All Episodes
Previous Next
May 23, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:57:14
The Raw Deal (23 May 2022) Fetzer v. Pozner on the Docket of the Supreme Court
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I need somebody, help!
Not just anybody, help!
You know I need someone, help!
When I was younger, so much younger than today, I never needed anybody's help in any way.
But now these days are gone, I'm not so self-assured.
Oh, I find, I'm a genuine, I'll open up the doors.
Help me if you can, I'm feeling down.
And I do appreciate you being around.
Help me get my feet back on the ground.
Won't you please, please help me?
Well, this is Jim Petzer, your host on The Raw Deal, where I ought to report that my submission, my petition to the United States Supreme Court has been docketed.
This is Fetzer versus Posner.
The petition for a writ of certiorari in motion for leave to proceed in form of papyrus filed, response due June 21st, 2022.
Let me explain what that means.
in 2022, let me explain what that means.
I filed pro se, meaning I'm representing myself and we all know the joke about the man who represents himself as a fool for a client, but I'm But.
While I was working with a attorney who is qualified to practice before the Supreme Court, we had a divergence in opinion about how to approach.
And it turns out there's a aspect to this case that it's taken me quite a long time to appreciate.
And that's because I was immersed in the Wisconsin system where my, the lawsuit brought against me for libel, which was a fantastic.
I mean, it was a legal absurdity from the beginning because It was a complaint about four sentences I'd published asserting a death certificate to be inauthentic and here I'm explaining the case rather than affirming what I was sued over.
Twitch was attached to a very different death certificate.
The one I published and commented upon had no file number, no town certification, no state certification.
The one attached to the complaint had a file number, town certification, state certification, and nevertheless insisted that there was no material difference between them.
Which is, I mean, this is just about as absurd as it gets.
Material differences would be legally significant and decline but a complete death certificate has no material difference from an incomplete death certificate is like arguing that a driver's license it has no driver's license number states.
Stan was the same status as a driver's license it has no state.
No driver's license number, no stamp.
I mean, it was absurd from the beginning.
Would you believe that at one point during all this business, the circuit court judge actually complimented the plaintiff's attorney on a well-crafted complaint?
I mean, give me a break.
Well, I accepted on the ground that I had such a mass of evidence that would make a difference here that I thought it was a perfect opportunity to have it as it were presented to the public through a judicial process.
And interestingly, no case in the United States heretofore has addressed the question, did anybody die at Sandy Hook?
It hasn't happened.
No one has established that.
There are a couple of cases, by the way, that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals would cite.
When I took my case, appealed the circuit court decision to the appellate court.
But the fact of the matter is that Even I can find you a part of it here.
Those cases were settled on procedural grounds.
There was, I think, one in Texas and one in Connecticut involving Alex Jones.
You got this Neil Haslam claiming his son died in his arms, which is inconsistent with Wayne Carver telling us that the parents weren't allowed to even see the bodies of their children, so.
One either which of them is is telling the truth and which is lying.
Well, actually, they're both lying because it was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
I mean, it's just staggering.
Here's a wonderful illustration.
This is right from my petition.
And by the way, you can find it.
You can go to the Supreme Court and you can do a search.
And you just put in Fetzer v. Posner and you're going to find it.
I'll give you the number here.
But here's a nice point.
Now, a summary judgment, which is very common in the United States for a whole host of issues where there are no disputed facts, occurs when the judge is only required to apply the law.
Because the parties agree on the facts.
If the parties agree on the facts, then you don't need a jury.
The role of a jury is to determine the facts of the case.
What actually happened?
What is the case?
Is a document authentic or not?
If there's an issue.
So.
Obviously, in this case, there was a massive difference of opinion.
Indeed, I even had two forensic document experts.
Testifying on my side that not only was a death certificate that I had described as fake.
And again, I'm just telling you what the lawsuits about.
But also then the death certificate attached to the complaint and then my codefendant Dave Gary is a publisher obtained another death certificate from this town and I obtained yet a fourth death certificate from the state.
So prior to the oral hearing, there were four different test certificates.
I had two forensic document examiners submit reports and they found all four.
All four of them were fake.
All four of them were fake.
I mean, this is pretty fascinating.
You know, you'd think I had a slam dunk because in order for defamation to occur, I must have published an opinion about a person.
Actually, I never mentioned this guy's name in the book in terms of the death certificate.
I certainly never said that he was responsible.
I had no idea who was responsible.
It must be something that would be judged to adversely affect his reputation or opinion.
Another element, it must be false, because truth is an absolute defense.
So I thought, you know, I would be in great shape.
But lo and behold, I was to learn what I thought then was none of my evidence was being taken seriously.
That was the case, but not for a reason that I fully appreciated at the time.
I've only come to appreciate it over time, which is that in the Wisconsin judicial system, the rules for summary judgment allow the judge to exercise discretion about whether or not he finds Evidence or facts to be reasonable or unreasonable.
I mean, this is absolutely ridiculous.
In a typical summary judgment.
In order to protect the rights of the defendant, where a suit is being brought against him to, you know.
Find some benefit for the allegedly harmed plaintiff.
In the form of, you know, if it were criminal life or liberty, in this case, property.
They have to establish that if you took for granted all of the non-movement, remember now the plaintiff who brings the suit is the movement, the non-movement is the respondent, the defendant.
In order to protect the defendant's rights, For a summary judgment properly conducted, you have to assume that everything the defendant asserted is true, and then ascertain whether or not the movement agrees with the defendant on all those issues.
And if the movement agrees with the defendant on all those issues, then there are no disputed facts.
If, however, the defendant does not agree, And how could he have agreed in this case?
I mean, I was laying out a whole lot of evidence that Sandy Hook had been a fabrication.
Here's part of what I already answered to this original complaint.
This is page four of my petition.
Dr. Fetzer answered that he found his opinion that the first scan of the NP, The fellow who brought this, his name called himself Leonard Posner, referred to his son as N.P.
I thought that was very damn peculiar.
This is supposed to be Noah Posner.
This is one of the most famous kids who's supposed to have died at Sandy Hook, and he referred to his son as N.P.
I find that very peculiar.
Dr. Fetzer answered that he found his opinion that the first scan of the NP death certificate, the one published in the book, was fake by his review of the copy originally published by Mr. Posner on his website, but more importantly, by his and others discovered evidence that would lead me to suspect that the Sandy Hook mass shooting did not happen.
Dr. Fetzer mentioned the following evidence to support his allegation.
One, Sandy Hook Elementary has been closed since 2008.
2.
No signs of heat production in the school on the cold morning of 12-14-2012.
3.
Deficient handicapped parking stripes and improper parking of cars in the lot that morning.
4.
Arrival of the state chief medical examiner prior to the damage said to have been caused by the shooting. 5.
Pizza, portable toilets, bottled water, check-in requests, name tags and lanyards, all evidence of a pre-planned exercise.
Six.
Failure of the Danbury State's attorney to create a nexus between the shooter and his victims or the weapon that supposedly killed them.
Seven.
Photographs of a policewoman posing the same handful of students in different arrangements in the parking lot for a photographer in aid.
Evidence that they responded is not really a person named Leonard Posner.
Indeed, as I explained many times, I believe his real name is Ruben Vabner, and that the fictional Noah Posner was actually made up of photographs of his own actual son, Michael Vabner, when he was a child.
Michael Vabner is now older, alive and well, and even performing in comedy clubs in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Get that?
So, this is really quite a case for the Supreme Court.
And by the way, the fact that it's docketed means they have accepted, or appears to mean, that they've accepted my petition to be treated as a pauper.
In other words, you have to be unable to afford an attorney in order to submit pro se.
I had to document that I was unable to afford an attorney.
So, I mean, I not only had differences of agreement with the attorney I originally contemplated moving forward with, but I ran out of money.
I mean, you have to document this in spades.
I mean, it's really a humbling experience because there it is all out there for God and the world to see, right?
I have to submit all this stuff and it's right there in my petition on the United States Supreme Court.
But it also means that the question I raise is one that falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Now, perhaps a single most sentence that occurs in any of these petitions is the question itself.
And as I'm leading up to explain, here's the question itself.
Main rules of summary judgment vary throughout the states, allowing the Wisconsin judiciary to conduct and affirm a non-jury trial under the pretense of a summary judgment proceeding, the process of which violates all the rules of summary judgment in Texas, depriving Wisconsin citizens of their equal rights to a trial by jury and due process under the 7th and 14th Amendments,
And further allowing a Wisconsin judge to determine the validity of major national events through unsound summary judgment methodology.
What that means is the case is really about the summary judgment methods that are applied in Wisconsin as opposed to those implied in other states, which vary enormously.
So that while I began thinking my case was primarily First Second Amendment case.
Actually, it's a summary judgment case.
And the fact is that the rules in Wisconsin are quite deviant from the rules in other states.
I mean, it's just astounding.
Texas has a three stage process that's guaranteed, you know, designed to protect the interests of the non movement.
Who is not subjected to penalties or forfeiture in violation of his rights to do process under the law.
And what I have discovered through this whole process, living, breathing through all of this, Is that Wisconsin has a very bizarre set of standards for summary judgment that allows a judge to look at my evidence and just to decide it's unreasonable and set it aside, just as he did with my two expert document examiners who are unrebutted.
He just set them aside as someone else's opinion.
He claimed they found them unhelpful, unhelpful.
Well, in Texas, You'd have to take every one of my allegations as true, and then you'd have to see whether the movement, the plaintiff, agreed with them or not.
And if the movement or plaintiff did not agree with them, and of course, how could he agree with them?
Because they imply that Sandy Hook was a FEMA drill, presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
He's not about to agree to that.
It had, therefore, to be sent to a jury.
And that would have occurred in many other states.
The case here I illustrate is Texas.
But it's also true in Connecticut.
I mean, I believe, therefore, there were good reasons for wanting to bring the suit against me right here.
And in Wisconsin, because Wisconsin has this very peculiar situation with regard to summary judgment, where judges basically can decide cases on the basis of their own subjective conviction.
I mean, it's really, really interesting what happens here.
Here's a bit about the summary judgment where he's asking me what evidence.
I asserted my facts and evidence showing the death certificate of Posner's son was fabricated or fake, including the following.
Wrong estimated time of death.
The death certificate attached to Posner's complaint is different from the one Fetzer commented on.
Both a state certification as a true copy and the certification of the town register in the absence of which it properly qualifies as illegal in a fabrication.
There are now four death certificates in this case, Your Honor, where there ought only to be one.
That's prima facie proof of fabrication and fakery.
The judge nevertheless said, get this, The judge then stated, I don't think there's any genuine issue over any of the material facts.
I think the last question both parties are asking me to decide is the legal question.
He continued concerning the four different versions of a death certificate for the same person.
And by the way, all these death certificates affirm that the decedent died at Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds.
Dr. Fatser, You have correctly pointed out more than one occasion of differences between the various copies.
That does not alone indicate that any one of them are false.
It only demonstrates a difference.
For example, some copies have a state file number, some don't.
There's no genuine issue as the fact that some have a file number and some don't.
Whether the defendant's original publications are a false statement is a legal question that the court applies based on the undistributed facts.
To stay in plain English, Mr. Palachuk, our co-defendant, or Mr. Dr. Fetzer, juries decide facts.
Judges apply the law to those facts.
The judge admits he doesn't decide facts, and he has read everything in the case.
I do this because sometimes I hear later, oh, well, I didn't, I hadn't.
He didn't let me finish, and there's one more issue.
I don't want you to be repetitive.
I've listened.
I've read everything.
Is there anything else?
The judge had one of those reasons for finding there were no genuine facts in dispute.
I know actually both parties have moved for a summary judgment.
There's precedent in Wisconsin that when both parties move for a summary judgment, that's an acquiescence or even a concession.
There's no genuine issue as to the underlying facts.
Later, As I explained in my petition.
The statutes in Wisconsin explain that the parties could be mistaken that they that they're assuming these are genuine or bona fide motions for summary judgment, but both parties could be mistaken, and it's up to the judge to determine whether there are factual disputes or no factual disputes.
In this case, there's a huge difference.
A huge difference between them.
The court reiterated its understanding of Dr. Fetzer's allegation of fact and evidence.
At a certain level, Dr. Fetzer, I understand you are in Mr. Palachuk's position.
Having listened to your rather lengthy closing argument, at a certain level, Dr. Fetzer, you say all these death certificates are a fabrication because there never was a death in Sandy Hook and N. Posner never died, is that right?
Dr. Fetzer did not withdraw or abandon any of his previous allegations of fact and supporting evidence regarding the Sandy Hook event or its relevance and reasonable inferences to be drawn from them relative to the death certificates, but rather suggested the unrebutted testimony of two document as authenticity experts was sufficient.
I'm not making that argument here and now, Your Honor.
In fact, the court had early on admonished me that I wasn't supposed to go down the rabbit hole of arguing that Sandy Hook had been a FEMA drill instead of a bona fide shooting.
In fact, the document examiners have given so many good reasons.
There are boxes in these death certificates that were drawn by hand, Your Honor.
I cannot imagine you would want to make a decision without reviewing the expert's testimony.
The judge continued to ask Dr. Fetzer to admit there were no issues of fact and dispute.
Do you agree that there's no dispute about the facts?
You want me to conclude based on my review of all the evidence that Posner's death certificates were false in fabrication?
Dr. Fetzer implied that only one death certificate mattered and it was clearly different and it's deficient in its process of development.
The plaintiff would have you make this decision on the basis of death certificates not in question that weren't published in the book that I never even saw before.
I find it completely absurd, Your Honor, that I should be sued for a death certificate that I've never even seen in publication prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
If that isn't a manifest legal absurdity, I can't imagine what would be.
At the same hearing, Dr. Fetzer alleged it was an obvious fraud being perpetrated on the court by the plaintiff's lawyers, who introduced yet a fifth version of the death certificate during the oral hearing.
And in the petition, here's a quote from the hearing transcript.
As I called him out for it earlier this morning, Your Honor, Mr. Zimmerman, that's the plaintiff, Posner's attorney, Presented you with not just one but two copies of the purported death certificate, which is not the death certificate that was posted by Leonard Posner as transmitted to Kelly Water, I published in the book.
That's a very significant fundamental question here.
I described it then, meaning earlier in the hearing, as a shell game.
I reaffirmed that, Your Honor.
There's a fraud being perpetrated on the court.
As I understand it, counsel, As officers of the court have an obligation to act consistent with the truth.
That has not happened here in this courtroom this morning.
The judge then acknowledged the unrebutted testimony of two document authenticity experts finding all death certificates to be fake by saying, I will also Oh, I did not do it before.
I've read the plaintiff's motion to strike the expert opinions.
I also actually think the expert opinions, Mr. Zimmerman, if they weren't struck, are just that.
Someone else's opinions.
Ultimately, I made the decision based on the facts.
The judge says the finding of the two experts were not helpful or persuasive.
Why do I say that?
Well, I don't want to have someone come back and say, well, if the judge would have reviewed the expert opinion report, expert opinions, it creates a genuine issue as to fact.
I just don't think they were helpful.
And I don't think they were persuasive, even above all the evidentiary problems they present.
A judge granted Posner's summary judgment to find Dr. Fetzer guilty of libel is a matter of law.
Having concluded there's no genuine dispute as to any of the material facts, I conclude that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment on liability as a matter of law.
On June 18, 2019, the judge issued an order granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.
Before the hearing was over, Dr. Fetzer got his 440-page book entitled Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, Entered into evidence for summary judgment purposes as exhibit 10.
The court, okay, we'll keep it in the record.
We'll mark it as an exhibit with what number are we on?
The clerk, this will be number 10.
And of course, I made an interlocutory appeal, which was prior to the trial for damages.
Trial for damages found against me and awarded damages of $450,000.
Post-murder motions and final order for appeal is this most interesting.
We're getting very, very close to the break, however, so I will hold the bans as we proceed to the break.
The circuit court on December 12, 2019, the circuit court judge found there were no disputed facts in this case and that all versions of the death certificate were authentic.
The undisputed facts know that Ed Posner's death certificate was and is authentic and no reasonable fact finder can conclude that Dr. Fetzer acted with ordinary care when he published the statements claiming that the death certificate was a fake.
Very, very interesting.
Dr. Fetzer had filed a post-verdict motion to vacate Posner's partial summary judgment, which the judge declined in this final order as untimely.
He then justifies his finding of disputed facts.
But with a footnote, I'll share with you when we return from this break.
Music playing.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
We'll be right back after this message.
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, Freedom Substance dot com, the number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution 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.
Oh, oh. oh.
Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
Eastern.
Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSleep.com, the people station.
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. - Now we're looking and now we return you to your host. - Now we're looking at a part of the petition where I cite what the judge explained about his rival at his
But as it will turn out, it's really a function of the Wisconsin methodology that allows a judge to make up facts which other states do not permit.
I mean, it's improper, but it's built into the Wisconsin summary judgment methodology.
I mean, it's incredible.
Now, part of what I'm about to read here have a couple of sentences by the judge that I find very puzzling.
For example, he's going to claim that I never said there were any disputed facts.
When I remember very clearly, he asked me, do I agree that there are no disputed facts here?
And I gave a one word answer.
No.
So how he can say this is a bit beyond me, but here it is.
This is a disputing In a footnote, it's worth delving into the particular details of the decision that Dr. Fetzer made pro se.
And remember, see, I had a problem finding an attorney representing me in the circuit court.
So, you know, here I'm still pro se before the U.S.
Supreme Court.
But that's quite a giant leap.
OK.
At the time the cross motion for summary judgment were filed, Dr. Fetzer never argued there was any dispute of material fact or that summary judgment could not be decided.
And as I already mentioned, when I said no, I mean, that's right there in the transcript.
I certainly never agreed there were no issues of material fact.
Obviously, no disputed facts.
Obviously, the whole case was disputed.
You'll see more when the appellate court addresses this issue.
Dr. Fetzer argued that the facts were clear, so the court should grant summary judgment in his favor.
At one point in time, Dr. Fetzer even brazenly stated that he welcomed Mr. Posner's lawsuit because it would provide a public forum for proving that Sandy Hooks was all a hoax concocted by President Obama.
During oral argument on the cross motions for summary judgment, despite being asked multiple times to identify which of any facts were in dispute, Dr. Fetzer failed to identify a single one.
Let me just say as an aside, I mean, that's pretty damn odd.
I mean, I got two expert witnesses.
He talked about my long-closing argument.
I was going through every one of the death certificates and explained how they were different and that this was proof that they were fake and fabricated.
I mean, failed to identify a single one?
My God!
Even in his interlocutory appeal taken immediately after the court ruled, although he claimed he created a genuine issue of material fact, his whole interlocutory appeal was based upon his complaint that this court relied on the undisputed facts to come to what he claimed was the erroneous legal conclusion that Dr. Petzer defamed Mr. Bosner.
Unfortunately, The court's attempt to expose factual disputes according to its order governing summary judgment methodology fell flat in large part to Dr. Fetzer's misunderstanding of the legal process.
Well, isn't that interesting?
Notice how he cites summary judgment methodology, which I misunderstand.
Well, it's certainly true I misunderstood.
I had no idea because when I reviewed the nature of summary judgments, You know, in a legal source prior to the trial, I saw where, among other points, you have to assume that everything that the defendant is claiming is true in order to ascertain whether there are or are not undisputed facts.
And I felt very secure.
It just turns out that the summary judgment methodology in Wisconsin does not satisfy that standard.
The judge decided as a matter of fact, not law, that it's unreasonable for anyone to believe that groups of people would deceive other groups of people.
Get this.
This is the judge.
No reasonable person would come to the conclusion that someone fabricated or falsified Mr. Posner's son's death certificate.
No reasonable person would believe that President Obama hired crisis actors to stage a pretend school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in order to advance a former president's supposed agenda on gun control.
No reasonable person could consider But Leonard Posner tried to tell Dr. Fetzer and his fellow researchers immediately after the shooting and come to the conclusion that Posner never lived and thus never died.
It's impossible to imagine that anyone in today's digital world could believe, much less conceive, that three or four hundred actors could or would keep this secret safe and not be lured to sell this fantastic story to the highest bidder yet, even today, even now.
Dr. Fetzer would have everybody believe that.
Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
I got that last part right.
Wisconsin 4th Court of Appeals.
Upon entry of the final order, Dr. Fetzer filed his brief of an appellate cross-respondent at the Wisconsin 4th Court of Appeals on June 24, 2020.
The appellees filed their brief and Fetzer replied.
Posner filed a response brief.
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed all the rulings of the lower courts and concluded in their 58-page opinion on March 18, 2021, that there were no reasonable disputed facts in this case.
Get this.
This is quoting from the appellate court decision.
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.
Tragically, 26 people were killed, including 6 staff members and 20 children who were aged 6 and 7.
See, for example, Jones vs. Heslin, blah blah blah, stating Neil Heslin's son was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December 2012.
And rejecting the substantial truth doctrine as a basis to dismiss Heslin's defamation claim, related statements disputing Heslin's assertion that he held his deceased son in his arms and Soto v. Bushmaster firearms in Connecticut on December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lonza forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown to hand, during the course of 264 seconds,
Fatally shot 21st grade children and six staff members and wounded two other staff members.
Posner's six-year-old son, Ian, was one of the children killed during the San Diego shooting.
Now they take that to be indisputable, that no one could reasonably dispute those claims.
Let me just make a couple of obvious points here.
Number one, both these cases were decided on procedural ground.
None of them reached the fact of whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
Number two, while Neil Hesselin claims he held his son in his arms as he died, Wayne Carver, during the press conference he held, shortly thereafter declared the parents were not allowed to see the bodies of their children.
So either Mr. Hesselin is lying or Wayne Carver is lying or both.
Third, Soto versus Bushmaster.
During the course of 264 seconds, I mean, give me a break!
264 seconds?
Where did they come up with that?
How could anyone look at that and not recognize it's preposterous?
Just preposterous, okay?
Listen to this now.
Astonishingly, in the very next paragraph, The Fourth Court of Appeals states very clearly the allegations of Dr. Fetzer raising relevant material facts supported by evidence as to the credibility of a scanned death certificate for one who purportedly died at a mass shooting event that did not take place.
And this is now the Wisconsin Court of Appeals summarizing my position.
Fetzer, a Wisconsin resident, Takes a position that the Sandy Hook shooting was an elaborate hoax, which, according to Fetzer, was staged by government authorities with the agenda to deprive U.S.
citizens of their rights pursuant to the Second Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
Fetzer takes a position that no one was killed during the Sandy Hook shooting, and that part of the elaborate hoax included the fabrication of a fictional person called Ann, Before and during this litigation, Fetzer has asserted that Posner is a fraud, liar, hypocrite, and con artist, and he has accused Posner of concealing his true identity.
Fetzer has also accused Posner of engaging in a massive cover-up with regard to the Sandy Hook shooting.
Fetzer is an editor of the book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA-drilled submarine gun control, second edition, 2016.
And is co-author of chapter 11 of that book, which is titled or Sandy Hook skeptics delusional with twisted minds.
Now, I filed a motion for reconsideration on April 6th, 2021, asserting yet again, issues of genuine fact related to the unrebutted expert findings and the validity of the Sandy Hook mass shooting quote.
This is from the motion for reconsideration.
The expert opinion, still being of record, created material questions of fact as to the falsity of statements in the Fetzer book and blog.
Specifically, was Fetzer negligent in his statements?
In addition, Fetzer bleedings and affidavits created a material fact dispute as to whether anybody died at Sandy Hook, the answer to which refutes Posner's affirmation claim.
Fetzer's motion for reconsideration was denied on April 7th, 2021.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
On August 6, 2021, Dr. Fetzer filed his corrective petition for review.
The petition asserts that Dr. Fetzer was prevented from pursuing a defense based upon facts he discovered leading one to conclude that the Sandy Hook mass shooting did not happen.
Quote, The circuit court Foreclosed Fetzer from defending on the basis of research establishing that Sandy Hook was a cover intended to promote gun control.
A thesis in the substance of this research more directly on the truth or falsity of Fetzer's alleged defamatory statements.
The court, however, advised the parties that such an offense was a rabbit hole we won't go down.
The court moreover at trial Caution counsel, because by the time of the trial for damages, I had obtained legal counsel as well, not to go down the foreclosed road.
On Feb 16, 2022, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied Dr. Fetzer's petition.
Now, here are reasons for granting, and mind you, you can download the whole thing.
This is really so damn interesting.
And it's so appropriate for the Supreme Court because it shows a major difference between the states about how they handle summary judgment.
Reasons for granting the petition.
The Wisconsin summary judgment methodology used in the Posner v. Fee case will prove that those in Wisconsin do not enjoy the same right to trial by jury as those in Texas.
Yet all states of the Union are guaranteed the same rights of due process and trial by jury under the 7th and 14th Amendments.
Had Mr. Posner filed the same summary judgment in Texas, they would have gone before a jury trial on both liability and damages instead of damages only.
Had this case not involved facts related to a mass shooting story reporting worldwide, aspects of which continue to the present, the discovery of the serious flaws in the Wisconsin Summary Judgment Methodology may have continued unnoticed.
The circuit judge in the case did nothing that the Wisconsin Summary Judgment Methodology does not allow for any case, no matter how small.
A pro se petitioner for a writ of certiorari was able to institute the right to counsel in every state in Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963.
And Dr. Fetzer now asks, as a pro se petitioner, that his writ of certiorari be issued to address the equal right to trial by jury and due process under the 17th and 14th Amendments denied by the unsound summary judgment methodology in Wisconsin.
The citizens of Wisconsin should enjoy the same right to trial by jury and due process as the citizens of Texas.
And the same unsound summary judgment methodology should not become the judicial foundation of major historical events that impact the life, liberty, and possession of all Americans and their ability to protect those blessings.
The principles that should apply to the granting of summary judgment in every state can be determined initially from application of natural law or logic.
There are two functions of summary judgment.
Knowing that juries find facts only, why would it be necessary to have a jury trial if the adversaries agreed on the facts of the case?
Therefore, the first function of a summary judgment is to avoid the delay and expense of a jury trial when all the facts are already agreed upon, making the findings of the fact by a jury redundant and unnecessary.
The second function of a summary judgment is to protect the Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury of the non-moving.
Hence, the rules that regulate the granting of a motion for summary judgment must first and foremost protect the non-movement's right to a trial by jury.
There is no federal guarantee of a right to a summary judgment.
We must therefore start the summary judgment process by protecting the one who is at risk of losing their property without due process guaranteed under the 7th and 14th Amendments, the non-movement.
We know that the end product of a summary judgment should be the application of the law to facts that are agreed upon by the parties.
Where without agreement to facts, we need a jury to find them for both.
Not a judge to determine or impose them on the parties.
Therefore, the judge must start the summary judgment process by accepting the allegations of fact by the non-moving, the defendant, me, as true.
And it follows that the judge must also indulge all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts.
And finally, the judge can rest assured that he is not harming the non-movement if they resolve all questions in favor of the non-movement.
This assures us all that in the end, a summary judgment will protect the non-movement's rights and deliver justice to both parties.
Upon demonstration herein that the rules of summary judgment do not protect the Seventh Amendment right equally throughout the Union or between Wisconsin and Texas, it is the duty of this Court to issue an opinion that guides every state in the Union on the principles of summary judgment that will protect the right to a trial by jury and expedite the summary judgment process in the most efficient manner.
The existence of a disputed material fact does not establish the right of a non-movement to a trial by jury, as said in Wisconsin.
A non-movement does not need to prove they have a disputed fact before they can enjoy a trial by jury.
The existence of a disputed material fact issue merely prevents the movement from bypassing the jury.
And obtaining a judgment is a matter of law when the movement's allegations of fact don't agree with a non-movement.
Hence, it is the burden or concession of the movement that there are no material facts to be found by a jury and that the movement agrees with a non-movement allegations of facts.
We must start not from the position of a non-movement trying to prove they have a right to a jury trial, but rather From the position of the movement needs to concede that they agree with a non-movement's allegation of facts.
A movement cannot twist, manipulate, or ignore the non-movement's relevant allegation of facts to fit their own, but accept them as true, and only then can a matter of law be determined by a judge.
Thus, The protection of the Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury in the summary judgment process has nothing to do with a non-movement convincing the judge that they have a disputed issue of material fact.
The erroneously supposed needability or requirement for a non-movement to prove there is a disputed material fact issue cannot be a sufficient protection of the right to trial by jury.
The judge must find that the movement's facts agree with the non-movement's facts in every material aspect without manipulation of the non-movement's allegation of facts.
Then the judge may proceed to look for every element of the movement's claim or defense.
If the facts of the movement do not agree with the non-movement on every relevant aspect, the judge must deny the summary judgment immediately.
If the facts of the movement agree with those of the non-movement in all material aspects, and the movement has supporting evidence for every element of their claim, the judge may grant the summary judgment while protecting both parties.
The three steps of protecting the 7th and 14th Amendment rights and a summary judgment are established in Texas.
A first step in deciding whether disputed material fact issues exist, precluding summary judgment, Evidence favorable to the non-movement will be taken as true.
The second step is, every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movement.
And the third requires that all doubts be resolved in the non-movement's favor.
In contrast, the Wisconsin four-step summary judgment methodology is completely inverted.
And starts by wasting time and energy on the movement case rather than protection of the non-movement.
Since a summary judgment cannot be granted without agreement to the relevant facts of the non-movement, why waste time with a movement that does establish the relevant facts agree with those of the non-movement?
Aaron J. Loudson-Langer, a staff attorney for the Dane County Circuit Court, writing for the Wisconsin Bar, Explains a four-step methodology to decide motions for summary judgment in Wisconsin.
First, a court must review the complaint to determine on its face if it states a claim for relief.
Two, then, under the second step of this Wisconsin, if a claim for relief has been stated, the inquiry then shifts to whether any factual issues exist.
Three, if a complaint states a claim and the pleadings show the existence of factual issues, the court examines the moving party's affidavit or other proof to determine whether the moving party has made a prima facie case for summary judgment.
Four, if the moving Established as a prima facie case for summary judgment, the court must then review the opposing party's affidavits and other proof to determine whether there's any material fact in dispute or inferences from undisputed material facts that would entitle the opposing party to a trial.
The four-step summary judgment process in Wisconsin is to 1.
Verify the movement has stated a claim.
2.
Determine if there are any material facts disputes.
3.
If there is a material fact dispute, the judge verifies the movement has made a prima facie case with their proof.
And 4.
If the movement has established a prima facie case, the judge looks at the non-movement facts and evidence that determine if there are any fact disputes or inferences from undisputed material facts.
Notice the Wisconsin process is a tangled mess, which looks for disputed evidence twice, and if relevant fact disputes are found, why then verify the establishment of the movements prima facie case?
If the movements facts do not agree with those of the non-movement, the summary judgments must be denied immediately, not further investigated for a prima facie establishment and then review the non-movements filings again, What judicious principle limits the search for inferences to those from undisputed fact?
This inverted process in Wisconsin causes the judge to be an advocate of the movement with a drive to make or force the non-movement facts to agree with the movement's facts.
Dr. Fetzer immediately answered Bosner's complaint by stating that the death certificate attached to the complaint was not the same as the one he commented on.
Dr. Fetzer also alleged in his answer that the Sandy Hook mass shooting did not occur, but was a FEMA exercise where no one was killed, and he supported that allegation with a 440-page book, Investigating Sandy Hook, an annual FBI report on crime in America showing zebro deaths in Newtown in 2012,
For homicide or non-negligent manslaughter and a 20-page FEMA drill manual for mass casualties involving children scheduled for the same day shown on the death certificates.
When Posner filed his motion for summary judgment, the judge should have immediately taken all the allegations of fact by Fetzer as true and looked to see if Posner's pleading of fact agreed with him.
Posner pled that his son died at the Sandy Hook mass shooting and the death certificates show his son died at Sandy Hook Elementary from multiple gunshot wounds on the same day of Posner's alleged mass shooting and Fetzer's alleged FEMA drill at Sandy Hook Elementary.
The judge should have then indulged the inference from Fetzer's alleged facts that no one was murdered at Sandy Hook on 12-14-2012, or that Posner's son was killed by an accident involving FEMA participants, a preponderance of Fetzer's evidence showing that no one was murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary in all of 2012.
We'll be right back.
Thank you.
Thank you.
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.
If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself. - Come on.
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.
But 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.
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.
Well, I'm looking at the Supreme Court docket where you can find Fetzer v. Posner, and the number is 21-7916. 21-7916.
21-7916.
So go to SupremeCourt.gov and you'll be able to search the docket for Fetzer v. Posner.
Remember the cases where he brought against me were Posner v. Fetzer.
Well, now the situation is reversed.
You can find my petition, my motion to proceed as a pauper, meaning a poor guy who can't afford an attorney.
You can find the petition.
You can find the proof of service.
I mean, I delivered it to his attorney and the appendices for the case.
It's all there.
You can download it all right onto your laptop.
So if you want to study what's going on here, I'd welcome Your comments, I mean, well, you know, I want to leave time here for getting feedback from many of you, but just know, you know, since I'm not going to be able to cover all of it, I'm going to cover a whole lot of it.
You'll certainly have the idea.
The judge now continuing the preponderance of Fetzer's evidence showing no one was murdered in Sandy Hook in all of 2012.
Remember the FBI Consolidated Crime Report that nobody died in Newtown from murder, non-negligent homicide in all of 2012.
Sandy Hook is a part of Newtown, therefore no one died of murder in Sandy Hook in all of 2012.
And that's in an FBI document.
The judge, using the flawed Wisconsin Summary Judgment Methodology, first confirmed that the move in Posner, had stated a claim, and then looked for disputed facts, then went about establishing a prima facie case for the movement by finding all the alleged facts of the non-movement were disingenuous by calling them unreasonable, unpersuasive, and not helpful.
And finally, the judge found the movement had all the elements for his claim of defamation as a result of no dispute on genuine issues of fact, as all had been found disingenuous by the judge.
The summary judgment was obviously nothing but a non-jury trial.
The summary judgment hearing Should never have proceeded to hearing any evidence for the movement's elements of defamation because of the obvious showing that Posner's allegations of fact did not agree with a non-movement's allegation of relevant fact, which must be accepted as true to protect the non-movement's Seventh Amendment rights.
The judge should have asked the movement if they agreed with a non-movement's allegation that the Sandy Hook mass shooting did not happen.
Bosner would have had to say no, at which time the judge should have denied the motion for summary judgment.
The one at risk of losing Seventh Amendment rights in a summary judgment is the non-movement, or in this case, Dr. Fetzer.
And since the facts must be agreed to by the parties it follows, to start by accepting all Dr. Fetzer's allegations of fact as true, including the inconvenient facts about Sandy Hook not happening.
Then the judge could have saved everyone a lot of time and effort and had a jury trial on the material fact issues instead of accepting all the allegations of fact pled by the movement, the wrong party, and trying to force a non-movement to agree with Posner's facts as the judge did in this case as illustrated below.
The judge asked the non-movements if they agreed with each of the four elements that prove defamation.
Fourth, the communication was unprivileged.
Three, the communication tends to harm one's reputation.
Three, the communication was made to persons other than the defamed.
One, the statement was false.
The non-movement answers to these questions are irrelevant, because they have already pled that the death certificate attached to Posner's complaint was not the one Dr. Fetzer was accused of making defamatory claims about.
The answers to the questions that went to each element of defamation were irrelevant.
Because the non-movement had already pled that the death certificate was fake, because this hand-hooked mass shooting did not take place, and the reasonable inference from that is that Posner's son did not die from multiple gunshot wounds at a shooting that did not take place, supported by evidence of a FEMA drill manual scheduled for the same time of death, and by an FBI report showing zero murders and non-negligent manslaughter in Newtown in 2012.
Dr. Fetzer also filed his 440-page book filled with much more compelling evidence that would support his allegations.
The judge was leading the non-movements, meaning both me and Mike Palachuk, to admit they were in agreement with the movement's alleged facts rather than merely accepting what the non-movement had been pleading and arguing all along.
The judge, in his attempt to get rid of the two expert reports finding all the death certificates fake, that is the four that had been introduced prior to the oral hearing, said that there are cases where both parties file motions for summary judgment.
It is a concession that there are no genuine material fact issues and dispute, and that it acts as a waiver of a trial by jury.
But later Wisconsin cases show that only a judge can determine if there are genuine material fact issues in dispute, not the parties.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that when both sides moved for summary judgment and it would appear there were no factual issues in dispute, the practical effect of the bilateral summary judgment motions was the equivalent of a stipulation as to the fact.
This resumes that both parties filed meritorious motions for summary judgment.
That general rule is not applicable as the existence of a genuine issue of material fact is a question of law for the court, not for the parties.
And both parties might erroneously conclude that no factual dispute exists when in reality one does.
The judge was simply conducting a non-jury trial under the pretext of a summary judgment, which is what the flawed summary judgment methodology encourages in Wisconsin, as shown further by statements of the judge.
Plaintiff asserts that all the evidence that they've submitted, which is not genuinely disputed or not disputed or not rebutted by admissible evidence or not rebutted by admissible authenticated evidence, There is no such thing as inadmissible evidence in a proper summary judgment proceeding.
The judge is not to decide what is admissible or not.
The judge should not weigh evidence or rule on its admissibility.
All the judge can do in a motion for summary judgment is find agreement or disagreement to the movement's allegation of fact by the movement.
If the movement cannot agree to the facts alleged by the non-movement and indulge every inference to be drawn from those facts and resolve all questions in the non-movement's favor, the motion for summary judgment must be denied to protect the 7th and 14th Amendment rights of the non-movement.
The judge continued to conduct his non-jury trial in the guise of a summary judgment by finding facts rather than agreement or disagreement on material fact issues.
The judge said that the two unrebutted reports submitted by document authenticity experts finding the relevant death certificates for Posner's son to be fake were not helpful and unpersuasive and ignored them.
This is not the prerogative of a judge in a summary judgment proceeding.
The judge must accept all the non-movement's allegations of material fact that is true, not weigh the evidence as a jury would.
The judge, after weighing all the evidence in his non-jury trial cloaked as a summary judgment, found the explanation to the movement, Mr. Posner, to be legitimate and plausible and persuasive.
And after finding that all the pleadings and evidence of the non-movement failed to present a genuine issue of material fact, granted the summary judgment.
The circuit judge, lawyers and justices in Wisconsin were not cheating according to their summary judgment methodology.
And that is why the summary judgment survived an appeal through the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the same summary judgment methodology Used by the Circuit Court, which is nothing short of a non-jury trial conducted by a judge rejecting alleged facts of the non-movement because they were, quote, unreasonable, implausible, unpersuasive, and unhelpful, which are all matters for a jury, not a judge, who can only apply the law to facts in agreement or found by a jury.
Any objection or disagreement presented by a non-movement in a faulty summary judgment procedure is not his obligation to obtain a Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury, but is in essence a plea and prayer For production under the 7th and the 14th Amendment, and it was answered with constant denial of Dr. Fetzer's right to due process at a jury trial and constant violation of the two purposes of summary judgment.
Therefore, Dr. Fetzer asked for relief all through the Wisconsin judicial system and his pleas went unheeded due to an unsound summary judgment methodology practiced in Wisconsin.
A Texas judge may not find an allegation supported by evidence unreasonable that asserts that the so-called Sandy Hook mass shooting was nothing but theater.
That same judge may, however, find it reasonable that such an allegation, if true, would mean a death certificate is fraudulent that shows a decedent died at that theatrical event.
However, The same judge, without additional facts and evidence, could also find it unreasonable that such allegations and supported evidence would show the actors were alcoholics.
The notion of reasonableness cannot be applied to the facts of the non-movement, but only the inferences that can be drawn from those facts.
If the judge could apply reasonableness to facts, the non-movement would never have material relevant facts to secure 7th and 14th Amendment rights.
But in Wisconsin, A judge is permitted to apply the notion of reasonableness to the facts being pled with supporting evidence by the parties to a summary judgment.
The determination of what a reasonable fact involves weighing the credibility or plausibility of facts, but that is a job for juries, not judges.
Judges may determine if some fact is relevant or genuine to the claim without weighing the reasonableness of the fact.
Facts are not weighed to determine their relevance.
A fact is either applicable to the claim or it is not.
There is no weighing of plausibility to find relevance.
An alleged fact can be true but not relevant.
An alleged fact that is most relevant to a claim may be false.
The non-movement's allegation that the Sandy Hook mass shooting was more mere theater acted out in an abandoned school as a plea to act to alter the Second Amendment was found unreasonable to the circuit judge and affirmed by the Wisconsin Fourth Court of Appeals on review herein.
But such a determination required the weighing of facts, which is the job of a jury.
The only option for a judge in Posner's motion for summary judgment as filed in Texas would be to accept all of Fetzer's allegations of fact as true and indulge all reasonable inferences that could be drawn from those facts and resolve all doubts in favor of Dr. Fetzer.
The judge would need to agree with the FBI that no one died at Sandy Hook in all the year of 2012, meaning of murder, non-negligent homicide, and that there was a FEMA drill held at Sandy Hook Elementary on 14 December 2012, not a mass shooting.
And the judge would need to indulge the reasonable inferences that Posner's son was not killed anywhere in Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012.
The judge would further be required to resolve all doubts in Fetzer's favor.
The judge had no option but to deny Posner's motion for summary judgments.
Posner's defamation case would have gone on trial on both liability and damages had it been filed in Texas.
When it is said the judge was fine, there's no genuine issue of material fact and dispute prior to granting a summary judgment.
It does not mean the judge must determine the truthfulness of a fact to be genuine.
Rather, it means the judge must determine if the facts pled relate to an issue or element of the claim.
Reasonableness applies to inferences, not facts, and genuineness of a fact applies to relevance and materially related to the elements of a claim and is not applied to the truthfulness or believability of a fact which a jury must find.
Therefore, Mr. Posner could not have won a summary judgment in Texas finding Dr. Fetzer guilty of libel or defamation as a matter of law.
And Mr. Posner would be required to take his cause of action to a jury to prove both the liability and damages.
But in Wisconsin, Mr. Posner could easily win a summary judgment on liability and then simply take his damage claims to a jury, which he did.
It is clear that the Circuit Judge's application of the notion of reasonable de facts is accepted in Wisconsin law because it was affirmed through the Wisconsin Fourth Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court denied the petition for review.
All Wisconsin courts reiterated the notion that facts found to be unreasonable by a judge may be ignored in summary judgments.
Both circuit and appellate court cited and ignored unreasonable facts and evidence alleged by Dr. Fetzer.
This summary judgment methodology Not only to bribe Dr. Fetzer of a trial by jury, as guaranteed under the 7th and the 14th Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution, but creates an environment conducive for the use of just such theatrical events as alleged by Dr. Fetzer, supported only by private mass media narratives.
Even if Dr. Fetzer's facts were wrong, The law in Wisconsin has created a fertile ground for similar pretended crimes used as a pretext to alter the laws of the land.
The rules of summary judgment must be uniform throughout the Union as they are fundamentally applicable to all and must be protective of the 7th Amendment right to trial by jury and 14th Amendment right to equal access to due process.
A judge in a summary judgment could not find the reasonableness of facts and evidence, but rather agreement or disagreement to facts pled or the relevance of facts pled to the elements of a claim.
The appellate court recited the reasonable undisputed facts in this case, just as the mass media described the Sandy Hook event.
Then, most astonishingly, in the very next paragraph, the Fourth Court recited the allegation to Dr. Fetzer in direct opposition of Mr. Posner's allegation of fact, assuring that Sandy Hook was a FEMA exercise where no one was killed, reported by the media as a real event to promote gun control.
No two sets of relevant facts, both supported by evidence, could be in more dispute.
Only a jury can find either set of allegations reasonable or unreasonable.
Therefore, the circuit and appellate courts in Wisconsin knew full well that all the important facts related to the genuine issues of fact in this case were in dispute, but found all the non-movement facts to be unreasonable.
This cannot be done by the judicial system on summary judgment.
The courts can't do that in Texas.
The issue whether anyone was killed at Sandy Hook, or if it was merely a FEMA drill, is most certainly a genuine fact issue having material relevance to the claims, and it is a serious dispute between the parties.
Dr. Fetzer was fined $657,395.13 for contempt of a contemptible non-jury trial cloaked as a summary judgment.
And then Fetzer was subjected to humiliation during a trial by a jury for damages, where the judge allowed Posner to introduce the evidence that Fetzer was found to be in continual contempt of court To influence a jury justified as an alternative means of a contempt remedy.
A jury found $450,000 in damages or $207,395.13 less than the judge found for Fetzer's contempt of the Contemptible Wisconsin Summary Judgment Methodology.
395.13 less than the judge found for Fetzer's contempt of the contemptible Wisconsin summary judgment methodology.
The award of $650,000 to Posner for Fetzer's continual contempt was for Posner's attorney's fees.
But Posner said he had none, as the attorneys represented him pro bono.
Conclusion.
A petitioner does not appeal to this court on their own right, but upon the duty of this court to enforce the Seventh Amendment guarantees of the right to a trial by jury and the Fourteenth Amendment equal right to due process of all Americans, no matter how unreasonable they are.
Dr. Fetzer has demonstrated clearly how the state high courts can disagree on their summary judgment rules and their application, depriving some of their right to trial by jury.
He has further shown that the four-step Wisconsin summary judgment methodology neither protects the non-movement's right to trial by jury nor expedites a rapid and efficient determination for the movement.
This court should establish the standard for all states on how to safeguard the right of the non-moving and apply the notion of reasonableness and genuineness related to facts, inferences, and issues.
The Supreme Court of the United States should grant this petition for writ of certiorari and set aside the Posner v. Fetzer decision and issue an opinion that will assure that summary judgment proceedings throughout America Equally protect the right of due process by trial, by jury.
The high profile nature of this case ultimately draws attention to the flaws in the summary judgment methodology, Wisconsin, that all citizens of that state presently suffer regardless of the magnitude of their cases.
Finally,
It is repugnant to human nature that one judge, by the perversion of summary judgment principles, may determine as a matter of law that a major event took place exactly as reported by private media companies and one plaintiff, while the defendant provides a plethora of evidence to the contrary and is deprived of a trial by jury to defend himself and his evidence.
To knowingly allow this to continue is a sign that the great American experiment of liberty by self-government has ended.
I want to add that I ran this case by a retired professor of law, John Remington Graham.
He wrote back the following, Jim, The hard part of your petition is that the situation described in your petition is so irregular and outrageous that a reader of your petition might disbelieve that a situation of judicial record should be so bad as it is.
Anybody who has attended law school in any state of the union, including Wisconsin, knows that a trial judge cannot find disputed facts undisputed because he thinks disputing evidence is unreasonable.
If a point of fact is disputed, there is a genuine issue of fact for the jury.
No judge in any state, Wisconsin or Texas, can say otherwise.
And if any judge in any state says otherwise, he is incompetent or a crook if he means what he says.
The findings of fact concerning the death certificate as entered by Judge Remington are not wrong, but dishonest and corrupt.
You are much too kind to the judiciary of Wisconsin.
You're asking the court to find that the right of jury trial in the Seventh Amendment is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus restrains abuse of summary judgments in state courts, which is a very interesting question.
Mind you, I am quoting the opinion of a retired professor of law.
I'm not thereby endorsing his assessment of the court in this case.
I replied, thanks, Jack.
But the proof that the Circuit Court and Appellate Courts were doing what I claim they were doing is proven by their own words, which are quoted in the petition.
So I'm at a loss as to how anyone could not understand that they did what they did when they are quoted doing what I said they did in the petition itself.
But I'm glad you find the question interesting and by inference worthy of SCOTUS consideration.
Thanks, my friend.
To which he replied, Jim, If the courts of Wisconsin actually admit that disputed evidence becomes undisputed simply because the judge thinks disputing evidence is unreasonable, then the courts in Wisconsin are incompetent and corrupt, and it's about time to incorporate the 7th Amendment with the 14th.
I miss the possibility the courts of Wisconsin admit they're letting a trial judge find disputed evidence undisputed because he thinks in his subjective opinion that disputing evidence is unreasonable.
That's unthinkable for anyone who's had a good legal education.
I know that summary judgment is frequently abused, even when the truth remains unadmitted, but this is just too much.
This is not how a law professor in the country would admit as much unless things have changed radically since I last taught.
It's outrageous and uncivilized.
John Remington Graham.
Well, I think that was a pretty fascinating response.
From this guy whom I've long known and greatly admire, so I'm just very happy with his response.
Meanwhile, I'll be glad to take questions during the final segment of the show.
Remember the number 540-352-4452.
540-352-4452.
Mitchell will be here.
540-352-4452. 540-352-4452.
Mitchell will be here. Call in if you like.
Music.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
We'll be right back.
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.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m., evening.
Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSedge.com, the people's station.
Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
But did you know that it was an inside job?
That Osama had nothing to do with it?
That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
Barry Jennings was there.
He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
The U.S.
Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
Don't let yourself be played.
Read American Nuke on 9-11.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
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.
I reiterate that everyone can find the whole case docketed at the Supreme Court.
The case number is 21-7916.
Go to SupremeCourt.gov and you can find the opportunity to search the docket just put in Fetzer v. Posner.
And you'll have at your fingertips all the documents basic to the case, including the petition itself, a large part, not all, but most of which I read for you, the most relevant parts.
Paul, glad to have you calling in.
Give me your thoughts.
Well, so I hear move, movement or non-movement.
One more time.
Well, I mean, it's simpler than defendant and plaintiff.
You know, it really is legal language, which is a necessity, alas, when you're submitting a legal document in a high profile case.
And, you know, we we don't know whether it's going to go all the way, but I think the signs are encouraging.
And the fact is that it it tees up a really Perfect issue for the Supreme Court, namely making summary judgment methodology uniform throughout the state.
So I mean, this seems to me to be a perfect kind of case for a Supreme Court adjudication.
Right.
Well, I mean, I will first say that what I heard you read in reading, it was off and on as I was driving.
And so sometimes I could hear better than others.
Sure.
But, you know, it was it was fantastic.
It was excellent.
I mean, I've read plenty of Legal work and written some myself.
And I mean, it's it's great.
But all I can really say, and I think, you know, it's a hard pill to swallow.
And I swallowed it more than 20 years ago because, you know, it's just it's like pearls to swine.
That's the way that I started to look at it.
As I said, why am I going to deal with these people?
Because you really deal with people in the end, despite all the language and the solidness of your arguments.
In the end, it comes down to a man, or in some cases, appeals courts are typically three men or three people.
As you know, the Supreme Court here can just decide, no, they're not going to hear it.
It's really a convenient system for them, because there's no way we can force them to adjudicate the issues based upon the properness of the arguments.
We just can't do it.
Uh, and it's not going to, it's not going to be done in your case.
I mean, what you say about the making uniform, the summary judgment procedures, that's a great issue.
It really is.
It's unfortunate that it's attached to this particular case.
Um, the other thing that I'll say real quick when you can respond is it, that's a nice letter you got from that, uh, judge you mentioned, uh, Remington, I believe.
But yeah.
Yeah, his name is, ironically, the judge in the case is named Frank Remington.
The professor of law retired is named John Remington Graham.
So there is interest.
And of course, then the rifle company being sued is Remington, too.
So we have ambiguity triple.
Fascinating.
Yeah, well, what I started to say is one wonders if this individual was not retired and sitting on On that bench, if he had gotten the phone call or he had gotten the memo where his principals would come out, because let's face it, these people, if they're not already on the team or they're not already inclined to make the proper rulings for the system, they're going to get a phone call.
They're going to get a memo.
And you just kind of wonder, you know, because it takes a unique individual to stand against his own position and paycheck for principal.
Well, let me just comment about some of what you have said here.
I think it's only because it is a high profile case that I was able to work my way through and discover the methodological failure.
I mean, I'm not an expert on summary judgments generally, but what I'd read about summary judgments going into the case, Was very common to what they are in Texas that you have to take the defendant's position as though it were true for the purpose of determining whether or not a real issue of fact exists.
And if a real issue of fact disputed fact exists, then it must go to a jury.
What I found frustrating was I kept raising so many important issues.
I mean, you heard an enumeration of some of them here, but I mean, there were more that indicated that this had been a fraud at Sandy Hook, but they were all being set aside as unreasonable because the circuit court judge was taking for granted the official narrative.
So that, you know, initially I felt I was being denied my right to present my case.
And of course, in a certain sense, I was.
On the other hand, look at how the appellate court was able to delineate the features of my case in striking contrast with the official narrative, while even declaring that there were no disputed facts.
Well, they could hardly have been more in dispute.
Now, Paul, what I think is the great virtue of this case is it's an issue of procedure, due process, right to jury.
And there's variation between the states.
That means this is teed up for the Supreme Court.
It's a perfect case.
Just like Gideon was a matter of getting, you know, every person who's arrested their right, being told their rights under the law be made uniform through all the states.
This making summary judgment uniform through all the states, I think, is going to be irresistible.
Now, the fact that it involved Sandy Hook is going to generate tremendous public interest.
It's not a decision they're being asked to make about Sandy Hook.
The issue they're being asked to make is, was I given my proper consideration and due process under the law?
And I think they're going to find, absolutely, I was denied due process.
I was violated under the 7th and 14th.
And that they must make it uniform.
And Paul, they do all that without having to come down on the issue of whether Sandy Hook was real or fake.
They don't have to rule on that at all.
It's not the legal question before them.
But it generates enormous public interest.
So I think this case actually has a whole lot of benefits, a whole lot of virtues and multiple points of view.
It's by far my best critique possible of explaining.
I'm essentially challenging the entire Wisconsin judiciary from the circuit through the appellate through the Supreme Court on the methodology they adopt and they're self-conscious.
They know they're adopting it.
They even think it's virtuous to discount all the evidence I produced as unreasonable, which is stunning, you know.
As a professor of philosophy, I mean, I deal in reason and rationality, you know.
I mean, I can explain to you how there are objective standards of proof and that deviations in subjective conclusions from those that would be supported by objective standards of proof, given that you have the available same amount of evidence, is an indication of irrationality.
And yet they've incorporated irrationality into the judicial process in Wisconsin.
I know!
That's what they don't do.
It's no different than anywhere else.
I'm going to be as nice as I can be, which is hard for me sometimes because I'm not always nice.
Mitchell sent me a text saying, be nice.
I heard Scorpio react to this when you were on with he and Giuseppe, and he said, well, Jim, I'm cautiously optimistic.
And that was very nice, very optimistic, excuse me, very diplomatic of him.
But I'm not optimistic at all, Jim.
I'm very realistic.
I think, like I say, you're too good for this.
I mean, everything that you say is, in my opinion, it's correct, it's indisputable.
You know, your logic is sound, your reasonableness, your articulation of all the points.
But we're not living in a real The world, as you know, we're living in a world of lies, fraud and lies.
And it's throughout, it's top to bottom and sideways.
And they won't entertain this at all, no matter what you say about it.
It's the perfect case to take and so on.
And I mean, again, I admire you.
There's a lot of people that admire what you're doing and taking a stand.
It's phenomenal.
But it's just it's going to fall on deaf ears.
That's my prediction.
And it has nothing to do with you.
Or the soundness of what you say.
You know, you're a person of character and integrity, and what you're dealing with is a system that's composed of people who are not, or who are paid not to be.
Well, Paul, look, I appreciate all that.
And of course, Scorpio's qualified, you know, optimism.
I like all that.
I appreciate all that.
I know exactly where you're coming from.
I have not lost Faith in the Supreme Court, even though it's been severely tested when the court denied the Texas case to review, you know, the violation of their own laws for the selection of electors in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan.
I found that a very disillusioning experience.
But I'm telling you, I actually think they are going to take this case and that they are going to rule in my favor.
And I view it this way, Paul.
It's a litmus test.
This case is so good and so appropriate for the Supreme Court that if they do not, you'll get that measure of deviation from what they ought to do to what they actually do as what you could call an index of corruption or deviation or departure from the appropriate standards.
Yeah, I mean, I talk about that in my courses in critical thinking, you know, I mean, there are objective standards and you can tell.
Yeah, go ahead.
I said, you know what it was I was saying?
I like the phrase that you said, index of corruption.
Yeah.
Okay.
It's a test case, you see.
It's like a reader of a book, a reaction of a reader to a book.
It's not just a test of the book, it's a test of the reader.
The book is a test of the reader, just as the reader is a test of the book.
And when you get the outcome, it's the interaction.
Here you have, look, I would say this is about as good a case as the Supreme Court could have in this day and age.
To knock it out of the park and show, redeem the court by showing it's actually upholding the Constitution with regard to this issue.
And here's another real reason why I believe they're going to accept it, Paul.
This corrupt, this improper.
Summary judgment methodology is being practiced in Wisconsin every single day.
In other words, this is an ongoing problem.
So if the court doesn't deal with it, then the citizens of Wisconsin continue to be abused by the methodology endorsed by the entire judicial system as Wisconsin, notwithstanding that it's completely improper and deviant from that in other states.
So I'll not only tell you I think they're going to accept the case, I think they're actually going to expedite it, because otherwise you have this flawed methodology on an ongoing basis.
Yeah, this is my inference.
Yeah, I know.
I love it.
I love it.
I'm going to the window in Vegas, baby.
I'm putting the window in Vegas.
I know.
I know. - Okay.
And I'm going to catch that ticket.
I'm telling you, I'm getting, you know, I'm getting lots of positive response from parties who have anything to do.
But there are some who just, you know, I think share your opinion.
I mean, you and Scorpio, obviously, I would judge to be among the most cynical Of the American political experience.
So if even one of you, and that of course would be Scorpio, is cautiously optimistic, I take that as a very positive sign.
You'll have to count me in, Jim, with them.
I'm cynical of the system and the government.
So much of it is corrupt that even if you have the best case, you're screwed in the court system.
We see this in the Sussman case where Michael Sussman, Has gotten every consideration when General Flynn did not.
Yeah.
But the beauty of my case is this.
It's not just about Jim Fetzer.
It's about all the citizens of Wisconsin.
I bring this case, not on my own personal behalf, but on behalf of all the citizens of Wisconsin, indeed of the United States, because everyone is entitled.
to due process under the law by the 14th and the right to a trial by jury if there are disputed facts under the 7th.
And as Jack Graham observed, this is in essence incorporating the 7th into the 14th, which is entirely appropriate.
I think it's going to be irresistible to the court to take this case.
Well, so again, I would just say that that's a little bit, I want to say naive.
I'm not going to say that.
But just let me tell you again, just to reiterate what I've seen.
And believe me, I communicated with many, many more people that saw a lot more than what I did and saw it with more frequency.
But here's what I saw with my handful of ventures into the court system.
It's time and time again, it's whatever they wanted to make up.
If the law suited them, OK, the law is applied.
And if the law did not suit them and it suited you, oh, well, the law doesn't apply.
The case applies in this case.
They just make it up as they go time and time again.
I really figured out I'm in Alice in Wonderland where the law is the law when they say it's the law and procedure and case precedent and all that.
And then when it's not, well, they say it's not.
And literally, it's not a real world.
The best analogy I used to use over 15, you know, about a part of 15 plus years ago is I would tell people, look, you go down to the hardware store and you've got a 9 16th bolt.
Well, you're going to find a 9 16th nut to fit it on, and it's going to be coarse thread or fine thread.
This is the real world.
You know, half inch is not going to fit.
But in the court system, in the legal world, they make unreality a reality all the time.
You know, I like doing stuff in the real world.
I really do.
My whole experience dabbling in it, going to court, writing papers, you know, trying to help other people fight their tickets and, you know, so forth.
It just was like, it was extremely irritating, a maddening and depressing.
And I saw them crush little people all the time.
People that are barely making it, you know, that laying a big fine on, Oh, do you want payment plan?
We get, we give you time to pay the little, the little guy gets crushed all the time and they'll crush the big guy if he's not on the right team.
If the, if the big guy's on the right team, then they go with you.
Right.
But you're not on the right team.
That's the way it is.
And if you saw this 2000 and Mules, which I've been telling people about, and I'm sure you did, then you realize how lock, solid, dead to rights we got them, that these people got them.
And how much work they did.
The meta-analysis they did was so impressive.
And, I mean, they got cell phones.
They got photos of license plates.
They got co-sureillance pictures of people.
They got people going to drop boxes of 100 to 200 times.
Not just 20 or 30.
No one goes to a drop box more than once.
But these people went, what was the average, 23?
23, 24 times?
And you and I both know nothing's going to happen.
The system will not correct itself, and the system will not allow itself to be corrected by anybody, Don Quixote included.
But I take it you're a much better version of Don Quixote, and again, you're Your arguments are solid.
I just wish they would be heard.
Well, just to respond to both you and Mitchell, I mean, my case has the character of a class action lawsuit because it's representing every citizen of Wisconsin who's subjected to a summary judgment under a flawed methodology that turns the court into an advocate for the movement.
I mean, this Listen, I'm not going to quote, but persons involved in this felt as though the judge was another attorney for Posner.
In other words, the role he played here, which is completely consistent With a Wisconsin summary judgment methodology essentially turns the court into an advocate for the movement, and that is just preposterous!
It means it makes it simple as pie, as my petition explains, for Posner to waltz into Wisconsin and get liability effortlessly because of the way it's set up, and then go to a jury to collect his pile of money, where in Texas He wouldn't have got through the door.
It would have been sent immediately to a jury.
How could the conflict of the facts in this case have been more blatant?
Mitchell, I'm so glad you spoke up.
I wanted to invite you in.
Add more thoughts of yours, please, Mitchell.
Oh, gosh.
There is a current case going on, I believe, in the court system that's involving the Gosh, due process rights of.
Individuals and stuff regarding governments.
The government, the SEC, I believe doing stuff in house, which means that person lost their right to a trial by the government saying no, we're doing this administrative style inside.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, I believe, is how it works.
It was working.
And the people wanted their fair day in court.
And, you know, just sounds like, you know, shifty are an arbitration type process.
It really wasn't even a court.
You know, you really never did get to adequately defend yourself with the evidence that you have, because the court would not listen.
And if you are speaking, And those that you're speaking to are deaf or playing dumb or both or just ignoring you and do what they want, then that is an indictment of the system, not you, Jim.
Well, I get all that, but I do think I think the court is going to take this case.
I think they're going to expedite it.
I think they're going to act on it promptly.
I really believe this is Teed up so beautifully with a constitutional question it raises.
My opinion is it's going to be irresistible, but I certainly agree if they fail to act in this case that I cannot imagine how they could be assumed to act properly.
In any case, it would be virtually a random experience because what's happening here is this is in my opinion, and obviously.
I have a stake in the game, but I think this is just teeing up the issue exactly the way it ought to be done properly to make it a constitutional issue of significance.
And the petition was written to make it all very clear to anyone who reads it.
And Paul, I take it part of the inference from what you thought is I have succeeded in laying out the case in very clear and unmistakable language.
I would hire you in a second to write anything legal for me, no doubt about it.
That's delightful, that's delightful.
Yeah, no, it's true, but I'm just going to remind you of one of the best lines, there's so many good lines in one of your favorite movies, JFK, right?
Yeah.
Kevin Bacon is Kevin Bacon is telling, you know, Kevin Costner, of course, you know, you know, playing Jim Garrison, right?
Kevin Bacon basically says this is about who rules.
It's about power.
So unfortunately, this case has nothing to do with anything legal.
That's just all the the sandwich that you want to that you want to bite into.
This case is about power.
It's about the system.
And that's why it's not going to be heard.
And I'm going to cash my ticket at the window in Vegas, and I'm going to hit the strip clubs afterwards.
Very good, Paul.
Well, unfortunately, Vegas is not off or not, unfortunately.
But not yet.
This is this is a clearly testable proposition.
They will or they will not act.
Posner has to respond by the 21st of June.
And I'm just wondering what in the world he's going to say.
How can he respond to this?
I mean, he can say, well, he was found, you know, in the right in accordance with the Wisconsin methodology, but we all agree to that.
Of course he was.
In fact, this methodology is flawed.
You know, I think the fact that I'm a philosopher and that, you know, I'm an expert in areas of epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science made the methodological issue, meaning the fact that they're using the wrong process or procedure, More evident and conspicuous to deal with in this case than someone who lacked that background.
Someone who knows this case backward and forward was repeatedly telling a research colleague of mine, this is how they do it in Wisconsin.
You know, she was acknowledging it was peculiar, but that's how they do it in Wisconsin.
The thought that how they are doing it in Wisconsin is wrong had never crossed her mind.
She wasn't even going to read the damn thing.
I was just floored.
She wasn't even going to read it because she thought it was biscuits.
Go ahead.
I got to run.
Thanks for all the time you spent on this particular call.
And I'll just close with real quickly in response to you saying, how is Posner going to answer?
What's he going to respond?
It's not going to matter.
I just remember what somebody told me one time, a guy who I thought was much more knowledgeable Excellent call, and I appreciate the critique, you know.
You know, he looked at something that I had and he's like, I don't see how they can get out of it.
That's what he said about, you know, what I had put together.
I don't see how they can get out of it, I was told.
Well, it didn't take long.
I was walking out of there going, what the hell just happened?
Yeah.
Well, Paul, it's an excellent call.
And I appreciate the critique.
You know, I mean, I value debate.
And you're basically giving me a severe test of what I'm attempting to do here.
"and why you think it's going to fail "in spite of its merits." Mitchell, would you like to add a final word here as we close out the show today?
Oh, certainly.
They are moving the goalposts on the FARA indictments.
And now the way they're going to say it, Hunter Biden, everything he did was just fine.
General Flynn, however, was thrown under the bus.
That's just another example of how the law is manipulated.
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Well, here's one more test case.
We'll see what they do with this.
I do think it's a perfect case for the Supreme Court.
I think their course of action is obvious.
I even believe because of the ongoing Violation of proper standards that they're going to expedite the case, and I'm anticipating a favorable ruling, but obviously I'm prepared to be disillusioned once again.
Thanks everyone for listening.
Thank you to Mitchell and Paul for wonderful comments.
▲
Export Selection