All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:54:53
The Raw Deal (3 August 2022)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Adjustment.
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal.
While there's a lot going on, including with regard to China, where the Biden administration appears to have committed another colossal blunder in terms of foreign affairs, nevertheless, I'm going to begin today by talking about the Alex Jones trial.
It's really quite fascinating.
It appears to be designed to smear everyone who's exposing government shams.
This is clearly not a conventional trial.
And I'm going to play for you an excerpt of Robert Barnes, who's one of our nation's most brilliant attorneys, addressing the issues here and why this appears to be a show trial in more senses than one.
Just to bring you up to date, by the way, about my Supreme Court case, it's being sent for a conference to be held on the 28th of September, 28th of September in conference, As I understand the procedures, what this means is I've passed through about 10 of the 12 steps involved here in order to be heard by the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to be issued.
Losing litigants.
This is in a state court.
Half 90 days after the first final judgment is entered by the highest state court.
That was when the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to review my petition for review.
After I have filed, the winner who prevailed, in this case Posner, had the opportunity to file a brief in opposition, which they declined to do, no doubt because I was arguing about the procedures employed here, which are completely out of whack with those employed in other states, where the judges in Wisconsin are allowed to use their own subjective opinion to determine whether or not facts are reasonable.
They declined to respond, which would have given me an opportunity to reply.
Then, after 30 more days, interest groups were allowed to submit amicus briefs, and one was submitted on my behalf.
At that point, then, it's sent to the Chief Justice, who drafts an initial discussion list and distributes it to the rest of the chambers.
Then, for members of the CERT pool, the clerk or the court randomly assign petitions at participating chambers, and they're randomly assigned to clerks.
Two weeks later, clerks submit memos to the chief justice chambers, who then distributes the complete memos to all the participating chambers.
Within each justice's chamber, clerks review and mark up the memos with additional comments and recommendations.
Then, It goes to the clerk of the court who collects all the documents and distribute them to the judges chambers.
The associate justices place cases on the discuss list.
The cases that fail to make this list are summarily denied and the lower court ruling stands.
My understanding is I passed all that and I'm now up to the point where on the 28th of September, all the justices meet in a private conference in which they vote to either grant or deny certiorari.
Four votes, a minimum of four, are necessary for a case to proceed to the merit stage.
Once that happens, then the court updates a total legal court record from the state and adds it to the list, assigns a date for oral hearing, and each side is allowed to present a 30-minute brief, or in the alternative, If they find the case so clear-cut and compelling, they can actually finesse scheduling the oral hearing and go directly to a ruling.
In my case, it's so appealing because the abuse of summary judgment in Wisconsin is affecting thousands of Wisconsin residents.
It's an ongoing offense.
I believe they could move to put a halt to that immediately by skipping having to schedule the oral hearing and so forth, that this matter is so clear cut in terms of the brief itself.
And in that case, they can move expeditionally to issue a ruling.
It turns out, by the way, in their efforts to protest my motions to stay, the taking of my blog, which is what's been going on here subsequent to the findings against me, which left me with 1.1 million plus in liabilities,
Subsequent to that, they made an argument against my motion to stay, which says that the Seventh Amendment, unlike the other nine amendments, has never been certified as applying to all 50 of the states, leaving the 50 states up to their own devices, which appears to be the case.
This, however, ironically, is another reason why the Supreme Court can be anticipated to take my case.
This is a gap that allows them an opportunity to submit the one remaining of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States and affirm its applicability to all 50 states.
I believe, for reasons such as those I'm adumbrating here, the Supreme Court will find my case virtually irresistible.
Now, we have a latest report on the Alex Jones trial.
He reconciles with Sandy Clarence after his testimony, but they are immediately whisked away by their attorneys.
The political persecution of Alex Jones continues on Tuesday in an Auxin, Texas court.
This is coming from the Gateway Pundit.
Neil Hesselin and Scarlett Lewis, the parents of a child murdered by a madman during the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, testified earlier in the day against Alex Jones.
Heslin and Lewis wanted a full judgment against Alex Jones earlier this year.
Their attorneys asked the Austin jury for a $150 million award.
Earlier today, Jones accused radical judge Maya Gurna Gambling of running a show trial, which it is.
Gambling takes every opportunity to lecture and berate Jones publicly.
She also slapped a gag order on Jones so he's not able to defend himself from the fake news reports.
Kathy Bronson has tweeted, this is not your show, the judge says.
You're already under oath to tell the truth.
You've already violated that oath right today.
It seems absurd to instruct you again that you must tell the truth, yet here I am.
You must tell the truth while you testify.
It's all about punishing Alex Jones.
Here's another tweet.
Fever Fry.
The longer the Alex Jones trial continues, the more apparent it's becoming that the trial isn't only about punishing Alex and InfoWars for false statements they made about Sandy Hook.
It's a writ large attempt to criminalize and deter questioning any official government narrative.
She got it exactly right.
Attorney Mike Cernovich calls this the most rigged case he has ever read about in his life.
In this clip, which I'm not playing, Alex is seen apologizing to Sandy and family members after the hearing today.
The leftist attorney jumped in, scolded Alex Jones, and then whisked the family members away.
This is after the attorneys were allegedly caught editing tapes for the trial.
You can hear Alex complain about selective editing in the clip below.
And here's another exchange, again, which I'm not playing.
Now, fascinating to me, the Gateway Pundit did not censor the following comment about all of this from Lulu B.
There was no trial.
This was an alleged settlement for a non-crime.
Also, no actual non-psychotic parent would spend their life stopping public figures from asking questions about the mysterious murder of their child.
No one.
We still have no answers about why no maintenance records existed since 2008 for that building.
I'm a local.
I'll tell you why.
That building was closed.
It had a problem with major flooding since 2003 and was officially condemned in 2008.
And why a security system that was purchased was never put up.
And that's just the beginning.
Did you see any asbestos signs on the doors as required?
Why was a building demolished and those doing the work made to sign non-disclosure agreements?
Jones is working with them.
Gun control is the ultimate goal.
Well, I like that comment.
So since the Gateway Bundit was publishing them, I put up one of my own.
And I explained how.
If you want to learn more, you can go to my blog, because I have several articles about it that I put up when I realized, put two and two together.
That the reason they wanted to take my blog was because once they began trashing me by name, as they have Sophia Smallstorm, James Tracy, and most of all Wolfgang Halbig, people would want to know what I had to say about Sandy Hook.
So they'd go to my blog.
That's why they had to take the blog and redirect it to GORT documents here in Dane County.
Which they did.
They accomplished that feat on Thursday.
So if you go to jamesfetter.org, you'll find yourself redirected to these Dane County Circuit Court documents about my case, and especially the most recent documents about the taking.
And you'll see my motion for reconsideration, which explains why there's no value To Leonard Posner from taking either the book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook or my blog, by way of domain names, for the following reasons.
This is a financial judgment against me for $1.1 million plus.
Under the law, Financial judgments can only be satisfied by financial means.
In other words, you must have something of monetary value to satisfy a financial judgment.
Otherwise, it cannot be done.
It's improper taking.
Well, the fact is that Alex Jones, I mean, Leonard Posner, wants to take Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, but even though he won this case of defamation on the basis of three sentences in the book, He can't market the book, nor would he want to market the book.
In fact, the whole lawsuit was brought to suppress the availability of the book, which I made free to download on the Internet after it was banned by Amazon.com less than a month after it was put on sale.
He cannot remove those defamatory sentences and then publish because that would be violating the copyright they claim I have on the book.
It would change it and therefore it would no longer be my work.
Nor, of course, would he have any inclination to publish it because it blows the whole case out of the water.
I brought together 13 experts, including six current or retired PhDs, where we established the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students there, and that it was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control, where I even included the FEMA manual for the event as Appendix A.
Obviously, Leonard Posner is not going to want to publish Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
And if you cannot publish a book, then you cannot make any money for it, and therefore it has no value for Leonard Posner in the eyes of the law, and therefore it cannot be taken.
Not only that, but in my motion, I've also explained how the fact is that the judicial claim of estoppel, he has stopped from doing this because he spent all these years he has stopped from doing this because he spent all these years actively taking down any information that contained exposés about He's boasted of taking down 1,500 videos from YouTube.
He's boasted of taking down just tens of thousands of items from individual blogs.
Well, when he spent all that time and effort trashing Sandy Hook and trying to suppress and attack my book, he cannot then turn around and use his victory in court to benefit from that which he's opposed all the way along.
So the doctrine of estoppel blocks him from doing it in addition.
Nevertheless, the court, in response to my motion for stay, where I explained, among other key points, that I would suffer irreparable harm if they took the blog because it would break all the links to jameshetzer.org, which would be virtually irretrievable.
It would be permanent damage.
The judge put off hearing my motion to stay and my motion for reconsideration until the 17th of August.
That meant they had free reign to go about trying to promote their mischievous goals and objectives and have done so by taking the block.
So I have had to respond by creating a new blog at jameshfetzer.org.
So it's no longer jamesfetzer.org, that'll get you to these court documents, but jameshfetzer.org, where you can still learn a huge amount about Sandy Hook.
It's just that most Haven't figured out yet how to get to me, but I'm doing my best to make that accessible, including by sharing with you now.
You want to let everyone know about jameshfetzer.org.
Go there.
You'll find the last three of the last five blogs, the first, the third, and the fifth of the most recent.
Are just chock full of information about Sandy Hook and false flags and staged events.
It's really sensational.
Because to my surprise, yesterday morning I discovered Before It's News had published the equivalent of a Fetzer Fest.
They had like 10 of my best hits together on Before It's News.
It's absolutely fascinating.
I had nothing to do with it.
I was completely surprised, but they made very good choices.
So I have now republished that before it's news on my blog.
If you go to jameshfetzer.org, that's the first.
If you go back two more, you'll find about Alex Jones complaining about the murder of due process.
Two more, you'll find Sandy's parents are going to testify, and they're just chock full of links.
You can download the FEMA manual, for example, I mean, you can download the FBI report showing zero murders or non-negligent manslaughter in Newtown for 2012, the chart that demonstrates that big fat zero in Newtown, where Sandy Hook has a subdivision in Newtown.
You can download my petition before the Supreme Court.
It's all at your fingertips.
Well, Information Liberation published about Alex, this is the murder of due process.
Alex Jones speaks out against the show trial, detailing the insanity of his trial.
Democrat activist Judge Maya Garrett, and here it's described as Gamble, but I think it's a more complex name, declared him guilty before the trial ended a false judgment by claiming he failed to comply with discovery, which Jones says is not true.
Gamble told the jury their only job is to assess how much Jones owes and damages.
The judge is doing this for political reasons, he told reporters.
Everything is hidden in plain view.
I've been found guilty by the judge, and now there's a trial where they tell a jury to decide how much money I pay because I'm already guilty.
That's never happened.
They have taken my right for a jury to decide if I'm guilty, and now the judge tells a jury that I'm guilty?
This is a murder of your rights to due process in the federal constitution and the state constitution of Texas, and in any number of just a few dollars, and that's under the seventh amendment.
It states in any case involving more than twenty dollars, you're entitled to a trial by jury.
And you get the jury to decide if you're guilty, and then they decide damages in a separate group of hearings.
This is the weaponization of the judiciary.
It's absolutely horrifying, Jones said.
He also declared the case would go down in history as one of the greatest show trials ever to happen.
The judge banned Alex Jones from speaking out on the case around the courtroom after he gave the above interview.
Here we have Avery Travis tweeting, In case you missed it, Alex Jones talked about his frustration with his defamation case outside the courtroom yesterday.
The judge has now ordered that no one may discuss the case around the courtroom on this floor for the sake of the jury.
Meanwhile, I have, you know, on my blog, under the heading Alex Jones Calls Out Murder of Due Process at Sandy Hook Show Trial, I begin with two photographs taken in the Sandy Hook parking lot by Shannon Hicks, the photojournalist for the Newtown Bee, where Shannon has acknowledged taking both of these photographs.
The top, of course, is the one sent around the world, where we have what appears to be a policewoman leading a string of kids to safety during the mass shooting event as it takes place.
But it's contradicted by the second photograph, which was taken a few minutes earlier, which I only discovered late into the game, but happily before I published the book, so I was able to include it.
A photograph she'd taken earlier, where you can see there are half a dozen or more parents there.
They're casually looking on.
They have their arms folded, hands in their pockets, while the policewoman rearranges the kids to get a better shot.
So in the earlier photograph, the front of the line is led by a little girl in a pink sweater and a short skirt.
Well, they rearranged that to replace her with a little boy in a dark sweater and blue jeans, and it is more photogenic.
If you look at the earlier photograph, between boy number one and boy number two, after they rearranged the line, you see other parents Casually looking on, leading me to describe this photograph as lounging at the massacre.
I mean, it's just insulting beyond belief.
There's readily available evidence that so far as I can see has not been introduced in the trial.
Alex Jones, I explain, Appears to be getting the same treatment I received in the lawsuit brought against me by the man who calls himself Leonard Posner, whom I am convinced is a legal fiction played by Ruben Vabner, who came to Madison and testified under oath.
Everything about my trial was wrong, as I explain in detail below.
Now they're taking my blog on Thursday at 5 p.m.
Central—they moved it up to 11 a.m.—to make sure I am unable to continue to explain what's going on here and how the law has been weaponized to censor and abuse those who speak out about false flags or stage events, where we've had a spate of them of late, with Buffalo, Uvalde, and most recently Highland Park.
Download the Law Enforcement False Flag Stage Event Checklist I published with Brian Davidson, PI, and you will see the massive effort that's been exerted to deceive and mislead the American people, especially to give up their guns.
Don't do it.
That's very important, and we, Alex and I, are certainly in agreement here And I'm going to, you know, see.
I'm asking Mitchell if the break has been killed.
And to let me know if not.
Meanwhile, I've also published another blog, you'll find Sandy Hook parents that testify against Alex Jones and a culture of lies with analysis.
Elizabeth Williamson has published a book about Sandy Hook where she's focusing specifically on me and Alex Jones.
She's also writing a whole series of articles that are smearing me and Alex and others who have done their best to expose what's going on.
So here's my editor's note.
Elizabeth Williamson has mastered the art of special pleading by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest.
You will not find her addressing the stage photos in the parking lot, for example, which prove that they rearranged the kids to get a better shot.
The FBI Consolidated Crime Report for 2012, which shows no murders or non-negligent manslaughter in Newtown, of which Sandy Hook is a part.
Or the FEMA manual for a mass casualty exercise involving children, which you can download as a PDF here.
Nor does she acknowledge my petition before the United States Supreme Court, which displays the lengths to which they will resort to conceal the truth about Sandy Hook.
Under Fake News and Encyclopedias, you'll find a photo of Elizabeth Williams' son.
She begins talking about how the families of ten victims have waited years to hold the Infowars conspiracist and political environment that enabled him to account.
Then she has a photo of Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, the parents of Jesse Lewis, whom I'm given to understand are not even married, who was killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting.
I very much look forward to justice being served, Mr. Heslin said, of Alex Jones' trial.
Meanwhile, you won't hear it.
I have another editor's note.
You won't hear it from Elizabeth Williamson.
Nero Heslin claims that he held his dying son in his arms, while Dr. Wayne Carver, medical examiner for the state of Connecticut, stated during his press conference that parents were not allowed to see their children, much less hold them in their arms while they die.
Here's a passage from my petition to the Supreme Court about Heslin, which Alex Jones challenged.
The 4th Court of Appeals affirmed all the rulings of the lower court and concluded in their 58-page opinion on March 8, 2021 that there were no reasonable disputed facts in this case.
I'm quoting now from the District 4 Court of Appeals for the state of Wisconsin.
There is no reasonable dispute regarding the following facts.
On November 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?
Jones v. Hazlitt.
This is a court case that was also decided on procedural grounds, stating Neil Hesselin's son was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December of 2012, and rejecting the Substantial Truth Doctrine as a basis to dismiss Hesselin's defamation claim related to statements disputing Hesselin's assertion that he held his deceased son in his arms.
Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms, another case that was decided on procedural grounds.
No case has gone to address the issue, did anybody die in Sandy Hook?
Mine was the only intended to do that, which they had to eclipse to make sure that that evidence was never presented before the case.
But when I got in, the judge was simply able to set aside and dismiss as not reasonable in his subjective opinion.
They continue here from Soto v. Bushmaster.
20-year-old Adam—and this is no reasonable dispute regarding the following fact.
Ask yourself about the absurdity of this.
20-year-old Adam lines up horses way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, and during the course of 264 seconds, Fatally shot 20 first-grade children and six staff members, and wounded two other staff members.
Posner's six-year-old son, Ian, was one of the children killed during the San Diego shooting.
Now just ask yourself, what about that is absurd on its face?
During the course of 264 seconds?
How would they know the shooting took 264 seconds when someone there with a stopwatch to record it?
I made this point during the Uvalde hearing.
We had this black guy who claimed he'd encountered the purported white supremacist shooter the day before the Buffalo shooting.
They'd had a conversation for an hour about critical race theory that he'd even bought the guy who would be the shooter Gatorade.
Well, during an interview Scorpio did with the two of us, he observed, what self-respecting white supremacist is going to spend an hour talking with a black guy about critical race theory?
I mean, it's absurd on its face.
But get this, when he was interviewed after the shooting, he was asked about the shots, and he said how he heard the first shot, and the second occurred 1.7 seconds after the first.
I'm not making this up.
He said the second occurred 1.7 seconds after the first.
How the hell would he know?
Just as how the hell would anyone know it took 264 seconds to shoot 21st grade children and six staff members at Sandy Hook?
This is such bullshit!
It's unbelievable!
And they're feeding this to the American people?
So which was it?
Either Wayne Carver was lying about the parents not being able to see their kids, or Neil Heslin has been lying about holding Jesse in his arms as he died.
They cannot both be true.
But bear in mind that they could both be false, which appears to be the case.
Alex Jones cannot be guilty of defamation by denying that Neil Hesselinel is dying son in his arms, as long as that is true.
And even Wayne Carver supports a conclusion that Alex had it right.
Not only that, but I added an additional editor's note.
While I'm legally constrained from addressing issues related to Noah Posner, perhaps the single most important proof that Sandy Hook was a FEMA exercise presented as mass murder to promote gun control is a photograph showing a crime scene vehicle in the parking lot where we find a flag at full mast, areas isolated with crime scene tape, and a figure who appears to be Wayne Carver, M.D., reclining against a wall awaiting the arrival of his portable mortuary tent.
But take a close look at the windows of Classroom 10, which are intact.
And you can see the photographs there.
After the event, they would be shown as shot out, especially the second from the left.
So this photo was taken either before the event had taken place or before they had completed fabricating evidence.
Either way, it may be the single most damning photo exposing the charade.
Brian Davidson Pehigh tracked it down to a magazine where it was published and then to the photographic archives of the Connecticut State Police, who are apparently running the event behind the scene.
As proof of consciousness of guilt, they have removed metadata from their Sandy Hook photos.
Unbelievable!
Ryan got in there and discovered a treasure trove of photographs about Sandy Hook.
A treasure trove!
Including photographs taken of the hallway where two of the teachers or administrator were supposed to be dead.
There's nothing there.
Completely clean.
No signs of blood or anything.
Multiple inside Classroom 10.
No blood, no marks on the wall, no nothing.
All the furniture pushed up against the wall, but you can see where they have pink rods extending from holes they drilled in the aluminum frame to simulate gunshots, but they're all perfectly parallel, 90 degrees to the windowpane, obviously staged.
Now I mentioned Yeah, Robert Barnes has been commenting on what's going on here.
Now, this is a very savvy guy.
Let me see if I can find the right place, because you're going to be blown away by what he has to say.
I'm going to start right about here.
Just listen up.
I'm going to play a substantial portion of this.
Certain way you'd give whatever was left over to charity.
Yeah.
Uh, instead he settles with Twitter in a confidential settlement where no discovery ever got published.
And some people were like, uh, hold on a second.
And the, uh, uh, and so I simply pointed this out, uh, which that's when he was threatening to sue me.
And then he came back and said, he will now, uh, return, uh, he will give back money to the people who donated.
So if you're one of those donors, you can ask for the funds back.
There's a more.
Normally, if you're going to give donations back, you just email everybody who gave a donation and say, do you want your donation back?
I don't know if he's done that.
At least other people were unaware of it, if he has.
So, that's sort of some of the backstory.
And in the middle of all of this, he has come out and attacked Robert Malone.
He's attacked Simone Gold.
He's attacked anybody who defended Ivermectin.
Got into a debate that he did not come on the better side of with Pierre Koury.
I mean, he sort of ambushed Robert Malone on a Fox News station.
And then he was sort of really badly whoring for the Ukraine war.
And critical of anybody who raised any questions about that either.
Even predicted back in March that China was going to tell Russia to end the war.
A prediction that didn't turn out so good amongst many.
So there's been a lot of people that since he's come back to, you know, it's like, why are you obsessed with attacking Alex Jones?
When you don't know, when it's obvious you haven't done your due diligence as an investigative researcher or reporter.
You don't know the facts of the case.
You don't know the legal theory that they're actually propounding.
You don't know what's taking place in the trial.
You don't know what took place in Discovery.
You don't know any of these things.
And instead, he just double downs and triples down.
Except double down at this point.
Yeah, exactly.
Just keeps repeating himself and attacking anybody who raises questions.
You know, earlier, other people had raised questions about his Twitter settlement, and he started threatening people with lawyers and lawsuits right away.
This is what I noticed in a lot of the responses.
I don't like... This is like going after the intentions right away, where people are saying, oh, was this part of your settlement now that you have to toe the line for whomever?
Was this part of the terms that now you feel indebted to the powers that gave you back your Twitter feed, even though, you know, Jones never got his back, so this is what you have to do?
I don't like it.
Berenson is entitled to have sincere beliefs.
He's entitled to be sincerely wrong, but then show a little respect to the people who might know a little more on this particular issue.
What really irks me is that Berenson, An individual who was demonized by mainstream media, deplatformed by big tech, and I bet there were a lot of other people out there who looked at Barronson and said, I know this guy.
This guy's a grifter.
This guy's a poisonous shill milking COVID.
He deserves to get booted from social media.
That's what a bunch of his critics said.
I mean, they said about him what he is now saying about Alex Jones.
It's clear he's probably never really read or watched Alex Jones much at all.
I find the people that hate Alex Jones, what they share in common is they've actually never really read or watched it.
Alex's War is out now.
People can get it on a streaming service.
This is by a liberal Democrat who produced, my understanding, produced the film.
It's a film that everybody's watched it.
Says it's a pretty impartial film.
It's neither partial to nor against Jones.
Gets into a lot of his controversies.
Some people, in fact, were unhappy that it didn't get into a lot of other aspects of Alex's life that could have been much more sympathetic to him.
But it's not an advocacy film.
It's a film of here's Alex Jones from Alex's perspective, highlighting some of the big controversies in his life.
I would have highlighted his extraordinary role calling out every war lie that's ever been told.
He was ahead of the curve for the first Iraq war, the second Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the dumb bombings in Syria.
He was pushing Alexander Cockburn and Julian Assange and Edward Snowden before anybody else and when many people on the right were attacking those people.
That's the only part of the film I thought could have and would have been better included to really round out the scope.
But Glenn Greenwald was very praiseworthy about the film and said very complimentary things about Alex at the film.
A very prominent liberal journalist who actually does do his due diligence more often than Alex Berenson obviously does.
And so If you're going to hold yourself out as an independent researcher, and that if you're making a statement, that statement is based on your knowledge, your independent due diligence.
Then you need to be right, and he's not.
And it's obvious he's not.
In fact, I had a debate here with media here about, I was like, tell me what fact, what item of discovery did Alex Jones hold back?
I was like, do any of you know?
Well, what item of discovery did he not turn over that led to the default?
None of them knew.
New York Times reporter didn't know.
None of them knew.
And that's because it doesn't exist.
As anybody watching the trial can see, they're like, okay, the plaintiffs have all of his videos.
They have his internal private embarrassing emails.
They have internal text messages.
They have intimate details of all of his financial well-being and the well-being of the company.
What was it he didn't turn over that required the extraordinary and extreme act of a default judgment depriving him of his constitutional right to trial by jury?
Nobody can say.
Nobody can identify.
I was trying to look it up just to find out myself because there's so many things about this.
Even if, and this is even if, Jones did not turn over discovery documents, even then, only exceptionally, I assume it's the same under the U.S.
law, only exceptionally would the ultimate sanction be not just no defense or foreclosed from pleading, judgment by default.
My question was this, two questions.
Even in Canada, when you say, foreclosed from pleading, the plaintiff still has to prove their case.
They can't just say, judgment by default.
Prove your case, show your evidence.
Did the plaintiffs ever do that or did judge, whatever her name is, simply say, foreclosed from pleading, so therefore here's your verdict?
Yeah, all of that.
I mean, that's what Alex Berenson got wrong.
He didn't know what the discovery was, because he couldn't cite it like anyone else.
He also didn't know what the legal theory is.
The legal theory is not that Alex Jones said specifically false factual claims about specifically identified individuals.
It's acknowledged in the trial that he never even named or referenced the individuals by name or by image, ever.
Instead, their theory is, people are starting to figure out when watching this horrifying trial unfold, this Kafka-esque trial in Travis County unfold, is that the theory is, as one of the jurors made clear, because the jurors are being allowed to ask questions, and we'll get to that a little bit later when we talk about the Jones case, One of the jurors said, can we use this against election deniers too?
Well, it was even worse.
They said, is this an appropriate way to sanction?
To stop election deniers.
I mean, so you can see what the theory is.
Have you voiced an opinion that the government disagrees with, that somebody feels emotionally offended by?
And this is why Alex Berenson should have had his eyes wide open like Clockwork Orange.
If he had been paying attention, he could be sued into oblivion based on the theory against Alex Jones.
Here he is cheering on, not only cheering on the kind of censorship that he has previously opposed, but here he is cheering on a legal theory that could bankrupt him tomorrow.
A legal theory that is, have you voiced an opinion, number one.
Number two, the government disagrees with.
Number three, you knew it could offend certain groups of people that are within a zone of emotional danger, basically a legalized safe space.
Well, they can sue you into oblivion now, even if they can't show any specific damages that you caused them.
Robert, what do the plaintiff's lawyers say wasn't turned over?
I know it has to do with, I thought it had to do with correspondence.
It almost always is small stuff.
So what would happen is they would, like for example, normally a default judgment if someone doesn't show up, that's a default.
It's almost supposed to be reserved for that.
Why?
Because again, you have a constitutional right to trial by jury and the courts are stripping you of that right when they issue a default judgment on any issue.
So the courts are highly cognizant of this.
This is why people who don't even show up and show up a year later get the default judgment set aside more often than not.
It's for constitutional reasons you can't do it.
Actually, just to pause you there.
But even if the defendant doesn't show up, you don't get a rubber stamp verdict.
You still have to show your evidence.
If you say, there's a deed of sale, I own that house, defendant doesn't show up, you still have to submit the evidence.
And if you don't submit the evidence, a judge can still say, no, I'm not giving you the judgment.
Completely.
Typically what happens is there's really an essential discovery item.
that they cannot get and that they can prove was existed and destroyed, then you get a factual inference about that discovery item and that's it.
It's limited to that.
It's not a default.
You won't find any case out there in America's history that compares to the Alex Jones case, where you're talking about a defendant that sat for hundreds and hundreds of hours of depositions.
Almost everybody got deposed.
Jones himself was deposed again and again and again and again and again.
He was even forced to be deposed after they defaulted him.
What's the ground to depose him when you've defaulted him?
And then they sanctioned him a million dollars for not immediately sitting for that deposition.
I mean, it was just one nutty ruling after the next nutty ruling.
These judges hate him.
It's that simple.
I mean, it's two judges that hate him because this is part of the bias of the professional class as a class.
And Berenson reflected that prejudice perfectly.
It's because his opinion is not based on facts.
His opinion is not based on learned understanding of the law or the relevant applicable constitutional provisions.
It's based on bias, bigotry, prejudice, and parochialism.
And what he doesn't realize is if they can do it to Alex Jones, then they can do it to Alex Berenson.
They can do it to anybody else because their legal theory is extraordinary.
And what they've done is they've stripped him of his ability to present a defense.
I'll give other examples as we transition to Alex Jones's case.
In Texas law, an apology is mitigation of damages under Texas law.
We went through it a little bit on one of our live streams during the week.
The judge told the jury exactly the opposite.
Not only that, in order to seek punitive damages, you have to make a timely request under Texas law.
To my knowledge, the plaintiffs never did.
Yet somehow, punitive damages are back in the case.
Yet somehow, Jones is not allowed to talk about his apology.
In fact, what became clear is we're supposed to be having a trial just on damages.
Damages is the plaintiffs get up and say, I heard Alex Jones say these things.
It caused me this kind of emotional pain.
Here's the proof of that emotional pain.
Here's why I'm asking for X amount.
That's all it is because the punitive damages is separate.
It's not part of this.
It's part of this trial, but it's not part of this part of the jury trial.
It has to be separated because they don't want one piece of evidence to inflame another piece of evidence.
And so and what they're doing is they're the plaintiffs are combining the two because they want the damages as emotional distress because in Texas punitive damages are capped at three million.
So they want 150 million to be emotional distress damages, not punitive damages, because then they're not capped.
And so that's all that's supposed to be happening.
Anybody who watched the trial this week heard almost none of that.
Instead, the judge is allowing them, even though she's defaulted Alex Jones, and this trial is supposed to be just on damages, she's allowing the plaintiffs to present their merits case as if Well, but not allowing Jones to defend himself.
And the reason is, it's not only a show trial, it's literally a show trial.
I was in the courtroom, the plaintiff's lawyer started hopping around like a bunny rabbit, going, Bobby Barnes!
Bobby Barnes!
Bobby Barnes!
The guy's nuts.
The guy's a loon.
I gotta put him on my straitjacket for Christmas list.
And so they are so obsessed.
They had Owen Shroyer.
Did you know Robert Barnes is here in the courtroom?
These people are berserk.
Tells you how much they obsess about the court of public opinion.
But I was sitting there.
I was stunned.
I'd never seen this before.
There are three movie cameras in the room.
And not only are there three movie cameras, one of them is staring down the jury.
This is literally made for movies.
This is a show trial for a show!
Literally for a show!
They are staging this trial for a show!
To be on Netflix or HBO, wherever it's gonna be.
I believe it's the Leaving Neverland production company that did a hit piece on Michael Jackson that they could get away with because he's dead.
Now, how do they get away with it here?
By presenting all of these things within the courtroom.
They are completely immune.
Now let's say the judge allowed Alex Jones to present a defense on the merits.
Then they have to include that in their movie.
They don't have to as long as it's not presented.
So they have complete legal immunity for allowing the lies about Alex Jones from the courtroom to be repeated later on and cannot be sued because they're just republishing what was in court.
That's why the judge is literally doing a show trial for a show.
And you know what?
It makes so much more sense now in retrospect.
Kierkegaard, life can only be lived forwards but understood backwards.
Where she asked Karpova...
Do you think this is a show trial?
Do you think any part of this trial is a show trial?
It's staged.
And it's a staged event, something along those lines.
And it makes sense now, because in her heart of hearts, she knows it's entirely staged, literally so, with the camera.
But Robert, this is the question.
They're presenting kind of a mythical case.
So they're presenting experts that aren't experts in things, like their fact-checking information expert was talking about how PolitiFact and Snopes are so reliable.
I mean, you know, that CNN is a beacon of independence and integrity and independent journalism in America.
This was being presented in the trial as evidence.
And the goal is to say, this is what a jury concluded when the evidence was presented.
Liberal news is very reliable and trustworthy.
Alex Jones and everybody else are all terrible, horrible liars.
That's the whole point of this whole case.
Other than bankrupting Jones and trying to take him off the air.
That's almost secondary.
The goal is to script a broader narrative for a broader show to be utilized as future legal precedent and court of public opinion precedent going forward.
And that's why the case, if Alex Berenson's eyes were open, would realize this case is very dangerous.
And they pick Alex Jones, and they pick Sandy Hook, because nobody wants to defend Alex Jones or get involved in Sandy Hook.
That's why they pick those.
They always start off this way.
When they want to make bad law and bad precedent and bad policy, they start with controversial targets that instigate people with any degree of influence, are scared and terrified and hide under their desks rather than publicly defend.
And they're enraged, people like Berenson are enraged that people like me are defending it.
That's why he has to call me scum, that's why he has to call me disgusting, that's why he has to threaten to sue me.
All that did is remind me, "Hey, maybe I should double check whether Alex Berenson defrauded his donors." You know, if you're gonna come at me, you better be ready to come at me.
So the...
The one thing though, the judgment by default came from the judge.
It didn't go to a jury by default.
So no jury heard evidence.
The judge basically said, it's almost like I'm taking for granted all of the evidence such that you don't even have to present it.
It is even allowing the plaintiffs to flagrantly violate Texas law.
All of a sudden apologies can't come in.
All of a sudden you do get punitive damages.
All these things that you can't get under Texas law given how the plaintiffs behaved leading up to the case.
So she's just gutting all of the laws, gutted the anti-slap law, gutted all of it, gutted the constitutional requirement of colloquium.
Because, I mean, you'll remember from the questions asked in the deposition that you covered, his questions, 90% of them, weren't about specific statements about Sandy Hook, about the parents.
It was statements like, don't you recognize that questioning who committed the murder could be offensive to people who are related to the victims?
I was like, holy cow, you could criminalize the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist on these grounds.
You could ban everybody, anybody who's in a safe space.
And they've expanded that space, by the way.
There's people who have no relationship.
to the Sandy Hook families that are bringing suit in Connecticut.
They have none.
They're just FBI agents and other agents who are there at the scene.
So, I mean, they're saying anybody who's emotionally damaged by your offensive opinion about a topic the government disagrees with you on.
So that's their core theory.
And what we saw all week was just liberal news good, Alex Jones bad.
The other thing is they actually called what Alex Jones did altered clips, which is not the case.
He's actually presenting clips that are unaltered on Doctor Who.
But their interpretation is that a clip, by definition, is altering the film.
All they have presented the entire trial, by their definition, is altered clips because they won't allow the whole film to come in.
Yeah, and just to contextualize that for everybody watching, They wanted to play segments of episodes.
And they said, well, if you play a clip, that's altering the video.
And it's like, that's not altering the video.
I'm just playing an unaltered clip.
Otherwise, what are we going to do?
Play every entire video in its entirety because we can't play a clip for a specific section?
And the judge wouldn't allow... But that's what... It wouldn't allow the defense to present the... It allows the plaintiff to criticize Alex Jones for ever playing a clip Wow, all they have done is play clips out of context.
And they had said before trial, at least the Understanding Defense Council, was that they were going to get to play all the videos.
And what do you mean by all the video?
And that was the whole segment on his discussion about Sandy Hook as a topic.
So you don't take 30 seconds out of it.
You don't take two minutes out of it.
You look at the whole seven minutes, 10 minutes, two minutes, 30 minutes, however long it is.
She's not allowing that.
Because again, if that was presented, the film crew would have to reproduce it because they would no longer have judicial immunity extended to them because they would not have been fair, neutral reporting of what took place in court.
That's the requirement for the immunity to apply.
So by excluding that, she's allowing them to take, and basically she's allowing the myth to be told as truth in court so it can be repeated forever.
The myth being, they're actually repeating this, That Alex Jones is solely responsible for anyone questioning Sandy Hook.
Utterly false.
That Alex Jones originated, initiated, instigated, and controlled what people believed about Sandy Hook.
Utterly false.
They're actually, I mean, here you had half the jury pool didn't know who Alex Jones was.
But supposedly 75 million Americans don't think Sandy Hook happened because of Alex Jones?
It's a lie!
It's a lie the judge is allowing to be told by the lying plaintiff's lawyers and the court because they want that lie repeated to the world forever.
And Alex Berenson is happy to preach and propagate that lie either because he's too lazy to do his job or because He's more of a deep state hack than he is a real independent researcher.
That's why Robert Malone called him controlled opposition.
For those folks out there, it's to put somebody in a space where you know some people are going to believe some dissident information and make sure it stays controlled what they believe.
So okay, let's say you have questions about COVID lockdowns and masks and vaccines.
Go hear and listen to Alex Berenson because he'll keep you on script when it comes to Ukraine.
He'll keep you on script when it comes to Ivermectin.
He'll keep you on script when it comes to other dissident voices.
He'll keep you on script when it says it's okay to censor Alex Jones.
That's what controlled opposition means.
And Berenson's living up to the label.
But that's what all of them want to repeat a lie about Alex Jones.
And the whole trial is a lie.
The whole trial is just one big fat lie.
No understanding of the depth of this.
And they conflate defending some of the bad things that Alex Jones said with defending the process.
Alex Jones himself has been one of his harshest critics.
He's apologized for it.
He's gone on an apology tour.
Now the court's not allowing the jury to hear that.
They're not allowing the jury to hear how many times he apologized.
I mean, to give an example, Owen Schroer.
After Megyn Kelly covered the story, Owen Schroer did a very short bit, which was probably watched by a thousand people live.
The plaintiff's lawyers are pretending tens of millions watch Owen Schroer live every five seconds.
Owen might love that, but that's not the case.
Most people don't know who Owen is.
I think Owen's a great guy, but that's just reality.
Only a small number of people do.
He has influence, but he doesn't have ten millions of people watching live influence.
The all Owen did was Megyn Kelly covered it.
Zero Hedge then ran an article raising all the old questions about Sandy Hook.
And all Owen's point was is see by Megyn Kelly lying.
Well, Alex, Alex's understanding was that Sandy Hook was not going to be brought up.
That's Alex Jones Megyn Kelly debate for another day.
But Owen's point was Megyn Kelly, by bringing back up Sandy Hook, was going to have the effect of all the old conspiracy theories coming back.
It wasn't going to lead to those theories going away, it was going to lead them coming up.
And he used as an example, here's a zero-hedge story making this debate.
The plaintiff's lawyers tried to twist that into Owen Troyer was trying to support the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and attacking the families.
Utterly false!
They know it's utterly false!
That's, by the way, here's another key to all this that didn't even become apparent to me until watching the trial.
At the time, if anybody that's out there, history of Sandy Hook, conspiracy theories.
The Sandy Hook, the idea that Sandy Hook didn't happen, started coming out as a conspiracy, as a theory, on the same day it happened because it was politicized so quickly.
Two main reasons why that happened.
One, in traumatic events that people feel personally connected to, even if they're not personally connected to.
But everybody, there's a lot of people that are parents with young children who will drop them off at elementary school every day in America.
To see that happen is so traumatic.
One of the most common responses to any kind of trauma of any kind is denial.
And you're going to have a certain percentage of people who are going to convince themselves, this can't happen to my kid because this never happened.
So that had nothing to do, nothing to do with Alex Jones, nor was it his first response at all to Sandy Hook.
The second part was a bunch of people.
It went viral on Facebook, then it went viral on YouTube.
Tons of videos.
They were getting tens, even probably, ultimately, collectively, hundreds of millions of views.
Long before InfoWars or Alex Jones said anything that he's now being sued for.
saying all the allegations, the crisis actor allegations, all that nonsense.
We still get emails from people who tell us that we're part of the fix and that we're covering up the Sandy Hook habit.
It just did.
But there's people who are going to believe it for deeply emotional, psychological reasons that it didn't.
Nothing to do with Alex Jones.
Jones was getting bashed with criticism, which the plaintiff's lawyers know from the email disclosures.
We'll be right back after this break.
Thank you.
We'll be right back after this message.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting This is a Drill, This is a Drill on Bull Hordes 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.
No.
Because we know who they are and what they do.
This is what they do!
And we must fight back!
You can torture us and bomb us.
Fire is catching.
And if we burn, you burn with us!
Good evening.
Are you awake yet?
I hope.
We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
The time is over.
Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
Denial is not a choice anymore.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Not giving up.
Revolution Radio.
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 and pose 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, what a fascinating development.
You got this brilliant attorney, Robert Barnes, and he's eviscerating the trial.
He's showing everything that's wrong with it.
He's dissecting it in a sensational fashion.
And it turns out he actually believes Sandy Hook was real.
I mean, this is stunning.
Fascinating.
Absolutely fascinating.
I agree with everything.
He has said about the trial, I think he's absolutely spot on.
And I did not know that they have cameras in the courtroom, even cameras fixated on the jury.
Look how astute that juror was asking, did this apply even if you were questioning the 2020 election?
I think the jurors may turn out to be a bit more astute than they're being credit for.
We shall see.
Nevertheless, I wanted to share that because it's fascinating and because I think, for the most part, Robert Barnes has a right.
So anyone who's wondering, this was the brilliant, really well-known attorney, Robert Barnes.
He has a program he's on pretty regularly, and he's doing a critique of the Alex Jones trial.
May have to put it up on my blog, my video blog at BitChute channel Jim Fetzer.
Now, bear in mind, as I've already said, they took my blog at James Fetzer and they've redirected it to posnervfetzer.com Which is court documents related to the case.
So I've had to create a new blog at jameshfetzer.org.
So if you want to get to me, if you go to jamesfetzer.org, here's what you'll get.
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access.
You will get some good stuff, such as Fetzer's Motion for Reconsideration, Vacation, and Objected Depositor's Valuation of Property and Damages for Abuse of Process, and
Fetzer's motion to stay Posner's taking order until ruling on petition for writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court where now they have their responses that are not very lengthy but where I'm going to be publishing my replies and where it's very interesting that in their motion about the stay
They argue that I didn't actually have the right to a trial by jury because the Seventh Amendment has never been actually certified by the Supreme Court as applying to all 50 states, unlike the other nine of the first 10 amendments, each of which, with a solitary exception of the Seventh Amendment, have been so certified, which is another reason why the Supreme Court is going to take my case.
I mean, my God, there should be such a lacunae, such a gap in the judicial record that the Seventh Amendment, the right to a trial by jury, has never been certified by the Supreme Court of the United States in applying to the citizens of all 50 states.
Thank you, Team Posner, for bringing that up.
Because this is a really additional excellent reason.
Now, not only are they going to make uniform summary judgment procedures, given that Wisconsin is so much out of whack, it simply allows a judge to make up their own facts to resolve disputes.
So there are no disputed facts by simply determining subjectively that the one side is unreasonable.
Which is ludicrous.
I mean, this is just a ludicrous situation that's just going to occur, and we have thousands, tens of thousands.
How many summary judgments have there been in Wisconsin under this completely improper procedure?
Just to illustrate how it would be proper if it were done in Texas, The court would take every assertion made by the defendant, which in this case would include nobody died at Sandy Hook, the school had been closed by 2008, it was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
They would have to take all those assertions as though they were true, and ask the plaintiff who's reading the lawsuit whether or not they agree.
Now, since Posner's insisting that his son Noah died at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012, where every version of the death certificate, by the way, has his uniform in this regard, that the decedent died on 14 December 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School of multiple gunshot wounds, he obviously couldn't agree.
He obviously could not agree.
That would mean we'd have a disputed fact.
That would mean that the summary judgment could not apply.
Summary judgment only applies if there are no disputed facts.
And it's just a question of applying the law.
It was introduced back in like 1957 as a method to expedite the processing of lawsuits where there were no disputed facts.
And it's been used on a massive scale ever since, where a retired professor of law who's very familiar with my case observed to me That what he liked about my petition, the way he put it, was incorporating the 7th Amendment within the 14th.
Well, the 14th, of course, is due process under law.
One could quibble about his way of putting it, but there's no doubt that the effect would be the same because, as Tim Posner has argued, The seventh alone among the first 10 amendments has never been formally pronounced as applying to all 50 states, which means this case tees it up.
What the retired professor of law observed is that the greatest judicial problem in the United States is the abuse of summary judgment.
So here you have this major problem confronting the judiciary in the United States, the abuse of summary judgment.
You've got a case in Wisconsin where they have a bizarre summary judgment procedure that allows a judge to resolve disputed facts on the basis of what he finds to be reasonable or not reasonable.
You have it accented by a high profile case with a controversial defendant who's a Sandy Hook skeptic.
And frankly, you know, I think Tim Posner believes they're not going to want to touch Sandy Hook.
But the fact is, it actually works to my advantage with regard to the court for the following reason.
By using my case where they don't actually have to address Sandy Hook per se, they are acknowledging that even the most controversial defendant is entitled to a trial by jury.
And I think this is absolutely fabulous.
Absolutely fabulous.
You might not believe it, but not only did they go after my blog, but since you can learn a lot about me from Amazon, even though Amazon has banned six of my books, you can learn a lot about my research, If you go there, you'll see a bio sketch begins about James H. Fetzer.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.
A magna cum laude graduate of Princeton, he majored in philosophy.
He earned his Ph.D.
in History and philosophy of science.
I mean, look, this is a guy where from virtually the opening, they had a producer for Alex Jones, who appeared to me to be very uninformed, a woman,
Who was asked to read from an email that Paul Joseph Watson had sent Alex Jones, who knows when, and she read from the email the portion that was asked, she was asked to read that said, we must distance ourselves as far as possible from that batshit crazy fencer.
Well, you read this, batshit crazy.
Gee, a former Marine Corps officer, published widely on the Theoretical Foundations of Scientific Knowledge, Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, Evolution of Mentality, a magna cum laude graduate of Princeton who majored in Philosophy, entered a PhD in the History and the Philosophy of Science at Indiana.
I mean, how batshit crazy can this guy be?
So if you go there, you find, you know, a variety of my books.
Remember now, I have 24 plus in academic areas and a dozen plus in conspiracy research.
And you see right off the bat, Assassination Science, A Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Murder in Dealey Plaza, Render Unto Darwin, And you see several photographs of me, one including with Hannity.
You see me, a photograph of me in Athens.
You see a photograph of me taken in San Francisco with the Oakland Bay Bridge behind.
What did they do?
Well, they replaced the photograph of me in San Francisco and the photograph of me in Athens and the photograph of me in San Francisco with Court of Appeals decision dated and filed.
This is where the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Wisconsin Well, how the hell did they do that?
How did they get onto Amazon.com?
How the hell did Amazon ban six of my books?
my dispute of it was unreasonable.
And order granting permanent injunction against me asserting any of the four sentences for which I was found guilty of defamation.
Well, how the hell did they do that?
How did they get onto amazon.com?
How the hell did Amazon ban six of my books?
I mean, it's all absurd beyond belief.
Now, Amazon's algorithms are sufficiently robust Well, they got that up there temporarily.
If you go there now, you'll see the photograph of me in Athens and the photograph of me in San Francisco.
Wikipedia!
They began trashing me in Wikipedia back in 2014 when I organized and moderated a conference on academic freedom.
Are there limits to inquiry?
Using JFK 9-11 and the Holocaust as the examples.
I got back from the conference and discovered my Wikipedia page had been gutted.
It had been very thorough, very detailed, very accurate, talking about my research on JFK, 9-11, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, even on the Holocaust.
It was gutted.
It was just, you know, butchered.
Just ridiculous.
I actually had a relatively recent copy of it.
So I would publish a piece entitled, James H. Fetzer, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, BUSTED, where I contrasted the entry in 2014 before and after the conference.
And you can still find it if you poke around.
James H. Fetzer, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, BUSTED, in caps, exclamation mark.
The fact is, what they have there now is, when you're dealing with complex subjects, it's pretty easy to misrepresent them and be difficult for anyone to realize.
Here's how it begins now.
James Henry Fetzer, born December 6, 1940, is a professor emeritus of the philosophy of science at the University of Minnesota Duluth, conspiracy theorist, and Holocaust denier.
Now those are true.
It's just if you understand that conspiracy theorists are investigating crimes that the government doesn't want resolved because more often than not they lead to the government, then you understand why we should all be conspiracy theorists or call yourself a conspiracy realist or a conspiracy analyst.
Pick your title, but the fact is this was a demonization of independent citizens who were poking holes in the Warren Commission.
They didn't want to be exposed.
And as far as being a Holocaust denier, if you begin to look into the Holocaust, you'll find the whole thing falls apart.
There weren't any gas chambers.
They were using Zykon B to kill body lives because it was spreading typhus and dysentery in the camps.
For the simple reason they want to maintain the health of the inmates because you cannot get work out of a court.
So anyone who actually looks at the evidence is going to be or ought to be a Holocaust denier.
Now, if you want to get a short take, Nick Kohlerstrom, whom I admire beyond words, published a book called Breaking the Spell in 2009 and invited me to write the introduction.
Well, I wrote the introduction to his sensational book, which features a photograph of the British soccer team at Auschwitz
Looking very robust, very fit, which I found so sensational I put it on the back cover of, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either, which isn't just about a moon landing, but it's also about Paul's death and replacement by fall, about the first death of Saddam Hussein, about the second death of Osama bin Laden, and then a series of essays
It's probably as good as a collection of essays on the Holocaust you'll ever find published anywhere together by Robert Faurisson, Thomas Dalton, Nick Hollerstrom, myself.
I mean, good, good stuff.
And if you want to find, if you just want to take a look, you know, if you've been afraid to approach this subject, I give this distilled summary of the arguments in a piece entitled, The Holocaust Narrative, Politics Trump's Truth.
Politics trumps science, actually.
But, of course, the whole idea is to suppress the truth.
The Holocaust narrative politics trumps science.
You'll find it there.
Well, I continue to say, Petzer has worked on assessing and clarifying the forms and foundations of scientific explanation, probability and science, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of cognitive science, especially artificial intelligence and computer science.
Once again, this doesn't sound like a batshit crazy guy to me.
In the early 1990s, Thatcher began to promote John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, later 9-11 conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial—the guy, I get it again—conspiracy theories regarding the 2002 death of Senator Paul Wellstone and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories.
That's all okay with me.
I mean, it's all basically right.
He co-founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth in 2005.
Claims that elements in the United States government, United States intelligence agency, and Israeli Mossad were responsible for the September 11th attack.
That's right.
That's true.
That's good.
Now, they come in for the kill.
Fetzer asserts that no commercial planes or hijackers were involved at any of the attack locations, that Flight 93 did not exist, and that guided missiles and or explosives were instead used to destroy the buildings and create the appearance of a plane crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
Fetzer's allegations and speculation have drawn strong criticism.
In October 2019, a Wisconsin court ordered Fetzer to pay the father of a San Diego victim $450,000 in a defamation case.
Which would be increased by another $650,000 when I sought to impeach a man who came to testify under the name of Leonard Posner is actually Ruben Vabner.
And the judge ordered me to pay the attorney fees of $650,000 when there ought to have been no attorney fees because ostensibly they were doing this pro bono out of the goodness of their heart.
Well, what they have with that sentence is to really distort and mangle my position.
Well, what I assert is that all four of the 9-11 crash sites were fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways, that two of the planes, 11 and 77, were not even in the air that day, that the other two, 93 and 175, did not crash, but were still flying four years later, for which I have a massive evidence.
It's so easy to misrepresent someone on a complex subject, and Wikipedia is a master thereof.
The Twin Towers were taken out using nuclear devices, but again, not easy to sort out.
If you want to watch, want to know my actual view, check out my 9-11 special, In Memory of Robert David Steele, which you can access on my Bitu Channel, Jim Fetzer, and you'll see how grossly I'm misrepresented.
But so what I did was to go there, and you know how you're told that anyone can edit.
So I edited and I said, I replaced their mangled sentence.
Fletcher asserts that all four of the 9-11 crash sites were fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways, that two of the planes, 11 and 77, were not even in the air that day, that the other two 93 and 175 did not crash, but we're still flying four years later.
And that the Twin Towers did not collapse, but were blown apart and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust by the use of mini-nukes.
Fetzer's allegation and speculation have drawn strong criticism.
In October 2019, the Wisconsin Board ordered Fetzer to pay a father of a San Diego victim $450,000 in a defamation case.
So, of course, they reverted to the original.
Now, get this.
I'm supposed to be this conspiracy theorist.
The only books they have under conspiracy theory are Assassination Science, Murder in Dealey Plaza, The Great Subruter Film Hoax, American Assassination and a Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone, and The 9-11 Conspiracy, which was based upon a conference I held here at Madison in 2007.
What do they not include?
Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
Nobody died in Boston either.
From Orlando to Dallas and beyond.
A political theater in Charlottesville.
The Parkland Puzzle, how the pieces fit together.
And I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
They don't even mention that.
With the exception of the Sandy Hook book, they do mention in a footnote, but they don't do in my conspiracy theory research.
In footnote 40, They mentioned James Fetzer.
Nobody died at Sandy Hook Archive from the original on November 25th, 2015.
Well, this is really astounding.
And I was not even mentioning my books.
Why?
Because it would be so bloody obvious that I am an expert in the area and they wanted to press it.
They wanted to press it.
So they don't want to do that.
Very, very good.
So, I was just astonished when Thursday morning, well, actually, I believe it was Friday, I discovered that Before It's News had put together a whole compendium, James Fetzer, Out of Spot, A False Flag, A False Flag Checklist, Report Plus Video.
Sensational!
Before It's News!
I have now republished Before It's News on my blog and added the following editor's note.
Editor's note.
Having to create a new blog at jameshfetzer.org because the Posner team redirected jamesfetzer.org to court documents.
Not all of the links of videos are presented here, but they're all working at the original blog at beforeitsnews.com.
I am ecstatic they have published this, something like Jim Fetzer's all-time hits.
And it comes at a welcome time when James Tracy, Sophia Smallstorm, Wolfgang Helbig, and I are being savage during the Alex Jones Show trial.
This is their beginning.
James Fetzer is one of the most censored men on the internet.
All of his website links are now redirected to his court case documentation, an official legal court order, or a deep state attack to harass and censor.
They include, from the Conspiracy Guide No.
5 How to Spot a False Flag Part 1 of 21 June 2020, The Conspiracy Guy, a sampler of representative cases, emphasized how the absence of a fax warrants inference to the absence of their causes, where many false flags in the U.S.
and abroad reveal their character on that basis, including the truck attack in Nice, France, the Boston Marathon bombing, the shooting at Sandy Hook, the Orlando Pulse Club shooting, the Parkland High School shooting, even the assassination of JFK and the atrocities of 9-11.
Astonishing to learn how frequently these politically charged events are orchestrated.
Also, The Conspiracy Guy, number six, out of Spotifall Slag, part two, 28 June 2020.
The Conspiracy Guy, part two, extends the discussion of detecting fraud and fakery with an additional illustration from Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing in Las Vegas.
But with more recent cases as well, including the Jussie Smollett hate crime and death of George Floyd and the alleged noose for Bubba Wallace with NASCAR participating in the cover-up, it's enough to nauseate the most dedicated citizen to come face-to-face with a grim reality that the government and other sources have been staging one false flag after another in order to promote its political agenda and manipulate the American public.
They also include a show I did with Ole Damegard on The Real Deal back on the 18th of March of 2019 about New Zealand, and the Law Enforcement Fall Swag Stage Event Checklist I did with Bryan Davidson.
It's observed the others collectively have 40 plus years of private investigative research and critical analysis of politically significant but factually anomalous events where aspects are puzzling because they do not add up and where consideration must be given to whether they may have been staged or faked and blamed on other parties to promote an agenda such as gun control.
Here's some rules of thumb indicating that you could be dealing with such a situation.
Which means they are highly reliable, but not infallible evidential indicators.
They got a whole lot more.
I mean, really, really good stuff.
I mean, extremely pleased about this.
Extremely pleased about this.
Now, we're going to be up against a break, and I want to welcome anyone who'd like to call 540-352-4452.
540-352-4452.
I think Robert Barnes has it right.
This is a huge case, and they're trying to demonize anyone who's a critic of the official government accounts about anything.
JFK, 9-11, Wellstone, San Diego, Boston bombing, Charlottesville, Las Vegas, Uvalde, Buffalo, Highland Park.
They don't want anyone to be able to challenge the official account, which is why this really is for all the marbles.
I really encourage you, share these links, get my new blog at jameshfetzer.org out wide and far.
This needs to be shared.
We can't allow the American people to be played.
Robert Barnes has dissected the case.
It's a show trial.
It's even a made-for-TV movie it looks in, so it's going to be coming.
To a television set near you in the very near.
I mean, it's outrageous what's going on.
Call in, share your thoughts.
James, you know, 540-352-4452.
540-352-4452 and Mitchell will get you on the air.
352-4452-540-352-4452, and Mitchell will get you on the air.
We'll be right back.
Thank you.
You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back.
Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support that has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech.
in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
We need the support of the people.
It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
Revolution Radio, freedomsubstance.com, the number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution Radio, Radio, Radio, Radio.
whom is the women who go go go
go go go go join revolution radio every wednesday 8pm
Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomStitch.com, the people 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 America Nuked 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.
It looks as though Alex has put himself in a predicament and Unsurprising, since he's been on both sides of the issues.
I've sought to reach out to him.
I even filed an amicus brief in a case in Texas.
During his oral deposition in Connecticut, he said he'd never read Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
How can a guy in such a prominent position with a public take a stance on an issue of this complexity and not read the one objective scientific study that explains what really happened with 13 contributors including six PhDs?
That was reckless if it were true.
There are those who say he was making a false claim there, but it seems to me anyone could defend the rationality of denying that Sandy Hook was real based on the contents of the book.
That's why they had to suppress it.
We do have a first caller, Brian from Missouri.
Brian, go ahead.
Join the conversation.
Well, Alex Jones to me is dark.
You know, I do that telepathy and all that kundalini yoga and you start talking to souls.
He's not of the light.
So what I think of is what Lennon said, the best way to defeat the opposition is be the opposition.
And to me, that's what Fox News is.
That's what Alex Jones is.
Yeah, you'll get good tidbits, but You know, it's just a steam release to release all the pressure that builds up, but nothing really changes.
We just end up in the same boat, and today on Henry Macau, they had a quote on there from Moritz Cohen.
Cohen is a Khazarian word for a priest, so a Khazarian priest is called the Cohen, and he said that, meaning the Jews, without our consent, Not a potenate in the world can make a decision.
No word we do not want can be published and broadcast because we control the press.
No idea which we disagree with can penetrate the intellectual world.
For some time now, we have had dominion over the world.
And everything you're talking about is Well, that's quite a lot, Brian.
I love that.
I think that's simply excellent.
You know, they don't want all this stuff that's the truth out there and they're going to do everything to stop it.
So that's all I have to say.
Well, that's quite a lot, Brian.
I love that.
I think that's simply excellent.
What did you think of Robert Barnes' dissection of the trial as a show trial, literally and figuratively?
I mean, you know, it's really stunning what's going on here.
And of course, I mean, they're seeking to demonize any of us who have had a role in seeking to explain, expose what really happened at Sandy Hook.
I was not surprised they would attack me.
It took me A little bit of thought to realize the reason they were going after my blog was because they were going to be attacking me and the trial and many people might therefore want to know what I had to say and therefore they had to redirect the blog to make sure that vast repository of information about San Diego was not publicly accessible.
Your thoughts about any of the above or more?
Well, yeah, it's absolutely a show trial.
They infiltrate everything incrementally, whether it's spirituality, religion, whether it's government, whether it's the Democrat Party.
And after a while, it morphs into something you don't recognize.
And what they want is basically either fascism or communism.
And to me, You know, the difference between fascism and communism is fascism.
The bankers control the means of production, the corporations which control the governments.
Communism, the bankers control the governments which control the means of production.
That's the only difference, and you get show trials.
You know, I gave you that
One that I remember from the book, The Long Walk, where this poor Polish lieutenant is in court in the Soviet Union back then, and he gives this impassioned plea why he's innocent and he shouldn't be found guilty, and the judge said at the end of the trial, you gave the best defense of anyone I've heard of today, and I sentence you to life and hard labor in Siberia.
So, we're in that realm now.
They've taken over and that's what we're going to get now.
We're going to get show trials and it's just going to keep getting worse.
As I've said before, we're at the end of that era and they can't win.
They're all going to find that they're going to fail and the light will take over.
Well, Brian, I appreciate all of these thoughts.
I expected Paul would call in.
He's actually sent me an email where he explains he's no fan of Alex Jones, in that he believes he's getting what he deserves.
My take is a bit more charitable.
I think Alex has been quite good in drawing attention to controversial cases.
There are four stages of scientific reasoning.
Puzzlement.
Something doesn't add up.
So you're wondering what's going on.
Speculation.
What are the possible alternative explanations that might account for it?
Then, more serious, adaptation.
How do those different hypotheses accommodate the available evidence?
What's the probability of the available evidence if the hypotheses were true?
And fourth, finally, when the evidence settles down, explanation.
The acceptance of the best supported hypothesis as true, but in the tentative, infallible fashion of science.
Now, In my opinion, Alex Jones is very good at the first two, about puzzlement and speculation.
Barnes was giving him credit for, you know, calling out any number of cases about the wars, the phony wars we've been fighting.
I think he's been pretty good, but not at following through.
I mean, he's not a deep thinker.
He's not good at systematically evaluating evidence in relation to hypotheses.
But just to take Sandy Hook, If Sandy Hook is real, then what's the probability of the evidence?
It was closed by 2008.
The probability of the evidence, these photographs of the evacuation were fake.
The probability of the evidence, we have a crime scene vehicle there before Either before the events taken place or before they finished fabricating the evidence.
If it were real, those would have very low probability.
Probably zero.
They'd actually be inconsistent with a claim that it was real.
On the other hand, the probability of that evidence on the hypothesis is fake would be very high.
I'd say virtually one.
There are very, very strong indications of fakery and fraud here.
So Alex just never reaches that point.
He denied he read, he's even read Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
Now that may be true or it may be false, but if it is true then it's a colossal stupidity on his part because he had these massive resources available at his fingertips and he didn't bother to exploit them.
He could have made a totally reasonable, you know, a total defense that was reasonable for him to draw the conclusion and make those statements to his audience on the basis of the book.
The research there is simply overwhelming in establishing what really happened.
So I made a huge mistake in not doing that.
You're welcome, Brian, to make an additional, and then I want to invite Mitchell to add his thoughts about this.
Brian, go ahead.
Well, as I said, Glennon said, the best way to control the opposition is be the opposition.
I stand by the fact that I think Alex Jones is not of the light.
He's dark.
And he's just playing his role in this play we live in.
One more quick thing I just want to mention is Veterans Today, they have some good articles from time to time.
When it comes to Trump, I just shut it down.
I can't listen to him on Trump.
You know, something's wrong when they just keep going on about Trump this, you know, long after the election.
But they had an article today entitled Kaminsky Goes Ballistic.
And it had a book by Don Miguel Serrano entitled Adolf Hitler the Ultimate Avatar and he died in 2007 and you could download the book is $220 but you could download it on that website and I started reading through it and it's just a lot of the stuff I get when I do my kundalini yoga it helps verify that everything I get is
You know, spot on, because basically what I'm doing is I'm bypassing all this crappy information.
We get all the lies.
You get it directly from within and you're getting truth.
And that book is full of truth.
So that's all I want to say.
Well, Brian, thanks.
And thanks for calling in.
Mitchell, I'd like to solicit your views about all of the above, the Alex Jones trial and everything I've been covering on the show today.
Your thoughts, Mitchell?
Well, I first must first must preface that, you know, Alex Jones had once represented me in a lawsuit against the state of Virginia, which we and, you know, a number of other political parties, minor political parties, got the number of ballot signature requirements reduced.
I really do like Robert Barnes and David Freehite, Viva Frye, who, if you're not aware, he had just recently fled Canada and is moving to the United States because of the political oppression in Canada.
They will not Let the truth get out.
They will continue every attempt to suppress the truth and they also suppress the.
False fear, false false flag theories and the true ones.
That way you know they can essentially create.
Pass to demonize different people in different areas, but I'm telling you.
Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer are basically the canaries in the coal mine that the powers that should not be will control speech.
And through controlling speech and what you hear, they will control your thoughts.
I believe that wholeheartedly using algorithms and social media combined with the news media that we have today.
We truly are looking at, you know, an Orwellian state of mind control, mass psychosis, mind control.
Well, you and Brian have both made some excellent points here.
Yeah, about.
Controlling the media, and how many times have I explained that the Rothschilds own the AP and Reuters, which are the primary sources for all but local news broadcasts, that I have a panel of 100 executives from CNN, every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, another panel of 100 executives from NBC, every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, another panel of 100 executives from the New York Times.
Every one of them is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
They have such a lock on the media already.
And this show trial Barnes made so many excellent points, did you not think, Mitchell?
But I was, you know, I did not know he believes Sandy Hook was real.
I mean, that surprises me because he's such a smart guy.
Do you have an interpretation of what's going on there?
Well, Robert Barnes believes that Sandy Hook really happens, like many of these tragedies, they happen.
And because of the failure of government,
They're always in a combination mode of looking for scapegoats and trying to figure out a way to shift the focus of you know what should have happened at Sandy Hook and that should have been a focus on gun safety and of course SSRI serotonin uptake inhibitors
Uh, the pharmaceutical drugs that they've been essentially pumping into these kids.
And, you know, the ultimate failure though, is the school system provide a failure to provide any kind of security.
Um, so, you know, Robert Barnes kind of looks at it from a different viewpoint.
And, um, you know, when I get my, when I get a chance, um, um, I'm going to talk with my new neighbor.
I have a new neighbor that moved in recently in the last several months, and he's from up in that area.
And so I'm going to find out what he information he has.
For about Sandy Hook, and since he was a Massachusetts state police investigator.
But anyway, you know this the thing that.
We know that the 911 towers and the dropping of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
And that's why I called it dropping.
It was an intentional implosion.
You know some of the other things that have we call conspiracy theories that are questionable.
You know that we have to.
Always reevaluate and question.
Did this stuff happen and was it?
Directed in a way.
That it took people with that had suspicious minds that do not believe the government in many cases, or or I should say there our default position and mine is generally whatever the government says.
If you go 180 degrees, Probably closer to the truth.
So.
Yeah, I think that's right.
It's all a sliding scale.
I think that's right.
Well.
There's other news out there, of course, about the Biden administration, but it seemed to me today was a very good day to be focusing on the Jones trial because it has vast ramifications, especially for the First Amendment.
And.
Where, you know, I began in the belief that my case was a First and Second Amendment case, but when I came to the realization that summary judgment protocols in Wisconsin allow the judge to decide whether or not my facts were reasonable and exclude them if in his subjective opinion they were not,
You can download my petition to your own desktop here on my blog or at givesandgo.com slash fundingfetzer where the Court of Appeals, Forest District, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed
Really astonishing to me to discover, and for this I'm grateful to Team Posner for mentioning that the Seventh Amendment has never had the form of ratification of the other nine of the first ten by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Well, they're arguing that my case has zero prospect.
They're arguing my petition to the Supreme Court has zero prospect of being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Where in my rebuttal, you'll see an expert on the Supreme Court who elaborates four different criteria that make cases desirable for the Supreme Court to review them.
Ranks highly on all four of those criteria, and where when they mention that the Seventh Amendment has never had this further form of certification, that's an outstanding reason why Not that it will be declined, but why it will be accepted, why the justices are going to be eager, eager to deal with this issue.
And by the way, included on that Before It's News blog, they include my recent interview with Scorpio and Giuseppe, James Fetzer.
Truthers, aka conspiracy theorists, are investigating crimes.
No wonder they want to silence us.
The CIA's designation of citizen investigation may be the greatest PSYOP in American history.
When you start to think about it, why should anyone be opposed to new research on the assassination of JFK, the atrocities of 9-11, the death of Senator Paul Wellstone, or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School?
After all, If the official narrative we've been given by local, state, and federal authorities were true, then those who are doing research are simply spinning their wheels in a pointless endeavor because the truth is already known.
So if those who are doing this research are being subjected to one attack after another, think of Jim Garrison, New Orleans' DA, who wanted to establish the who, the how, and the why of the death of JFK, but was even lambooned by Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show.
You have to ask why he was getting too close to the truth.
So they use Johnny to shut him up.
And it does appear as though right now they are using Alex Jones and A really very peculiar trial.
I mean, this doesn't satisfy any of the normal constraints for a judicial procedure.
And I think Robert Barnes did a brilliant job of critiquing the show trial aspect and brought up features of which I was unaware, such as the arrangement of cameras inside the trial.
Weren't you quite struck by that, Mitchell?
I mean, it's really Remarkable what's going on here.
This is a show trial, literally and figuratively.
Your thoughts?
Well, yes, Barnes was pointing that out.
And, you know, actually everything seemed to be set up for that.
For the documentary and for, you know, it's like a As Jones put it, it's as if they put somebody on court on, on trial and they want them to say a certain thing.
They get up, they say just this bit piece that they're supposed to say.
And it's, you know, um, cut between that and the jury and it truly is, um, a show trial.
A dog and pony show is probably a better, a better description.
But today that is essentially a norm.
Maybe it's a good way to put it in today's unfortunate society.
Yeah.
I think that's right, Mitchell.
It's become the norm, just as being shoveled endless propaganda has become the norm, just as they're resurrecting their ministry of truth has become the norm, just as they want to censor Everything we can hear, everything we can watch, everything we can read, they want to make those determinations for us and not allow us to exercise our own intellect, our native intelligence, in our effort to ferret out the truth and evaluate these matters for ourselves.
It's just egregious how far they have gone.
I would like to believe Robert Barnes is not going to end his research on Sandy Hook with coverage of the trial, but look deeper.
Let me encourage everyone, please, this is so important.
It's not just the 7th and the 14th Amendment, but it's the 1st and the 2nd.
This trial is so important, get out the word, that my blog is back at jameshfetzer.org, jameshfetzer.org.
Take a look at the first, the third, and the fifth of the blogs that are right there now before I begin adding more, and you'll see this sensational development from before it's news.
Because if you just go through that, I mean, it's amazing how much insight and information about exposing these charades is contained in that single blog from before it's news.
So I'm tremendously impressed they did that.
I had no idea it was coming.
I do not know who was responsible, but I'm very grateful.
And that's a really good thing to do if you have Friends, if you have ways, if you have a Twitter account, you have a Facebook, YouTube, whatever way you can get it out, I think this is worth getting out.
And remember, there are very few who are actively exposing the truth about these matters.
I mean, and they're trashing everyone they can.
Sophia did her early Sandy Hook in 2, 3, 4, and 5 dimensions I thought was wonderful.
James Tracy, of course, was in his role as a professor of communications at Florida Atlantic, where he even had a course.
On conspiracy in the media, in his own personal blog, he was offering a critique of Wayne Carver and his bizarre press conference, where he observed, by the way, in contradiction to Neil Haslam, that they did not allow the parents to see the children, that they were only identified using photographs, as I've explained how appropriate, but also mentioned in passing, you hope this didn't come crashing down on the good people of Newtown, which leads you to infer
Well, maybe that's because Sophia had a right when she described it as a capstone event where the whole community is involved, which leads me to infer that if she's right, then it's going to involve the chief of police, the head of the fire department, the town clerk, the mayor, the school board, the head of the bank, the town attorney.
If indeed this was a capstone event, if indeed Sandy Hook was Given big bucks by the government to bring this off, then those are parties one would expect to have been involved.
And then, if I have it right, and the media was brought in in advance, and the whole thing was a charade, and it was actually run behind the scene as a Connecticut State Police, where Brian Davidson, B.I., has done brilliant work at confirming.
He's tracked the photo.
This was after he and I did a show just reviewing his mastery of internet research tools, and he mentioned Photographs are excellent for internet research, so I just sent him a photo out of the blue with no context, no background, and he identified it as having come from the Sandy Hook parking lot, the crime scene vehicle, and it was taken either before the shooting took place or after, but they hadn't finished fabricating the evidence.
Thanks, y'all, for being here.
Do what you can to promote the truth.
I urge you.
I'm asking for your help here.
It's going to affect the entire nation in our future.
▲
Export Selection