All Episodes
Previous Next
March 10, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
57:28
David Zublick's Dark Outpost (9 March 2022) with Jim Fetzer and Ron Avery
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Welcome back to the Dark Outpost.
I'm David Skublik.
Thank you for being with us.
Joining us now, as he does every Wednesday at this time, is Dr. James Fetzer.
And I'm going to leave it to Dr. Fetzer to introduce the guest that he has brought along with him, Ron Avery.
Dr. Fetzer, welcome back to the program.
Glad to have you with us.
Well, David, I'm just delighted.
I hope you enjoyed your well-deserved vacation.
Thank you, I did.
Ron Avery is an expert on summary judgments.
He's filed several, been involved in many.
He created an archive of my case in Dane County, which he has on more than one occasion described as the worst he has ever seen.
It was a gross abuse of a procedure which is only applicable when there are no disputed facts.
But in this case, the authenticity of the death certificate over which I was being sued for having asserted that it was fake remained in dispute.
I had two forensic document experts who confirmed my position.
All this was before the court.
The judge nevertheless preempted the role of the jury and went ahead and decided his own facts, which is impermissible under these circumstances where he'd already precluded by introducing the massive evidence that no one had died at Sandy Hook.
On the ground that, get this David, It was not relevant to the truthfulness and the accuracy of the death certificate, which actually asserts that the decedent, Noah Posner, had died at San Diego Elementary on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds.
David, I mean, I'm telling you, this case is as absurd as it gets.
Ron, your thoughts here?
Just a preliminary opening statement.
Well, just that I agree with you.
He violated every rule of summary judgment, and I can't say any more about that than that at the moment, so carry on.
I'll interject some more a little later.
Well, what's interesting is the entire case, especially with regard to the death certificate, is predicated on the fact that there was an attack on Sandy Hook, which it turns out There is no attack, so how can no positive guide, right?
David?
Go ahead, Ron, if you want to respond.
Your sound is something really terrible.
Jim's is all right.
I don't hear mine, but yours is really terrible.
It's garbled and echoing and Well, you need to turn your plug-in down a little bit.
I'm going to plug in a headset.
Give me just a second.
I don't know if it's Jim or not, but I only hear all that when David is talking.
Yeah, I don't know.
Somebody has to, there is a, when you come into the studio from the green room, you can turn down a, you can click a thing to turn down the, turn off the echo.
They do recommend that you use either headphones or That's what I'm using.
Ron, you called it out right here.
I'm good now, right?
You can hear me okay now?
It's not Jim.
It's David.
I'm having a problem with David, not Jim.
Well, nobody else is.
Carry on, David, so I can hear you.
Anyway, I was saying the entire case was predicated On the fact that an attack did take place at Sandy Hook, which Dr. Fetzer has proven in his book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, did not take place.
And therefore, the whole thing about the death certificate of this boy who allegedly died would be predicated on the fact that there was or was not an attack.
So to say that what happened at Sandy Hook is not relevant In deciding whether the death certificate is real or not is ridiculous!
You're absolutely right, David.
What he was doing was blocking me off from every avenue from which I could present evidence.
He even denied my right to discovery because I had three counterclaims, namely that this was an abusive process because the suit was not brought in good faith.
So they were abusing the process to punish me for having exposed that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Number two, for fraud and by deception, because the grieving families who received in donations from a sympathetic but gullible public between $27 and $130 million, which adds up to between $1 and $5 million per family for faking to have lost a child at Sandy Hook.
And third, For fraud upon the court, because I was making the point throughout that the individual who came to Madison and testified under the name of Leonard Posner was in fact not Leonard Posner, that he was 20 years younger and 100 pounds lighter.
And the court just denied all of that.
He set aside, he bifurcated the case and said, you can pursue that after we settled the plaintiff's case against me.
Normally, you allow discovery to go forth at the same time, because who knows what you're going to turn up that's relevant.
So he not only, during the planning conference, scheduling the trial, block out and leave out, not going down the rabbit hole, all my evidence that nobody died on Sandy Hook on a logically absurd ground.
But he bifurcated the case, so I couldn't do discovery.
And then when I introduced, in spite of all of his efforts, to the reports of two document experts that the death certificate in question was, in fact, fake.
He merely set them aside as someone else's opinion.
Yeah.
Ron, don't you agree?
He was really blocking me out to guarantee I'd be unable to introduce any evidence only by the egregious abuse of his position.
Well, absolutely.
He got into... I believe he was subject to the emotionalism about what this case was, and I believe the plaintiff took advantage of all that, because he shouldn't have been... In this summary judgment, he can't find the truth of a matter.
He cannot rule on the fact of the matter.
So, he can't actually find facts.
And he was saying your facts are crazy and are irrelevant.
And Mr. Posner's facts are the only ones that are true facts that we can take into account.
But he can't find facts.
The judge in a summary judgment has nothing to do with facts.
What he has to look for is agreement on the facts.
The only way he can, there's only two ways That he can grant a summary judgment.
And that is to find that the two parties are in agreement on the facts, or if they're not in agreement on the facts, he must go with the non-movement.
He must resolve all fact matters in favor of the non-movement, which was you.
And he did just the opposite.
He granted a summary judgment against you, Uh, by resolving all fact issues in favor of the MOVA, which is the wrong party.
It is the absolute worst summary judgment.
They ought to teach this one in law school.
This is not what you do on summary judgment.
This is the worst case I've ever seen.
And Ron, they are going to be teaching this case in law schools, I have no doubt.
What I find shocking is that both the Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court went along with the Circuit Court in denying me my rights in an egregious case.
Would you not agree?
I would agree wholeheartedly, and I wanted to say that on the third page of a 58-page opinion written by the Fourth Court of Appeals in Wisconsin, they quoted what they have found that they agreed with the lower court, the trial court,
that of this set of facts, they quoted the set of facts that of this set of facts, they quoted the set of facts that y'all agreed on, which was Adam Lanza entered the school on the morning of December the 14th, 2012, killed 26 people in a matter of so 2012 killed 26 people in a matter of so many seconds.
And that's the facts.
Well, I'm sorry.
You never agreed to any such a thing.
It's in the record.
It's all over the record.
There was no such agreement.
Well, see, they can't find those facts in agreement.
I don't care whether they like them or whether they think they're reasonable or unreasonable.
They lied.
The Fourth Court of Appeals directly lied and said that that was the agreed to facts.
You never agreed to any such a thing.
Of course not.
And David, as you know, we even discovered the FEMA manual for the exercise, which I included as appendix A in the book, which is why Amazon had to ban it less than a month after it went on sale, even though it sold nearly 500 copies.
You'd think a bookseller would be ecstatic about a book that sells over 500 copies in less than a month.
This would have been a runaway bestseller.
So they had to ban it.
And now, They're continuing the propaganda campaign built on this phony case by having a New York Times stringer by the name of Elizabeth Williamson, who actually came out to follow the trial for damages, where a jury of 30 Madison residents, 11 women and one man, all 30 years or younger, each of whom swore they'd never even heard of Alex Jones,
Concluded that I had defamed him to the tune of $450,000.
I mean, when the reporter from the Wisconsin State Journal asked me my reaction, I gave him one word, absurd.
But now you have Elizabeth Williamson trying to propagandize, capitalize on it.
She's got a book about it, attacking Sandy Hook's skeptics, David.
And I thought, especially since Ron's been very A student all over this and it'd be wonderful for him to join us.
So we do have a series of slides.
Yes, and I'm going to get that up there for so that everybody can see it.
I think this is a fascinating presentation.
As always, Dr. Fetzer comes prepared.
One of the things that we love about Dr. Fetzer is that everything is always backed up with facts.
And here we go.
Elizabeth Williamson promoting Sandy Hook propaganda.
Take it away, Dr. Fetzer.
Absolutely.
If you turn to the next slide, David, you'll see that this has been published widely.
Sandy Hook family's notch legal wins.
So she's going to claim that, you know, every time the Sandy Hook skeptics come to court, they're taken out, ignoring the fact that these have all been on procedural grounds, that no case has actually reached the point of establishing whether anybody died at Sandy Hook, where mine Yeah, the image stopped him cold.
closest, which is why the judge had to block me out.
Check the next slide.
And would you like to read David?
DAVID HANSON: Yeah.
The image stopped him cold.
Josh Koskoff, a Connecticut lawyer, was scanning crime scene photos of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting when he noticed taped mags on a classroom Two ammunition magazines cruelly duct taped together to speed reloading.
The gunman had dropped them during his rampage that killed 21st graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut.
That photo was a checkmate moment, Mr. Koskoff said, in the novel Legal Strategy that ultimately resulted In the $73 million settlement recently for the families of nine Sandy Hook victims from insurers for Remington, the maker of the Bushmaster AR-15 style rifle used in the massacre.
It was the largest payout so far in a mass shooting related case against a gun manufacturer.
The settlement was also the latest in a half-dozen legal victories by the families that renewed scrutiny of the gun industry and of the rising tide of misinformation that engulfed Sandy Hook.
Left devastated nine years ago when the Senate failed to pass even modest gun control legislation after the massacre, the families have now won on two difficult fronts, against a gun manufacturer and against conspiracy theorists, including Alex Jones, through persistence, creative legal strategies, and in the case of the conspiracists, the technological expertise of Lenny Posner, a parent
Stay there momentarily, David.
I want to get Ron's comment on this.
The lead plaintiff in this case was Donna Soto, who is alleged to be one of the San Diego parents and the mother of Victoria Soto, who was supposed to have been a teacher who died there.
Ironically, and I have the photographic evidence to prove it, this woman is a crisis actor who also played the role of Susan Brough, the mother of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, who was supposed to have been killed by a car crash.
In addition, I have sought to intervene first in the Soto Remington case, where I wanted to Bring to the attention of the court and the parties that no one had ever addressed the question or established that anyone had died at Sandy Hook.
And David, believe it or not, I was opposed by the parents, which was unsurprising, but I was also opposed by Remington.
They didn't want to address the issue, so I have subsequently moved to intervene in a bankruptcy case of Remington, which is before the bankruptcy court in Alabama, making the same point.
I am still involved in that case, as well as one before the tax court, because Lenny Posner and a group called Sandy Hook Promise established, you know, a donation website.
And this explains, by the way, my second counterclaim of fraud and theft by deception, where they took all these donations from the American people in the false belief that they'd lost children at Sandy Hook.
And then the third, of course, was for a fraud upon the court, because as I've mentioned, The fellow came and claimed he was Lenny Posner was somebody else.
It appears to me that he was 20 years too young and at least 100 pounds too light.
Ron, your comments on what we have here?
Yes, I think this letter is evidence of what these people are doing and how they're thinking.
I like to apply principles to things, and in the last recent years, after 9-11, We've developed the concept of terrorism and what it is.
Terrorism is the use of violence, either real or threatened or pretended, to alter the law.
Well, and in a conspiracy, a conspiracy is where people get together and they plan things or they agree to the same design.
They don't have to know one another.
And they can do different jobs.
They can come and go in the conspiracy.
But what we're looking at here is a conspiracy to commit disarmament terrorism.
The object of all of this, including this letter, is to disarm the American people.
It is to alter the Second Amendment.
They confess this throughout this whole article.
Now, they're using the violence, whether real Threatened or pretended, and Dr. Fetzer believes that this is a completely pretended thing.
And my point is, it doesn't matter in terms of what these people are, whether this event was real or fake, because they are doing the same thing.
They are using the violence of one supposedly named Adam Lanza They are using that to leverage the alteration of the law of the land.
It is against the law to disarm the American people, and they confess all through here that's all they're doing is trying to alter the law.
That is disarmament terrorism, and they're all in a conspiracy together to do it.
Ron, I love your introduction of that notion of using real or faint terrorism to change the law and disarm the American people.
David, I'm sure you share that view.
I do.
We can proceed to the next slide, if you will.
Sure, absolutely.
Do you want me to read this here?
Yes, please.
After the defeat in the Senate, some family members began thinking about how to hold the maker of the Bushmaster to account.
Several got in touch with Mr. Koskoff from a third-generation family firm in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Mr. Koskoff cautioned the families of those who joined the lawsuit were in for an arduous fight with an uncertain outcome.
The families of nine victims joined Soto vs. Bushmaster.
Others declined for reasons ranging from their views on gun policy to family needs.
Yes, Nat.
As the Remington case crawled along, the families of ten Sandy Hook victims and an FBI agent implicated in the conspiracy theories sued Jones in Texas and Connecticut in four separate lawsuits in 2018.
By the end of last year, judges in all four suits ruled that Jones was liable by default Because he had refused to turn over documents ordered by the courts, including financial records.
In trials beginning this spring, juries will decide how much ones must pay the families for damages.
Let me just point out that I sought to intervene in those cases too without success, but notice in particular, it never reached a question of the merits of the case.
It was decided on procedural grounds that he failed to turn over documents.
That did not settle the question of did anybody die at Sandy Hook, which they could not prove, so they're trying to create the impression of being a fact through duplicitous means.
Please go to the next slide, David.
Yes.
Can I interject something?
Yeah, sure, Ron.
One of the outright lies in this article is when the attorneys, I think it's Costco, says that he made a decision to base the suit on this deceptive trade practice After reviewing thousands of photographs.
That is an outright lie.
There are not thousands of photographs.
There are five.
Five.
Count them.
Five photographs.
And one of them is a gun in a trunk.
Another one is, I think, the Bushmaster rifle and there may be this one with the clips taped together.
So there's about, and maybe a couple of more, but if you think that he reviewed Pictures of dead children at Sandy Hook.
That's an outright lie.
There are none.
You can't find them.
They've never been released.
They may not exist.
That whole thing is a fabrication.
And they talk about Dr. Fetzer as spreading all kinds of conspiracy theories.
They are spreading.
They are doing more spreading than Dr. Fetzer is.
They're trying to create a real event Possibly out of a theatrical event without any substantiating evidence.
There's no pictures that they talk about.
There's five.
That's absurd.
And the massive photographic we have all substantiates that it was a two-day FEMA exercise, from the sign, everyone must check in, which confirms what we find in the FEMA manual, which we discovered and included as appendix A in the book, which states, Everyone must check in with a controller upon arrival in order to be paid for their participation in the event.
We have port-a-potties already in place, pizza and bottled water at the firehouse.
It consists with FEMA policy of providing restrooms and refreshments.
We have many, many, many wearing color name tags on lanyards where FEMA identifies the players on the basis of color-coded Name tags on lanyards, all consistent with FEMA.
We have photos of parents bringing children to the scene.
David, no parent is going to bring a child to the scene of a child shooting massacre.
So all that evidence substantiates.
And then on the day of the alleged event, no surge of EMTs into the building, no string of ambulances to rush their little bodies off to hospitals where they could be determined to be dead or alive.
No medevac helicopter called.
Triage times were put up, but no bodies of the wounded or dead were ever placed upon them.
The whole thing was an elaborate fraud.
Let's continue here.
Yes, David, please.
Last week, Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed Mr. Posner's 2019 victory in a separate defamation lawsuit against James Fetzer, another conspiracy theorist who edited a 400-page book titled Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
The Wisconsin court dismissed Fetzer's appeal recently.
The Fetzer case showcased another novel legal strategy, this one devised by Jean Vieve and Jake Zimmerman, a husband and wife team who were Mr. Posner's pro bono lawyers, seeking to prevent Fetzer from airing his Sandy Hook theories in a courtroom.
They narrowed the case to four specific statements in Fetzer's book falsely claiming that Posner had forged Noah's death certificate.
Then the lawyers sought a judgment without a full trial.
Securing the summary judgment required Mr. Posner to prove that Noah had actually lived and died And that he was Noah's father.
The lawyers gathered records related to Noah's birth, life, and death.
Mr. Posner took a blood test and his DNA matched a sample from Noah's post-mortem.
No, David, we've got to stay there a second.
Let me point out about this DNA test.
I submitted a motion to expand the DNA test because I was convinced there was no Noah Bosner, but that he was made up of childhood photographs of a party, Michael Vavner, who was supposed to be a Zolder half-brother.
So, and I also believe that the individual came and testified under the name of Leonard Posner was actually Ruben Fabner, who in fact is the father of Michael Fabner, so that if they were doing a blood test between the man pretending to be Leonard Posner and The individual whose photographs have been used to fake Noah, you would get a match, because they do stand in a parental relationship.
So I move to expand the DNA test to include Noah Posner, Leonard Posner, Michael Vabner, and Ruben Vabner, which would have exposed the hoax.
But of course, the judge ruled against me.
Wrong.
Yes, and all of that that you said there goes to the veracity of the allegation of fact that you're making.
You're not just making something up.
You're actually claiming and showing what the relationship is to these facts.
You're giving them credibility to your allegations.
But my interest here is that this what David just got through reading is an admission that they misused the summary judgment process.
They don't have to prove any of that.
You don't prove facts in a summary judgment.
There's no facts to prove in a summary judgment.
In a summary judgment, the judge is looking for agreement.
He can't prove, he can't determine whether Whether Dr. Fetzer's allegation is truth or not or whether Mr. Posner's allegation is truth or not.
He cannot make the decision of whether Noah Posner died there or anywhere else or even if he is a boy at all.
He can't do that.
All he can do is look for agreement.
He has to find agreement to the facts.
Now do you see Is any of that, have we heard from the defendant?
He didn't agree with this and didn't during the trial.
At any time did he agree to any of this and the judge grants a summary judgment finding that there's total agreement or that he agreed with Dr. Fetzer and still granted a summary judgment, which he can't do.
This summary judgment in this article is This article proves again that the summary judgment was completely erroneous.
And David, I just floored that the appellate court in Wisconsin District 4 and the Wisconsin Supreme Court went along with an obvious fraud.
This was an abusive process.
It wasn't a legitimate lawsuit in the first place.
The court was The judge manipulated the outcome to deny me the right to present my defense.
He wouldn't allow any of the evidence that nobody had died at Sandy Oak, even though it was obviously relevant to the truth or accuracy of a death certificate for a decedent allegedly having died there.
And then, when I managed to arrange for two forensic document experts to review the bidding, And they concluded that I was correct and the document was fake.
The court simply set it aside as someone else's opinion and went ahead and ruled himself.
He said he found the plaintiff's account of the matter plausible.
He said he found it plausible.
I don't know if Ron knows I've ever said that to him, but he said he found it plausible.
It's right there in the transcript.
from the oral hearing on the summary judgment.
I mean, the abuse is so grotesque, it is so blatant, so in your face, that as Ron observes, even this article about it reveals that it was an improper abuse of process and that the court violated the requirements for a summary judgment.
And yet, The Appellate Court and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin went along with it.
Ron, don't you find that just dumbfounding?
I think it's criminal.
I'm a layman.
Now, I'm pretty familiar with this stuff, and I've had summary judgments against me.
I've had them overturned on appeal.
And I know what the summary judgment is, but you can bet your Your dollars that they know what a summary judgment is now.
Why are they letting this?
fraudulent judicial thing happen And and I'm even wondering is talks about this company that bought up all these gun manufacturing companies this Cerberus capital management And these insurance companies that paid off and didn't want to hear about Sandy Hook not happening, I think there's something real funky happening there, too.
And we know that insurance companies were involved in the 9-11 payoff stuff.
It looks like that this is a very similar type of operation.
David, please continue with it.
All right, very good.
I will continue.
Fetzer produced no evidence to support his false claims and lost the summary judgment in a process similar to what will happen in the Jones cases later this year.
A jury convened to decide on damages.
They awarded Posner $450,000, which ballooned to more than a million dollars following sanctions after Fetzer leaked Mr. Posner's sealed, videotaped deposition to other conspiracy theorists, fueling more abuse.
We used rules of evidence to detangle a conspiracy theory, Mr. Zimmerman said.
It's the same thing that happened with all the post-2020 election results.
When the conspiracy theorists got to court, not a single one of their allegations survived scrutiny under the rules of evidence.
Mr. Posner and Ms.
De La Rosa were also plaintiffs in the Remington suit.
Mr. Posner reflected on a string of successes.
Of course the victories feel good, But they were very slow in coming, Mr. Posner said.
It's a relief, but I'm kind of tired, you know?
Ron, your comments?
He ought to be tired, all right.
That much criminal activity over the years would tend to tire anybody out.
They should have been not forthcoming at all.
They should have never come about at all.
And here they said, we used the rules of evidence to detangle a conspiracy theory.
That's the lawyer against Dr. Fetzer, Mr. Zimmerman.
I'm sorry.
Rules of evidence?
What has that got to do with a summary judgment?
He didn't win on any evidence.
Nobody determined the truth or falsehood of evidence.
And that goes to this other earlier statement up here.
Fetzer produced no evidence to support his false claims.
And lost the summary judgment.
You don't win a summary judgment based on your evidence.
A summary judgment is won because both parties agree to the facts.
How much do they have to hear this?
It's not on facts and proving your facts with evidence.
It is on do the Plaintiff, does the movement and non-movement agree on the facts?
And if they don't, did you resolve the fact issue in favor of the non-movement, which in this case is Dr. Fetzer?
The only way he could have lawfully granted this thing is to say, I agree that nobody died at Sandy Hook.
But even so, what he said about this and that and the other is libel.
Well, they can't do that.
So there's no way that they can grant a summary judgment in this case.
It's totally unacceptable.
By the way, David, I didn't publish a blog about this.
We begin with the next slide, where on Elizabeth Williamson's verbal assault on Sandy Hook's captives.
Go to the next slide and I'll read it in this case.
Okay.
Editor's note.
Among the most astute commentators on Posner versus Fetzer, Ron Avery published a blistering critique of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District for rejection of my appeal of the summary judgment verdict of a Dane County Circuit Court.
Which was in blatant violation of the protocols and requirements thereof.
Summary judgments are only appropriate when there are no disputed facts, which was not the case here.
I even introduced two reports by forensic document experts who concluded that the death certificate over which I was being sued was fake, which the court simply set aside as someone else's opinion and made up its own facts instead of sending the matter to a jury for resolution.
When Elizabeth Williamson writes, Fetzer provided no evidence in support of his false claims to wit that the uncertified death certificate I had published was fake, she makes an assertion she knows to be false with a deliberate intention of misleading her audience.
Here's what she says, where I make no claims about the origin of the deaths, if typical, and do not imply that anyone specific was responsible, but only that it's fake.
In other words, I never said anything about Leonard Posner having faked this.
Skip to the next, and we'll go.
We've already read what Elizabeth One has to wonder, notice where she had said I had a 400-page book, so I say, one has to wonder what was between the covers of that 400-page book that I could produce no evidence.
The court would not allow me to provide the massive and detailed proof from Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control, 2015, second edition, 2016, on the absurd ground That whether or not Sandy Hook occurred as advertised was not relevant to the truthfulness or the accuracy of the death certificate which was for a deceit and said to have died at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has now rejected my petition for review Where I have 90 days from the date of denial, 16 February 2022, to submit a writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
If allowed to stand, any judge can make up his own facts and convict anyone of any crime they like through the abuse of summary judgment.
I need your help, and I need it now.
What follows is Ron's critique thereof.
Which, Ron, would you like to read or should David or I?
Yes, maybe David can read some of that.
All right, Ron Avery responds, Jim and all, it is noted and agreed that no party has been allowed to challenge the mass media cartel narrative on Sandy Hook in any court of law.
But one thing sticks out in my mind after working with a Triple A lawyer for over 10 years and I'm sure all lawyers learn that a cause of action is lost if only one element is missing.
Like a chain pulling a wagon, it stops.
If a cause of action requires proof of six elements, one need not prove five or six are missing, but only one.
Often defendants take the opposite approach and try to prove a complicated defense rather than disproving a simple claim that many times they are led down that path by the plaintiff who complicates the fact that they have no claim.
The Posner v. Fetzer case involves facts so emotional and international that people get lost in the notoriety and fail to consider the simple elements of this case.
The case covers up the simplicity of it with mountains of irrelevant emotionalism on both sides.
I maintain the following, that there was only one death certificate of relevance, not the five different versions of the same in the court record.
There were only four written statements of relevance, not Dr. Fetcher's book or any other thing he ever wrote.
That the complaint is that Dr. Fetzer said the one and only incomplete death certificate of relevance was a forgery, fake, and fabricated.
The only relevant incomplete death certificate emailed to Dr. Fetzer's friend by Mr. Posner is not a death certificate and was not even a full copy of a completed death certificate with all the seals and signatures of required officials.
Therefore, The death certificate was indeed fake, even if Dr. Fetzer concluded the same by other, less applicable means.
In libel, it matters not how you arrived at the printing of the truth.
We need not go any further to review what happened at Sandy Hook to get Noah's blood samples and compare DNA.
This is a mountain built on nothing.
Yes.
And one other comment is that this particular so-called death certificate, the only relevant one, which is the one that Dr. Fetzer saw and commented on, was not a certified copy.
That means, and in fact there's a statute in Connecticut that you cannot possess an uncertified copy of a death certificate.
Only certain government officials are allowed to have those.
And so, I mean, it's just like trying to who would debate whether a driver's license was legitimate or not if it didn't have the state seal on it or the signatures of the people in authority.
I mean, and then to say that What they're trying to do is actually make a legitimate death certificate and even maybe an actual event that never took place on a one simple uncertified death certificate which is illegal to even be in the possession of.
This is just such an outrageous case, and they talk about Dr. Fetzer as a conspiracy theorist.
These people are disarmament terrorists.
They're in a conspiracy to disarm the American people.
And I think maybe the only reason that this is allowed to go this far is that there are very powerful people high up in this country.
They do indeed want to disarm the American people.
We know they want to disarm us.
And they've even passed resolutions and U.N.
agreements to disarm the American people, which is against the law of the land.
And this is the only reason I can think of that this thing still is in this condition.
This next slide, David, makes some very telling points, please.
One of the elements of libel is that it must be directed against the plaintiff, not just anybody or everybody, but the four statements printed by Dr. Fetzer do not name or suggest that Mr. Posner was the one who faked, forged, or fabricated the death certificate, therefore Posner could not prove he was the target of the libel.
So even if the death certificate had been complete and perfect, the libel case would still fail as Dr. Fletcher never accused Posner of faking, forging, or fabricating the relevant death certificate similitude, only
Publishing it and further this article by Elizabeth Williamson shows that these relatives of Sandy Hook victims are on a mission to alter the law Using the harm done by another whether the event be real or entirely pretended it is irrelevant These relatives have become a disarmament terrorists as they are using that harm, real or pretended, even if directed at themselves, to alter the law of the land.
And since they are all working and planning and making strategies to break the code, They are all involved in a conspiracy to commit disarmament terrorism against the Second Amendment.
It is against the law of the land to disarm the American people and this law should never be changed or infringed as this is the only defense the people have against tyranny and the police it uses and the military it can command.
Excellent.
Last.
Of course, we all agree that the summary judgment was completely erroneous.
The lawyer's statement in the article that they had to prove Noah was a real boy and that London was his dad and that he was born and died to win the summary judgment proves it to be erroneous.
That is not the proper use of the summary judgment.
A summary judgment does not prove or disprove or seek proof of facts on one side or both.
The lawyer, by admitting such a course of action on the summary judgment, reveals the misuse of the summary judgment to deny Dr. Fetzer a fair trial.
So, Williamson, the lawyer, and the judges and justices so far have proven their gross ignorance of what summary judgments are and the only way in which they can be employed justly.
A summary judgment by a judge alone must find agreement to facts, not proof, on one side over the other.
If the court seeks facts concerning the truth of one side or the other, they are required to call in the fact finder, the jury.
And the next, please.
So when the Williamson article said Fetzer produced no evidence to support his false claims and lost the summary judgment, they too neither understand what a summary judgment is nor what happened in court.
No facts are proven by either side in a summary judgment.
To grant a summary judgment, the judge must find agreement on the facts, not prove them.
And if the facts don't agree completely, any doubt on any of them must be resolved in favor of the non-move-on before a summary judgment can be granted against them Then the application of law to that agreement or resolution of the facts in the non-movement's favor, Dr. Fetzer.
Regardless of the confusion of Dr. Fetzer in how to defend himself without an attorney on the summary judgment, the judge should have denied the summary judgment as there were facts in dispute and the facts could not have been resolved in Dr. Fetzer's favor without finding that Sandy Hook didn't happen.
And that the death certificates were fake.
Denial of the summary judgment was the only course for the judge that would be harmless to both sides.
But not only did the judge grant an erroneous, groundless summary judgment, the Fourth Court of Appeals in Wisconsin affirmed it, and a week ago, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied a petition for review after waiting almost nine months.
We cannot let this stand.
Sincerely, Ron.
I thought that was just a masterful critique.
Ron, would you like to add a few words?
Because I have here a comment I posted at ABC News.
This story, when it's propaganda that somehow benefits powerful interests, it's everywhere.
But the fact that this was an abuse of summary judgment, that I had a mountain of evidence that I wasn't allowed to present, it appears nowhere.
So I submitted the following comment to ABC when it reprinted.
I looked at Many places it had been reprinted and would have commented had I had the opportunity.
So let's look at the next slide and then we'll get Ron back here in action.
This was ABC News.
Donna was the author of her piece.
Donna might want to take a look at the other side of Sandy Hook.
Neither the suits brought against Alex Jones, Wolfgang Helbig, or me has established that anyone died during the event.
Which appears to be the objective, keep evidence out of court.
In my case, I was sued by Lenny Posner for four sentences in a 400-plus page book with 13 contributors, including six PhD professors.
We established the school was closed by 2008.
There were no students there, and then it was a FEMA drill, technically, a mass casualty exercise involving children.
Well, we even found the manual for the exercise and published it as Appendix A and nobody died at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control.
2015, 2nd edition, 2016.
The court would not permit me to introduce evidence on the ground that it was not relevant to the truth or accuracy of the uncertified death certificate that Lenny had given to my co-author Kelly Watt Which said the decedent had died at Sandy Hook of multiple gunshot wounds.
You figure it out.
And when focusing on the death certificate alone, I introduced the reports of two forensic document experts that it was a fake.
The court simply set them aside as someone else's opinion and ruled against me when it had to go to a jury.
This was the deprivation of my constitutional rights under color of law.
Everyone simply assumes that what they read in the papers is true, but the facts are entirely different.
For further substantiation of what I'm explaining, check out, and then I give a link to where I give the same evidence and information on my crowd sourcing website at gives and go.com funding Fetzer.
Ron, your comment.
And of course, by the way, ABC would not publish it.
So they'd rather have no comments than a comment that rocks the boat.
Ron.
Yes.
Well, again, this shows that you had evidence to back up your assertion and allegations of fact that no one was killed at Sandy Hook.
Therefore, the death certificates could not be real or legitimate.
But again, in terms of what the courts actually did, of what they did to you, has to do with none, none of these facts, really.
Because, uh, again, in a summary judgment, they, they're not trying, well, there's no fact being tried.
The truthfulness of facts.
And here's another thing.
Just because a judge may not let you say something or do something, they can't get around the fact that you filed that book.
You filed that book in court.
Judges in a summary judgment are required to review the entire record and everything in it.
So whether or not this judge entertained your ideas or your allegations or let you speak them broadly and the thing that devastates this summary judgment and destroys it is that it's in the record.
Your whole book's in the record.
All of that information is in the record, and the judge had to look at it, and could he find agreement?
He can't find agreement, therefore he can't grant a summary judgment.
David, what do you find most astonishing about this case?
The corruption of our judicial system in this country.
From every level of judicial review that your case went under, you have been turned down up to and including The Wisconsin State Supreme Court.
And my fear is that despite the fact that every bit of evidence that you have validates everything that your book that you edited and compiled claims.
Everything is, I mean, your book is outstanding.
I have read it.
Despite all of that, I'm concerned that the United States Supreme Court is so corrupt and may soon be even further corrupt with the possible addition of this new justice
That the fake Biden regime is attempting to foist upon us that despite the fact that everything is in your favor, they may rule against you as they have in many other cases in which the law and the Constitution clearly proved that people were in the right and it was just dismissed.
Just dismissed!
Or they may like the Wisconsin Supreme Court simply declined to take my writ of certiorari.
Yeah, they only accept 5% of the writs now.
This is an absolutely crucial issue.
It implicates the 1st and the 2nd, but also the 5th and the 14th Amendments about due process, equal rights under the law, no deprivation of life, liberty, or process without due process.
This case is as central to the Constitution as any case ever brought before the Supreme Court, of that I have no doubt.
Now, the benefit in submitting to the court is that law schools pick up and study writs of certiorari submitted to the Supreme Court, and if they ignore this one, if the court will not review it, I think that will make a tremendous impact on everyone who studies the American judicial system and be used as a stunning illustration of its corruption from top to bottom, precisely as you observe.
Now, I made a promissory note, which I pay off in the next slide.
I said that the woman who was the lead plaintiff against Remington, Donna Soto, actually is a crisis actor.
She feigns to be the mother of Victoria Soto, a teacher who is supposed to have died at the FEMA drill in I mean, David, this is robbing it in our face.
I mean, this is so insulting.
But get this, she also played the role of Susan Brough, the mother of Heather Heyer, who's supposed to have died in a car crash in Charlottesville, Virginia.
I mean, David, this is rubbing it in our face.
It is.
This is so insulting.
So then I put together a one minute pitch here at the very next slide, David, if we could play about that's intended to sum up what we've been talking about here today.
All right, we will do that right now.
And let's hear Dr. Fetcher's pitch.
And I concur with it.
Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Then they sued to shut me up.
And the Wisconsin courts played along.
I have the proof and the law on my side.
What I don't have is the money.
They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
Take guns, impose tyranny.
And it's on the way with Remington's help.
First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
GiveSendGo.com slash Funding Fetzer.
Check it out.
This is for all of the marbles.
And of course, we do have that scrolling across the bottom of the screen, so please do contribute to Dr. Fetzer's fund.
If you go to the final slide, David, then, this is what you'll find there.
In the description, I lay out the details, the facts.
I give you a review of the book by Brian Wright.
I give you Mike Adams' response to the banning of the book where he calls me the most dangerous mind in America.
Kevin Barrett's review of the legal lynching of a truth seeker.
Stalinist style show trial where he was there during the trial for damages.
Ron Avery's blistering critique of the appellate court.
I mean, this is really serious because, and you can return now to just the three of us, David, because if this case is allowed to stand, then in essence, any judge in any courtroom could use summary judgment to make up his own facts and find against any Any defendant, no matter what the evidence might be, through this grotesque amuse.
Ron, would you agree?
Totally.
Whether or not Sandy Hook is real, whether or not any of these events are real, the fact is that they've created a judicial environment
For completely theatrical events to be used against the rights of the American people, coupled with the mass media cartel, which is now determining all truth for all people.
And no one can challenge these mass media cartel narratives in a court of law.
This is a very dangerous environment.
This is atrocious.
And it needs to be stopped.
We can't live in a country like that.
We just can't do it.
It becomes a tyranny, a judicial tyranny, where judges rule and make up their own facts, David.
It's absolutely stunning.
And I'm so grateful to you for providing this opportunity to explain to the public what the hell is going on here.
Well, the pleasure is mine because I support your case 100%.
So please, givesendgo.com forward slash fundingfetzer.
Please contribute.
This is for all the marbles.
It's for your First and Second Amendment rights.
Not just Dr. Fetzer's.
And David, I'm seeking to raise $100,000, and my lead attorney has run it by me, and it's gonna cost approximately that much to carry this case forward to the Supreme Court.
So I need the money, and I think there's no doubt that this is justified.
If a large number of people contribute small amounts, that's gonna work.
So I entreat everyone out there You don't have to contribute 100 or 500.
If you could contribute 50 or 20, that will help.
So, please, realize this is about the administration of justice in the United States and upholding the principle that no one may deprive them life, liberty, or property without due process of law, which is as basic as it gets to the Constitution of the United States.
Completely agree.
Dr. James Fetzer, we'll talk to you again next week.
Ron Amey, what a pleasure it was to have you on the program.
Thank you both, and GiveSendGo.com forward slash funding Fetzer.
Please contribute.
We'll talk to you again next week, Dr. Fetzer.
▲
Export Selection