Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 31, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:57:30

The Event (Raw Deal + Wisdom Circle - 30 March 22 - Guest: Ron Avery

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh god.
	Oh god.
	I'm not here!
	I'm not here if anyone called.
	I'm not here.
	Don't... November 9th.
	1989.
	History is made.
	The Berlin Wall falls.
	Years pass.
	Decades end.
	A new century is born.
	In 2021, one wall remains at Revolution Radio.
	The wall between Studio A, The Wisdom Circle, and Studio B, The Raw Deal.
	The wall falls.
	History is made!
	Wisdom Circle Crossroar Deal Equals!
	The Event!
	James Fenton!
	David Scorpio!
	Giuseppe Bufangelo!
	History is made!
	And now... The Event!
	Well, we're very pleased today to have someone I regard as a dear friend, who's also an expert in the area of defamation lawsuits.
	He's been subjected to them himself.
	He filed them.
	He's assessed them.
	He has discovered that my case, Posner v. Fetzer, where he has an archive of the documents available to make them available to the public, may
	Well, the most disgraceful and inept summary judgment ever in the history of the United States, and where in spite of the egregious shortcomings of the case at the circuit court level, where the judge used a summary judgment to resolve disputed facts which had to be sent to a jury and thus carried out the role of both judge and jury, which was grossly improper.
	Where he never acknowledged my credentials as an investigative journalist in spite of the fact that the alleged sentences over which I was being sued occurred in chapters of books where I had myself edited the book out of articles I published on a blog and in another memorandum to the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, edited by Robert David Steele.
	The appellate court, nevertheless, simply reinforced the judge's absurd abuse of the law, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied my petition for review, suggesting to me that if justice is to be found, it will not be in the courts of Wisconsin, which has led me to move to the United States Supreme Court, where I'm in process of preparing a writ of certiorari to be submitted thereto.
	Ron, it's just great to have you here with us today.
	Thank you.
	I'm glad to be here.
	I agree with everything you've said there.
	Go ahead and elaborate.
	Just lay it on us of what you found.
	Well, let me tell the folks a little bit about me.
	When I discovered Jim Fetzer, I really didn't know he had this case going on.
	I just, a friend told me that he was going to hold an event in New Orleans, and I'm a live streamer with multiple cameras, mix and stream type thing, and to do events.
	And so I wanted to do it.
	So I contacted him and we talked and I found out about his libel case against him.
	And I had just completed a libel case myself.
	I had sued a newspaper reporter and the owner of the newspaper, the Hearst Communications Incorporated, for libel.
	And I had been thrown out of court under the Texas Citizen Participation Act.
	Which is a deeply flawed act to protect newspapers from libel when they commit it.
	So it's very difficult to win a libel lawsuit, much less win it by summary judgment.
	Summary judgments by plaintiffs are very rare and libel lawsuits are very difficult to win.
	So in this case, There's two miracles happened in James Fetzer's case, where not only did the plaintiff win a summary judgment, but they won it in libel, which is a very tough thing to prove.
	And so the more I got into it, I discovered how fallacious this summary judgment is.
	It violates every rule of summary judgment, and it ought to be taught in law schools what not to do.
	This is not what you do with summary judgment.
	Give us a couple of the basics about summary judgments, Ron, and cases of defamation, as I understand it, in order to defeat In order to sustain a claim of defamation, you have to demonstrate that the purportedly defamatory statements are false.
	Which, of course, I think you'll agree, was not done in this case.
	So how could there be a finding of defamation?
	Moreover, the defamatory statements have to implicate the party who claims to have been defamed.
	But the sentences in this case Well, you're right.
	to the defamatory, the party who claimed to have been defamed, but only to the document.
	So it looks as though there's a considerable stretch going on here.
	How is this even possible?
	Well, you're right.
	You have to prove, if you bring a case for defamation, like you say, or libel, you have to prove that you were the target of it.
	Even if what you said had been false, it would have to be directed to the plaintiff.
	It wasn't.
	You didn't claim that Mr. Posner did anything other than put out on the Internet an incomplete death certificate.
	Yes, yes, continue, continue, Ron.
	OK.
	First of all, I want to educate the listener about what summary judgments are.
	Summary judgments is a judicial tool to be used when all the facts are agreed to by both the plaintiff and the defendant.
	The whole purpose of a jury is to find facts.
	And you're always told when you go into the courtroom that the judge determines the law and the jury determines the facts.
	So when they dispense with the jury, it has to be under the only condition they can do that is when the facts are in agreement between the parties.
	And there are cases like this.
	Uh, where the facts are in agreement and the only dispute is over the law.
	Well, that's when a judge can issue a summary judgment.
	Now, there's only one other condition where this can happen.
	And that is where the, the, even though the facts applied, uh, do not agree.
	If, uh, one set of, uh, if the non-movement facts are irrelevant.
	To the case, to the charge against it.
	So there's only two ways where there's total agreement on the facts and where the non-movement facts are irrelevant to the claim.
	So now, in order to use a summary judgment, you have to follow eight rules to make sure That the movement is the one that moves for a summary judgment.
	The non-movement is the one that summary judgment is against.
	So you have eight rules established in every state of the union that cover that one must follow, a judge must follow, in order to grant a summary judgment.
	Here's all the rules.
	There's eight of them.
	The movement has the burden of showing that there are no issues of material fact.
	2.
	Evidence favorable to the non-movement will be taken as true.
	All of it.
	All evidence favorable to the non-movement must be taken as true.
	3.
	Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movement.
	So all the facts you've pled, any inference that can be drawn from them, must be taken as true in favor of the non-moving.
	Number four.
	Summary judgment is reviewed by the appellate court de novo, meaning all new.
	They look at it like it's been filed for the first time.
	They have to go, okay, I don't want to get ahead of myself because these are independent rules.
	Number five.
	Movement must prove every element of their claim.
	And we just talked about, in this case, the movement did not prove that he was a target of the so-called libelous publication.
	Number six, a summary judgment defendant, oh, Oh, a summary judgment for a defendant is available if they can prove at least one element of the plaintiff's claim is missing or he hasn't established it.
	So, in fact, Dr. Fetzer could have won his summary judgment by proving simply that Posner was not the target of his publication.
	Now, number seven, a matter is conclusive If reasonable people could not differ on their conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.
	So there is, you know, the judge must say, can anybody find a difference of opinion here about the facts?
	If he can, then he cannot grant it.
	Number eight, the final one here.
	On appeal, the entire record is examined in light most favorable to the non-movement, indulging every inference in favor of the non-movement, and resolving any doubt against the movement.
	So you can see, that's all eight of them.
	And you can see how difficult it would be to grant a summary judgment.
	And in this case, it's impossible in the positive versus specific.
	And as you review them, Ron, it occurs to me every one of those eight was violated in this case.
	Do you know of even one that was satisfied of those eight?
	No, that's what I'm saying.
	This is by far the worst summary judgment I've ever seen.
	I mean, How can you grant one when it violates every single one?
	Even the Appellate Court violated it.
	The Fourth Court of Appeals violated it.
	The Supreme Court of Wisconsin must have been asleep.
	I don't think they read the data.
	I think this was such a political hot potato that the Court of Appeals had been so grossly abusive by citing the official narrative of Sandy Hook as though it were a fact.
	When it's never been dealt with in any court, all the cases heretofore have been decided on the basis of procedural or technical grounds.
	None of them have reached a question of whether anyone died at Sandy Hook, which my case was intended to do.
	And then I got boxed out again and again, denied the opportunity to present a defense, present my evidence from beginning to end.
	It was absurd, Ron.
	Scorpio, your preliminary thoughts about Ron's critique here of what was taking place in Wisconsin?
	Well, it seems as though the legal system has been misused.
	It appears to me like he may have been some kind of target.
	I don't know if Ron is that conspiratorial, but maybe he could comment on the possibility of Jim being intentionally mistreated here.
	Well, that's a good question.
	It's very good, and I don't want to forget to do one thing before we go on.
	I want to read a portion of the appellate court's ruling on page three, but I'm going to answer that.
	I actually think the whole thing was a fishing trip.
	Who would put out I think the lawsuit was completely planned and restricted to this death certificate, supposed alleged death certificate, and it was published in an incomplete form.
	It was an uncertified death certificate, and this is the only one that Fetzer ever saw and commented on it until the lawsuit.
	And even Posner, when he filed the lawsuit, he attached a different version of the death certificate to his petition, original petition.
	And an honest judge would have said, Sir, what are we talking about here?
	You said he defamed you by saying this one over here is fake, and you filed an entirely different one.
	I think the judge should have thrown it out immediately, just said, you guys aren't on the same page.
	You're not even looking at the same document.
	I mean, it's obvious that they both can't be the The legitimate death certificate, but I think it was planned.
	I think what has happened here is that these people from Sandy Hook are trying to establish a fact, the fact of Sandy Hook, that it happened just the way the mass media cartel spun the story.
	They're trying to prove that in a court of law.
	They're trying to make it a judicial truth.
	An adjudicated truth, and they're doing it on an incomplete, uncertified death certificate, which is outrageous.
	It's just crazy.
	And of course, they're taking Dr. Fetzer to the cleaners in the process.
	He's a victim.
	He's a victim of a phishing trip.
	I think it's more specific than I was specifically targeted.
	And the reason was that when Amazon banned the book after having been put on sale on 22 October 2015 and sold nearly 500 copies in less than a month, it was banned on 19 November, even though Amazon at the time had 20 books on Sandy Hook, 19 of which were sympathetic or reiterating the official account, only one of which was challenging.
	But that one included contributions from 13, including six PhDs, and established a school that had been closed by 2008, that there were no students or teachers there, and that it was a two-day FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	Well, we even discovered the manual, technically, for a mass casualty drill involving children, which I included as Appendix A. So, when Amazon banned the book, I knew this was political, and I immediately released it for free as a PDF.
	I wanted the public to get the truth.
	Money has never been a motive for me.
	So releasing the book as a PDF and then learning years and years later from a friend that he believed it had been downloaded as much as 10 million times.
	For me, that was a success.
	I believe they wanted to make a finding against me, not only to punish me personally for exposing the hoax, but also to use something they could take to those who are releasing the PDF for free and tell them their doing so was in violation of a judge's finding a defamation to shut them down.
	And it's been pretty successful, so far as I can tell.
	Virtually all of those sources where the book has heretofore been available as a PDF have been shut down.
	This was a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
	It's known as a slap suit, which are illegal in some 27, maybe even 37 states, but in the Here in Wisconsin, it was accepted, and I couldn't agree more with Ron.
	This was bizarre!
	How could I be sued over a death certificate that I've never seen, never commented upon, never published, this complete death certificate, versus the one that I did publish, which was incomplete and uncertified, no file number, no town certification, no state certification, and yet, in the complaint, it claims And this is just illustrating the legal absurdity of the entire undertaking.
	There's no material difference between them.
	Well, material differences mean legally significant differences, and the file number, the town certification, the state are obvious material differences.
	Ron, have you ever seen anything so absurd on its face?
	Well, I would like that judge, when he stopped for speeding, To pull out a driver's license with no driver's license number on it, no seal of the state, not signed by the Department of Transportation or any of that.
	I want to see how that would fly.
	I know, I know, I don't study.
	Giuseppe, I realize you have conflicts today.
	I want you to go ahead and share with us your thoughts preliminarily to what Ron's reporting here.
	Well, it's wonderful that Ron's joined the show, and I really admire his work.
	And, Ron, what do you make of this insane Zionist, communist, activist, globalist judge phenomenon that's occurring everywhere?
	The new buzzword for the latest PSYOP is communitarianism, which is just a farcical word.
	It's really just continuing zio-communist.
	Since the late 19th century, these Jews have been seeking to gain control of a one-world government.
	They've got it to where they control judges.
	Their big push, it seems, is to try and somehow get the American public to not own guns, which is farcical.
	It'll never happen.
	And yet, every which way, they create these These illegal, immoral, ridiculous law cases that then they use as a body of case law, which is just absurd.
	I mean, it's like we're stepping into Orwellian, you know, war is peace, hate is love kind of stuff.
	I mean, it's just absurd that these judges are so corrupt, so weak-willed and weak-minded.
	Well, I think a key to this, first of all, I'd like to comment on your use of the term communitarianism.
	I'm kind of new to the term.
	I have a friend in Texas.
	just an egregious affront to, you know, uh, natural law and public law, your thoughts?
	Well, I think a key to this, uh, first of all, I'd like to comment on your use of the term communitarianism.
	I, uh, I've kind of new to the term.
	I have a friend in Texas.
	He goes by Lark in Texas.
	Uh, his real name is Lawrence Cumbie, uh, He's a great guy, very intellectual and well spoken.
	And so I'm kind of new to that and I'm going to be doing, in fact, we're going to be doing a program together at MixandStream.com with Lawrence and myself talking and getting in depth about this communitarian language.
	Yeah, I think the judicial system is completely shot.
	I think it defends tyranny, and I think it defends the mass media cartel to the max.
	In my case, they went to extremes and perverted case law in order to dismiss my case
	And actually, when you lose a case under a motion filed for dismissal under the Texas Citizen Participation Act, they make all of the defendants' judicial fees or their lawyer fees, legal fees,
	You have to pay those, and they even make sanctions mandatory.
	Well, the judge in my case dismissed me, but then at the same time he said he struck through the defendant's claims for sanctions.
	And if he would have known anything about the law or the Texas Citizen Participation Act, he would have known that those are mandatory.
	It wasn't up to the judge.
	The judge doesn't get to do that.
	But thank goodness, this has been almost five years ago, and they have not followed through with getting all their attorney's fees and sanctions against me.
	And the lawyers actually flew down to Seguin, Texas from New York City.
	They actually have their own judicial branch of I apologize for intervening.
	I know Giuseppe can't stay long.
	I want to scroll down.
	Elizabeth Williamson is a stringer for the New York Times.
	She has written a book about it and published articles.
	I want to invite Giuseppe back up to the title there.
	Yeah, Sandy Hook family's not legal with.
	She's talking about my case and that of Alex Jones.
	And I just want to point out as we scroll down a bit, what she says about my case.
	Giuseppe, yeah, scroll down a little while.
	I'll tell you where.
	Keep going.
	Keep going a little further.
	Yeah, good.
	Keep going.
	Keep going.
	What you got to get?
	Yeah, now you're getting close.
	Keep going.
	What?
	Yeah, I think she talked about my case involving a novel legal strategy.
	He continued just a bit.
	Hold on.
	I would think we're in there.
	The Fetzer case showcased another novel leader of tragedy, this one devised by Genovese and Jake Zimmerman, a husband-and-wife team who are Posner's pro bono lawyers.
	Pro bono lawyers.
	I'm preparing a Sandy Book series in a courtroom.
	Really, that means seeking to prevent me from presenting evidence in my defense.
	Uh, they, uh, narrowed the case to four specific statements in Fetzer's book, falsely claiming that Posner had forged Noah's death certificate, which I never said, never claimed.
	Then the lawyer sought a judgment without a full trial, meaning a summary judgment.
	Securing this summary judgment required Mr. Posner to prove that Noah had actually lived and died and that he was Noah's father.
	That's false!
	The summary judgment required him to refute my allegations about the death certificate, which they never did!
	They never did!
	As Ron observed, it was an uncertified and incomplete death certificate.
	They introduced a certified and complete death certificate.
	I introduced the testimony Of two document examiners who reviewed both of those and two others and concluded all four of them were fake.
	That was the attorney's, the conclusion of the forensic experts.
	Yeah, we're hit with a break, Ron.
	We'll be right back after.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We will be right back.
	Thank you.
	This has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio, FreedomSubs.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio, Radio, Radio, Radio.
	Hey everyone, it's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
	If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	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.
	It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday 8 p.m.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomStitch.com.
	The people's episode.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Apologies for that rude interruption, because Giuseppe has other obligations.
	I want to return to the images he's presenting so we can vacate the premises and take care of his obligations.
	Listen to this.
	This novel strategy, narrowing the case of four specific statements, False.
	Securing the summary judgment required Mr. Ponser to prove that Noah had actually lived and died and that he was Noah's father.
	That's false too.
	He did it.
	All he had to do was to show that the allegedly defamatory statements were false, which he never did.
	The lawyers gathered records related to Noah's birth, life, and death.
	Ponser took a blood test, his DNA meshes sample from Noah's postmortem.
	That's a very elaborate issue to which we may return.
	But here's the key point right there.
	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 case later this year, A jury convened to decide on damages.
	They awarded Posner 450,000, which ballooned to more than a million following sanctions after Fetzer leaked Mr. Posner's sealed videotaped deposition to other conspiracy theorists, fueling more abuse.
	Listen, it almost takes my breath away, the brazenness with which this is being misdescribed.
	She mentioned above that I had a blog, right?
	400 pages or so, and yet I produce no evidence to support my false claims, which in court were never shown to be false.
	No, you were good, Giuseppe.
	You can just leave it up there on that one about the false.
	Yeah, you're good.
	You're good.
	You're good, my friend.
	Ron, your thoughts about what Elizabeth Williamson is claiming here?
	Yeah, I think this is an admission by Posner's attorneys.
	When they call it a novel, well, now maybe they didn't say that, maybe this author of this article says this, but if they got it from the attorneys, it's an admission that this was a fishing expedition because they limited the claims to this death certificate.
	Are alleged death certificate and And they also indicate in this article that somehow That that Judicial in a summary judgment nothing is proved nothing absolutely nothing because it's not based on
	Proving a fact the only thing a judge can find in a summary judgment is agreement agreement to the allegations and the facts pled Now did he find agreement or two things?
	He can either find agreement or that your allegations of fact are completely irrelevant to the suit well He couldn't find that your claim that Sandy Hook was a FEMA exercise for the promotion of gun control.
	That could not be irrelevant to the claim that Posner's son was killed at the mass shooting at Sandy Hook on the same hour, same day, all of that, when you're alleging that it was a FEMA exercise.
	So, summary judgments can't prove facts.
	They can't find facts.
	They can only find agreement or irrelevance.
	So, they couldn't find irrelevance, and they damn sure couldn't find agreement.
	So, the summary judgment is a fake.
	The summary judgment is fake law.
	It's an abuse of the system.
	It is an abuse of summary judgment.
	It's an abusive process, right?
	Because it was not brought in good faith, and for improper, indeed malicious purposes.
	Yes.
	Now let me prove my point when I say that, because what I want to do is I want to read you, I want to read to the audience, the 4th Court of Appeals, I want to read this on their page 3.
	Ron, I want you to do that, but I have to interject a comment here.
	I'm under a court order, a permanent injunction, to not reaffirm the statements over which I was sued.
	Therefore, any discussion here is merely descriptive of what the lawsuit was about.
	I am not reaffirming those sentences, which the court has ordered me not to do.
	Frankly, the court has threatened to jail me, you know, over this matter.
	When I sought to find an impeachment with this, because I'm convinced the party who came and testified under the name of Leonard Posner is not Leonard Posner, that Noah Posner, the alleged scene is a fabrication made up of photographs of a real son of the party, who was the imposter, whose name is Michael Vabner.
	The imposter is Reuben Vabner.
	And I laid all this out before the court.
	Many, many times, including a motion for expanded summary judgment.
	Wow, Giuseppe!
	Here's what you see.
	This is a photo of Noah Posner turning into Michael Vavner because they used photographs of Michael Vavner when he was a child to be the mythical decedent Noah Posner, the subject of the death certificate.
	Ron makes the impeccable point.
	How can Whether or not anybody died at Sandy Hook not be relevant to the truth or the accuracy of a death certificate that claims a decedent died at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012 with multiple gunshot wounds, and yet that's what the court did at the scheduling conference.
	He excluded me from presenting all that evidence.
	This is just absolutely stunning.
	Giuseppe, I appreciate your putting that up.
	Very, very good.
	Michael Vander, by the way, appears to be doing stand-up comedy.
	We have a report of him in a comedy club in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
	Very strange.
	Very strange.
	Excellent, Giuseppe.
	I don't want to hold you up.
	I know you have conflicting obligations.
	Do you want to make some final observations, Giuseppe?
	Absolutely.
	And I just am stunned at the level of corruption that has infiltrated the court system.
	And I guess perhaps it's always been that way, but it's so blatant now.
	And I just salute Ron Avery and yourself for fighting this battle.
	And, yeah, I got to go.
	And Scorpio, just at the end of the show, up at the upper right, just hit End Broadcast, and then I can download it and put it up when I get back.
	All right, you got it.
	No problem.
	Have a good day, Giuseppe.
	Good luck with everything, Giuseppe, and thank you for participating as long as you could today.
	Wonderful.
	Okay, take care.
	Bye now.
	Scorpio, would you like to comment?
	I think Giuseppe nailed it, and when Ron went through the eight elements of a summary judgment and noted that none of them, none of them were satisfied in this case.
	That's rather appalling.
	Well, it's disconcerting to see the level of corruption and seeing the court system used as a weapon, essentially, against dissident political voices.
	I think that's really what's going on.
	Yep, you're 100% right.
	Absolutely spot on.
	Ron, go ahead and continue.
	You were about to read from the 4th District Court of Appeals, Wisconsin, rejection of my petition, my appeal for review, de novo, which they did not do.
	Right.
	And I want to agree with Scorpio here, too, that when a court denies, when they, in a bald-faced manner, pervert the law, it continues a state of war, because that's what the courts are for, is to stop the state of war between people.
	And when the court perverts the law, against one, it continues that state of war against that individual.
	So the court system presently has continued the state of war and become combatants against Dr. Fetzer.
	My whole contention is one of the most telling events of Sandy Hook is this judicial process that we're looking at.
	It is completely fraudulent.
	I want to read this on page 3 from the 4th Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
	This is what they say.
	I'm going to quote it to you right now.
	Quote, the following material facts are taken from the summary judgment submissions and trial testimony as discussed in more detail in the discussion section of this opinion.
	There is no reasonable dispute regarding the following facts.
	On December 14, 2012, a mass shooting occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
	Typically, I mean tragically, 26 people were killed, including 6 staff members and 20 children who were aged 6 and 7.
	Now, they give a citation that says, see Jones versus Hessling, and they give the citation in the West Wall.
	Then they quote from the case stating, quote, Neil Hessling's son was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in December 2012.
	And rejecting the substantial truth doctrine as a basis to dismiss Hesselin's defamation claim relating to statements disputing Hesselin's assertion that he held his deceased son in his arms.
	So rather than get into what that was about and the Uh, substantial truth doctrine.
	I know what that is and how they're using this here.
	But then they cite another case.
	Soto versus Bushmaster Firearms International LLC.
	They give the citation to that.
	And it says, and they quote from that tape, on December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza forced his way into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, and during the course of 264 seconds, fatally shot 20 first-grade children and six staff members and wounded two other staff members.
	Posner's six-year-old son, Ian,
	Now, no one need read past page three of this so-called judicial instrument, the Fourth Court of Appeals opinion in this case, because
	This was not at all the agreed-to facts.
	Reading that lets you know that they do not even recognize anything that Fetzer claimed.
	They just totally reject it.
	It violates the fact that the courts must review everything that the non-movement says And they must take his alleged facts as true.
	Well, if they did that, they would find that it wasn't.
	See, in order to grant this summary judgment, they would have to find that Sandy Hook was actually a FEMA exercise where no one was killed, and it was then promoted for gun control purposes.
	That's what they would have to find.
	They'd have to find that to be true in order to grant a summary judgment.
	Meaning they've got to take for granted that part of my defense has been submitted to the court.
	Right, because you submitted these documents and you submitted evidence.
	You've actually submitted the 20-page document, the FEMA exercise manual covering it.
	He also submitted other pertinent evidence showing... The FBI Consolidate Crime Report for 2012!
	Yes!
	FBI report!
	I mean... The official report on Sandy Hook by State's Attorney Steven Sinitsky III that does not create a causal nexus relating the shooter to his alleged victims and to the weapons he's supposed to have used!
	So the only way the judge could grant this summary judgment, there's two ways.
	He could find, well, in other words, he has two options and both of them fail.
	Because he can find everything you said was true, but then if he did, how can he say that a death certificate from one claiming to have died at the Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, How could that be legitimate when they also find that it didn't happen?
	It was a FEMA exercise where no one died.
	So can't grant it there.
	So the only other thing they can do, and you can tell from what they're aiming at, they're looking for reasonable, reasonable facts.
	So what they're saying is that everything that Dr. Fetzer claimed was unreasonable.
	So they dismissed it as unreasonable, but the problem is the finding of reasonable cannot be something that's a fact.
	Finding reasonableness could be a fact, and so they just can't get rid of it.
	This is the worst summary judgment in history.
	And the explanation, would you not agree, has to be political.
	I mean, you know, what in the world was going on here, Ron?
	I think it was not just a fishing exposition.
	I think, as you were suggesting, they're trying to create a series of legal cases that create a false impression That there's been a judicial determination that Sandy Hook occurred as a fact, as narrated, even reiterated by the Appellate Court for the Fourth District.
	Scorpio, your thoughts about all these developments that Ron's reporting?
	Well, Jim, is there any way you could turn your volume up a little bit?
	You sound a little distant on the audio.
	Okay.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Does that help?
	Is that better?
	I think so, yeah.
	Maybe Ron has some insight into some remedies to this.
	Is there a way to remedy this legal system or is it beyond repair like some of the other things associated with the federal government?
	Well, my personal opinion is that the entire federal government is dissolved.
	And everything that it does and every branch of it is in defense of a dissolved tyrannical government.
	Because that's what when a government dissolves itself through the alterations of its constituting documents by law without permission by the people under that document, meaning amendment, Then they dissolve the Constitution and that which gives them authority.
	So, the exercise of power without authority is tyranny.
	That's the very definition of it.
	So, all of the branches of government are acting in defense of the people, from the people, in order to seek lawful government.
	The people naturally seek lawful governance.
	But when you have a dissolved government, they become defensive or actually offensive.
	They can be offensive.
	They are offensive because the dissolution of your government is an offensive act.
	It's actually an act of war.
	So, the federal government created an act of war against the American people by dissolving their constitution, altering it, altering the terms of it, the provisions of it, by law, without approval of the people by amendment.
	So, it's not surprising to me that every branch is acting in defense from the people, defending their tyranny.
	Or, in fact, that's an act of war, though.
	So, it's offensive, and the people have every God-given right to seek lawful government right now, a completely new one.
	And that's really what we ought to be doing, and reading books like John Locke's Second Treatise of Government would be instrumental in creating a new lawful government to simply replace this tyrannical dissolved one.
	I can't hear you at all.
	You're muted, Jim.
	You're muted.
	Yeah, Jim, you're muted.
	Nope, you're still muted.
	Yeah, you're muted, Jim.
	Are you muted on the screen?
	Did you accidentally mute yourself on the screen?
	Down below at the bottom?
	Nope?
	Then when you, when you, when you resetted your volume, you must have turned it off.
	you may have clicked it off thinking you altered it because when you altered it you knocked yourself off Thank you.
	Hmm.
	Oh, I think he's gonna miss again.
	Looks like Jim dropped off here.
	Hold on.
	I need to... God.
	Maybe he's gonna just try to come back in.
	Just restart or something.
	Yeah.
	Well, Ron, maybe you could continue with your analysis.
	Could you go further into this dissolution of the government?
	I mean, when do you think that happened?
	Well, I don't get into the strict history of things because it's not necessary.
	All you have to do is show that the provisions have been altered by law.
	without amendment.
	That means if you read the Constitution of the United States and find a provision in there that the government is not following, and they've created the condition by passage of laws or acts or resolutions, and you can't find an amendment for it, and you can't find an amendment for it, it's dissolution.
	They dissolved it.
	Can you hear me now?
	Yes, very good.
	You sound great.
	All right, now I apologize on the typing.
	Ron was making so many excellent points and I'm preparing my writ of certiorari.
	I was making comments in relation to the writ and thought because I have the headphones on you wouldn't hear the typing, so I apologize for that.
	Scorpio Ron is just an invaluable repository of information and it is just grotesque the extent to which the law is being violated and then I mean it's like the CDC and the FDA they're supposed to be protecting our health and you'll find that the FDA is backing the CDC the NIH is backing the
	FDC and backing the CDC, the World Health Organization, all of those that are supposed to be safety valves to ensure our health isn't put at risk by the agencies that are entrusted to protect it, are being violated here in a legal situation where a circuit court judge violates every principle of summary judgment on appeal.
	It's to go to the appellate court, which is obligated to conduct a trial de novo, review the whole case from beginning to end, And instead of fulfilling their obligation, they recite the official narrative of Sandy Hook and cite a couple of court cases that were decided on procedural technical grounds that never reached the fact of whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
	And then the Wisconsin Supreme Court decides not to review my petition, notwithstanding its obvious merit, and waits until There's a settlement, a fake settlement, with a fake Sandy Hook parents for $73 million as a cover story, and then they release it.
	I mean, this to me is about as disgusting as it gets.
	If you had... I went into this with faith in the judicial system.
	Someone had even told me that this judge was a good judge, which put my mind to risk.
	But of course, I discovered That's inconsistent with violating every principle of summary judgment.
	In fact, summary judgment couldn't even apply here, because as Ron observed, if you have a disputed fact, it has to be sent to a jury for resolution.
	There can be no disputed facts, and yet the basic question of the authenticity of the death certificate Remained in dispute, where I even submitted the reports of two, not one, but two forensic document experts who found that all four of the death certificates that had been introduced into evidence at that point in time were fake.
	That is their judgment.
	I'm not allowed to make that declaration.
	I'm merely reporting what they found because I'm under constraint from the judge in this case.
	Scorpio, your thoughts?
	Well, yeah.
	It's interesting, you know, to know when the American government was dissolved.
	I think there's several different dates you could put on that, depending on how far back in history you want to go.
	But it's clearly the government's not operating from anything that has any regard for the government.
	And I will be right back.
	Thank you.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting This is a Drill, This is a Drill on bullhorns during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself. - Oh!
	Because we know who they are and what they do.
	This is what they do!
	and we must fight back.
	You can torture us and bomb us.
	Fire is catching.
	And if we burn, You burn with us!
	- Good evening. - Are you awake yet?
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	The time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
	The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
	Denial is not A choice anymore.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio.
	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.
	It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Ron, you've been doing quite an admirable job of dispatching the judicial process as it was carried out in the state of Wisconsin and reinforcing the reasons why it's indispensable that this case we carry to the U.S.
	Supreme Court, because in its absence, any judge in any courtroom would be entitled to use summary judgment to make any finding of fact he might desire against any defendant, regardless of the evidence.
	It is simply Astonishing and appalling that we've come to this point and that even though the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was derelict in its obligation to review this case that the Court of Appeals did not conduct a trial de novo The deficiency here were so blatant that a first-year law student would be appalled.
	So I am completely disillusioned about the state of justice in the United States, which appears to suffer acute deficiencies from top to bottom.
	We shall see what happens.
	But I am very grateful for your support.
	I think you're doing an excellent job of critiquing the case.
	Now, I know a term you have introduced is applicable here.
	You refer to it as disarmament terrorism, part of which involves creating real or fake acts of terrorism to promote disarming the American people in violation of the Second Amendment.
	So, Ron, give us an outline.
	Give us an argument about disarmament terrorism and why you believe it's so central to what's taking place today in the judicial system of the United States.
	Yes.
	You know, we didn't start this language and create these terms, but during the 9-11 event and the aftermath of it, they've created terms like they defined what terrorism is, which is the use of and actually it can be expanded and is expanded by the courts.
	It's the use of, actually it's the threat or real or pretended force or harm in order to alter the law or public policy.
	So, and then conspiracy, we know what that is.
	Conspiracy is well defined in the court system.
	I've even sued lawyers for conspiracy.
	To interfere with contracts.
	So I know what conspiracies are.
	And I also know that you don't have to be involved in a conspiracy.
	You do not have to know all the actors in a conspiracy.
	All you have to do is agree to the object of the conspiracy and to perform your role in it.
	And then what happens when you do that is you acquire the liability for the acts of everyone in the conspiracy.
	So I want to show you how the combination of the judicial definition of conspiracy and terrorism come into play, possibly even at Sandy Hook.
	Because if people agree to the end, to the object of the events, whether they be real, threatened, or pretended, if they agree to the object, well, if a group of people agree that America should be disarmed,
	And they should have no firepower sufficient to defend themselves from tyranny, then they agree on the object.
	So then, and it doesn't matter whether it be real or pretended or threat this harm we're talking about.
	So if we were to take Sandy Hook, Could we actually say that the alleged survivors are the parents of the alleged victims of Sandy Hook?
	If they use that event to disarm the American people, which apparently they've done because they've sued Bushmaster, put them out of business, got $73 million for this, this is Disarming the American people by removing the ability of American people to purchase, to even have available to them firearms for purchase.
	So if they, let's say that Sandy Hook actually did happen, that there were people, that their children were actually killed there.
	And it's not proven, but let's say for argument that they were.
	If those surviving parents used that event to disarm the American people by suing Bushmaster, who cannot possibly be responsible for what a wacko does with one of their firearms, then the result is that they've used harm done by another, even to themselves,
	They are using that to create another harm.
	Now, what people tend to forget is that disarmament of the American people is against the law.
	It's against the law of the land.
	It is against the law to disarm the American people.
	So, what are they doing?
	They're disarming the American people.
	It's an alteration of the law.
	They are attacking the law.
	And they've even admitted, all these parents have admitted, Oh, we didn't get any results.
	When we went to Congress, we tried to get the firearms, uh, you know, uh, law all, uh, where you can't get a gun.
	That's very powerful.
	All of that.
	Well, that's against the law and the, and they admit that didn't get, they weren't successful.
	at altering the law in Congress, even after they said their children were killed at Sandy Hook.
	So then they sue the manufacturers of the firearms.
	But what is the object?
	The object of these people's combination is to alter the law, the Second Amendment.
	And that, if they use in force, even harm, a real I think that's exactly right.
	Scorpio, your thoughts?
	Well, I like the term disarmament terrorism.
	That's very good.
	And I don't see how they're going to possibly be able to do that.
	Even if they make it illegal to own a firearm somehow, I just think the level of non-compliance would be off the charts.
	Unless they can create a situation where people are literally unable to provide for themselves either through a crashing of the economy or Some kind of disruption of the supply chain.
	What are your thoughts on the government going to some kind of extreme like that to enact the Great Reset or other aspects of their agenda?
	Is that directed to me?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Okay, yeah.
	Well, I think it's in full-blown progress.
	I even think the Ukrainian situation is the result of Trudeau losing a grip and becoming a tyrant in his own land right to our north.
	And Biden, he's very similar.
	And it was this Trudeau was uniting people both in America and in Canada against this COVID-19 mandates and injection mandates.
	And so I think that the same people that are pushing for these mandates and injections, which will lead to undoubtedly the injection of this chip that's going to keep track of your booster shots and keep you up to date so you can participate in society.
	That will also become your digital currency.
	They will upload your compliance currency to your chip.
	That's also keeping track of your making sure you're not a threat to society by being a contaminant.
	I think that's why they had to have, they had to create a bigger tyrant farther away to direct our attention to it and get the attention off of Biden and Trudeau, who are absolute tyrants.
	And so I think it is all, I think they forced Putin's hand because the East, Eastern Ukraine is controlled by the same people that are pushing all this.
	This injection stuff, the COVID-19 injection business.
	So I think it's in full swing and we have to remain alert to it all the time.
	And when they put Bushmaster out of business, if they put all the manufacturers out of business that make firearms, where will you get them?
	Now, a lot of us have them.
	We're not going to give them up.
	But what happens when you can't, when other people can't acquire them?
	Something that troubles me profoundly is that Remington seems to be in on it.
	I sought to intervene in the Soto v. Remington case, and it was unsurprising when the fake parents opposed my entry, but so did Remington.
	And that is to be rather shocking.
	So they're just going to give away $73 million without establishing the basic predicate on which the whole case is based, to wit that 20 children and 6 adults were killed by Remington-made weapons at Sandy Hook, when the evidence is overwhelming that it was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	Ron, what the hell is the deal with Remington?
	Now, they appear to have been bought up by a seamless capital.
	I think it's this company that's complicit here in trying to create a situation where they're going to follow the model of Canada Uh, with insurance.
	You're gonna have to insure your weapon.
	That's why they're making this a big deal.
	Massive publicity about insurance.
	You're gonna have to insure your weapon.
	To insure your weapon, you have to register your weapon.
	Once you register your weapon, the government knows where the weapons are to confiscate.
	The criminals aren't going to register their weapons.
	The criminals aren't going to get insurance.
	This is just incredible.
	And that Remington should be disgracing itself in this way is, to me, as repulsive as it gets.
	This is completely un-American, totally violative of the Second Amendment, and indicates to me that Remington is no longer the all-American company it once appeared to be because Sebris Capital is now
	Corrupted if standing and status and seems even perfectly willing to go into bankruptcy where I'm glad to say I have sought admission and may be gaining some traction where I'm getting evidence into the record and may be able to reduce sufficient to persuade the bankruptcy court that
	This is a fraud because this is a massive swindle and it not only affects Remington stockholders, Remington stakeholders, and the taxpaying citizens of the United States who ultimately are going to make up for this one way or another, mark my words, but it's a corruption of the Second Amendment in a completely fabricated case.
	I find this whole mess appalling, Ron.
	I do too.
	I have no doubt that it is actually a disarmament terrorism.
	And I believe that this new outfit that you referred to in that same article that we saw, it mentions that, that they bought up a group, a number of firearm manufacturers.
	And that means that this group, and when you consider people, individuals like Soros, Who can donate millions of dollars for disarmament, and he is a disarmament terrorist for sure.
	He would spend money to purchase these types of companies.
	I'm not saying he did.
	I'm just saying a person like that or similar with similar ideas and wealth could buy up a number of firearm manufacturers and on purpose Let them be sued out of existence.
	And what's the difference between paying millions of dollars to to impact Congress to get to to alter the law compared to simply buying up the manufacturers and letting them be sued out of existence?
	It's still just spending money to these people.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Scorpio, your thoughts.
	Yeah, Jim, you've kind of gone distant again on your audio.
	But, you know, I guess that's the benefit of just having essentially, you know, a magic shekel machine where you can print up all the money you want and sort of hand it out to insiders.
	I think that's going on a lot more than we think.
	Remington really didn't even do much to fight this lawsuit, it doesn't seem to me.
	And it seems to me they're kind of in on the scam in some ways.
	Yes, I agree.
	When we come to the break, I'll drop out and come back in and re-establish the sound.
	Can you hear me at all, Scorpio?
	No, no, we can hear you.
	If you could just turn your volume up a little bit, that's all.
	Well, I think he can't because he's never been louder than he is right now.
	Have you turned up your Okay, wait a minute.
	I think I see what I can do here.
	I was manipulative.
	Has that mattered?
	Oh, yeah, way better.
	There you go.
	Yeah.
	Bam!
	Okay.
	There's a...
	I think there's an intruder, you know, who's trying to...
	I'll seek to control this, but this is...
	I can't begin to tell you how many ways I have been subject to efforts to sabotage my appearance here and elsewhere.
	Ron, you've been doing such a sensational job of this.
	I just love it.
	And I want to solicit your assistance here as I move forward with my writ of certiorari.
	So I'll be reaching out to you after the show.
	Meanwhile, I want everyone to know we're welcoming your calls here for Ron and Scorpio and me.
	The phone number is 540-352-9000.
	4-4-5-2.
	5-4-0-3-5-2-4-4-5-2.
	Mitchell will field your call and we'll get you on the air with Ron and Scorpio and me.
	Ron, you're just doing such a great job with all of this.
	I can't tell you how much I admire your involvement and your endurance here in creating an archive of documents related to my case.
	I think that the Supreme Court of the United States may be impressed that we have a series of courts in Wisconsin that allow a summary judgment to stand, which violates all of the conditions required of a summary judgment.
	Would you agree?
	Yes, I do.
	And I think, I hope that they would see, and I think we need to make a strong, strong point that we cannot allow judges to pass, to grant summary judgment Based on their view of reasonableness.
	Reasonableness is something you weigh.
	Is that reasonable?
	If you're weighing something, that's something a jury has to do.
	The jury is what weighs things.
	Right, and the whole point is to have a group making a collective judgment whether subjective bias is qualified by the bias or whatever of the other members of the jury.
	That's part of the basic function of a jury, when it's just a judge, his own personal bias.
	And remember, I'm a defendant in a uniquely unpopular position because I'm a Sandy Hook skeptic.
	And it's worse than that because I have the proof to back it up.
	So that someone who thinks this is contrary to the public interest may be willing to abuse his role and not file the rules out of whatever motivation may drive him.
	But it's very difficult to believe that this was not A deliberate act by an experienced circuit court judge who knew better.
	He had to know that the complaint was a legal absurdity, that excluding my evidence on the ground it wasn't relevant to the truthfulness or accuracy of the disputed death certificate was ridiculous.
	That I had the qualifications of a journalist.
	I even gave him a seven-page summary, which he never ruled upon.
	The expert opinion of the documents had to be taken into account.
	That clearly the basic fact of the case remained in dispute and had to be sent to a jury and that he could not render a ruling on a summary judgment when there were disputed facts and where my status as a journalist had never been decided.
	In other words, this was a full-blown forward effort without any hesitation, regardless of the qualifications and requirements of summary judgment properly conducted.
	Would you agree?
	Well, I think the main point, I think one of the strongest points that should be made to the Supreme Court of the United States is this.
	This is a high profile case.
	This case involves, and this should be the point made, the result of this event, the Sandy Hook event, whether it be real or pretended, It has resulted in multiple lawsuits where people have been put out of existence.
	Companies have been put out of existence.
	The manufacturer of firearms have gone out of business and huge amounts of money have been paid to people.
	And it's a very emotional thing.
	And in your case, it's based on a fraudulent summary judgment.
	Where all eight provisions of summary judgment are violated, both at the trial court, the appellate court, and even the Supreme Court of the state.
	And it is supporting the alteration of the law of the land to disarm the American people.
	That's the end result of all this.
	And it's all based on a judge's word reasonable.
	We're going to disarm the American people based on one trial court judge who says it's unreasonable for you to go against the mass media cartel's narrative about what happened at Sandy Hook when you actually have evidence from the FBI, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and We're supposed to just overlook all that?
	The Supreme Court is just going to go, oh sure, we want to alter it.
	We want to have one judge find something unreasonable and alter all the laws of the land.
	Ron, what happened with the Wisconsin Supreme Court?
	I thought at least they would display a modicum of reason and objectivity here, but they obviously did not.
	They defaulted completely.
	I think they should be disbarred.
	I think they should be unlicensed.
	I think they should be ejected from the legal profession.
	I mean, this is an atrocity.
	It is.
	This is a legal atrocity.
	I like that.
	A legal atrocity.
	Meanwhile, again, I reiterate, we want to take your calls.
	We're even willing to take them early.
	The number 540-352-4452.
	540-352-4452.
	540-352-4452. 540-352-4452.
	Scorpio, further reflections of yours.
	Well, I wonder, Robert, do you have a remedy of a way to try to fix this or?
	Or what's your thoughts on a remedy like on in terms of the system?
	Is that a directed to me again?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, unfortunately, well, see, I don't believe in giving up.
	You know, I've had callers on my show say, you know, I told Dr. Fetzer he should not be in court.
	It wasn't like Dr. Fetzer used the court system to do or prove anything.
	He was drug into the court system by his heels.
	And when you're drug into something by your heels, you can't give up no matter what you think about the system.
	You have to use the system and defend yourself as best you can in the system.
	And so in relation to Dr. Fetzer, he has no alternative, and we have no alternative other than to back him to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	And who knows?
	Maybe there are some people at the Supreme Court level will say, Now, you know, I didn't mind some of this stuff, but I can see things here that, you know, I don't care about Dr. Fetzer, but I care about a lot of other things.
	And if we're going to let one judge, any time on any issue, give a summary judgment, that'll be supported all the way through the state Supreme Court on one word, reasonable.
	Isn't there some judge somewhere that would say, we can't have a judge that adjudicates the mass media cartel or whatever the mass media says and make it law based on one word, reasonable.
	That's a white decision.
	Reasonable must go to the jury.
	Uh-oh, we lost you, Jim.
	No, no sound.
	We have three callers standing by.
	I'm going to kill the break, kill the break.
	And we're going to take the callers, the first of whom is Christine.
	Christine, please join us.
	Give us your state and join the conversation with Scorpio, Rod Avery, and me.
	Hi, guys.
	It's Christine Korda.
	And how are you all doing?
	I hope you're well.
	Christina, I'm wrong.
	I think Mitchell just got it.
	Go ahead, Christina.
	Yes.
	I just said hi, everybody.
	How you doing?
	I hope you're all well.
	We're fine.
	Yeah.
	Thanks.
	Great.
	Great show, Ron.
	Thank you.
	Your information was so valuable.
	I wanted to ask A couple of months ago, I called in and we were talking about the indemnity bonds against the teachers who are still doing things to the students.
	And what I was wondering, when I'm listening to what's happening, I can't even fathom what you have gone through, Jim, with regards to Sandy Hook.
	Aren't there something like indemnity bonds that judges have?
	Because they're supposed to uphold the Constitution.
	They're supposed to protect us.
	Protect our rights.
	Is that correct?
	I'm not very well versed on it, but we can do as citizens to make a big stink and say, look, this is not acceptable.
	It's simply not acceptable because they're never going to stop this sort of thing.
	And once they get those laws changed, like they did with the Patriot Act, we're going to find our society is going to be against us.
	So isn't there something like a surety bond or an indemnity bond?
	Or something that citizens like myself, just regular people, can go in and say, excuse me, but I have a constitutional right and a civil right to have the truth because it involves me, my children, my grandchildren, their safety, etc.
	Thank you.
	Okay, the problem with that is that judges have judicial immunity.
	That means you cannot If they make a wrong decision you have the appellate court and you you appeal that's the normal process you appeal Their bad decision.
	This is this is just the way just the way it goes and Using their bond It's it's it's not like a It's not like your city secretary or your councilman or some kind of person that's just in office who violates the law.
	See, if you have somebody that's in office and they violate the law, then you can go after their bond.
	But you can't go after a judge for making a bad decision.
	That's all there is to it.
	I've tried all that.
	That doesn't work.
	They've got themselves boxed in and untouchable is basically what we're saying.
	In fact, if you file a lien against their bond, against a judge for making a bad decision, you'll be arrested and you'll be tried for paper terrorism.
	I know I had a friend.
	I'm serious, I'm dead serious.
	I had a friend that got 10 years probation for doing that and she almost got 10 years of prison term.
	Oh my goodness.
	If it hadn't have been for a bunch of pastors going down to the court and pleading that she was really a good person and under a lot of stress and all of this, she would have been in jail.
	Christine, you're welcome to stand by.
	We have two other callers standing by.
	First, Michael, give us your state and join the conversation.
	Michael.
	Hey, this is Michael from Fort Worth, but now residing in Asheville, North Carolina.
	The voice sounds familiar.
	Go ahead, my friend.
	First, I wanted to say hi to Ron.
	I'm a big fan of Ron, your Stop the Presence shows with Mark Anderson.
	Oh, I appreciate that.
	Thank you.
	I have a question for Jim.
	It's a question that I've had for a long time and never can remember to ask, and it's Sandy Hook related, and that was at the early part of these legal actions that were being taken against you, they were also being taken against, was it Moonrock Books and Dave Gehary as the owner, the publisher?
	Yes, and my co-editor, my series editor, Mike Palachuk.
	Yes, there were three of us co-defendants initially.
	Right, and there was this incident where depositions were going on, and evidently Dave Gehary watched the deposition being given by the guy calling himself Lenny Posner, and After he did that, Gehary basically threw in the towel.
	He apologized to him and said he believed him, and he basically rolled over.
	So my question is, what's your take on what Gehary did there?
	Have you ever had a conversation with him about it?
	This is a very troubling aspect of the case, Michael.
	I mean, Dave Gehry has been strong and true with Moonrock Books.
	We've gone through thick and thin.
	But in this case, his decision was completely separate than mine.
	He did not consult me.
	He did not advise me on what he intended to do.
	I was frankly flabbergasted.
	When it emerged that he even was extending an apology to Leonard Posner, whom I consider to be a fake.
	This is a guy who falsely testified under another name.
	I believe it was actually Ruben Vabner.
	And as we know, it's my contention, and this is in the court record.
	It's not as though the judge were unaware of my opinion about these matters.
	Okay.
	that Noah Posner, the fabrication based on photographs of Michael Vabner as a child.
	Well, I can't remember the closest we've come to discussing this very directly, but he remains a good friend of mine.
	And, you know, it has troubled me profoundly, Michael.
	What can I say?
	Okay.
	So speculating, I know I'm asking you to read somebody's mind.
	Do you think he just became aware of the tremendous financial downside that he was looking at and decided to roll over in that circumstance and try to get it as a little penalty as possible?
	My best guess would be you're on the right track.
	That's what's happened with Alex Jones.
	He has been willing to settle on the ground of not providing discovery materials, which he believes is going to be less costly to him and his company.
	And were he to, you know, move forward to a damage statement?
	I believe Dave was, who has more than one company, I believe Dave was acting to protect his financial interests.
	That's my best guess.
	And of course, that's a judgment each of us has to make for themselves.
	I mean, I'm I'm not going to compromise on this.
	I'm a truth-the-whole-truth-nothing-but-the-truth guy.
	I'm going to see this through to the end.
	Win, lose, or draw, and the Supreme Court will be exposed as a failure if it's unwilling to take up this case, which as Ron has so aptly described, Represents a legal atrocity designed to alter American law, specifically the right to keep and bear arms.
	There could hardly be a more important case before the United States Supreme Court than this once it has been submitted.
	So, that's my take.
	Okay, thanks.
	I'll let you move on to the other caller.
	Well, I'm glad you called, Michael.
	It's a very Sensitive and troubling issue.
	Paul from California.
	Paul, go ahead.
	Join the parade.
	Paul.
	Well, aside from all these legal technicalities about summary judgment and all that, Jim, what I'm curious is, can you define what a woman is?
	Isn't it?
	We got it.
	We got a candidate for the United States Supreme Court who can't even define what a woman is and claims it's a matter of biology when anyone could explain it's an adult female human capable of reproduction.
	It doesn't require special biological expertise.
	It's a matter of common knowledge.
	It's embarrassing, Paul, that this is a state of dissolution of the United States.
	A president would make a nomination of a candidate that is just miserable in her qualifications.
	Right.
	So I didn't mean to set you off on a ramp, but I knew I knew that it would.
	And that's fine.
	But I'm just going to make the point that this is all you need to know about our government, the media, the Supreme Court, that we have this, you know, subpar Negress, OK, up there who I am certain It's not of the, shall we say, IQ and legal mind that many other candidates would be, you know, being questioned on television.
	And, you know, just ask yourself this.
	I mean, this is really the state of our nation.
	Okay.
	And I'm going to urge you, Jim, just in all fondness, which you know, is there to go get a medical checkup and a full brain scan to check for tumors.
	Because I heard you say on the air just a few minutes ago that you believe that the Supreme Court will be or should be impressed by your arguments regarding this summary judgment.
	And I gotta tell you, you know, it's sad to say, but nobody, they're not going to read it.
	Okay?
	There's a clerk or two that will look it over and perhaps read it through.
	I don't know how long it's going to be, but there isn't any way that they will hear it and they won't read it.
	Because if anybody will tell you, you know, and all these patriots that have been involved in the courts and trying to pursue their, you know, their common law, natural law remedies and so forth, and I was one of them briefly, okay, they will tell you that number one, they don't read your submissions, your paperwork.
	They don't read it in general, and they just write denied when they do.
	So, you know, the world we're living in, I think you know well, and it's just one of these things where what, you know, what is the best way to spend your limited time and mental and emotional energies?
	And I would say for the average American, it's just try to enjoy life and to maybe, you know, get into animal rescue.
	Let's try to enjoy tyranny.
	How do you do that?
	Hey Ron, I got a quick question.
	The title of your show is In Search of Lawful Government.
	How's that search going by the way?
	He's saying you're in search of lawful government.
	He's saying you're in search of lawful government.
	How's it going that way?
	And again, I see where my sound level was dropped, Paul.
	Number one, I'm not an average American.
	Number two, you're ignoring the distinction between the normative and the descriptive.
	I said they should be.
	They ought to be impressed.
	I was not saying they will be impressed.
	Number three, they only accept 5% of the submissions.
	But get this, Paul, which is the real deal.
	The law schools will review cases like this.
	They'll become subjects of discussion in law schools, and potentially it has the ability to make an impact indirectly, even if the Supreme Court were to decline to pick up my writ, which is overwhelmingly probable, especially because it is a high-profile case, especially because it is a legal atrocity.
	Especially because that court appears to be, or may well be, no more willing to expose the corruption of all the courts in Wisconsin than it is willing to expose its own corruption, which it will have done de facto by denying this writ.
	So, I like your question.
	Stand by, Paul.
	I want to come back to you, but we have Bruce from Texas standing by.
	Bruce, join the conversation.
	Yeah, my headset died, so there's probably a lot of background noise, and I won't be too long.
	Paul pretty much stated it, so he took my topic, but congratulations.
	You know, it's not hard to see.
	Ever since 9-11, you know, my eyes have been open to what's going on.
	As Paul is aware, you know, Michael Rivera won't let you say Jew anymore, but I tell you what, you just peel back one layer of Sandy Hook, and the Jews come out like roaches underneath the carpet.
	I mean it's crazy and so yeah I like to know the conversations that took place online and emails between the law clerks at the Wisconsin Supreme Court and uh you know and the plaintiffs and it's pretty obvious to me that there's a whole setup you know and it's it's a fake it's a fraud this judicial system and when you have the media in your pocket and you have the judges in your pocket I don't know.
	I don't rule it out, Bruce.
	I don't rule it out.
	I want to go back to Christine, if she's still there, to pick up, and then Michael may have departed, but Paul, then I'll come back to you.
	up if you need to.
	It was just pathetic.
	I don't roll it out, Bruce.
	I don't rule it out.
	I want to go back to Christine if she's still there to pick up, and then Michael may have departed, but Paul, then I'll come back to you.
	Christine, would you like to add further thoughts?
	I am here.
	I was reading in chat that someone said that the new Supreme Court, I guess they indoctrinated her or whatever they call it, inducted her, whatever.
	She was letting very lenient on pedophiles who were in possession of child torture materials.
	So I think what's happening is everybody has a price.
	And if everybody's doing criminal things like that, they have a easy price.
	And I think that's what we're up against.
	I really do.
	And it's just terrible.
	It's really terrible that these are the people who, the psychopaths, who got into positions of power so they could cover up their crimes against children and other people and also, you know, defend each other.
	If it wasn't for animals, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
	That's the really tragic thing about this world.
	Well, you're right that she has a history of being lenient toward those who have child porn, explaining now you can get a lot very effortlessly on the Internet, as though that were an excuse.
	She's also opposed to the Second Amendment, and I think the situation here is even more traumatic.
	Clarence Thomas has fallen ill, and there's a suspicion that he has been poisoned.
	If you go back to the movie, The Pelican Brief, starring Julia Roberts.
	We're talking about a case where three Supreme Court justices were taken out.
	They were assassinated because a very powerful figure didn't want them ruling on a case involving environmental issues where millions were at stake.
	And, of course, Antonin Scalia appears to have been murdered, and Scalia was an absolute immovable object when it came to the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, and other issues.
	I think it was a deliberate assassination of a Supreme Court justice for the obvious political reasons.
	Ron, your thoughts, and then Scorpio, Ron.
	Well, I really don't have many thoughts on that.
	I don't really know a lot about that.
	I haven't gotten into every issue around, so I don't think I can really comment on it.
	Well, that's fair enough.
	Scorpio, any thoughts you have?
	Well, just keep the collars going.
	The collars are good.
	Good, good, good.
	Okay, Paul, we're back to you, Paul.
	Further thoughts?
	Well, you know, again, I have always expressed my admiration for you.
	And what you're doing or trying to do, and I've done so by email as well, you know, as you know.
	But again, I just think we have to face what it is we're looking at, okay?
	And it's complete and total control and domination by a certain group that not that many people name.
	There was a show preceding yours today, which I had not heard before, a guy on Revolution Radio.
	I think he has another show called Fact Finders, and he did a great job for an hour recounting the history.
	You know, the history that probably many of us know.
	I know that Scorpio does for sure, and Giuseppe does.
	You know, going all the way back to World War I, and World War II, and the Federal Reserve, and so on.
	We all know this history.
	We all know the relevant facts.
	You know, the question is, what's going to be done about it?
	I mean, this man that preceded your show made the comment about there's There's 99.9999% of us and whatever percentage it is of them.
	So who do we have to blame if we lose?
	I mean, there's already so many guns and ammunition out there.
	I don't really believe that the main objective of Sandy Hook was gun control.
	I don't think these people suffered any illusions that they were going to be successful.
	As Miles Mathis has pointed out in multiple of his papers, that gun sales always go up after all these fake shootings.
	Okay?
	There's no way they're going to get the guns out of the hands of the Americans that are willing to use them.
	There's plenty of Americans that are not willing to use them and won't stand their ground.
	They might get those guns, but there's plenty that won't, and they'll never get those guns, not without a fight.
	You know, the bottom line is that I think that the Sandy Hook, just like so many other ugly things the Jews do, is to continue to put in our minds ugly, horrendous, evil things.
	I mean, what's more horrendous or evil or ugly?
	The little children being shot at the school.
	Now, of course, they weren't really shot, and they weren't even there.
	But this is what the Jews do.
	They destroy every aspect of your culture.
	I've been reading a series of articles recently on Renegade Tribune.
	You know, every week or two, they come out with something else that the National Socialists published back in the 30s and the 40s.
	They continue to publish during the war.
	And you read these things, and that's all you need to know about the world that we live in.
	Or read what Martin Luther wrote 500 years ago, what Martin Luther wrote about the Jews.
	It's the Jews, the Jews, the Jews.
	That's all it is, and we need to take care of them.
	Thanks, Paul.
	Thanks, Paul.
	Paul, thanks.
	That's just what we needed here today.
	Bruce, you had a further thought?
	to grow our crop.
	Paul, thanks.
	That's just what we needed here today.
	Bruce, you had a further thought?
	The real meat came out.
	Bruce, you had a further thought?
	Is Bruce from Texas here?
	No longer here.
	Christina, did you want to add further thoughts?
	I just, I worry because I see what they're doing to children and I see what the curriculum and schools are doing and how they're grooming children right out in front of our faces.
	And it's amazing to me.
	I took two years of psychology and it's literally amazing to me to see what they're doing.
	So I think, Unless we start speaking out and keep speaking out.
	And Jim, I extend an open invitation to you to come on my show Mondays at four.
	Just be online on Skype and I'll add you in because you're my hero and what you've been doing for years is incredible.
	And I think we just have to really keep getting people to hear and to see and to research.
	And I saw your video on Bitchute and I was like cheering.
	My children already think I'm nuts.
	So you had all those views and I'm happy to see that because People are starting to understand what's going on, but we have to really, number one, we have to save the children.
	Getting a judge who's lenient on child torture, come on.
	That's what they want.
	They want the children, and they're getting them.
	So that's my last comment.
	Thank you so much.
	Well, Christine, during the break, I actually responded to your inquiry, and I'd be glad to come on your show.
	We'll just work it out.
	I'm glad, and thank you for the invitation.
	We have a caller at 2-3-1, Eric Cote.
	Caller, please give us your first name and your state and join the conversation.
	2-3-1, please give us first name and state and join the conversation.
	Mitchell, did we lose 2-3-1?
	Ron, Scorpio, let me go with Scorpio first.
	Scorpio, what are your thoughts about all the comments that have been made?
	Of course, Paul is a regular and Paul has a very sharp axe to grind.
	Your thoughts, Scorpio, about all of the above?
	Well, I think you did make a good point about just trying to fill our minds with horrific images.
	Have you ever, you know, Monitor the enemy war transmissions known as the mainstream media news.
	Everything on there is something traumatizing essentially.
	I think that's part of the plan to demoralize the population.
	And I think also Sandy Hook was an attack on free speech.
	If you go against the official narrative, Uh, then you are subject to, um, you know, problems, let's say.
	So, uh, I think those are the two things that are in play on top of gun control, which I think is a lofty goal that I doubt will ever be enacted unless there's, you know, a point at which the country is literally brought to its knees and then anything could happen then.
	Well, we have two callers standing by.
	I solicit a 2-3-1 who is backed.
	Please give us your first name and your state and join the conversation.
	2-3-1.
	Please.
	Yes, hi, Dr. Jim.
	Yes, the Jews basically won World War II by deception.
	So now they want to flip the script and act like anything that's said against them is an act of treason.
	And Paul's absolutely right.
	They should have been held accountable and involved in treasonous acts, and therefore they should have the death penalty inflicted on them.
	Well, I'm all for freedom of speech.
	Go ahead.
	And also, Christine's absolutely right.
	People sell out to them because they control our financial system.
	They comply with everything.
	They don't want anybody to rock the boat because of their Well, thank you.
	Good to see all of you.
	financial gains.
	Okay, good.
	Thanks again for your great work.
	Yeah, thanks for your call.
	Mer, you're standing by.
	Go ahead, join the conversation.
	Mer.
	Oh, thank you.
	Good to see all of you.
	And I have said before, yes, it's about guns, and yes, it's Jews, but it's really about behind them, and many of them are Jews, it's the satanic bloodlines that are that are running things and they groom children from the cradle.
	And we have one that, yeah, they have, we have one that has, she was groomed to be the head mother of darkness.
	And this has really put them in a bad position and they're starting to be disassembled, come apart.
	Her name is Jessie Sabotar, C-Z-E-B-O-T-A-R.
	Look her up in YouTube and bitch shooting elsewhere.
	And just, just keep digging into this because I thought, what, you know, You know, but this is what it's based on.
	You'll remember the Illuminati in 1776, May 1st, is really what they claim is the beginning of this country.
	They staked out this claim, this land mass.
	And they're behind things all through time, these bloodlines.
	And they worship Satan, and they do sacrifices.
	This is a fact.
	And many of them are Jews, but this is what we're up against.
	The currency, they have to control the currency, and then they have international conquest through propaganda.
	Propaganda is the seed for everything.
	There are illegalities and everything else.
	I do remember that Aurora Theater came before Sandy Hook, and it was about the LIBOR scandal.
	Yes, like I said, guns, and they try to bring drugs and everything.
	But you know, Adam Lanza never existed.
	Peter and his son Ryan were working, I think it was GE they worked for.
	But they, they, um, I think they were going to pin it on Ryan.
	Okay?
	Because he's a real living being.
	And they took him in, but they then fell for this, uh, this whole deal.
	But they had also done it at Aurora Theater.
	I mean, even in the movie, it pointed to Sandy Hook.
	They flaunt their power.
	Thanks, thanks, thanks.
	Yeah, great points, great points.
	Thank you for calling in.
	Ron, we have only a few minutes left.
	I'd like you to just give us kind of a summary overview and where we can find more of your work because you're doing a tremendous job on this.
	I dare say some of it can be found on my blog.
	Please share with the audience.
	Yes.
	I have a page at one of my websites that is really what you call a data site, and it's postwtc.com.
	It stands for World Trade Center.
	Postpostwtc.com.
	And then you want to click on Posner vs. Fetzer.
	And it will open up a data bank that has all the, or as many documents on the case of Posner versus Fetzer that we were able to put together.
	There are some missing, but we've assembled all that we have that we can find.
	And so they're all posted there kind of in order.
	And on the left-hand column, it has the actual documents that were in court.
	And on the right-hand column, we have links to a commentary that we're making about the case.
	And so, I invite you to go there.
	I believe we're doing a... Jim is doing a great show coming up.
	It's a 16-week course.
	Oh, is it?
	15-week course, and it can be found at MixnStream.com.
	That's M-I-X, capital N, like in Nancy, Stream.com.
	MixnStream.com.
	And you can click on that and take a 15-week course on critical thinking and conspiracy theories.
	So, we invite you to do that.
	That'd be great.
	Yeah, thank you, Ron, for appearing here.
	You've been wonderful.
	Scorpio, could you give us final thoughts about the show today?
	Your thoughts, Scorpio?
	Well, I think we're seeing that we've hit sort of a wall in terms of... I don't know if we can work our way around it.
	One of us is being called, it doesn't appear to be me.
	Professor?
	It doesn't appear to be me.
	Spencer, not me.
	Mitchell, drop all the callers.
	Just take it as a wake-up call.
	This is a wake-up call, everyone.
	Thanks for joining us.
	It's been wonderful.
	I don't know.
	How it happened, but it's one of those things.
	We love you.
	Thank you for joining us.
	Ron, great, great job.
	Great job, Ron Avery.
	Great job, Ron Avery.
	Thank you so much.
	And Scorpio and Giuseppe, while he was here, made valuable contributions.
	Scorpio, a final thought, just a few words.
	Well, I think we've hit a wall in terms of the credibility of this federal government.
	I think it's time to realize that we've crossed the Rubicon with this thing and there's no reforming it, like it or not.
	That's really how I see it.
	It's really tragic.
	Ron, you were just masterful today.
	I'm so pleased, and I'm eager for your assistance in preparing my writ.
	We lost Giuseppe.
	The break is rolling.
	Thank you all for being here.
	We'll see you soon.
	Take care.
	My pleasure.

▲