderful, Alexander.
	That's very kind of you.
	You and Richard Burton are two attorneys I truly admire.
	I think you're doing terrific work.
	In all my efforts, and I probably Between Mike Palachuk and I, we probably reached out to a hundred attorneys.
	Richard Bolton was the only one who would return my call and come to my aid at a time of need.
	It was subsequent to the summary judgment where I believe had he been representing me, it would never have happened.
	Because in relation to the appeal, although the underlying issues involve the First Amendment, from a legal point of view, it's the violation of the protocols for summary judgment that make this case so readily and obviously reversible.
	And I'm very confident you share that judgment.
	Anyone else who is of a similar disposition to aid and abet, you can go to that blog at jamesfetzer.org and you'll find my address.
	For the James Fetzer Legal Defense Fund, it's actually my home address at 800 Violet Lane, Oregon, Wisconsin, 53575.
	You can find it right there in print.
	And I'm using all of these exclusively for my legal defense.
	None of this money is going to these monstrous judgments against me, which, although we haven't mentioned in passing, $450,000 was awarded against me on basis of these four sentences, where, if you have been following the discussion, you can see it was a completely improper judgment.
	The summary judgment was irresponsible and violative of the proper protocols.
	And then, wouldn't you believe, when I sought to expose that the man who had appeared to testify as Leonard Posner was not in fact Leonard Posner, whose photograph had been sent around the world, I was held in contempt of court.
	I was initially fined $7,000 for sharing the deposition with a party that I thought would assist me as a rebuttal witness that I could bring into court, on my understanding that a rebuttal witness did not have to be announced in advance, but the judge in this case told me not in his court, and subsequently
	He awarded, it appears completely improperly, that there was no basis for it, another, the legal fees in this case were $650,000 more, Alexander.
	So this, for doing my effort to bring together 13 experts to expose what happened at Sandy Hook, I have a judgment against me now for $1.1 million.
	Staggering!
	What I have learned about the legal system is Mind-boggling!
	Because it turns out the law can be used by, as a weapon, by evil parties to punish the good!
	It's a stunning story!
	Anyone who wants to learn more about this case, I highly recommend you go to the blog, and you'll also find I have linked there Where the judge never really ruled on my credentials as a journalist, my standing as a journalist.
	I give a link there to the brief I gave to the court prior to the summary judgment where I laid out my history as a journalist, leaving no mistake, no room for doubt about it.
	And the judge acknowledged before the summary judgment began that he had read the brief.
	There really can't be any room for doubt, Alexander.
	You are wonderful.
	I'm just thrilled to have you here and that you are an ally and advisor to me is wonderful.
	I'm so appreciative.
	You have no idea how much this means to me.
	James, I'm more than happy to do it.
	Anyone who has the courage to stand up and support the Constitution and the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, like you do, deserves that kind of support.
	And I'm going to urge any listeners out there to seriously consider reaching deep down in your pockets and making a contribution to this defense fund.
	There's no reason why we should endure or put up with a corruption, a proper due process in the United States of America.
	It's absolutely uncalled for and it's intolerable.
	And not one cent of it is going to go for this judgment against me.
	It's all going to support my appeal.
	There's a question in the chat room.
	No, there's a panel of five judges in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, three of whom will hear the case in appeal.
	Not the same judge.
	Thank God that's not the case, because he has certainly shown he is has a certain degree of bias and lack of objectivity here that is documented in the appeal.
	I say that as a reflection of the content of the brilliant analysis and critique of Richard Bolton, which has been supplemented here and now by Alexander Batali.
	I want to thank everyone who participated tonight, everyone in the chat room, everyone who listened in, but I especially want to thank Alexander Batali for being here.
	You are a good man, Alexander, and I'm very proud to have you on my side.
	Well, thank you, James, and I'm sure we'll be talking soon.
	I'm signing off.
	Take care, my friend.
	This is Jim Fetzer.
	The Fetz Presents with my special guest, Alexander Battali.
	Thanking you all for being here.
	Wonderful.
	I'll see you again.

▲